Davidwe’re going to war with iran. it’s coming. and it keeps looking like it’s going to happen sooner than later. there are a few questions that stand out though.
1. when will it happen? with us forces already in iraq and afghanistan, the impetus will be to take care of the problem before we leave the region.
2. why is ahmadinejad trying so hard to draw us into a war. the more he talks, the more he does, the more obvious it is that he wants a war. it’s easy to see though that he wants the advantage of being able to cast himself as victim by an attacking us/coalition against him. and we will have to attack him.
3. who will side with us. i think that britain eventually will, but i also think that germany and france will find it easy to rest on their asses and let us do the dieing, while they reap the benefits (as everyone in the world will) of a non-nuclear iran. it’s possible that iraq may actually field troops in iran. their military is growing, and the iraqis are growing tired of the insurgency. they also know where a lot of the support for the jihadis in iraq comes from. not certain, but iraq may actually field troops.
4. what would it mean to the economy? i heard today that there are over 30 gasahol/ethanol refining plants being contructed in the us right now. this is a huge reason to delay the war as much as possible.
political reasons demostically also factor huge. although bush’s numbers are low, the dhimocrats are just as bad or worse. they still have no ideas or plans or goals. the public knows it. neither party will want the other to have the political fuel of pointing at the other party as instigator for the war in iran. economically, as alternatives to gasoline become available, the region matters less. MUCH less. so the war will have a much softer impact on fuel prices domestically. france and germany may whine, but i’ll enjoy that.
ultimately, question 2 is the most important. i think the iranians, (and i mean the ruling elite there, even ahmadinejad is beholden to the mullahs), perceive the unwillingness by much of nato to participate in us led world interventions as an opportunity to split, and therefore kill nato. doesn’t seem like that grand a goal? would iran risk destruction to split nato? splitting nato is tantamount to killing it. the death of nato introduces europe, to much stronger pull from south and east of the med. thus cementing the creation of eurabia.
so there it is. the coming war in iran is going to be waged over nato. will it survive? dilpomatic efforts prior to the war will lead to a more comprehensive participation of nato nations and it’s survival.
but iran has to be careful. ahmadinejad is wagering the iranian people’s lives. and as much crap as anyone talks about our efforts in afghanistan and iraq, two things are certain. we kicked ass beyond anyones expectations, including my own. and also, the troops who we would field against iran are now veterans. and history will bear out the increased effect veterans will have against green troops.
Your post is quite interesting, making some very good points. I find a few to be lacking another perspective however. The reasoning I believe behind Iran’s desire to enter into war is to play role as a victim but also to centralize the entire region against the United States. Talking a great deal of Muslims here and we are not the most popular group over there.
Your comment about “veterans” against green soldiers is correct with the factor of them being tired and ready to come home. We are talking about “soldiers of war” not “citizens of war”. They want to come home, I am certain of that.
We no doubt have kicked ass, but that was to be expected. We are a superpower remember? Ths is not football however, this is war and thus far over 2,600 Americans have died fighting it. We shouldn’t forget that.
Oil is not so important as to allow Iran to actually get its hands on nuclear weapons, especially given the head of state’s clear warnings that he intends to use them on Israel. Jericho sanction, anyone? Talk about your WWIV! It is possible, however, that Iran is taking its cues from the North Korean playbook. If we’re so willing to negotiate with Kim Il Sung, why not with the Iranians?
Iran controls the Shiites in Iraq. Were we to move against Iran, we would find Iraq riled up like a kicked anthill. Sure, we’re kicking the crap out of the foreign fighters and Sunni Saddamites (which the MSM has dubbed insurgents). But don’t forget that Iran organized the Shiite populace very effectively in anticipation of the ouster of Saddam. All of our troops there, who turned toward the eastern border to carry the fight over the political boundary, would suddenly be faced with organized enemies to the rear. Remember Al Sadr?
