Who’s Being Intellectually Dishonest?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On Terrorism, VideoNorman Podhoretz or Fareed Zakaria?
Note what Podhoretz is saying. Radical Islamic religion makes it impossible for us to deter Iran from trying to destroy the entire world because they don’t believe in self preservation. Now, let’s not forget that Iran doesn’t actually HAVE a nuclear weapon or the means by which to make them. But if they keep trying to possess nuclear capabilities, he argues we should unilaterally go in there and stop them.
Meanwhile, Fareed is explaining that deterrence and trusting that self preservation will lead Iran down a more sensible path can be trusted because it has worked in the past. Personally, I think Fareed is right because if Iran actually launched any sort of attack on Israel, Iran would no longer exist as a country. Israel would nuke it back to the Stone Age, and everybody knows that, including the people of Iran. BUT, if we go in before any strike is even close to being attempted, guess how many radical Muslims we’ll create. Guess how many more Muslims (not just Iranians) will want to bomb Israel who didn’t before.
I’d like to hear your thoughts.
This entry was posted on Friday, November 2nd, 2007 and is filed under The War On Terrorism, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 am
From my blog post about this:
On PBS’ News Hour, normally an oasis of rationality in the TV news desert, we have a solemn debate about attacking Iran between Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International and Norman Podhoretz, the Neo-Con relic Rudy Giuliani is propping up to prove he is a true conservative.
When Zakaria points out we have used deterrence and containment against nuclear threats from China, the Soviet Union and North Korea, Podhoretz accuses him of “an irresponsible complacency…comparable to the denial in the early ’30s of the intentions of Hitler that led to what Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions and millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough.”
If Zakaria’s informed rationality and Podhoretz’s apocalyptic drool are given equal weight as two sides of the argument, we may be headed for another Iraq, propelled by the same political and media cowardice of five years ago.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:42 am
Sorry Norman, while pure conjecture is fun I prefer to save it for divining plot twists. But hey you were good for a laugh.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 am
(1)Iran will not “launch” a nuclear ballistic missile towards Israel out of the blue. There will be some sort of exchange with a terrorist group such as hezbollah which can then fix a kytusha warhead, or even a “dirty bomb”, an attack on Israel ensues, and then Iran can deny culpability.
Last summer’s war with Israel was likely to have been orderred from high ups in the Iranian mullocracy, yet Israel did not retaliate against Iran. How would the world have reacted if they did?
Similarly, our troops are being killed by Iranian terrorists right now in Iraq on orders from Tehran. Thats not an act of war? apparenly not, because If we responded with strikes inside Iran we are being aggressive. The Iranians are playing the “Third-world victim card” very well here. Anything they say or do will always be considerred “reactionary” and therefore, our fault.
We never had to face this type of warfare-by-proxy with the Soviets.
(2)All of this apocalyptic religious rhetoric falls on deaf ears here in the “progressive” western world. After all, brown people from foreign lands are poor and oppressed, and therefore can only react to what westerners do to them, and if their bellies are full with economic prosperity then they would never hurt us. Religion is just an “opiate of the masses” and the masses will naturally abandon it after “diplomacy” and “negotiations.” We know this to be true because we are western acedemic intellectuals, and they are “Noble Savages.”
I hate to break it to you, but there are millions of Muslims in Iran who actually believe this stuff, and even if Ahmadinajad is bluffing, there are enough nutjobs in Iran who fall for it, after being indocrinated with antisemetic hate and a false victimhood complex since the 1970′s. Can we trust future generations of Iranians with the bomb? Shouldn’t we at least take Amadinajad for his word, when he says Israel will soon be destroyed in “One Breif storm?”
The “apocalyptic Drool” is coming from Ahmadinajad and the Ayatollas, NOT Podhoretz. But of course, the Iranians are not white or Jewish – they are more like animals – so cannot be held morally accountable for what they say, right?
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 am
Interesting stuff huh? Anybody hear about Egypt’s latest announcement? Egypt plans to acquire nuclear weapons too. The f’king world is falling apart under Bush leadership. We got Israel with nuclear weapons. We got Iran seeking them because Israel is allowed to have them. We got Pakistan, India and now Egypt. Egypt is believed to be seeking joint nuclear weapons research with Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Bush, you’re doing a fine job as a steward of our world. Keep it up!
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 am
“propelled by the same political and media cowardice of five years ago.”
