Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations

[Mempho]

This will never be solved because it is religous in nature.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop being ridiculous. Implying that I enjoy the death of our soldiers is obviously offensive. Nobody wants to see Americans die, get wounded, or injured. But that's not the point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not being ridiculous, I was just replying to what you wrote and actually gave you the benefit of the doubt in my second paragraph. I accept that you don't think its funny and enjoy it after you explained it.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that we shouldn't expect to have certain privileges over other countries simply because we believe we're in the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. Again, my point is that Iran is taking both direct and indirect action against US Forces in Iraq. To translate that if needed from mil speak, direct action = taking an active part in engaging and killing US and coalition forces in Iraq. Indirect action = supplying training and weapons etc. Obviously some posters on this forum don't know, think, feel or see that Iran in doing what I describe above is that big of a deal. I do and I guess I'm amazed at how some think it just doesn't matter. Having an Iranian special forces guy trigger an Iranian improved IED on a US convoy is an act of war, not just some event that is justifiable by thinking or saying "we do the same to them." We don't.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we have the right to extend military aid and direct action in regions in which we have an interest?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
Does the country/force damaged by our aid have the right to declare war on us?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, absolutely.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to point out that we can't have it both ways. If we want to say that what Iran is doing is an act of war against us, then we have to call it an act of war when we do it as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree 100%, but what I am saying is that Iran can't have it both ways either over the long term. They cannot continue to commit acts of war against us and not expect to get a military response.

Its not tit for tat. You're point from your perspective is that its not that big of a deal - we do it to them so we shouldn't be upset that they are doing it to us. I would agree except we don't have a proxy or whatever setting off IED's or supplying weapons and killing anyone in Iran at the moment. If we did have an insurgency we were training and supplying and fighting with in Iran, I would completely agree with your point. But we don't.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



I don't think you're going to get anyone arguing with you that Iran's political leaders are good guys. My only point is that they probably feel the same way about us. They probably think that we are an evil power trying to spread our ideology around the world. It seems silly to think that they wouldn't try to stop us however they can.

I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. This seems like such a simple concept. We think we are right, they think they are right.

If I were Iran I sure as hell would want a nuke available in case something like this current war was brewing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you are overlooking the fact that often when one side thinks they are right (and vice versa), one side actually IS right and the other side actually IS wrong.

So who's right or wrong on this one: Iran executes gays, the USA doesn't? Answer that please.

So who's right and who's wrong: Iran hangs teenage girls for promiscuity, the USA doesn't. Answer please.

So who's right or wrong: Iran's motto is "Death To America!"; the USA's motto is not "Death To Iran!". Answer please who you think is right or wrong. Heck even during WWII the USA's slogan wasn't "Death To Germany!" or "Death To Japan!"

Iran arrests and imprisons dissidents, and sometimes even executes political dissidents. The USA doesn't. Both sides think they are right. Which side, please tell, actually is?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think the USA should even be in Iraq, but that's probably not really germane to this discussion. Both sides are trying to effect their goals. The USA is doing so in a misguided fashion but at least the USA has good (if unachievable) goals in Iraq. Iran has bad goals because their system and ideology is bad. You have to be willing to make a value judgment and say that human and civil rights (Western style) are good whereas Shari'a is bad. Iran's regime wants bad things (though they think it is good).

It's not about who "has the right" to try to spread their ideology, but whose ideology is at core good or evil. Hanging gays for being gay and hanging teenage girls is bad. Many laws under Shari'a, oppressing women, denying women and religious minorities equal rights, giving Muslims civil rights ABOVE non-Muslims: those are EVIL laws. The Shari'a is EVIL. Naziism was evil. Laws and beliefs to oppress Jews are EVIL. Iran's regime is working towards evil things, though deluded as they are, they think it good.

The USA is doing evil things in Iraq, but not because the underlying belief system of the USA is evil. Rather, the Neo-Cons have developed doctrines and philosophies that are misguided and unworkable, which has led to doing evil. Democractizing Iraq will not free Iraq; it will only free and empower the Shi'ite majority to defeat and oppress the Sunnis and Kurds. Democracy in the Middle East will generally empower Shari'a, not free the Arabs to enjoy Western style human and civil rights. The Neo-Cons had a quixotic dream, and trying to implement it by force was (and still is) a huge error.

I guess my point is that the fact that both sides have similarly distasteful thoughts about each other is largely irrelevant, because the problem is not about just getting along. The problem is a fundamental clash of underlying ideologies and values. So it is a bad thing that Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, two genocidally-aimed organizations. It is a bad thing that Iran is trying to kill Americans in Iraq. It would be a bad thing if Iran's regime gains any more power.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is that the international rules of engagement can't be different for our two countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I agree with this statement in all cases.