We are already facing huge political problems at home, with the Dhimmicrats trying to force a withdrawal from Iraq, effectively declaring Iraq a lost cause, despite the huge gains we have made in the country. Most of those gains would be wiped off the board if the Iranian-controlled Shiites rise up against us. The administration wouldn’t be able to prevail at home to keep forces in the fight, because we have absorbed too much of the French culture given the “lessons of Vietnam.” Conventional wisdom amongst our enemies — that we are politically unable to withstand mounting troop losses — would be proved true as the GWOT (which with the exception of Iraq and Afghanistan, is currently played off the radar screens in places like Djibuti and Sana’a) truly expands to become a hot war all over the place.
Lebanon and the Palestinian territories would explode against Israel. Everyone knows the Bekaa is an Iranian playground. Everyone knows Hamas is an Iranian creature. Once the fight is joined against Israel, all bets are off. Syria, anyone? Egypt — well, let’s just say the Muslim Brotherhood are not our friends, despite their cries of democratic reform for the country. The Egyptian government (currently swaying in our direction) could topple, and the peace treaty they signed with Israel become so much disregarded paperwork. Jordan is solidly in our corner, but then again, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the country suddenly take to the streets to carry war across the border, how much control can the king effect?
Russia and China stand against us. Never mind Germany and France. Germany and France played their cards against us in 2003, and lost big. They made their power play to become undisputed leaders of “New Europe” and ended with egg all over their collective faces. We still play this detante game with Russia in hopes of keeping the bear slumbering, but really, how far have “democratic reforms” progressed in a country whose people are looking back to Soviet governance with nostalgia? And China hates us playing the hegemon in a territory it considers its own sphere of influence. Iran is a major Chinese oil supplier, and a major Chinese political ally, right along with Pakistan. What would China do if we move against their biggest single foreign source of energy and could end up installing a government not so friendly to their cause? Taiwan anyone? Korea?
But there is still that hope for Iran, that the people would rise up and cast off the oppressive regime created by the mullahs. I believe that will happen just like it did in Nazi Germany. Oh wait, it didn’t happen there, did it? However, the Iranian people may be ready for a change in leadership dynamics.
I would expect targeted removal of personnel in critical roles, combined with surgical bombing strikes, as opposed to a full-out military fight. Then sit back and see how events turn out before putting the juggernaut on course for Tehran. Our entire methodology for war is changing with the GWOT. Ideas repugnant to us when Jimmy Carter was president may not necessarily be so today. And it’s only a Presidential Decision that prevents certain actions being taken. Another president could easily overturn them.
OK Gus, let’s hear it.
“germany and france will find it easy to rest on their asses and let us do the dieing, while they reap the benefits (as everyone in the world will) of a non-nuclear iran.”
Israel will be the prime beneficiary. Israel, the 51st state!
“they also know where a lot of the support for the jihadis in iraq comes from.”
Who knows this? Iran? Iran supports the Shiite religious parties that did most of the winning in those wonderful purple-thumbed Iraqi elections. They have precious little to do with the insurgents.
“neither party will want the other to have the political fuel of pointing at the other party as instigator for the war in iran.”
That’s never stopped W before! I foresee him starting this war, if indeed he does, right before the next US presidential election, so the Repugs can claim that they have to remain in the driver’s seat (high on meth) in a “time of crisis”.
Many good points, Yup, great job! An infintitely more realistic and nuanced look at the chessboard than Mlah, esp re:China. NATO, WTF? NATO members have their internal issues, but they are still devoted (and will remain so) to defending each other, assuming any of them needs defending. It’s not the most relevant institution in this post-Cold War era.
“so the war will have a much softer impact on fuel prices domestically.”
Not if Iran monkeys with the Strait of Hormuz! The US only has a strategic oil reserve of 30 days or something like that. If tankers aren’t getting out of the Gulf, we’re screwed (and plenty of other nations would be pissed at us, too).
“with the Dhimmicrats trying to force a withdrawal from Iraq”
Some Repuglicans, too. And recently retired Generals calling for Rummy’s ouster!
“Germany and France … made their power play to become undisputed leaders of New Europe and ended with egg all over their collective faces.”
Not according to their citizens, for whatever that’s worth (not so much around here, obviously).
“but really, how far have democratic reforms progressed in a country whose people are looking back to Soviet governance with nostalgia?”
There’s always been Soviet nostalgia post-CCCP, even for Uncle Joe. Maybe that’s why Putin is being such a crotch?
