I could ask you to “get past” your premises, too, but I tried to engage you in a discussion of them. If you choose to keep your premises sacrosanct and out of harm’s way, that’s your business.

But clearly, further engagement with you is a waste I won’t indulge myself in.

Well it appears that we’ll just have to disagree with each other. You seem set on the idea that your position is reasonable and I think it may be possible, but appears as quite a long shot. However, since you can’t seem to get past that first point, I guess any further conversation on the topic is moot…

History does not provide us with much evidence at all about how a people will react to invaders whose stated goal is to replace a hated and feared dictator with leadership of the people’s choosing.

The events so far in Iraq, which is the only case in history as far as I can recall, suggest that people are generally eager to have a say in their own lives, rather than rallying around the monster who made their lives hell.

Can I ask why you don’t think that 300 years of history doesn’t apply? People tend to act like people… if people tend to be consistent over a long period of time (like 3 centuries) usually we can predict the most likely response.

Or, are you saying that the Iranians would somehow magically know that we, unlike historical Britain, France, Russia and the US, had altruistic intentions? Keep in mind that the US is seen by much of Iran as the source of many of their problems and has on multiple occasions in the past 60 years or so, tried to install puppet regimes or prop up regimes that were unpopular with the citizens.

I am not saying that your scenario is impossible, it may be that we have thousands of CIA operatives in the country right now, covertly shoring up a grassroots movement to support our attack. However, I think we are at least, as justified, if not more justified in considering historical precedence as a much more likely indicator of what will happen. Iraq, unlike the predictions of the Administration has, thus far, acted in a way that aligns with historical events and with predictions by members of the armed forces that have studied the region and 4th generation warfare.

I understand the neo-con philosophy. I understand why Bush thought that a democratic Iraq would be a good thing. I would like to see every nation as a democracy. Unfortunately, the model made predictions which haven’t agreed with the observations. In this case, its usually wise to assume that the model is likely flawed in some way. If another model’s predictions do align with observations, then we usually consider it a useful model. Currently, the best model for predictive power has been one based on the history of the region. You can choose to ignore it if you want. However, I’m not sure why you think it a wise idea.

Which I argue doesn’t apply to the case. You ignore this entirely and proceed merrily on your way.

As you were.

I think we should start over. I made a statement that it was likely (not a sure thing) that Iranians would likely unite to stand against Americans, even if they don’t like their current regime. You asked if I had any basis for the assumption, to which I pointed at the past 300 years of history in the region. You claimed this a “tired argument” and then proposed some either /or scenario about what I believed.

I contend that attacking the Iranians will probably, based on the history of the region and the words of someone that wants to see regime change (among other statements, including that of some US generals), unite the Iranians against the US. Not because the Iranians are too stupid to see what we’re doing, or because I personally believe that there’s no difference between one sort of war and another. Rather, I think that this has more to do with religious indoctrination, national pride, tribal politics and the psychological state of the general populace in the region. What evidence do you have to support any position other than this?

As to my pro or anti war stance, I think that it was pretty clear above, but perhaps I’m wrong.

Toppling Dictators and giving a nation democracy is not something that I find compelling. It’s been tried before, but usually it fails because the PEOPLE (the key part of a democracy) don’t understand or appreciate the responsibility and work related to maintaining a democracy. Jefferson wrote extensively on the problems with this concept and honestly, I don’t think Iraq has disproven my position… in fact, I’d say that the situation in Iraq fits closely with Jefferson’s warning.

However, I do support the continued military action for several reasons. The fact that we accidentally stepped into a pile of shit based on poor intelligence, doesn’t negate the fact that we still have to clean our boots. We have made a very big mess in Iraq and now we must clean up that mess. If we cannot leave Iraq as a stable nation (democratic or not, I don’t care), then it will likely become a failed state run by sectarian leaders, terrorists and a tiny band of sane Kurds in the north. I think that will make the US far more vulnerable in the future (not to mention the damage to our reputation, international leverage and morale). Going into Iraq was probably unwise. Going into Iraq with the ‘plan’ that we did, was probably very foolish. Running away from Iraq at this point, is probably near suicidal for our nation.

Does that make my position a little more clear?

Al Qaeda is at war with us, with democracy itself, with rule by man, with everything that is not Wahhabist Islam.

