Talk:Christopher Hitchens/Archive1

Fighting Islamofascism
Hitchens's clamant opposition to Islamofascism was set off, by his own account, in 1989 by the Rushdie fatwa, not "overnight" as a result of September 11. As for his drop-off in influence "among some who might otherwise be interested in his books on atheism," the number-five ranking on Foreign Policy's list of public intellectuals suggests otherwise, and his views on Islamism are wholly in keeping with the particular strand of godlessness which earns him so much praise from the reality-based community.

I have, accordingly (and because, being new here, I don't want to seem officious), fact-tagged the offending claims.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Robertson-Glasgow / talk / contribs
 * No need to just tag. Go to work, tear that sucker to pieces.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 04:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting, considering the term and concept of "Islamofascism" didn't even exist until it was suddenly invented by the warbloggers on or about September 12, 2001. 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro Sentence
I just wanted to say as I'm browsing RW... Whoever wrote the current intro sentence is awesome. That's all. 65.186.83.127 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you pray for him, he'll kick your ass
I hate to spoil a joke with nitpicking, but the humour here is withered by the fact that Hitch has gone on record as saying he is happy for people to pray for him if it makes them feel better. 81.137.227.129 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was gonna add the Atlantic ref which included a note that if you really want to make him feel better you'll buy Hitch 22 - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. 86.165.128.38 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why the hero worship?
''Christopher Eric Hitchens is what every self-respecting gentleman aspires to be, viz. a drunken, chain-smoking, atheistic, foul-mouthed, British genius.'' I changed the last word to 'twat'. I quite like Hitchens, he's a lot like my internet persona. But internet atheists admire him as a high priest of atheism, which is both childish and silly. He is no cult figure, he is an atypical contrarian twat. Don't mythologise him. Thank you.
 * Everyone knows that Harris is the high priest of atheism. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Hitchen's kind are ten a penny in British academia. That polemical style is popular and a staple of Oxbridge graduates with a superiority complex. The only difference is that he has achieved public notoriety. 86.40.206.159 (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to "genius" which although I disagree with, "twat" is worse...  17:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling him a twat is called gentle mocking. The Hitch would approve. 86.40.206.159 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problem is...Is "twat" worse than I think it is? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A twat is a ladies vagina. I suspect some people would be appalled at the idea of Christopher Hitchens reminding them of a ladies vagina. 86.40.206.159 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "A twat is a ladies vagina" - as opposed to a mans vagina? What's the difference? AceX-102 19:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I blew chunks out my nose at that one. 10:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought "twat" and "cunt" were words limeys and the like used when they were being colorful, not rude/offensive. I guess British people like me a lot less than I thought they did :( Occasionaluse (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You may have been confused, since MC is a good deal more "colourful" than most. -- 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I always felt "twat" was on the same level as "bone her" or "pork her"..  What are we, 12?  Can't we just go with "asshole"?   20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like "twat" for the article. "Genius" is a bit over the top.  But I will agree with any better word offered.  10:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent)"Twat" is one of those interesting words. Whilst, strictly speaking, a synonym for "cunt" it has nothing like the emotional impact and, in many areas (Glasgow being one that I know of) is used as a synonym for "Twit". c.f. Berk. Notably in the film "The Boat That Rocked" one of the petty minded bureaucrats is called Twat, they would never have dreamed of naming him Cunt. Whether it's a suitable description for CH is another matter, personally I prefer the ironic "genius". Jack Hughes (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So should we use "genius" in ironic quote marks? 10:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure he qualifies as either a cunt, twat or berk or anything like that. Son-of-a-bitch, maybe, but let's not argue semantics too much :S 10:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Arsehole smartass works for me. 10:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Twat" and "cunt" are sexist--implying that women's genitalia are bad. How about "know-it-all," "wanker," or "former-hardcore-leftist-turned-Bush-cheerleader-now-backpeddler?"205.189.194.208 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do the left have such a problem with heroism? What banal lives you must lead when you believe that no-one is remarkable, no-one is better than anyone else. Has it occurred to you that Hitchens achieved public notoriety because he was superior to other Oxbridge graduates in terms of intellect, personality, bravery and personal conviction? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say, Hitchens comes across as a bit of a blundering buffoon in the article... Nullahnung (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's pretty accurate, then? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 14:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

intro sentence
not very..hm rational greets--Ratio-Duff (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Takes a shot. It's called SPOV. Тy talk 23:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone reading RW needs a dead serious biography of Hitch, there's The Other Wiki for that. ADK ...I'll reward your microcosm! 08:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * hhm yes, but pure insulting or similar useless stuff just for the coolness(i think) should be part of wikis like conservapedia or something, i thought that in a so called RW people should express their opinions in another way... greets--Ratio-Duff (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Insulting? Hardly. It's not "fat lousy atheist" crap for a start. But as I said we have wp:Christopher Hitchens for things less entertaining. ADK ...I'll absorb your cookie cutter! 18:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Hitch has popped his clogs
Vale Christopher. I'll try to find some details. MtD Pinko Scum   05:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here. In the meantime... awkwardly switch out the present for the past-tense in the article  :\   05:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Found 'em and was updating but Archie beat me to it. MtD  Pinko Scum   05:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tabbed browsing is your friend ^_^ ArchieGoodwin (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You meddling kidz! MtD  Pinko Scum   05:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sad, sad, sad. I was just given his newest book, Arguably, last weekend. Sad. AceAce For Mod! 05:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "God is Not Great" is now treading worldwide on twitter. Some amusingly angry responses. Jaxe (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

RIP
He died on my﻿ friend's birthday. It was also the birthday of Oscar Niemeyer. It was also the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. There is no one else like him. He was a flawed man; no doubt about that. However, his flaws made him a Byronic hero; he was a drinking, smoking & wealthy INTJ maverick. A lot like me. That is not to say that I was an equal to him-few were. Few are. I graduated summa cum laude at valedictorian of Harvard & Yale Law school. I may have been valedictorian at prep school. I may be a Rhodes Scholar. However, I am nothing compared to Hitchens. I started reading his books at a very young age. I will never forget the first time I ever read on of his books; It was September second. I took out God is Not Great from the library. It seemed like an unassuming book; God, was I wrong! The man was, at once, a visionary, rational, intellectual, wit, genius, pundit, nonconformist and cynic. --Yuppie (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens on torture
The article claims that Hitchens supported waterboarding before trying it himself. That's not true. He was always against it, but volunteered to have it done anyway so that he might write about it from a more knowledgeable perspective. Unless someone can cite an article or interview where he said something in favor of it, I'm deleting that part of the article. His "Believe me, it's torture" article doesn't indicate in any way that he ever felt differently about it.
 * Even a hate blog - despite attempting, and then concluding that it's true anyway - can't really justify saying he's supported torture. I mean, "international byword for Yankee imperialism and sadism" is him defending Abu Ghraib? I must have missed that English lesson where we were told "it's still shit, but not quite as shit as before" means "I absolutely endorse this shit because I love it". Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't like anyone?
"In fact, looking back on his forty year career, there wasn't anyone Hitchens liked." What about George Orwell, Thomas Paine, Gore Vidal, Martin Amis, Richard Dawkins?