The media and political cowardice continues to this very day. Don’t expect the congress of the United States (led by the coward Democrats) to stand up and and fight for what is right, these jokers are complicit in these crimes against humanity and the usurpation of America’s constitution.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Why can’t one be right and the other wrong? Why does one always have to be “intellectually dishonest”? That is just such a buzz-clap-trap word. I don’t think either one of them is being “dishonest”. I tend to agree with both points of view.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Not only all of that, but don’t forget that if it had not been for Bush, Hussein ibn Ali never would have been murdered by the Ummayad Caliph at the battle of Karbala, thus beginning the Sunni / Shiite sectarian hatred 1400 years ago.
I don’t think Bush was finished grad-school when Pakistan completed research on nukes. Maybe he was a bit to green in his role as ‘Leader of the F’cking World’, so perhaps we can let him off the hook for that one.
My coffee was bitter this morning. Is Bush pissing on all the coffee beans again? Damn him.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Listen Dos, that’s great you agree with both points of view, but after the breakdown of the Bush Doctrine, you don’t think the “intellectually dishonest” phrase is particularly apt when talking about the neo-cons? Especially since they can only see one ultimate solution to any possible nuclear threat?
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
“Listen Dos, that’s great you agree with both points of view, but after the breakdown of the Bush Doctrine, you don’t think the “intellectually dishonest†phrase is particularly apt when talking about the neo-cons?”
Trying to reason with Dos or Jimmy is absolutely pointless. These two mawkish toads don’t have a clue! They’d rather watch the world blowup before admitting the fallacies of their arguments.
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I have to go with Fareed on this one. To put it bluntly, the ayatollahs are not that stupid. While they may send others on suicide missions, they never volunteer to do so themselves. Self survival is a wonderful deterrent. While none of us wants to see Iran get nukes, we still have time to prevent this outcome. To engage in another war we cannot successfully complete is sheer madness.
The US , IMO, needs to quit the exaggerated fearfulness of terrorist attacks. Granted, they are far from pleasant, but as the countries of Europe & South Asia have shown us, it isn’t the end of the world to have them happen. We need to pay attention to another front that few seem to be aware of. The Soviet Union was defeated through economic warfare. We are completely dependent on the rest of the world for raw materials & energy, not to mention credit, to keep our economy working. I submit that we are weakest in that area, from which our military cannot protect us. To attack Iran now would isolate us from even more of the world, possibly to the point of losing even Europe as allies & trade partners.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Jeremy, What about those 2 points I made above do you disagree with? I feel that I have made a cogent, well-reasoned arguement. Specifically, what is fallacious about what I said?
Bob in FLa:
What if the Ayatollas decide to go to Bahrain that week? They have the wealth and connections to relocate or hide, like you said. They have authorized bombings and even conventional war in the 80′s where hundreds-of-thousands died, yet they were hangin out elsewhere.
Besides, think about it, 10 or 15 years from now, if nuclear material is smuggled secretly out of Iran to some independent terrorist group, and they pull of a WMD attack from lebenon, Iran denies culpability and claims it wasn’t theirs nor that they have connections to that group…Do you think the world would tolerate Israel obliterating most of Iran, and then proceed to occupy all of Lebenon and most of Syria indefinitely? – The supposed legitamate response that everyone here thinks is enough to deter Iran?
How do you think the rest of the Muslim world would react to that? The Ayatollas and the survivors of the Iranian holocaust would have a lot of new freinds. Radical Islam wins that one too. That is, if Israel responds in such a way. Considerring how the political left always blames Israel or America as the “root cause” of terrorism, and that Daily-Kos style leftism is becoming more and more mainstream in the West (even in Israel) it is possible that Israel might not even respond against Iran at all at that time – and terrorists know it.
We can’t event respond in order to deter Iran from killing our troops in Iraq now when nobody denies that Iran is sending in weapons and terrorists. Israel was blamed for warmongerring after bombing beruit and Southern Lebenon to the point that they had to withdraw troops, even without recoverring the kidnapped soldier, leaving Hezbollah in a greater political position than they started, and not even touching a hair on the heads of their master’s in Iran.
A surgical strike on those facilities (out in the middle of nowhere, I might add) sometime in the near future could set that program back for decades, with even less of an impact on greater Iranian society than crippling economic sanctions.
Is it possible that the risks involved with a surgical strike might actually be less, in the long run, than if we simply accepted that Iranians produced a nuclear weapon?
and BTW…you might disagree with my opinions or predictions, but are they at least reasonable and worth considering? “Bush-Pissed-in-my-Coffee” Jeremy doesn’t seem to think so.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
“Jeremy, What about those 2 points I made above do you disagree with? I feel that I have made a cogent, well-reasoned arguement. Specifically, what is fallacious about what I said?”
