A conversation my husband and I had (and lost) about war with Iran...

[CoffeeCat]

My husband and I had this conversation, and I know I failed to argue well. I guess I've got Junior fatigue. However, would anyone care to help me talk some sense into my husband? Any helpful retorts or Web sites I can point him toward? Thanks.

Me: So, we're going to bomb Iran. That's just great. Moving on from one failed war, and now we're starting another.

Husband: Iran is ruled by a nut job, honey. We can't allow these people to have nuclear weapons.

Me: Darling, Iran is, at best, ten years from building a nuclear weapon. We don't need to march in like there's no tomorrow and bomb the hell out of them.

Husband: Sweetheart... What...are we supposed to wait until they actually possess nuclear weapons? Is that what you're saying? We have to end any hint of a nuclear program.

Me: Darling....These people have the right to have nuclear power. We don't have the right to bomb them because they plan to use nuclear power. Anyway, Iran says that they aren't interested in building a bomb. So, we're going to bomb them based on something they *might* do *ten years from now* that they say they *aren't* going to do?

Husband: Princess...Please don't stick up for the nut jobs. You're scaring me. Have you heard some of the rhetoric from the Iranian leader? The man doesn't think the Holocaust happened. He said Israel should be wiped off the map. The guy is a radical nut job. Even the former leader of Iran denounces him.

Me: Sweet-honey-pumpkin-muffin...The guy poses no threat to us. His rhetoric was intended to galvanize his base. He is no imminent threat to us, any more than Saddam Hussein was. There are plenty of radical leaders saying outrageous things---what, are we going to bomb them all? I mean really! North Korea all ready HAS a nuclear weapon, and we leave them alone! But we're going to bomb a country that MAYBE might have a bomb SOMEDAY. Great! That's just GREAT!!

Husband: Light of my life...Please don't tell me that you're siding with the madman leader of Iran! Are you brainwashed?! That country can NOT EVER have a nuclear weapon! We'd all be toast! Don't you get it? Jeez, you need to get off of that DU site sometimes!! Get some air!

Me: Angel face...I'd rather be on DU than sitting around in denial while these perverted PNAC warmongers take over the world and decimate our children's futures! How nice for you to be anesthetized inside a big denial cloud! We don't need war with Iran! Quit eating up the propaganda and come to your senses! Our entire world is at stake!

Husband: Pooh Bear...We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

We both agreed to take this up another time, and then I kicked his ass in Scrabble. Any suggestions on what I could say next time? I know I didn't argue very well.

[havocmom]

1. Everybody with a brain admits the junta LIED us into Iraq

Now, why would we be foolish enough to buy the lies about Iran?

fool me once...

[gordianot]

2. Right there are plenty of nut jobs with nuclear weapons, several in the US

We need to clean our own house first.

[Wheezy]

3. siding with the madman leader of Iran...

Sounds like hubby is making it into an either/or situation. Either you are FOR bombing Iran, or your are in support of the leader of Iran.

That doesn't have to be the case. You don't have to support Iran's tactics in order to be against bombing them.

I'm gonna rec this too, because I'm also stuck in this sort of situation a lot (hubby is a republican, but he's starting to come around) and I could use some logical advice too.


(I love your cute banter with the terms of endearment)

[GeorgeGist]

4. You might point out the obvious...

His country is ruled by a nut job, who depend on people like him not to disagree.

[madokie]

5. You done good, you got him to thinking and that thinking won't stop

with Iran. you won, just no prize as such.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. LOL! I love the narrative!

You could just say, "Honey, if I knew you were such a wuss when we were dating I might have hooked up with a smart guy instead of you. It appears to me that you are very easily scared into acting like a sheep whenever Bush throws out a bogeyman. Don't worry my little dunkin' donut, I will be here for you the next time you get scared spitless by those big mean scary monsters in Iran. Do you want me to get your binky? The fact is that the US has survived for decades under the threat from thousands of Russian nuclear missiles withoutgoing to war. North Korea has a bomb and is run by a madman and we have survived. China has nuclear weapons and we have survived without war. Our own intelligence agencies have reported that Iran is at least 8 to 10 years away from building a bomb. Just because a known liar like Bush has tried to scare you into believing that the Mullahs are going to lob a nuke into our backyard doesn't make it so. Do you really want our country to INITIATE an attack on a non-nuclear country with nuclear weapons? Your president and his playmates have insisted that the nuclear option be considered by our armed forces to deal with this situation. Do you think the rest of the world will be happy about us nuking the people of Iran? Why don't you pull out your Barney mat and take a nap and let me worry about big people things.

