Clearly Nikolay, you and I perceive the world very differently. I maintain that you are the delusional one.
For the proofs, only time will tell.
But, I have one undeniable fact supporting my view: my view is consistent with the goals openly (screamingly) stated by all of the Islamists (Sunni or Shiite). If there is one major difference separating Americans at this time is between those who on 9/11 learned that we have to take the Islamists at their word when they talk about their goals, and those who did not learn it.
You did not learn it Nikolay. Unfortunately, for all of us I am confident you will get another chance.
As to your question "what is the regime" in Iran. The Supreme Leader (Khamanei) and the Mullahs who support him. Ahmadinejad (and Khatami before him) are little more than figureheads - pushed in front of the world to perform a b-rated good-cop/bad-cop routine (that everybody eats up).Comment Posted By Cruiser On 28.02.2007 @ 18:10
If we are at the insult stage Nikolay (I'm crazy, have no idea what I am talking about, and suffer paranoid delusions), you are terribly naive.
"Thereâ€™s nothing comparable to Soviet regime, even in its most benign, in Iran now". Yes, lets hold hands and sing kumbayah, the Iranian regime doesn't mean any of the things it says. They really love us and want to emulate us.
"Do you honestly believe that fighting against American interests in, say, Lebanon had something to do with this â€œvision"?" It has everything to do with it. Why on god's green earth do you think they are investing so much effort and money in Hezbollah? They want to establish a theocratic Shiite state in Lebanon, one that will act in concert with their goals. You have to be daft not to see that.
"When in 28 years Iran did anything to implement this â€œvisionâ€". Right now - open your eyes Nikolay.
"but they canâ€™t even sustain economy" - I think my original comment acknowledged that we can hurt them economically. But, with the rest of the world willing to fill the gap - the economic hurt will not be enough. They can absorb a lot of economic harm without having to change their behavior - all totalitarian regimes can.
"much less spread any â€œvisionâ€ across the world". The Iranian regime (and all Islamists) take a very looooong view. They don't expect to achieve their goals in 5 or 10 tears, they are willing to work at it over hundreds. In the meantime, things are progressing much better then even they had hoped - because the West has lost faith in itself.Comment Posted By Cruiser On 23.02.2007 @ 09:53
Nicolay, what is crazy about it? Revolutionary Iran is more perfectly opposed to the United States than the Soviets were. While we and the Soviets were polar opposites on representative government and property rights, as least both the Soviets and the United States believed that the church and the state should not be one and the same.
Revolutionary Iran requires the church to be the state, and has Soviet-like positions on representative government, property ownership, press freedom and individual liberty.
I think we could work with an Iranian monarchy (as we did in the past). Monarchies aren't ideological - they don't need to propagate like viruses. We could even make deals with them, in a limited way, if they dropped the theocracy and just became plain old totalitarians (dropping the theocracy is what I mean by abandoning the revolution). But, we cannot work with them now. Now, they must destroy us to succeed in their vision of spreading theocratic Islam to the world.
It is a disheartening view, but that does not make it crazy.Comment Posted By Cruiser On 22.02.2007 @ 22:22
BTW Rick, I am a fellow resident of Illinois. I grew up in L-ville. You have a great site.Comment Posted By Cruiser On 22.02.2007 @ 17:27
I have no problem with secret communications with the Iranians. The are going on all the time. The problem with public talks is that they create their own (sometimes unwarranted) momentum - like the Palestinian "peace process". Once they start - they must end with a signature. I do not think we want pressure on any American administration to ink a "deal" with Iran just for the sake of having a deal done. That can produce awful long term results.
Also, open talks confer a legitimacy on the mullahs that they have not earned.
I think, like you do, that the interview is an interesting development. It clearly indicates that Iran is feeling financial pressure (I do not think they are feeling any military pressure from us since the Bush administration has already made it clear that the military option is off the table - even while Iran aids in the killing of US troops in Iraq). But the statement is simply another effort to buy time and to try to make the US look mean in Europe.
The natural allies line is one of the most Orwellian constructs I have ever heard. Only totalitarians can mouth such things without busting into laughter. The truth is that Islamic revolutionary Iran and the US are natural eternal enemies. Like Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort, "neither can live while the other survives". Ok, that was corny. But, we are natural enemies. Iran has been at war with us since the revolution began and will only cease to be at war with us when the revolution is undone. Do not ever expect them to truly or willingly bargain their revolution.
We must keep the financial pressure on Iran and deny them any open talks. It would also help to restore a credible military threat. They must simply be forced by mounting problems at home into pulling back in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories, rather than induced by some hollow â€œdealâ€ that they will never uphold. Hopefully one day their revolution will collapse. Then, it may be possible for us to be allies.Comment Posted By Cruiser On 22.02.2007 @ 11:47
Pages (1) :