Jimmy, I’ve already addressed your so-called “arguments” before, several times. Yes there are radical leaders in Iran and their is a radical leader in America. When America behaves radically it makes it impossible to punish others for do the same. We’ve invaded a sovereign country, has Iran invaded a sovereign county? No, it hasn’t. When Bush decides to stop playing Hitler perhaps America will have the moral authority to challenge the radical rhetoric
and actions of Iran, until then all Iran has to do is say: But look at you, look at what you are doing.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I think Mr. Podhoretz is right that there is a “different element” with these countries in their acceptance of a radical belief which drives them to commit horrible acts seemingly without thought of their own well-being. However, bombing them into the stone age doesn’t do much good either, because as was pointed out, that only creates more of these “radical Islamofascist” footsoldiers. Hence, we end up in an endless cycle of killing.
The Japanese used kamikaze fighter pilots to great effect in WWII, but a combination of American military might and a genuine effort to rebuild their country after the war helped make them our allies. The Soviet Union and communism collapsed not so much of anything we did but because those structures resulted in severe decay of the countries which accepted them. Our military actions in Korea and Vietnam didn’t prevent those countries from becoming communist, but our dedication to aiding opponents of communist regimes via non-military means did more than anything to help defeat that ideology. Moving away from the vestiges of post-WWII socialism which we embraced, like price controls and labor unions also helped to create a freer market in the US and thus help spread the wealth across the globe, spurring other countries to move away from centrally-planned economies.
Now, China, Iran, etc., all cling to forms of governance which restrict the rights of their citizens and force them to adhere to a set of rigid principles which hold no possibility of liberty. The extremists must be suffocated, not bombed out of existence. The way to suffocate something is by cutting off its air supply. Our policy of using military force to destroy countries/regions where terrorists are believed to be only serves to provide propaganda for these groups and exacerbate the problem. There needs to be a better understanding of the fundamental issue here, and a combination of Mr. Podhoretz’s and Mr. Zakaria’s positions would best serve to at least begin to solve the problem.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Well, I suppose if you morally equvicate Bush to Hitler, or democratic self rule with Taliban-like sharia law, or Hundreds-of-thousands of Iraqi security forces to Nazi collaborators, or American troops to Iranian terrorists, or supporting the existance of Israel with supporting the destruction of Israel, you may have a point.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 am
“Well, I suppose if you morally equvicate Bush to Hitler, or democratic self rule with Taliban-like sharia law, or Hundreds-of-thousands of Iraqi security forces to Nazi collaborators, or American troops to Iranian terrorists, or supporting the existance of Israel with supporting the destruction of Israel, you may have a point.”
Lol, okay Jimmy. If nothing you’re humorous.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:01 am
“BUT, if we go in before any strike is even close to being attempted, guess how many radical Muslims we’ll create. Guess how many more Muslims (not just Iranians) will want to bomb Israel who didn’t before.”
I guess it depends how many new terrorists the CIA etc., want to create. No doubt they’ve got actual figures on it and mugshots of potential candidates in order to keep the “War On Terror” going to maintain their jobs and the US military budget for the next few years.
Oh and as for Jeremy’s comment, ‘The f’king world is falling apart under Bush leadership.’ BUSH IS NOT THE LEADER OF THE WORLD, just the USA. We didn’t all vote for this f’king idiot. Believe me, the rest of the World outside the USA is more worried about what Bush and his puppeteers will do than any Ayatollah et al.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:37 am
Jimmy, has it occurred to you that if a terrorist group is going to get their hands on some nukes it’s by far most likely to come from Pakistan? No? Oh, that’s right, the blithering corporate whore moron you blindly worship told you that they are our best buddies in the war on “terrah”. Thanks for bankrupting America!
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Jeremy Says:
That is not exactly accurate. One can certainly argue that the US has lost any moral high ground, the lack of high ground and past indiscretions should have no bearing on what can or should be done.
The problem here is that this group has lost so much credibility through ineptitude or maliciousness that it cannot muster the support it needs to do anything.
When Jimmy says we can’t event respond in order to deter Iran from killing our troops in Iraq now when nobody denies that Iran is sending in weapons and terrorists, there are a lot of people right now who do deny it. Consider the source–the same people who have claimed weapons of mass destruction, ties between Sadam and 911, leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, etc…..
