Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
Par 1
My previous post did not do justice to disecting your argument. Alright. So you say that Republicans and Democrats felt that Sadaam was a threat...I seem to recall that the majority of them never even read the briefing on the Iraq war strategy...Oh but, they had the gist of the matter so it wasn't necessary. What were the UN inspectors even doing there??? I don't know how to answer that.any explanation is to long and obv not worth reading. but let's just say its usually a good idea to have inspectors visit countries which previously possessed powerful weapons. You end your argument by stating that questioning Bush is wrong because its going to be counter productive??? what the...So my Fire Stone Tire falls apart on the highway, i shouldn't ask why....my time is better spent getting another Fire Stone Tire???

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence committee and supported the Iraq invasion. Simply put, right or wrong, the majority of our leaders supported the invasion of Iraq. Either you believe that or you don't. If you agree with that then you will get beyond everything is George Bush's fault and realize their is an enemy with ambitous aims.

[Chips Ahoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think its ok if Iran develops a nuclear weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Every country that's big enough should be developing nuclear weapons today. It's the only rational policy today -- although it wasn't in the past.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think they would do with a nuke if they had one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they'd stop worrying about being attacked.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but our future security is pretty important to all of us I would hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY? Do the people of Irans future security matter? Or the people of Iraqs? Or is that unimportant to this argument becuase we are the world police?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a US citizen. The security of US citizens takes priority over anyone else in the world. What do you think? Is an Iranians security more important than your countries citizens security?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
(Cliffs at bottom)

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about a couple things. I thought -- you know, I'm not going to give him credit for anything big time, but he did score some interesting points. He said the United States backed Iraq in the war, the bloody horrible war with Iran that killed a lot of Iranians. That‘s going to help him back home, sticking it to us for backing Saddam all those years.

BUCHANAN: Right. . . .

BUCHANAN: Chris, to your point, he said two things. The Western nations invented chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The Americans used them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were used on our people in the war against Iraq, where you all supported Iraq against Iran. Now, all those are statements of fact, and they‘re very, very persuasive in the Arab and Islamic world in making his case.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, gentlemen, about human nature. It seems to me that the whole third world case against the first world is that we have humiliated that part of the world, manipulated their governments, used the CIA to put people like the Shah -- by the way, the Shah's not from royal blood or anything. They just created that throne for him. The CIA put him in there against the democratically elected prime minister. We have exploited that country for its cheap oil. We've taken advantage of that country. And now we say we want justice.

Is there not an Iranian case against the United States and the West, Mr. Weprin, or do you say they're dead wrong, the country's just wrong and we‘re right? . . .

--------------

GROUP![McLaughlin Voice]
Mr. Politics Board Reader, Is there not an Iranian case against the United States and the West or do you say they're dead wrong, the country's just wrong and we‘re right? . . .

Cliffnotes: Prior to this exchange, the religious doctrine on cable news shows was "US interests may plunder other lands without respect to the cost in terms of human life no questions asked".

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL. On Chris Matthews it was more like "Anti-US interests may kill as many Americans as they can, no questions asked."

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but our future security is pretty important to all of us I would hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY? Do the people of Irans future security matter? Or the people of Iraqs? Or is that unimportant to this argument becuase we are the world police?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a US citizen. The security of US citizens takes priority over anyone else in the world. What do you think? Is an Iranians security more important than your countries citizens security?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fear is more that the regime might hand a nuke off to a proxy, ally, or even to an anonymous terrorist cell. I agree they probably wouldn't use one themselves offensively if they could be positively identified as being the perpetrator.

Given the Iranian regime's penchant for utilizing proxy warfare (Hezbollah, and IED attacks in Iraq), there is also the concern that Iran having a nuke would make the regime feel that they can pursue their goals via proxy more aggressively and with less fear of direct reprisal. Thus Hezbollah, Syria, and any proxies operating in Iraq would be strengthened and emboldened by the mere fact that Iran would have obtained nuclear weapons.

[Chips Ahoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. And those that prefer to keep their sovereignty instead of taking demands from DC should develop nuclear weapons. This is an obvious consequence of the US engaging in wars of choice.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so it's either do what we want you to do or develop a nuclear weapon. That would kind of suck if you don't agree with our interests/policies.

And aren't we hostile to Iran's interests and its allies? Does that give them the right to "mess" with us?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the fear is more that the regime might hand a nuke off to a proxy, ally, or even to an anonymous terrorist cell. I agree they probably wouldn't use one themselves offensively if they could be positively identified as being the perpetrator.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is the fear, but I'm not sure if it is a rational one. If it was ever discovered that there was even a high likelihood that a weapon used in a nuclear attack originated in Iran, they would be screwed.

[ QUOTE ]

Given the Iranian regime's penchant for utilizing proxy warfare (Hezbollah, and IED attacks in Iraq), there is also the concern that Iran having a nuke would make the regime feel that they can pursue their goals via proxy more aggressively and with less fear of direct reprisal. Thus Hezbollah, Syria, and any proxies operating in Iraq would be strengthened and emboldened by the mere fact that Iran would have obtained nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have utilized this same proxy warfare. As do many other nations. Saudi Arabia in particular comes to mind.

My biggest point is that we look very similar to Iran in these matters when looked at from their point of view.

[Copernicus]

I dont agree with your second "war by proxy" point. While we certainly have funded and supported allies, it has never been hidden to the point where we would try and disclaim responsibility.