Which is a bigger threat to the US?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Guys, the "Isreal should be bombed" comments only came after constant pressuring from Bush and his pushing that they'd use nukes for weapons.

And that makes the comments unremarkable and not something to be concerned about?

If you ask a guy if he's going to murder someone and he says "yes", it seems to me that you should at least not completely ignore his response.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the Iranian government isn't crazy. The problem is that the Bush adminstration is ALSO crazy.

[The Duke]

Iran is more dangeorus, as their leaders are religiously motivated, and therefore sure to be less rational than the good atheists in Pyongyang who are smart enough to know that killing millions will not open the doors of heaven.

[opebo]

the social conservative movement is the biggest threast to america in the long run.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good man!  To bad you're rarely this correct.

[??????????]

Iran is more dangeorus, as their leaders are religiously motivated, and therefore sure to be less rational than the good atheists in Pyongyang who are smart enough to know that killing millions will not open the doors of heaven.

Also in Iran they now make Christians and Jews wear marks on their clothing to denote their religion!! What's next? Re-education camps?

[TomC]

Iran, just because it is tied to so much else in a volatile region.

[minionofmidas]

Iran is more dangeorus, as their leaders are religiously motivated, and therefore sure to be less rational than the good atheists in Pyongyang who are smart enough to know that killing millions will not open the doors of heaven.

Also in Iran they now make Christians and Jews wear marks on their clothing to denote their religion!! What's next? Re-education camps?

Quote?

[??????????]

Iran is more dangeorus, as their leaders are religiously motivated, and therefore sure to be less rational than the good atheists in Pyongyang who are smart enough to know that killing millions will not open the doors of heaven.

Also in Iran they now make Christians and Jews wear marks on their clothing to denote their religion!! What's next? Re-education camps?

Quote?

http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=2/a/iv/210520062

[minionofmidas]

"On May 19, 2006, the newspaper ran two pieces alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law requiring religious minorities to wear special identifying badges. One piece was a front page news item titled "IRAN EYES BADGES FOR JEWS" accompanied by a 1935 picture of two Jews bearing Nazi insignia. Later on the same day experts began coming forward to deny the accuracy of the Post story. The story proved to be false, but not before it had been picked up by a variety of other news media and generated comment from world leaders. Comments on the story by the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper caused Iran to summon Canada's ambassador to Tehran for an explanation. On May 24, 2006, the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper, Doug Kelly, published an apology for the story on Page 2, admitting that it was false and the National Post had not exercised enough caution or checked enough sources." Nuff said.

[John Dibble]

Stupidity is not a constant variable, however. Otherwise rational people (or leaders) can be driven to irrational things, while even the vilest of dictators (Stalin) could be cold and calculating.

I never claimed otherwise, but you can judge which leaders are more likely to do crazy and stupid things based on their regular behavior.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree - you have to take into account the general behavior of a country(both leadership and people) when deciding whether or not that country might pose a threat. The country is a threat because of that behavior. Countries that don't talk about wiping others off the map because of stupid bigotry and hatred tend to be a greater threat to civilized society than ones that generally behave rationally. That's common sense, right? Taking into account these general behaviors isn't irrational, rather it's the smart thing to do. It also does not deny the possibility of rational behavior - that possibility is taken into account by the fact that your maintain diplomatic channels with the nation in question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not advocating an 'us-vs-them' mentality - I'm merely saying that one should seriously look at the behavior of other countries in determining how to deal with them. You can't make irrational, stupid behaviors and mentalities go away by simply ignoring them, now can you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, duh - but the world isn't full of rational states, now is it? Because it isn't, we should rationally analyze which countries tend to be more irrational than others so we can know what we're dealing with. The irrational behavior of Hitler and Nazi Germany was ignored for a good long time, and it almost ended up in the Nazis controlling all of Europe. As I said, you can't ignore such a problem and expect it to just go away.