“the Iranian people may be ready for a change in leadership dynamics.”
We are working that angle with minority groups in Iran big-time as we speak. Their prez isn’t in a great position domestically anyhow– there are a ton of young people, remember– so it may just be a matter of regime-changing his ass.
Gus, please do note my unequivocal statement that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I did not make that clear in my last post. I would hate to think you saw nuance in my opinion on this matter. (Would that we could somehow render all such weapons unusable, or make them all disappear forever.) Now I will dig into some Shi’i lore to try to explain why Ahmadinejad is doing this. Mlah, feel free to correct me, as this is admittedly not my area of expertise.
Ahmadinejad is telling us that his nuclear weapons will be used to scourge the Jews. He has also been claiming to be in communication with the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi. The use of the Mahdi in his pronouncements is clear: the Mahdi is advising Ahmadinejad. Since the Mahdi is absolutely guided by Allah, the conclusion must be drawn that Iran’s acquisition and use of nuclear weapons are absolutely ordained by Allah. Moreover, the appearance of the Mahdi signals the end of days. GlobalSecurity.org puts it succinctly (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-sadr.htm):
The idea of the coming of a Mahdi (the guided) has roots in Islamic traditions, both Shiia and Sunni, even though the Mahdi is not mentioned in the Qur’an. The Mahdi prepares the way for the second coming of the Prophet Isa (Jesus) and the impending end of the world. Eventually the awaited Imam will appear, and the Divine Aim will reach its fulfillment. The Qur’an explicitly declares the return of Jesus to earth….The Islamic belief in the second coming of Christ is the creed of Sunni and Shi`i Islam in its generality. For Muslims, there is no question about the forthcoming Armageddon, following which war technology shall become unusable. The Mahdi will defeat the remaining third of the Jews (the other two thirds having already perished at Armageddon); This will be followed by a Christian vs. Muslim war, called al-Malhama al-Kubra (“Great Slaughter of the Intercessor” ie, the Prophet) in Muslim texts.
So, the use of nuclear weapons against Israel accomplishes the goal of Armageddon. Following this comes al-Malhama al-Kubra. Thus, Ahmadinejad is publicly telling us that he is following the will of Allah to hasten the Muslim-Christian war and final victory of Islam.
Maybe Isarael will nuke them first.
Keep reading, Gus. I know it’s long, but tax your synapses for once.
Am I saying that Ahmadinejad is a religious nutcase? I’m a cynic. I see even the Ahyatollahs of the Great Iranian Theocracy as concerned not so much with spiritual as temporal power and authority. However, by playing to the doctrines the Mahdi in this quest for nuclear power, Iran is ensuring that there will be thousands, millions of believers willing to defend the country on its grand quest to fulfill the will of Allah. Hence Ahmadinejad’s warning that they already have in place 40,000 martyrs should America and the West attack Iran over the nuclear issue. It’s the modus operandi of the theocratic thugs: recruit the idiot true believers amongst the illiterate, unwashed masses to carry out your terror attacks while you sit back in the mosque and direct the grand crusade. (And yes, I use that word for its irony.) Same thing bin Laden does. (The “youth” are a popular recruiting ground as they are more susceptable to this brainwashing, not having had to make their independent way through the world and earned the maturity that usually allows one to see through the b.s.; why else do so many suicide recruits come from the young at the madrassas and mosques? For that matter, the concept is suitable to use by the Liberal elite in the US; why else do so many of the angry young people marching on the streets come from college campuses and public schools? Sorry, had to get my digs in.)
So Iran is ensured of having a plantiful supply of defenders against any Western aggression resulting from its crusade to build nuclear weapons. Now what?
Well, how about apply pressure to the weaknesses inherent in the opposition? Rely on your friends like Russia and China to keep the West off your back; the ties that bind Iran to those countries are numerous and extremely lucrative. Entice the Europeans (particularly the French and Germans) with lucrative construction and oil contracts. Play on the sympathies of the world by berating the hegemon US for keeping Iran in poverty, denying its people the right to enjoy the benefits of the 21st Century. Play the race card: the US is being racist and aggregiously playing the Christian crusader by trying to deny to people with brown skin, who practice a different religion, from having the same thing that the Western nations have kept to themselves for decades. Delay within the UN. Delay delay delay.
