sometimes i wonder if politicians and people who write about politics understand the concept that other people who live in other countries have a different perspective on things. i personally do not feel at all threatened by the israeli nuclear arsenal, but i understand why many of israel's neighbors would. and i understand why the existence of that arsenal provides a rather large incentive for those neighbors to get their own nukes to deter the israelis. it's not irrational. from where they sit, it makes perfect sense. it's really remarkable to me how many things i've read written by people who don't understand that rather basic point.
similarly, i think most americans would agree that if some foreign politicians openly talking about overthrowing the u.s. government, those statements would be viewed as provocative. even moreso if the foreign country wasn't some piss-ant nation with a third rate military, but rather was a country that could inflict real damage to the united states. i also think that it would be blindingly obvious to most americans that such talk would not get the american people to overthrow their own government. on the contrary, if anything, those kind of threats would probably get people to rally around the american leadership. that's what happened after 9/11, when americans felt threatened by foreigners, they put aside other political differences and threw their support behind president bush, pushing his approval ratings into the 90s.
which is why this kind of talk shows a phenomenal ignorance how normal people would be expected to react in other parts of the world. plus, just as democrats rallied to president bush on 9/12, it's also completely counterproductive if you want to undermine the current iranian regime. and yet statements like senator kyl's are hardly uncommon. they just don't get treated as stupid and irresponsible as they should be.