 * I think that except is intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the famous RationalWiki Snarky Point of View (SPoV) that you have missed there. Hitchens had many close friends like you mentioned and I would add Salmon Rushdie and Stephen Fry to that list as well.  DamoHi 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Might be worth amending, not sure the joke is that clear. Scarlet A.pngmoral 21:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On the pacifist status of Trotskyism

 * Split off from above.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we talk about the fact Trotskyism is in no way a pacifist philosophy, it was merely that they supported Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Cong so they wanted the full withdrawal of Capitalist troops? This is off-the-mark wrong about everything with his life prior to 9-11. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Andrewstewart1 / talk / contribs
 * And that's relevant to any-fucking-thing here? --Revolverman (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC) There is no evidence that Hitchens ever deviated from pacifism and the branch of Trotskyism Hitchens belonged to was always a bit different. Can you be more specific with what he have gotten wrong about his early life? (And can you also please sign your comments?) Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, his entire post-9/11 thing was saying he was a 'former' Trotskyist. As for Trotskyism itself, it is a militant form of Communism, based on the teachings of Red Army founder Leon Trotsky. It originates as a counter to a slur from Stalin about whether or not Trotsky was meant to succeed Lenin as head of the Bolshevik Party. During the Russian Civil War, he shot prisoners and ordered purges, including a famous one at a naval base called Krondstadt that basically shut down the town because they were sick of Lenin being a dick. The hinge of Trotskyism was a Communist Revolution in 1919 Germany, which would lead to a world-wide Communist Party rulership. Stalin was in favor of a policy of internal economic development as opposed to internationalist slogans, so he basically played himself as a moderate, claimed Trotsky was a terrorist and Nazi collaborator, and launched a show trial to consolidate power. Some tenets of Trotskyism include forced collectivization, militarization of the labor force, and outright confrontation with Capitalist governments, as well as direct opposition to Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism, Democratic Socialism, and all forms of Pacifism. He began to favor conservative policies as early as the Falklands War under Thatcher and only amped it up with the Rusdie affair. CF. Un-Hitched, The Trial of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Seymour, Verso Press.--Andrewstewart1 (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of what Trotskyism is, however, you have yet to present any evidence contradicting what is also stated, namely that Hitchens himself was a pacifist. He self-identified with the Trotskyites of International Socialist which was always a bit unorthodox. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The ISO is a lot of things, but it isn't pacifist, c'mon, cut the shit, I've been writing on this stuff for a while. There are plenty of books about why Trotskyism is not Pacifist.--Andrewstewart1 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But HITCHENS was. You know, the guy whom this article is about. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 06:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No he was not, watch any of the C-Span interviews and he is definitely pro-Falklands War, pro-VC, and later on pro-Bush war policy. Where did you get the idea he ever was a pacifist, he hated pacifists with a certain antagonism, he called them weak and stupid, called Gandhi-ism fanaticism, and said turning the other cheek and loving your enemies was evil.--Andrewstewart1 (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

BoN's edits 21/11/13
I've reverted because Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he was more than aware that a Catholic Nun would use charitable donations in a Catholic way. His point was that those who donated were under the impression that their money was going to help the poor or India in concrete ways, not to promote preaching against birth control to those who need it most.
 * You'll need a cite for that Orwell thing

Overrated
Christopher Hitchens is more well known than he deserves. He's basically a glorified rip off of Clive James, who is a much more interesting thinker and writer, and not nearly the publicity hound that Hitchens was. Burkean (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, why so butthurt? Hitchens was never a whore for the limelight. I own a copy of half the books he's written and seen him in most of the video material he's been in, aside from having graduated university courses in theology, theoretical philosophy and the history of ideas and learning. The man is beyond relvant. He's also been given far less attention here than he deserves, and upcoming edits of his article will expand it to make sure it includes all the pages of information information regarding the man which clearly fits the goal of the RationalWiki mission. Clive James is obscure and incomparable to Hitchens. To claim plagiarism is pretty serious - from now on, you know that. I have absolutely no idea what "point" you are trying to get across here, but what is certain is that what you've said so far comes across as confused, pedantic and unmistakably tense. There's no cult of Hitchens here. Please calm your tits mate. Provide sources and make sense. Sigh.Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Relvant? Anyway, it doesn't really have anything to do with butthurt or my excited tits (glad you noticed). Whether or not one writer is more obscure over another doesn't seem to be what is most important. Thackery might not be as famous as Clancy but that has nothing to do with quality. I alluded to Hitchens borrowing extensively from his persona and I never accused him of plagiarizing James. So let's review


 * 1. James considers himself an old fashioned liberal who believes in the importance of not throwing away western civilization and while he supports unions and regulations on capitalism, he is also very much against the cultural relativism that permeates universities, much like Hitchens
 * 2. Both have bragged and expressed regret at their life of boozing and cigarettes
 * 3. Both tirelessly supported the Iraq War
 * 4. Both had fathers who were war heroes.