What happens when Iran has the Bomb? Well, the supremacy of the Saudis falls to the wayside for one. Pakistan may have the bomb, but they are constrained by India. Iran has no such constraints. Israel wants to do something about it? What better way to congeal support within the entirety of the Muslim world than by suffering unprovoked attack by the filthy Jew? And the weak-kneed Europeans will stand by and do nothing, for they fear. They fear too much to risk any harm to their selves. And Iran has those legions of martyrs standing by, never mind the huge, unassimilated Muslim populations within the Western countries. Europe will be afraid to stand with the Americans for fear of what will happen at home (effectively neutering NATO, Gus)….. Turn up the heat on America a bit, let them see their crusade in Iraq and Afghanistan become so much dust in their mouths, and they will stay in their tents afraid to challenge Iran directly.
Suddenly, we have Iran as the ascendant leader of the entire Muslim world. And Iran will have cowed the West with threats and bluster — and potentially, with cheap-yet-effective asymmetrical attacks.
So why else would Iran seek the Bomb?
We can’t get away with anything until Iran tries something. Seriously. No one in their right minds would start another war while we’re still catching serious flak about our current situation. They could print a big picture with all of them standing in front of a giant nuclear warhead pointed towards Israel, and people will still get mad at us if we try to stop anything. Only after they actually bomb somebody will we be allowed to act. It’s sad but I think that’s how it is. So we’re just going to have to wait and see if Iran has the cajones to start WWIII.
Actually, I don’t think we’d have the backing of Europe or America’s Liberal establishment even if Iran nuked Israel. After all, the Israelis are vicious, evil little bastards who steal land and oppress those lovely Muslim people from Palestine (the country that existed there before Israel stole the land and made its own country), Syria and Jordan (never mind that no one actually had “title” to the West Bank prior to the wars). The Israel problem would be solved, no more headaches about the “peace process” and the Palestinians will be able to live happily ever after without their Jewish oppressors. So why would the Euro-weenies and Liberals want America to go to war to stop the final solution?
Here’s a wonderful view of a war with Iran: it wouldn’t be just Iran.
China was brought up. China has long been partners with Iran…the best way for China and Iran to meet their objectives is a split offensive. China attacks Taiwan, forcing us in, as we promised, and then Iran attacks with with their nukes and suicide bombers.
It may sound far-fetched…but China has already decided we are the hegemony to defeat. Our weakness is our small troop size now. Especially after a long campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan. A split offensive would be the ideal tactic.
So, keep voting for those defense budget cuts. Those cuts come in troop size.
“Actually, I dont think wed have the backing of Europe or Americas Liberal establishment even if Iran nuked Israel.”
Yup, you are totally, completely, 100% talking out of your ass.
The Demorats are at least as deeply in the pocket of the pro-Israel lobby as the Repugs. Getting elected in the northeast or Fla., Cal., etc. demands it. One of the guys in charge of Howard Dean’s prez campaign had been a bigwig at AIPAC. Hillary, Bill, Kerry, everybody is strongly pro-Israel. Repugs have the pro-Israel pressure coming at them from Christian fundamentalists externally and their own desire to siphon off Jewish votes internally. Congresspeople can only say something negative about Israel after they retire. I like Israel, too, but we have a responsibility to rein them in more often than we do– it’s all carrots, carrots, carrots, and no sticks, because of domestic politics. Europe has a more realistic comprehension of this.
Shall I provide 1000 pieces of evidence for my view before you can provide 1 for yours? I’m serious. Bring it on, slimeball LIAR, right here and right now! You can’t go around talking such shit. If I can only destroy your credibility here, and not wherever else you spew this vile tripe, I ‘ll have to settle for that. But let’s settle it NOW. We’re waiting………….
Gus, you grew some nads! Good little troll.
But, you actually want to get into a Wikipedia-referenced argument to “disprove” an OPINION? An opinion about what could possibly happen given a possible future set of events? (For which you call me a LIAR — but how can I be lying about something which has not yet occurred and which opinion is based on a set of conditions happening before it could even be applicable?) Are you absolutely nuts? So your “facts” would have to be not-yet-facts because you use them to disprove a not-yet-occurred possibility. In which case, can we REALLY consider them “factual?” OK Einstein, feel free to have fun in your relativistic space-time-continuum sandbox. I’m gonna go watch my BSG DVDs.