Our goal of establishing a democracy in their back yard is most definitely central to this war of ideas. And what is more, Al Qaeda knows this, even if the domestic opponents of the war have refused to acknowledge or even hear the argument.

In five years, every single argument I’ve heard against the war just talks past this premise (that it is a war of ideas), discarding it as so much trash, unworthy of examination.

Instead, the opponents to the war set up and knock down a literally endless series of straw men.

***
As for finally mentioning one data point in support of your original assertion, congratulations. Next explain how you *know* you can extrapolate from one person to an entire country.

I’m not saying I know what the Iranian population thinks. I’m just asking you to support your claim.

Your world view seems rather limited to your opinion as fact.

The argument of the pro-war side (which I do not think you are on) rests on the basic idea that we are not conquering in the imperial sense but rather tossing out a dictator so that a representative compromise can be forged instead. This has been stated hundreds and thousands of times (perhaps millions of times)–yet to you it is irrelevant.

You’re right, I am not Pro-War.

I thought the “pro-war” side was about stopping Saddam’s WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists? Or was it to enforce UN Resolutions? Or was it to bring democracy? Or could it be that there are a number of reasons that people supported/support the war, which may not be exactly the same as your reason de jour?

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because it was a defensive move (not well executed, but a defensive move nonetheless) responding to the very real attack on our soil. Further, I continue my support for the destruction of Al Queada and any other terrorist group that believes that it can force America’s hand.

I did not support the invasion of Iraq, because I thought it would turn focus away from our mission… the destruction of Al Queada and the capture of Bin Laden. Further, I was concerned that we had just wreaked havoc in Afghanistan and moving to a new theatre would simply allow the Taleban to reorganize and resurface. Finally, I was concerned that if there were WMD’s that they might get used as a last Hail Mary play, or that the military would melt in the face of our forces and return to plague us as insurgents.

My support for the war, at this point has much more to do with the credibility of our nation, the moral responsibility we are now stuck with and the fact that, if we leave… Iraq will become a safe haven for Al Queada, even if it wasn’t before. In fact, I would guess that Bin Laden would prefer Iraq, since it puts him right beside his primary target, The House of Saud.

I support the continued presence of troops in Iraq because we have made a mess and must clean it up, not because I think we’ll give them the gift of democracy (I’m with Jefferson on that subject. Democracy isn’t a gift, its a hard earned right and history indicates that those who do not earn democracy, fail to appreciate it and usually lose it). I think anyone who believes that we will succeed in giving the Iraqis representative government has slept through most of modern history. If it weren’t for the fact that our leaving would precipitate mass murder, totalitarian control of the people by religious nuts and a big housewarming party for Bin Laden… I would support an immediate pull out. As it is, the best we can hope for is to stay there until the Iraqis figure out some way to calm the situation.

Well, if you ignore the premise, you are just not arguing in good faith. You’re just making yourself feel good.

I was not ignoring the premise, I was simply pointing out that your two options are not the only options for my position. Note:

Either you believe there is no distinction between conquering to own and conquering to toss out dictators and to enable people to forge a compromise government–or you believe that such a distinction is visible only to elites such as ourselves (snort!).

OR I am of the opinion that there are other issues at play, such as tribal politics, national pride, religious dogma and an irrational fear of “westerners”, for starters which may come into play when the Iranians consider our motivations. I recall an interview with Shirin Ebadi, definitely not a friend of the Iranian government (in fact she had just won the Nobel Peace Prize for her work). When the person doing the interview asked her about US involvement to help liberate the Iranians from their oppression, she was vehement in her disapproval.This was not because she couldn’t tell the difference, but rather because she felt that most Iranians (including herself) were responsible for changing their government and outside influence would be met with strong resistance. Maybe she was part of a vast left-wing conspiracy dedicated to keeping her job as an activist… or maybe your either/or set of choices were at least myopic.

Simply ignoring the distinction I made does not make it vanish. You claim it isn’t relevant and then cite absolutely nothing to support that claim.

The argument of the pro-war side (which I do not think you are on) rests on the basic idea that we are not conquering in the imperial sense but rather tossing out a dictator so that a representative compromise can be forged instead. This has been stated hundreds and thousands of times (perhaps millions of times)–yet to you it is irrelevant.

Well, if you ignore the premise, you are just not arguing in good faith. You’re just making yourself feel good.