But, a nuclear Iran is simply unacceptable, and I cannot believe I am going to say this, but Jimmy is absolutely correct–a surgical strike on nuclear research facilities could set their program back decades, and yes, have even less of an impact on greater Iranian society than crippling economic sanctions–sanctions that harm the masses more than those in power–that ultimately results in more candidates for terrorist ideology.
Don’t like this crowd? Me neither. But we cannot allow past mistakes to deter us from following a course of action. I simply don’t trust the information they are now peddling or for them to make the correct decision.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:11 am
You know what, I just realized this whole conversation is moot. Iran will not complete its nuclear weapons program, because Israel will attack those facilities, even if America chooses to do nothing.
Perhaps we should instead be discussing what to do about the after-effects once this inevitable event occurs.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:32 am
You want a thought problem?
Who gets bashed if a nuke takes out London?
November 5th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Yes, London. Not a missile, just a nuke. Maybe from Russian stock, Pakistan, India, USA. After all, there are 20,000 in the world. Delivered by private sailboat. I’m sure they’re checked for radiation.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Even if Israel is the one to take action, it doesn’t make the conversation moot. There are many levels here. The Neocons want a confrontation with Iran; is this really just a smokescreen to get it?
I think most people would agree a nuclear Iran is a bad thing–one need look to farther than Pakistan. It is simply not a good idea to have nuclear weapons in an unstable Middle East.
The real question, is today’s nuclear program yesterday’s WMD? Claims that Iran is sending in weapons and terrorists are made from the right as if it is an undeniable fact, but who is making that claim? The same people who said Iraq had WMD, that’s who.
Even Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admits that all that can be proved from the seized evidence and arrests of a handful of Iranians in Iraq (there have been far more Saudi’s arrested than Iranians) is things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.
And now we are supposed to believe that Iran is involved in developing a nuclear weapons program? On whose say so?
Maybe it’s time we stop ignoring the elephant in the room and asking the real question: Is the Iran “nuclear weapons” program simply another pretext for war?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I think the Neocons actually want Iran to stop building nuclear weapons, stop threatening Israel, and stop supporting global terrorist organizations. I’m pretty sure the Neocons would stop considerring military actions if all those things occurred. (oops, I forgot, its all about oil)
in the meantime, The president of Iran, as well as the ayatollas have explicitly expressed their desire to destroy the zionist state of Israel. I’m also pretty sure that this would require some sort of confrontation. (oops I forgot again, that persians are exotic third-world peoples of color and therefore can only react to stimuli like insects and can never actually have a ‘desire for confrontation’ themselves )
The Soldiers and Marines who are being killed by them, that’s who. The difference between WMDs in Iraq is that we actually have in our possession the arms manufactured in Iran, and our military has captured Iranian ‘Quds-force’ operatives wielding them. Take it up with the troops themselves (whom you supposedly ‘support’) if you don’t believe them.
Since it is a fundamental, self-evident, indisputable postulate that all geopolitical conflicts in the world can only be instigated by powerful white people or jews; that poor, dark-skinned people from third world countries are not capable of having political aspirations of thier own, including religious fanaticism or imperial ambition; and that all conflicts in the world will be assuaged once a U.N.-mediated wealth redistribution program closes the gap between rich and poor – perhaps you are right.
A nuclear armed Iran could never happen, nor if it did, would it be dangerous, nor if they achieved what they say they are planning to do (i.e. ‘wipe Israel off the map’) would it be unwarranted – it would still be the ‘neocon’s’ fault somehow.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Please, don’t put words in my mouth. Your last two paragraphs are simply nonsense and sarcasm.
I already agreed with you that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. I will even agree that Iran supports terrorist organizations.
However, your claim that Iran is actively engaged in Iraq is unsupported and unproven. Or do you have more insight then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
If one were to follow you argument for attacking Iran, we ought to be attacking Saudi Arabia as well (even moreso, since a far greater number of Saudi supplied equipment and Saudi “insurgents” have been captured in Iran.
No matter how much you wish it to be true, there is simply not enough evidence to support the claim.
BTW, of all “reasons” for the Iraq war, the one with the greatest body of evidence supporting it actually is “oil”, or did you miss the LUKOIL contract cancellation the other day (yet one more piece to the puzzle).
November 7th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Well then stop writing off all of the rhetoric coming out of terrorist-supporting regimes like Iran. You act as if all of that apocalyptic, anti-semetic warmongerring by Ahmadinajad and the Mullahs is completely irrelevant, becuase the Neocons simply “want war.” I can only assume that your views on this are a result of liberal dogma, sometimes known as “third-worldism” or “Noble Savage” theory.
