response to JJ - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
The Van Diepen Demarche
in response to reader comment: Sorting out Chasli

Submitted by chasli, Dec 6, 2007 16:25

"This writer presents little but sophistry, disingenuousness, and naivety in his comments. To suggest that the current US administration is not civilised or responsible is laughably disingenuous, It flies in the face of reality." Is it really so naïve and disingenuous to consider the current US administration uncivilized and irresponsible? Much of the civilized world considers our behavior in Iraq as uncivilized and irresponsible. Most of our European allies, for instance, (except for of course UK) see our little venture in Iraq as an abomination by a superpower gone totally mad. Would you categorize our behavior at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as civilized? While we won't know for sure until next November, indications are that even a majority of Americans consider this administration uncivilized and irresponsible.

They [Iran] are quite capable, driven by religious fanaticism, of committing national suicide, if, by so doing they destroy Israel and/or the US." On what basis does Mr. Jameson come to this conclusion about Iran? It seems a bit disingenuous to me to conclude that Iran is capable or desirous of "committing national suicide" because there are lots of Islamic suicide bombers in the area. Iran has a long proud history, and I see no indications that they are hell-bent on seeing it all go up in a mushroom cloud. And if our government really thought that Iran was capable of nuclear suicide, I would seriously question the wisdom of having allowed Israel to nuclearize the Middle East. Once Israel (who after all had and has overwhelming conventional superiority in their area) went nuclear it was inevitable that that some other country in the area would follow suit. That I would suggest is the geopolitics of the issue.

"However allowing another Islamic country, more egregious even than Pakistan, to acquire nuclear weapons proclaims a view that two dangerous countries are as good as one?" No, it proclaims a view that if the US doesn't take non-proliferation seriously – and our behavior vis-à-vis India, Pakistan, and Israel going nuclear shows that we don't – then we can't expect anyone else to take it seriously.

"The world is a dangerous place. Threats to the US and its Western allies abound. Consequently the US cannot be even handed in its non-proliferation policy." And Mr. Jameson accuses me of being disingenuous and naïve. An acknowledgement that "the US cannot be even handed in its non-proliferation policy" is in effect an acknowledgement that we have no non-proliferation policy. Once you let non-proliferation degenerate into a policy of allowing your friends to have the bomb while attempting to deny it to your enemies, then non-proliferation is doomed. After all we are not the only country in the world. Other great powers like China and Russia have friends and enemies to, and they certainly don't coincide with ours.

You seem to feel that India getting the bomb because China had one is not a problem; and Pakistan getting one because India had one is also not that much of a problem. Not to mention that you presumably have no problem with Israel having a bomb, even if none of its enemies have one. Why then aren't you OK with Iran getting one because Israel has one, or because Iraq, its arch-enemy, has one (oh I forgot that our very civilized and responsible president couldn't find the ones he said they had).

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment	By	Date
I have two names, Thomas Fingar and Vann Van Diepen as authors of this latest NIE. I heard there was... [MORE]	Dick Willis	Dec 6, 2007 08:47
Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD Kenneth... [MORE]	no one	Dec 26, 2007 16:00
This is like saying we stopped bullet development, while continuing to develop rifles (missiles) and gunpowder (enriched uranium) [MORE]	m	Dec 6, 2007 08:15
The magic number is 100 pounds of highly enriched U-235. The rest is easy, and no testing is needed. The... [MORE]	oracle2world	Dec 5, 2007 21:29
And when, exactly, was the last time an Iranian used a suicide bomb, or, more pointedly, a weapon of mass... [MORE]	Jamie Newman	Dec 5, 2007 19:57
It is astonishing that Americans sit by and watch their society unravel with barley a murmer of dissent. The about... [MORE]	Steve	Dec 5, 2007 18:40
With the benefit of hindsight it is now possible for us to declare that Iran is only interested in peaceful... [MORE]	Jaffer Clarke	Dec 6, 2007 10:51
These shadow government clowns at the CIA and other agencies act and believe they control our elected government and foreign... [MORE]	Buzz	Dec 5, 2007 17:42
Having served in the Federal Government for more than 34 years I couldn't agree more with Buzz's comments. Civil Servants... [MORE]	Dennis Stayer	Dec 5, 2007 23:51
Civil servants owe a duty to be objective in their analysis for the purpose of informing policy makers. Their duty... [MORE]	Richard Stark	Dec 6, 2007 07:23
To us old folks this sounds like the debate we had after WWII that McCarthy got right. The traitors in... [MORE]	Carl Hoffman	Dec 5, 2007 17:26
Why not save a lot of time and let Iran put moles and spies in the State Department and at... [MORE]	darth	Dec 5, 2007 17:24
This is pure politics. Israel just leveled a joint Syrian and Iran nuclear weapons production site in Syria. Remember we... [MORE]	Lou Rodgers	Dec 5, 2007 16:38
It is much easier to read, understand, and have faith in reading the words of God than that of man.... [MORE]	Chris	Dec 5, 2007 19:34
Now the cold civil war against the Bush administration is squarely in the open. The schemers and plotters in what... [MORE]	Ardmoor Oakes	Dec 5, 2007 11:04
And just when do we start convicting and then hanging people for treason? D.C. would be the new Boot Hill... [MORE]	David D	Dec 5, 2007 16:55
Both chasli and JG have persuasive sounding arguments. chasli's is based on the theory that what's good for the goose... [MORE]	Mike Riezenman	Dec 4, 2007 23:13
The bottom line remains that if it's allright for Israel, Pakistan, and India to have nuclear weapons, it's allright for... [MORE]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 09:50
Yes, Pakistan already has nukes, which is precisely why we can't do anything about it. But we can prevent Iran... [MORE]	chili	Dec 4, 2007 11:01
Mr. La, Do you know anything whatever about the history of the Khomeinist revolution? Are you aware that the motto of... [MORE]	J G	Dec 4, 2007 11:30
Dear J G, You totally miss my logic. Using your analogy, if I choose to have my good old friend (let's... [MORE]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 13:17
Chasli it's not a double standard, it's just a standard. World community expects nuclear powers to behave in a civilized... [MORE]	Jack Sheet	Dec 4, 2007 16:15
La-la, etc. is right, but not in the delusional way chasli either dreams it, or would have everyone else believe.... [MORE]	John Spencer Yantiss	Dec 4, 2007 18:03
how do you suggest we go about preventing Iran? [MORE]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 19:15
"World community expects nuclear powers to behave in a civilized responsible fashion. That does not describe current Iranian regime." That... [MORE]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 19:35
This writer presents little but sophistry, disingenuousness, and naivety in his comments.To suggest that the current US administration is not... [MORE]	Jack Jameson	Dec 5, 2007 19:20
"This writer presents little but sophistry, disingenuousness, and naivety in his comments. To suggest that the current US administration is...	chasli	Dec 6, 2007 16:25

Reader comment on:The Van Diepen Demarchein response to reader comment: Sorting out Chasli

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on The Van Diepen Demarche

Reader comment on:
The Van Diepen Demarche
in response to reader comment: Sorting out Chasli