Rockwell loved Savak...

>>
>>Now why would the current regime in Israel strike Iran?
>
>Because they perceive their national survival endangered and they have a historical basis for not relying on the "international community" to protect them. You may not agree with their perception but I don't believe they are deluded in holding it.
>
>>
>>>I am not in favor of resolving these issues with bombs, but some issues do need to be resolved. If the regime in Tehran were to change or change course a lot of lives may be saved. These are not American lives at risk and we are going to be ok in any case. this is a question of potential war that will ruin a lot of lives.
>>
>>So why is it any business of the US? I know the current regime in Israel is an ally, and there's a treaty - if the current regime in Israel is attacked. But if it attacks, why would the US care?
>>
>>>That said, a coup or subversion that achieved the same outcome (giving 1954 as an example of regime change with little bloodshed, not as a model for the reason)
>>
>>...but you're still for it, for a regime change in a foreign country? On what grounds? If not imperial divine rights, international law surely not, then what? What gives any country the right to change regime in another country?
>
>I didn't say the US should engineer the regime change, though I would not be opposed to it if I thought it would work. if the Danish want to do it, that's fine too. I'd prefer the Iranians do it. I said it would be better to change the regime than destroy the country. I don't think the Iranian people are the natural enemies of Israel, the US or anyone else. I think the theocracy that controls the country is quite capable of doing immense evil. I am surprised that you who certainly recognize the threat in the US from the Pat Robertsons who have far less power than the mullahs do in Iran don't see the problem.
>
>>
>>> would be preferable to a war that involved that 90% that don't want to play. I felt that way in SE Asia 40 years ago and I haven't seen anything to change my mind. Giving peasants AK-47s or dropping napalm on villages is neither moral nor precise.
>>
>>The precision is irrelevant.
>
>The precision is extremely relevant. One bullet in Hitler in 1934 would have been a lot more precise than Dresden. Very relevant.
>
>>
>>>Nations will always try to do what they perceive to in their own interests (however muddled that understanding may be) but I would generally prefer they do it without trashing the lives of those who don't give much of a damn one way or the other.
>>
>>>Sorry if that offends your tender sensibilities or somehow smacks of a yearning for global hegemony. I am not a polemicist but a historian and I don't see this kind of analysis as a platform to spout platitudes or an opportunity to take politically correct positions that are intended to have others think well of me for holding proper opinions.
>>
>>Then, in your improper opinion, why does Iran have a regime, whereas Israel and the US have governments? All three have grown from movements which were deemed terrorist at their inception, but have managed to establish a new republic.
>
>Elections have something to do with it. I know you think the US is just mindlessly controlled by fatcats that run two identical political parties, but compared to Iran it is utopia. Had you emigrated to Iran rather than the US you would be hanging by your thumbs in a cell being beaten on the souls of the feet just for *thinking* things you say here quite freely.
>
>>
>>And, you know what, it's not tender sensibilities. It's the hypocrisy. It's the approach of "we do it because we can" and then "we are the home of the democracy". Sorry, doesn't go together. If you're fighting for people's rights, you can't do it by running over those rights with tanks. You can't help establish a democracy in any country if you start by wiping your expletive omitted with their sovereignty. And that's what it comes down to. You either respect them as countries, or treat them like subordinate fiefs - and if the latter is the case, just say so, so we can finish this with a clear statement of facts.
>
>I'm not defending moral posturing by American jingoists or pious internationalists. I do not believe there is international law because law is based on common values. that is why the UN is a tragic joke.
>
>I specifically don't favor rolling over anybody with tanks. Again, it is an issue of precision. The tanks seldom are shooting at the people who really need shooting.
>
>I don't care about establishing democracy - many places are better off without it - but I do care about the freedom of individuals to be safe from their own governments.
>
>I do not respect theocracies, I do not respect the legitimacy of the mullahs any more than i respected the kakistocracy that was the Pahlevi dynasty - something of which I had a little personal experience in my salad days. Savak didn't like me any more than I liked them. I also had some rather bad experiences with Ferdinand Marcos' people.
>
>All countries, all cultures and all ideas are *not* equal. Moral relativism sounds very high minded but is a cop out to allow one to not believe in *anything*. I am not defending a blanket approach of interfering in the affairs of others any more than I respect a blanket policy of not interfering. I think it would be quite moral to shoot Mugabe. I think it would have been morally correct to interfere in the internal affairs of Rwanda. I think the Saudi regime is despicable and has no more right to its oil than the poor of Cairo have.
>
>You have to pick your battles, but I don't accept the idea that there is nothing worth fighting for and whoever the thug of the moment is must be taken seriously as a head of state.
>
>Perhaps I see things like a Blindman <s>