 * 5. Both had a close and complex relationship with their mother
 * 6. Both reject a belief in religion
 * 7. Both express concern about the growing pressure that fundamentalist islam is placing on secular societies
 * 8. Both have expressed concern over the general populations ignorance concerning culture and history in the western world
 * 9. Both are skeptical of the official narrative on climate change.


 * My point wasn't to say that Hitchens was stealing from anyone, and I didn't say that. I was merely making the point that the two writers are in many ways remarkably similar, I find Hitchens to be overrated and I thought James was a better author. It's as simple as that. By the way, James was a well known correspondence reporter and fixture of broadcast journalism (journeying to many of the political hotspots around the world) when Hitchens was a virtual unknown and looking to move to the states. He has only become more famous in recent years, largely because of a book on atheism and his support for the war in Iraq. Burkean (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hitchens an Islamophobe?
His stance on foreign policy notwithstanding (he was as a matter of fact an anti-Zionist in principle though not in actions and had little love lost for Hamas and other NGOs of mass murder), Hitch was not any more virulently opposed to Islam than he was to Christianity. He teared that Albanian ghoul to shreds just the same as he did the Persian theocracy or the necrcracy (than) one short of a trinity. In short his disdain for religion and cult of personality was universal and if he was a bigot in regards to Islam, he also was one in regards to Christianity and all the other myths and fairytales he so loved to hate. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume you haven't actually read much of what he wrote or heard much of what he said; it's the likeliest explanation for you not knowing this. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I quite enjoy me some Hitchens to relax. And trust me I know that some of the Islamophobe crowd try to use things he said to "prove their point". But his reaction to many of the Islamophobe "issues" shows he had a different way of thinking. Muslims want a military Imam? Hitch: Either give it to them or don't have any military religious figures in the first place" Islamophobe: "No. Dey cand ged no Imam dey make Muslim owr military and den take ova da place." People wanna kill Salman Rushdie? Hitch: "Hell no you can't. Just like we can't kill anybody just cause he says something offensive. There is a right to offend" Islamophobe: "Dey arr takin' owr freedumb. We shood outlaw da Muslimity for them to make mosque cause dere dey make dem terrorist". 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't realize all the Islamaphobes out there are from the south. It's amazing how the Islamophobic spell checker doesn't recognize Islamophobe, Islamophobes, Islamophobic or Islamophobia as real words. Oh, well. Get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand! Burkean (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An account of a speech given in 2007:
 * "Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. He told us what the most serious threat to the West was (and you know this line already): it was Islam. Then he accused the audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refuse to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy. Along the way he told us who his choice for president was right now — Rudy Giuliani — and that Obama was a fool, Clinton was a pandering closet fundamentalist, and that he was less than thrilled about all the support among the FFRF for the Democratic party. We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.
 * "It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy."