[ QUOTE ]
I understand that we all think Iran is an evil force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran's regime, actually. Not all of Iran.

[ QUOTE ]
This does not mean that we are allowed to wage war and they are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but it doesn't mean the reverse, either.

[ QUOTE ]
Because we think they are evil doesn't make it okay when we do something and them wrong when they take the same action.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might (arguably) be not wrong to bomb their nuclear development sites and/or defang their military's capabilities. Since the Iranian regime's goals are evil, though, it would definitely be bad for them to launch an attack on a neighboring country.


I don't accept as axiomatic that reasonable and reasonably enlightened governments, and evil regimes, should both be held to identical rules of international conduct. The evil regime forfeits some of its rights and expectations of being treated equally by virtue of being for evil. And it would be silly for the USA to consider France to be equally as likely a threat as Iran, or to treat them both identically.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



I don't think you're going to get anyone arguing with you that Iran's political leaders are good guys. My only point is that they probably feel the same way about us. They probably think that we are an evil power trying to spread our ideology around the world. It seems silly to think that they wouldn't try to stop us however they can.

I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. This seems like such a simple concept. We think we are right, they think they are right.

If I were Iran I sure as hell would want a nuke available in case something like this current war was brewing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you are overlooking the fact that often when one side thinks they are right (and vice versa), one side actually IS right and the other side actually IS wrong.

So who's right or wrong on this one: Iran executes gays, the USA doesn't? Answer that please.

So who's right and who's wrong: Iran hangs teenage girls for promiscuity, the USA doesn't. Answer please.

So who's right or wrong: Iran's motto is "Death To America!"; the USA's motto is not "Death To Iran!". Answer please who you think is right or wrong. Heck even during WWII the USA's slogan wasn't "Death To Germany!" or "Death To Japan!"

Iran arrests and imprisons dissidents, and sometimes even executes political dissidents. The USA doesn't. Both sides think they are right. Which side, please tell, actually is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I think we are right in all of those things but that does not mean I think we have the right to dictate their behavior to them. Which I think we try to do. And if the situation were reversed, I dont think we would take too kindly to that.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



I don't think you're going to get anyone arguing with you that Iran's political leaders are good guys. My only point is that they probably feel the same way about us. They probably think that we are an evil power trying to spread our ideology around the world. It seems silly to think that they wouldn't try to stop us however they can.

I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. This seems like such a simple concept. We think we are right, they think they are right.

If I were Iran I sure as hell would want a nuke available in case something like this current war was brewing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you are overlooking the fact that often when one side thinks they are right (and vice versa), one side actually IS right and the other side actually IS wrong.

So who's right or wrong on this one: Iran executes gays, the USA doesn't? Answer that please.

So who's right and who's wrong: Iran hangs teenage girls for promiscuity, the USA doesn't. Answer please.

So who's right or wrong: Iran's motto is "Death To America!"; the USA's motto is not "Death To Iran!". Answer please who you think is right or wrong. Heck even during WWII the USA's slogan wasn't "Death To Germany!" or "Death To Japan!"

Iran arrests and imprisons dissidents, and sometimes even executes political dissidents. The USA doesn't. Both sides think they are right. Which side, please tell, actually is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I think we are right in all of those things but that does not mean I think we have the right to dictate their behavior to them. Which I think we try to do. And if the situation were reversed, I dont think we would take too kindly to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I actually agree with you that we don't have the right - or don't have the full right, at least - to dictate their behavior in general. Not to mention that trying to do so would be likely become a greatly entangling boondoggle.

I'm just arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to get nukes, that the Iranian regime shouldn't be empowered to the extent that having nukes would empower them (and it would make them potentially far more dangerous as well).

I don't agree with playing the world's policeman or with the USA trying to forcibly impose democracy on Iraq. I just don't think as evil a regime as Iran's - which is also an enemy - should have access to nukes. I think preventing that (by means perhaps unclear) would be generally justifiable.

Certain people should be prevented from buying guns (such as the criminally insane, or violent criminals), and there are some regimes that should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons. It should be even more imperative to prevent a crazy or evil regime from obtaining nukes if that regime is also an avowed enemy of yours who calls repeatedly for your death (as in "Death To America!") I think Iran's regime falls into such a category that should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons.

edit: and the fact that Iran may think the same about us happens to be non-germane as to what should or should not be done. Thank God it is we who have the nukes and Iran doesn't, rather than the other way around. Can you imagine what Iran might already have done if the imbalance of power were reversed? Iran denies the holocaust and chants "Death To America! and "Death To Israel!" even now.[/b]

Thanks for reading.