Liberal activist and author Sam Harris describes the phenomenon in this brief clip from the Tucker Carlson show. Its fascinating, you should take the 5 minutes to watch it.
The Joint Chiefs has never denied or even doubted that shape-charges and anti-tank weapons have come from Iran, and that the Quds force is supplying militias with them. Where are you getting your information from?
November 7th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Addendum:
Regarding the LUKOIL contract, I never knew that leftists who are supposedly in favor of human rights actually support the validity of the relationship between international corporations and fascist dictatorships, particularly the one involving LUKOIL, which payed out kickbacks to Saddam Hussein during the the oil-for-food scandal, and payed out vouchers to corrupt Russian politicians they could peddle pro-Saddam resolutions at the UN security council.
You think the Kurds or Shiite Arabs who live in that oil-rich territory think so highly of corrupt Russian oil corporations who helped Saddam maintain his wealth and power in the region? Why should a Saddam Hussein-era contract, one that was bought at the expense of the sufferring of the Iraqi people during the oil-for-food scam, remain valid today?
Now the Democratically elected government of Iraq appoints leaders of the public oil ministry, and recently drafted a revenue-distribution bill that looks more socialist than Venezuela’s. You like Saddam’s methods better? What gives?
November 7th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/
http://voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm?CFID=231053756&CFTOKEN=71302241
I can go on, but I have already supplied more evidence than you have.
My views are based on past history, as opposed to your own, which seem to be based on more blind loyalty. I will take a look at your clip, as I am interested in all points of view, but I must admit that I find Carlson to be a bit of a boob.
And I do not act like Iran’s actions are completely irrelevant. Do you even read what anyone posts? Take a breath. Sit down. And listen (or in this case, read) what others are saying instead of reading OVER what everyone is saying and injecting your perceptions.
However, I do think that Israel can take care of itself in this matter–and if they need the assistance of the US, I think they they the phone number in the rolodex.
At the moment, though, Israel is treading carefully, unlike certain war drumb beating neocons.
(and btw, it’s still about oil–I note you don’t seem to want to address that)
November 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I replied about the LUKOIL contract but it didn’t get posted. I’ll see if I have it cached somewhere and re-post it.
If an armed wing of the Iranian government is supplying thousands of weapons and terrorists to Iraqi militias, then it is the duty of the Iranian government to know about it and reign it in. And you would rather actually believe Ahmadinajad simply on his word when he says “I had nothing to do with this” and not Bush when he says “I honestly believed Saddam possessed stocks of WMD between 1998 and 2003″
Besides, when Pace says, ““That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this. I don’t here any repudiation against other military officials who say the highest levels of the Iranian government were involved – officials who were sourced in those same articles you cited.
They certainly knew about it last year when the story broke, but they still are doing nothing, so its like a Taliban/Al-qaeda thing at this point (That is of course, if you are of the opinion that the Iranian government is not in charge of its own government)
November 8th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Addendum:
Regarding the LUKOIL contract, I never knew that leftists who are supposedly in favor of human rights actually support the validity of the relationship between international corporations and fascist dictatorships, particularly the one involving LUKOIL, which payed out kickbacks to Saddam Hussein during the the oil-for-food scandal, and gave oil vouchers to corrupt Russian politicians such as Vladimir Zhirinovskii so they could peddle pro-Saddam resolutions at the UN security council.
You think the Kurds or Shiite Arabs who live in that oil-rich territory think so highly of corrupt Russian oil corporations who helped Saddam maintain his wealth and power in the region? Why should a Saddam Hussein-era contract, one that was bought at the expense of the sufferring of the Iraqi people during the oil-for-food scam, remain valid today?
Now the Democratically elected government of Iraq appoints leaders of the public oil ministry, and recently drafted a revenue-distribution bill that looks more socialist than Venezuela’s. You like Saddam’s methods better? What gives?
If Halliburton had a saddam-era contract that was redacted by the public oil-ministry of the democratic republic of Iraq, you would be singing a different tune.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:09 am
Israel is using our soldiers as their gendarmes. TO fight their war in iraq.
you may read this illuminating article that proves it
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6142
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
Why isn’t a single Israeli soldier is helping US troops in Iraq? After all,This is Israel’s proxy war through its colony the USA.
Supposedly, Israel is our best friend in that region. So why aren’t they helping us?
Wake up America! Declare independence from ISrael! Ameriuc is for Americans!