 * http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/14/ffrf-recap/
 * I don't believe that quite that level of violent rhetoric can be ascribed to generalised distaste for religion. After all, he didn't advocate the murder of fundamentalist Christians at the same time. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A second hand account of a speech he gave is not a valid source of his own beliefs. However, advocating for a war against Iran is a totally rational and sane stance, even though some on the left might dislike it. The Islamic Republic - just like ISIS - must disappear into the trash bin of history as fast as humanly possible. And it is a sad fact but something of a truism that in most of the world, Islamic fundamentalism is a bigger threat than Christian Jewish Hindu or Hare Krishna fundamentalism. Pointing that out should not be regarded as Islamophobe. Hitch did point out on several occasions who Christian fundamentalism does tremendous damage even when the intention is not openly murderous such as with AIDS in Africa. Creating a false equivalency where none exists or "requiring" x amount of criticism of other religions for every y of criticizing Islam is not a good idea, either. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was the closest source to hand, it's not unique by any means. Did you read the article as far as the Q&A portion? Unless you're claiming the article's author just made stuff up, there's no wriggling out of what Hitch said then. "advocating for a war against Iran is a totally rational and sane stance" *does double-take* *backs away slowly* . OK, now you have jumped the shark. There's no point continuing to engage any more. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well there are people on the left who want a war with the self proclaimed "Islamic State". The only major difference between Iran and said entity is that Iran does not upload YouTube videos of its hangings of gay people. In a sense the invasion of Iraq was so disastrous because it was "killing the wrong pig". Saudi Arabia and Iran are both rather unpleasant regimes (unless of course you are one of the select few on top of it all) and the goal of any foreign policy should be to get rid of them. However it is debatable whether war is the best way to do that. It is still a sane stance. Insane would be calling for the wiping off the map of Israel - just what the dinner jacket did, at least according to the official English translation on his website... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "The only major difference..." So that Iran is far more democratic isn't important to you? Hmm... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The guy in charge is Ayatollah Khamenei and before him Khomeini. Whom nobody elected. How that qualifies as democratic in any way shape or form is beyond me...141.30.210.129 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the 'Supreme Leaders' are elected by an Assembly of Experts, who are directly elected by the people and have the authority to remove said Leaders from power. The US actually elects their presidents somewhat similarly: indirectly through an Electoral College. And for all the power Khamenei holds, he doesn't interfere all that much in the running of the regime. And what's that below him in the political hierarchy? A directly elected president and an actual parliament? Don't forget that the Islamic Republic has only been around for 35 years; even by American democratic standards you wouldn't expect more than a handful of political rulers in that time frame. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so that whole green revolution thing was just a bunch of fascists trying to destroy Iran's freedom. Burkean (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the term Islamophobia. I think the term should be renamed anti-Muslim xenophobia or hostility to Muslim immigrants. But nevertheless, I'll use the term Islamophobia for broader purposes. Normally, for someone to be considered an Islamophobe, they would have to endorse policies such as profiling of Muslims, deportation of Muslims for their political views (just because you may not like their political stances on say LGBT rights doesn't give you a right to deport them; liberal democracies are supposed to tolerate a variety of views that they may find detestable, not violently react against them), closing down mosques for alleged anti-terrorism/anti-Islamism reasons, enacting surveillance on mosques, and waging wars of aggression without any justified doctrine of self-defense on Muslim countries. Sam Harris, Bill Maher, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have endorsed some of these views, so calling them Islamophobes is justified. There are better critics of Islamism who don't use their hostility of religion to endorse xenophobic policies. I haven't seen any indication that Hitchens has endorsed any of the above, though his calls for banning of the burqa are stupid and not much different from the likes of Saudi Arabia who enforce women to cover themselves (whereas in this case, he's calling for women to uncover themselves). So I'm not ready to call Hitchens an Islamophobe, but his aggressive stance on the War on Terror doesn't help matters, especially considering he's justified pre-emptive strikes.