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think it's hilarious that such a big deal is made about Iran's aid to militia in Iraq. They obviously have an interest in Iraq just as we do. Why are we allowed to train and give arms to who we want to win while nobody else can do the same? I understand that we all think that we are "more right" than Iran, but it seems ludicrous to claim that they can't try to affect the outcome of the conflict as much as we can. It's just such a double standard.


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that Iran is actively targeting, i.e. killing US Forces in Iraq . To date, we have not actively targeted Iranian forces in Iran . If you think its hilarious that the result of that is that US Soldiers are dying, I guess thats your right but seems either naive or you don't care much about the value of life.

To the overall point of your paragraph above, does Iran have the right to influence the situation in Iraq? Absolutely. Does that right extend to military aid and direct action? No, thats called an act of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would appear that we have committed an act of war against the better part of the planet.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that we shouldn't expect to have certain privileges over other countries simply because we believe we're in the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. Again, my point is that Iran is taking both direct and indirect action against US Forces in Iraq. To translate that if needed from mil speak, direct action = taking an active part in engaging and killing US and coalition forces in Iraq. Indirect action = supplying training and weapons etc. Obviously some posters on this forum don't know, think, feel or see that Iran in doing what I describe above is that big of a deal. I do and I guess I'm amazed at how some think it just doesn't matter. Having an Iranian special forces guy trigger an Iranian improved IED on a US convoy is an act of war, not just some event that is justifiable by thinking or saying "we do the same to them." We don't.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to point out that we can't have it both ways. If we want to say that what Iran is doing is an act of war against us, then we have to call it an act of war when we do it as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree 100%, but what I am saying is that Iran can't have it both ways either over the long term. They cannot continue to commit acts of war against us and not expect to get a military response.

Its not tit for tat. You're point from your perspective is that its not that big of a deal - we do it to them so we shouldn't be upset that they are doing it to us. I would agree except we don't have a proxy or whatever setting off IED's or supplying weapons and killing anyone in Iran at the moment. If we did have an insurgency we were training and supplying and fighting with in Iran, I would completely agree with your point. But we don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're in basic agreement about things. I don't really accept your point that things would be different if the insurgency were in Iran though. Iraq is it's own country. We want side A to win and we fund, arm, train, and fight alongside them. Iran wants side B to win and they fund, arm, and train their side. We don't own Iraq. Would you feel any differently if our soldiers were brought home and Iran's actions didn't directly harm our troops?

I also wasn't aware that we had any evidence that any actual Iraqi forces were directly attacking our troops. Has this been shown? I was under the impression that we have just found arms and explosives that originated in Iran.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

It might (arguably) be not wrong to bomb their nuclear development sites and/or defang their military's capabilities. Since the Iranian regime's goals are evil, though, it would definitely be bad for them to launch an attack on a neighboring country.


I don't accept as axiomatic that reasonable and reasonably enlightened governments, and evil regimes, should both be held to identical rules of international conduct. The evil regime forfeits some of its rights and expectations of being treated equally by virtue of being for evil. And it would be silly for the USA to consider France to be equally as likely a threat as Iran, or to treat them both identically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you see the difficulty with this though? Who gets to decide who is evil and who is "reasonable and enlightened"? Is it majority rules? Does whoever have the most nukes get to decide? I'm pretty confident that those in power in Iran don't believe that they are evil.

I also didn't mean to imply that we should treat all nations the same in terms of our foreign policy. But I do believe that all nations should be treated the same with respect to international law. We can't take one action and then denounce that same action performed by one of our enemies.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Certain people should be prevented from buying guns (such as the criminally insane, or violent criminals), and there are some regimes that should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons. It should be even more imperative to prevent a crazy or evil regime from obtaining nukes if that regime is also an avowed enemy of yours who calls repeatedly for your death (as in "Death To America!") I think Iran's regime falls into such a category that should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons.

edit: and the fact that Iran may think the same about us happens to be non-germane as to what should or should not be done. Thank God it is we who have the nukes and Iran doesn't, rather than the other way around. Can you imagine what Iran might already have done if the imbalance of power were reversed? Iran denies the holocaust and chants "Death To America! and "Death To Israel!" even now.[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, who gets to decide which side is good and which is evil? If they see us as an evil force, why are they not allowed to take the same actions? I honestly don't think it matters which country is right or wrong in this instance. It is very easy to picture a myriad of scenarios where we think we are virtuous when we are actually being quite evil. I don't think it is a good system to just claim that the good guys can do what they want and the evil ones can't.