[cynatnite]

7. First off, I love how you two argue

:rofl: I got a huge kick out of reading this.

You argued great, BTW.

Show him articles written by well respected journalists who talks about this. Hans Blix said Iraq had no WMD before invasion. He recently said Iran isn't all that close to a nuclear bomb...probably a good five years, IIRC. He seems to have some credibility.

While I think Iran is dangerous, I do agree with your stance on the rhetoric that plays to their base.

What makes this so hard is that US credibility is in tatters thanks to bush. If the US had absolute proof Iran had a bomb directly aimed at Israel or another ally, most won't believe it.

[merh]

8. Just one or two.

Ask him who made the USofA the moral compass for the rest of the world (whoever did needs to have their friggin head examined) and why it was that the Soviet Union never attacked us when they had all that power and nuclear weapons.

Criminey, one nation with nuclear weapons does not attack another nation with nuclear weapons (remember the cold war and the constant threat of nuclear attack that the Soviet Union posed or that silly Cuban Missile Crisis). Additionally, we have many more, highly sophisticated nuclear weapons and other nations know it. What these little bitty wars waged by our nutsy administration have proved is that the USofA is all talk and no real threat. We haven't won a damned war in years. Okay so we did okay with Desert Storm, but we left that nut Saddam in power.

The only one listening to nut jobs is your husband. The only true nut jobs are those in charge of our administration that have neglected our national security (outing covert agents), wasting money in Iraq that should be used to at home to shore up our security needs (hell, they still use badges and pins at the halls of Congress when iris scanning equipment would solve the security concerns). We have parts of our nations in desperate need of attention given the fact that hurricanes wiped out most of civilization, we have unprotected nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, ammo plants, etc.

What's that old adage "clean up our own house" -- how about secure our own house, stop closing our military bases and veterans hospitals, take care of the needs of the citizens on our shores before worrying about what the friggin neighbors are doing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. One point -- we aren't "closing" military bases.

We are simply outsourcing them -- shipping them overseas. For every base that is shut down stateside, we've opened two new ones in foreign lands.

That is what has to stop. We are not an empire, and shouldn't be behaving like one.

[merh]

25. I agree with you.

We need to stop "outsourcing" (in every way imaginable).

[LeftHander]

Ask him if he can think what would happen after the US attacks Iran...

Ask him play that scenario out.

Bush uses nuclear weapons against Iran. Would we be thoguht of as heros by the world?

Ask him if he thinks that the rest of the Muslim world is going to be pleased with that. Ask him if he is prepared to then start leveling entire cities. Because that is what will happen if Bush attacks Iran. If he thinks of believes anything else he is wrong.

Ask him if a Administration with a track record of lying to the American people and congress has the credibility to launch another war.

Ask him does he want to side with continued war, suffering and destruction because he is okay with forcing our culture on others. Ask him who gave him the right to force his values on the rest of the world.

Ask him if he enjoys his comfort that he has while people around the world suffer because we can't stop buying useless crap.

Then ask yourself...why did I marry this man who really thinks it is okay to drop nukes on another country.

Your man is so wrong on so many levels it is amazing.

Agree to Disagree?!? Tell him he is dead wrong on this...supporting an attack on Iran will bring the world down on the U.S. and start WW III.

Convince him. Get on him everyday about it. Feed him information to counter the right wing echo chamber he has been listening to.

[merbex]

9. This conversation sounds similar to the ones I had with my husband

in the run up to the Iraq war except...

do a 180 on the endearments, completely opposite, and you'll get our conversations

BTW, my husband came around pretty quickly and now doesn't trust B* at all

[Soloflecks]

10. Ask him this...

Why don't we do N Korea then. Definitely led by a madman, brazenly declares they DO HAVE nukes and a desire to use them, but we don't seem to have the slightest interest in tackling that problem. Would that make any sense to him either?

[Dhalgren]

11. Well, the Bush regime has not worked in any way to resolve the

issue of Iranian nuclear power. They have only worked to maneuver Iran into a war. The driving need for Bush to go to war with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear power - that is an EXCUSE. If we really felt that it was a threat to us for Iran to have nuclear power, we would work to find a solution to the issue, but we haven't, we have only given ultimatums and bellicose language that is guaranteed to harden Iran's position. The EU, Russia, and China have all tried to bring everyone together on this, but it is the US that refuses to "negotiate". The solution to nuclear proliferation is through international cooperation and peaceful negotiations - not war. If you have to go to war for an issue like this, you have already failed...