As far as war on Iran goes, this would be a bad idea for a couple of reasons. One, it would only enhance the status of hard-line Islamists and engender the population to support them for nationalist, patriotic reasons. This is what happened when Saddam attacked Iran and gave Khomeini more public support than he deserved. Second, it would play into the hands of jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda who want to entice Muslims to join with them in retaliating against the US for occupying Muslim lands. This is why the invasion of Iraq was disastrous, because it proved bin-Laden right that the US was attacking Muslim countries for shits and giggles. Not to mention the invasion of Iraq led to the empowerment of even more dangerous groups like ISIS. Third, you may call this apologetics for the Iranian regime, but Iran has legitimate security concerns for wanting a nuclear weapon. Not counting the British and Russian imperialism of the Iranian area in the late 19th and early 20th century, Iran's been a punching bag for foreign nations. Their government was overthrown by the US/UK in 1953 in which the secular dictator the Shah was installed on an unwilling populace. Saddam attacked Iran in the 1980's and used poison gas on their fighters. And Iran has had to deal with sanctions by the US as part of the US' dual containment policy while the US/Israel flouts the possibility of a military attack (keeping all options on the table as they say). Given these contributing factors and the fact that the US invaded Iraq as well, Iran would have to be insane not to wish to enhance their defenses. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt that there are many women around that willingly cover themselves in an amount of cloth that would serve as a tent for two people in times of need. But that is perhaps besides the point. If you point out the security "needs" (they are almost always perceived needs, as security is rarely rational or objective) of Iran, imagine the security situation of Israel, if they have to legitimately fear that a country that regularly holds an "Al Quds day" (al Quds being the Arabic name of Jerusalem) where they parade the weapons that they proclaim to intend to use in their "liberation of Al Quds" (=destruction of Israel). If I were the prime minister of Israel, heck if I were the undersecretary for helicopter transportation, I would be rather concerned with that threat and would try to do all in my power to keep the Islamic Republic of acquiring the means to fulfill their stated end. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I should've mentioned on my third point that on the basis of the historical evidence of foreign attacks against Iran and not vice versa (Iran has not launched a foreign invasion of a country in over a century), a Western-style intervention would only increase the already hostile anti-Americanism/anti-Israel sentiment displayed among the Iranian public, making terrorist attacks all the more likely and doing little to cool relations between Iran and the West. I disagree with Al-Quds day being equivalent to destruction of Israel. There exists bellicose language among Iranian leaders, yes, but the main point of "liberating al-Quds" as you term it is to erase the occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem/the regime (aka the government, not the people), not Israel and the populace itself. In terms of the diplomatic record, Iran has also supported a two-state solution by voting yes on the annual UNGA resolution titled Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine question, which calls for two-states on the June 1967 borders with a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem as its capital. 160 or so other countries also vote yes on this resolution. The only countries who vote against this resolution are the US, Israel, Canada/or Australia, and some south pacific islands like Micronesia or Palau. Even if Iran did want to attack Israel, it would be incredibly ill-conceived because Israel has Jordan as an ally for its defense, and Israel usually adheres to a military doctrine of disproportionate firepower against an enemy force (see Ben Gurionism and Dahiya doctrine) to maintain its deterrence capacity. So if Iran were to launch one nuclear warhead against Israel, it would not be inconceivable for Israel to launch several warheads that would devastate Iran in response. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt your interpretation of the al Quds day, as this is not what they say. And I have come to take the blatherings of Antisemites very serious indeed. Israel understandably does the same. As for the potential of a nuclear attack spelling the end of Iran as we know it... The Iranian regime is fully aware of that. If it were led by rational people, this would be somewhat comforting. But with religious fanatics who believe it to be their duty not only to kill all Jews but also to bring about the second coming, this becomes a lot less comforting.... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Iran. Iran's so far away
An aside, User:Queex; do you think the Iranian people would be better off with a different regime, a regime of their choosing instead of the current theocratic dictatorship? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of ways they could be better off. Having the US jump in ham-handed in a repeat of the Iraq fiasco is not one of them. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't say war is the only way of getting rid of the Iranian regime. But it is one way and it is in no way an insane course of action. What is rather questionable is the nuclear deal, that elevates the regime to a "partner" in international negotiations and (by implication at least) perpetuates and legitimates it. With the Saudis there is at least the excuse that their oil is needed. What is the excuse for propping up Iran? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not starting a costly war that benefits no-one except military suppliers. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Iran is not the least well governed nation in the world. It's not even the worst governed in its region.  Its constitution sucks, enforced theocracy is dumb.  It's laws are not ideal: but their application of Sharia is moderate compared to some neighbors.  Evaluating them in absolute terms or in terms relative to the first world does show serious problems.  Evaluating them as a developing country actually puts them pretty middle of the road.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Iran splits the title "worst in region" with the Saudis, at least if we exclude NGOs of mass murder like Hamas (financed by Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood) or Hezbollah (financed by Iran) or of course the self-proclaimed Islamic "state". I mean... which other country publicly hangs gay people? Sure the religious police is "moderate" compared to the Saudi one, but than again Tehran pre 1979 was a pretty forward thinking city. Heck even the Shah tried to win some "moderate cred" by introducing full suffrage (even for women) and some other forward thinking reforms. But their foreign policy is probably even worse than that of the Saudis. The constitution pretty much says that they have to export their revolution. So yes in essence, getting rid of the current Iranian regime is rather desirable. There were numerous talks with North Korea to stop them from getting the bomb. They now have the bomb. Iran led by the Mullahs and with the bomb in their hands would be the worst possible scenario of foreign policy in the Middle East. And it would be a failure of all US policy in the region beginning with Ike's "Operation Ajax". So far the bomb has been in the hands of madmen (Nixon, Mao, the Kims) but still in the hands of madmen who believed in their own survival. If Iran gets the bomb, it will be the first time in history that the person sitting behind the proverbial red button would be a literal believer in the second coming of something, in this case the Mahdi. And how do you bring about the second coming? One shudders at the thought... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh come on: slave labor in UAE, constant tribal warfare in Yemen, the gassing his own people in Syria(not to mention the complete lack of democracy, rather than Iran's hampered and weird theocratic democracy). Yes, Iran's foreign policy is essentially dickishness, but you asked about the people.  Let's focus.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always found the extreme Western hostility towards the Iranian Ayatollahs bizarre exactly because the official reasons given can be applied in at least equal measure to other countries in the region, several of which are Western allies whom no Western governments and few if any Western politicians are suggesting should be overthrown (the Gulf monarchies and the Egyptian pseudo-democracy, for instance). No, it's a hold-over from the built-in anti-Western/-Ayatollah element from the Iranian Revolution due to the Shah's status as one of two key pillars of the US/Western security system in the Middle East (the other being Israel). Sure, there are plenty of reasons to wish for a different political system in Iran, not least for the sake of Iranians, but the notion that any sort of sustainable "regime change" could be brought about by US military intervention is simply pie in the sky wishful thinking.
 * Of course any Western criticism of the undemocratic elements of the Iranian theocratic semi-democracy sounds exceedingly hollow, considering Western reactions when "the wrong party" won in Egypt and that Western governments were more than a little mealy-mouthed when the Muslim Brotherhood government, however distasteful and democratically problematic it may have been, was overthrown by an out-and-out military coup, resulting in the current pseudo-democratic autocracy which is effectively a return to the thinly veiled military dictatorship of the Mubarak era. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just 'cause 25% of the people give your their vote does not mean you can do as you please. That being said, Egypt - even when it was run by the Muslim Brotherhood - is a more pleasant place (not by much but by some) than Iran, if you happen to be of the minority of critically thinking people. And I for one advocate regime change throughout the region. Which is probably not doable by war. Boycotting Saudi Oil, however would be a good step. Therefore in a sense building High speed rail is a sound foreign policy, as it reduces the dependence on Saudi Oil. The only reason Bush (and to a lesser degree Obama) is so chummy with the Sauds is the fact that they own a huge amount of oil. And gas prices of, I don't know a buck a liter (which would be ridiculously cheap in any country in Europe) are political suicide for any American president. Also there is this mirage of an argument that just because the only organized and visible opposition in Saudistan is even more nutcase Wahhabi Islamist, that they would take over once the Sauds are gone. So Iran and Saudistan are pretty much a wash in what should go first. Syria under Assad was never seen as a partner for peace by any foreign policy expert in any position of power and Assad should also be removed from power... However right now he is fighting against ISIS and in choosing between classical right wing dictatorship with high body count and ISIS with its insane body count, I tend to chose the former grudgingly and biting my teeth. But once ISIS and Assad cancel each other out and hopefully both go to the ash heap of history, the next regimes that have to go are the Saudis and the Ayatollahs. I don't care all that much which one goes first (though if one goes and the other stays in power, this would tip the scales in favor of the last man standing), but the bombing of Iran is immensely preferable to the Iranian bomb. The same of course goes for Saudistan. The bombing of the Saudis is preferable to a Saudi bomb. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)