[minionofmidas]

I disagree - you have to take into account the general behavior of a country(both leadership and people) when deciding whether or not that country might pose a threat. The country is a threat because of that behavior. Countries that don't talk about wiping others off the map because of stupid bigotry and hatred tend to be a greater threat to civilized society than ones that generally behave rationally. That's common sense, right?

Not necessarily (assuming that the "n't" after "that do" is misplaced.) People might have a perfectly rational reason for talking such arrant rubbish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not advocating an 'us-vs-them' mentality - I'm merely saying that one should seriously look at the behavior of other countries in determining how to deal with them. You can't make irrational, stupid behaviors and mentalities go away by simply ignoring them, now can you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, duh - but the world isn't full of rational states, now is it? Because it isn't, we should rationally analyze which countries tend to be more irrational than others so we can know what we're dealing with. The irrational behavior of Hitler and Nazi Germany was ignored for a good long time, and it almost ended up in the Nazis controlling all of Europe. As I said, you can't ignore such a problem and expect it to just go away.
[/quote]The truth of the matter is - people usually behave (at least somewhat) rationally upon the premises of their own convictions - especially when they bear responsibility for others as well. These convictions themselves, though, are never rational (some people's may be closer to it than others) - and they can be very different for different people.

Hitler behaved quite rationally upon the premise that the Jews were all Communists, the Communists were all Jews, they were out to destroy Germany, and he was the Lord's Chosen to save us...

Al Qaeda (well, the Al Qaeda masterminds, not necessarily the attackers themselves) also behaved quite rationally. They sought a way in which the US might be vulnerable to an underfunded terror network operating from a cave on the other side of the world, and found one. As they didn't know enough about statics, they never expected the towers to collapse - and therefore couldn't expect the scope of the world's reaction to their deed, and the invasion of Afghanistan for which they bear responsibility. That's an error due to limited information (and imagination), but not a sign of irrationality.

[MODU]

Iran.  North Korea is a problem, but it is one that can be easily resolved regionally if they decide to push the situation to the next step.  Iran, on the other hand, could ignite a powder keg which would not only cause the whole region to burn, but spread that fire across the hemisphere and across the Atlantic.

[Beet]

Er, when I speak of rationality, I mean very narrowly construed, as in maximizing one's material self-interest. The only "ideology" this rationality allows is materialism. The actions of such as Al Qaida don't fall into here, nor are the actions of Nazi Germany. Even the US invasion of Iraq is not fully rational by this account. The Nazis, Al Qaida, the communists... were all driven by something other than material self-interest. Materialism, otherwise known as greed, is the one ideology least threatening to the US, and also the oldest ideology of mankind.

My problem is labelling states as irrational (by the above definition) is that by identifying the states rather than a type of behavior (Islamism, or communist terrorism/blind hatred) as a problem, it's setting up a poor mindset to tackling the behavior itself. If "Iran" is a threat, then "Iran" must be minimized: not Iran's poor behavior must be minimized, not Iran's radicalism or support of terrorism that must end, but Iran itself must end, which of course is impossible without war. From this kind of mentality diplomacy can hardly ever succeed.

[John Dibble]

Er, when I speak of rationality, I mean very narrowly construed, as in maximizing one's material self-interest. The only "ideology" this rationality allows is materialism. The actions of such as Al Qaida don't fall into here, nor are the actions of Nazi Germany. Even the US invasion of Iraq is not fully rational by this account. The Nazis, Al Qaida, the communists... were all driven by something other than material self-interest. Materialism, otherwise known as greed, is the one ideology least threatening to the US, and also the oldest ideology of mankind.

Well, I suppose you can see how one would get confused by that, lol. Anyways, I would agree materialism is the least threatening general ideology for another country to have - as they say, the business of America is business, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I think you take it a little too literally then, because I don't think that's the kind of mentality anyone is espousing. When I say 'Iran is a threat' I mean that 'Iran, in the state that it is in at this moment in time, is a threat' - change the state that Iran to something more acceptable and Iran ceases to be a threat. Countries aren't static entities, and few people would act otherwise. After all, Britain and the US used to be on pretty bad terms with the whole revolution and war of 1812 and all, but now we're valuable allies. Conversely, Iran was once a country of little concern to us.