And your comment about Iran having the right to nuclear power plants is correct. We have nuclear power plants and a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and our president is a far bigger and scarier "nutjob" than Iran's president. If people want to keep nukes out of the hands of nutjobs they should plan an assault on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave....

[mattclearing]

12. Sounds like you kicked his ass more than once.

You argued fine. He's the one who kept saying the same tired shit over and over again.

[Toots]

13. I would ask him why he believes Iran wants nuclear bombs.

The only ones saying that are the same LIARS that have been wrong at every single turn. Why would he find that threat credible when everything else they have said has not been. There is absolutely no credibility in the Administration. Ask your husband to name one thing they have been correct about..

[Orrex]

14. Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth

My husband and I had this conversation, and I know I failed to argue well. I guess I've got Junior fatigue. However, would anyone care to help me talk some sense into my husband? Any helpful retorts or Web sites I can point him toward? Thanks.

Me: So, we're going to bomb Iran. That's just great. Moving on from one failed war, and now we're starting another.

Husband: Iran is ruled by a nut job, honey. We can't allow these people to have nuclear weapons.

You might point out here that our own fine nation is likewise ruled by a quasi-theocratic nut job with nukular weapons and backed by a much more powerful military, Additionally, our commander in chief has a clear history of engaging in unprovoked attacks against sovereign nations, whereas Iran's ruler does not.

That is, if your husband's justification is valid re: attacking Iran, then it's at least as valid re: attacking the US of A.

Me: Darling, Iran is, at best, ten years from building a nuclear weapon. We don't need to march in like there's no tomorrow and bomb the hell out of them.

Husband: Sweetheart... What...are we supposed to wait until they actually possess nuclear weapons? Is that what you're saying? We have to end any hint of a nuclear program.

Even if this were the case, but on what authority do we assign ourselves the role of the world's policeman? And why, then, do we not attack North Korea, as you note below? We can't claim moral authority while acting only to protect our economic and imperialistic interests.

Me: Darling....These people have the right to have nuclear power. We don't have the right to bomb them because they plan to use nuclear power. Anyway, Iran says that they aren't interested in building a bomb. So, we're going to bomb them based on something they *might* do *ten years from now* that they say they *aren't* going to do?

Husband: Princess...Please don't stick up for the nut jobs. You're scaring me. Have you heard some of the rhetoric from the Iranian leader? The man doesn't think the Holocaust happened. He said Israel should be wiped off the map. The guy is a radical nut job. Even the former leader of Iran denounces him.

This is an empty argument. The rhetoric falling from Dubya's gob is quite horrifying in its own right, in terms of "evil doers" and "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" blah blah blah. Incidentally, Dubya doesn't think that evolution happened, so he's hardly in a position to attack people for holding wacky beliefs. And even if Iran's president is as nutty as they say, does that justify a strike against an entire country? It didn’t justify the mass murder of Iraqi civilians, and it doesn't justify the murder of innocent Iranians, either.

Me: Sweet-honey-pumpkin-muffin...The guy poses no threat to us. His rhetoric was intended to galvanize his base. He is no imminent threat to us, any more than Saddam Hussein was. There are plenty of radical leaders saying outrageous things---what, are we going to bomb them all? I mean really! North Korea all ready HAS a nuclear weapon, and we leave them alone! But we're going to bomb a country that MAYBE might have a bomb SOMEDAY. Great! That's just GREAT!!

Husband: Light of my life...Please don't tell me that you're siding with the madman leader of Iran! Are you brainwashed?! That country can NOT EVER have a nuclear weapon! We'd all be toast! Don't you get it? Jeez, you need to get off of that DU site sometimes!! Get some air!

Since he didn't answer the question you posed, you're not obligated to answer his. You might try asserting that pre-emptive war is anathema to freedom and democracy, and you oppose it outright on principle. If there is any other means of dealing with Iran's nuclear program, we should pursue it in preference to a military strike. We lack the resources, the justification, and the moral authority to undertake yet another ill-conceived war in the middle east.

Me: Angel face...I'd rather be on DU than sitting around in denial while these perverted PNAC warmongers take over the world and decimate our children's futures! How nice for you to be anesthetized inside a big denial cloud! We don't need war with Iran! Quit eating up the propaganda and come to your senses! Our entire world is at stake!