[Beet]

Er, when I speak of rationality, I mean very narrowly construed, as in maximizing one's material self-interest. The only "ideology" this rationality allows is materialism. The actions of such as Al Qaida don't fall into here, nor are the actions of Nazi Germany. Even the US invasion of Iraq is not fully rational by this account. The Nazis, Al Qaida, the communists... were all driven by something other than material self-interest. Materialism, otherwise known as greed, is the one ideology least threatening to the US, and also the oldest ideology of mankind.

Well, I suppose you can see how one would get confused by that, lol. Anyways, I would agree materialism is the least threatening general ideology for another country to have - as they say, the business of America is business, right?

I agree, but it's not really confusing to consider it rational, as most people generally want the same things: material comfort, peace, dignity, basic decency, perhaps some religion but not jihadic religion. It's only when the great crises, either material or spiritual come that you get things like blind hatred or ideology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I think you take it a little too literally then, because I don't think that's the kind of mentality anyone is espousing. When I say 'Iran is a threat' I mean that 'Iran, in the state that it is in at this moment in time, is a threat' - change the state that Iran to something more acceptable and Iran ceases to be a threat. Countries aren't static entities, and few people would act otherwise. After all, Britain and the US used to be on pretty bad terms with the whole revolution and war of 1812 and all, but now we're valuable allies. Conversely, Iran was once a country of little concern to us.
[/quote]

Right, so it's not very helpful to label nouns like entire countries as threats rather than behavior types. Iran is a threat only because, and to the extent that, it embraces terrorism, Islamism, anti-semitism, etc. And if the Iranian state disappered but these things remained, we'd still have an enemy. On the other hand it was not too many years ago that even the current Iranian regime was quite a bit more sane than it is today. So to label the behavior type as the true enemy is more precise, and a more precise way of thinking.

[Jake]

I don't trust the viability of a North Korea ballistic missile, so I voted for Iran.

[John Dibble]

My problem is labelling states as irrational (by the above definition) is that by identifying the states rather than a type of behavior (Islamism, or communist terrorism/blind hatred) as a problem, it's setting up a poor mindset to tackling the behavior itself. If "Iran" is a threat, then "Iran" must be minimized: not Iran's poor behavior must be minimized, not Iran's radicalism or support of terrorism that must end, but Iran itself must end, which of course is impossible without war. From this kind of mentality diplomacy can hardly ever succeed.

Well, I think you take it a little too literally then, because I don't think that's the kind of mentality anyone is espousing. When I say 'Iran is a threat' I mean that 'Iran, in the state that it is in at this moment in time, is a threat' - change the state that Iran to something more acceptable and Iran ceases to be a threat. Countries aren't static entities, and few people would act otherwise. After all, Britain and the US used to be on pretty bad terms with the whole revolution and war of 1812 and all, but now we're valuable allies. Conversely, Iran was once a country of little concern to us.

Right, so it's not very helpful to label nouns like entire countries as threats rather than behavior types. Iran is a threat only because, and to the extent that, it embraces terrorism, Islamism, anti-semitism, etc. And if the Iranian state disappered but these things remained, we'd still have an enemy. On the other hand it was not too many years ago that even the current Iranian regime was quite a bit more sane than it is today. So to label the behavior type as the true enemy is more precise, and a more precise way of thinking.

Well, precision matters when determining why a country is a threat, but as I said I don't think most people would take "Iran is a threat" in quite the literal sense you're implying here. I'm pretty sure they would be able to gleam the reasons why Iran is a threat. So, while you can try to be more precise, it's difficult to actually deal with a behavior directly - for instance the 'war on terrorism' taken literaly tries to make war with a concept. It doesn't work by itself. The actual 'war on terrorism' is a battle against the groups that use terrorism. Since those who behave in threatening manners often tend to group up, be it a terrorist group like Al Queda or a nation like Iran, to an extent you have to think in terms of the groups espousing those behaviors. Hence, "Iran is a threat" is not imprecise, so long as you know the reasons why.