Husband: Pooh Bear...We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

In the wake of this all-too-likely act of war against Iran, it will be impossible to claim that this is anything other than a war intended to steal the world's oil supply and exterminate hundreds of thousands of Muslims along the way. It's not up to you to explain why we shouldn't attack a soverign nation that's no threat to us. It is up to your husband (as an advocate of military action) to explain why we must attack that nation. If he can't justify it conclusively, then he has no justification at all. And his claims that you've been brainwashed are simple ad hominem attacks with no bearing on the validity of your argument.

We both agreed to take this up another time, and then I kicked his ass in Scrabble. Any suggestions on what I could say next time? I know I didn't argue very well.

You should have said "Mahmoud and I have been having a passionate affair since before he became the mayor of Tehran. We met through our mutual postings at DU, in fact, and we've never been happier together."

[TlalocW]

15. Did you really use all those pet names

During your discussion? If so, I can imagine increasingly harder edges in your voices as well as tighter-lipped smiles with each utterance.

TlalocW

[leftchick]

16. have him read Sy Hersh's article

number one, it seems questionable that the Iranian nut job is really all that powerful. Number two the ramifications of nuking Iran are so huge, WWIII huge, that alone should preclude the US from doing it. Pursuing diplomatic solutions with countries friendly to Iran like China and Russia is a far more practical and less apocalyptic course.

edit: don't forget to show him this....http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

[The Revolution]

17. About this madman leader

I assume he's referring to the President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It should be noted that in Iran, the President does not control the military. So even if this guy is a nut who wants to nuke Israel (and it sounds like he is, from what I've heard of him), I don't think he really has any say in it.

[Child_Of_Isis]

18. Iran is ruled by a nut job, honey.

We can't allow these people to have nuclear weapons.



Oh, the irony.

We are ruled by a nut job and we have them.

[MadHound]

19. Well, throw your husband a bone

Tell him that yes indeed, Iran's leader is a crazy man. However, currently the people of Iran are fully aware of this fact, and are in fact working like hell to remove him from office ASAP.

However if we go in there and bomb the shit out of Iran, the publics' reaction, much like in this country after 911, is going to be to rally around said leader, crazy or not, and resist US incursions with all that they've got.

So if your husband wants to solidify Iran as a permanent enemy and a perpetual threat, bombs away. However if your husband wants to see a saner, more rational Iran, bombing is not the way to go.

[Don Claybrook]

20. Turn the tables 180 degrees

We have nuclear weapons.
We have a madman who clearly wants to use them; this is well documented.
Our madman is also a religious fundamentalist.
Our madman starts wars and gets thousands killed for lies.

Who should invade us to stop our madman?
Which cities should they attack first?
Would Omaha be a good parallel for Fallujah? Should they kill everything that moves in Omaha?
We all despise Bush. Will we meet our invaders with flowers since we dislike Bush? I think not.

Will your husband be ok with $7.00 per gallon gasoline? That's probably what it will cost when the entire middle east is ablaze and we can only get gas from Hugo Chavez, the guy we've been trying to kill for several years now.

[sinkingfeeling]

21. Your husband does an excellent job of 'sticking up for nut jobs.'

[zbdent]

22. Here's a question for him

Why haven't we nuked North Korea?

It's ruled by an evil madman dictator, and they have the bomb . . . There's a call for a pre-emptive strike which will set off a nuclear (sorry . . . nukular) war . . . and the Rapture (Armageddon/Ragnarok) that the righties are all clamoring for . . . (and likely to be wondering where all their liberal friends have disappeared to, leaving their clothes and belongings behind . . .)

[donsu]

23. the short of it - my husband read Hitlers bk. and liked it - divorced him

more or less the straw that broke the camel's back

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. You might ask, Just who does Iran want to bomb?

Would they nuke Israel? They certainly can't bomb Jerusalem, the 3rd holiest city in Islam. Tel Aviv? The fallout would still cover Jerusalem, which kind of cuts down on pilgrimages. In fact, a bomb dropped anywhere in Israel is going to kill more Palestinians and Arabs than Israelis, because of the fallout poisoning. And Israel is reputed to have at least 30 nukes. If they got hit, wouldn't they turn the entire country of the hitter into glass?

Would they nuke the US? They'd be safe from collateral damage, at least, but we don't have 30 nukes. We have 30,000. Iran would cease to exist. They have nothing to gain.

[MuseRider]

27. Funny, I had the same conversation with mine

yesterday. Mine is a liberal, read the Hersh article but still thinks we can't allow them to "nuke up".

Keep plugging away at him. You did good, there will be ample opportunity I think to talk more about this one.

[wtmusic]

28. "Kicked his ass in Scrabble..." LOL! that's all that matters

He'll know better than to argue with you next time.