Oh, I get it. It’s because I linked Liberals (of which Gus proudly considers himself to be at the progressive front) with a Final Solution, which falls too negatively close to Adolph Hitler. And we have all seen that linking Hitler to Liberals is a sure-fire way to enrage Liberals such as Gus. Gus, I’m sorry if my sarcasm made you uncomfortably aware of how close I believe Liberals to be to Hitler. Feel better now?
Whatever, shithead! I’ll start. All quotes from AIPAC’s website:
http://aipac.org/result.cfm?id=1713
“ John Kerry has been at the forefront of the fight for Israels security during his nineteen years in the U.S. Senate. His pro-Israel voting record is second to none.”
http://aipac.org/result.cfm?id=1710
Barack Obama “… maintains close ties with the Illinois and national pro-Israel communities.”
http://aipac.org/result.cfm?id=1595
AIPAC at the 2004 Dem Nat’l Convention– read the whole page.
http://aipac.org/result.cfm?id=1632
“In a letter co-signed by 79 Senators, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was urged to reverse his support for the International Court of Justices (ICJ) consideration of Israels security fence. The letter expresses support for Israels right to self defense by building a security fence to protect its citizens from Palestinian terrorism. Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) co-authored the letter.
http://aipac.org/result.cfm?id=146#gore
Then-VP Gore before 2000 election:
“When we took office almost eight years ago, President Clinton and I decided that the United States needed to chart a new course with regard to the Middle East peace process. Unlike our immediate predecessors, we chose to get intimately involved. But we also established a firm new rule– and we followed this rule faithfully– that we must not and would not in any way try to pressure Israel to agree to measures that they themselves did not see were in their own best interests.”
Surely you can provide some measure of proof, from Wikipedia or anywhere else, to support your prediction that Actually, I dont think wed have the backing of Europe or Americas Liberal establishment even if Iran nuked Israel.
Shall I go on, fucking douchebag?
Oh, Gus, you are now attributing to me the power of prescience! I made no prediction, I expressed an opinion. I did not state a fact. As it is an opinion, expressed for some undefined future time given a specific set of future events, I need offer no “proof” to substantiate it. You, however, have fixated on current political ties, monetary contributions, etc., to offer as “proof” that my (go back and read it) sarcastic opinion — which alludes to the latent anti-semitism that infests the Left — is false. I thought in your Liberal worldview all opinions are valid and nothing can be said to be wrong?
You are attempting to invalidate my feelings of self-worth and take away the unique value of my individuality, which “constitut[es] a verbal assault that may destroy [my] self-esteem…. and interfere with [my Constitutional rights]” and is considered WRONG according to the 9th Circus Court (cite Reinhardt). You are SO the paragon of modern Liberal virtue. Shame that you show how shallow and exclusive your vaunted “inclusivity” and “compassion” and “open mindedness” are.
I refuse to be dragged into this meaningless argument with you. The topic of this posting was the coming war with Iran. Do you have anything to contribute other than trying to divert the discussion with YOUR list of ills caused by Israel, its enslavement of our politicians and subsequent heavy-handed interference with American politics? Or are you trying to make the argument for Iranian nuking of Israel?
Leader (in Arabic): With our blood and our lives we will liberate al Aqsa!
[The rest also respond in Arabic:] With our blood and our lives we will liberate al Aqsa!
Israeli Zionists What do you say? The real Holocaust is on its way
Takbeer!
Response: Allahu Akbar!
Takbeer!
Response: Allahu Akbar!
Israeli Zionists, What do you say?
How many women have you raped today?
Israeli Zionists, What do you say?
How many children have you killed today?
Zionists, Zionists You will pay! The Wrath of Allah is on its way!
Israeli Zionists You shall pay! The Wrath of Allah is on its way!
The mushroom cloud is on its way! The real Holocaust is on its way!
We are not your average Muslims, We are the Muslims of Was al Sunnah
We will not accept the United Nations, they are the criminals themselves
They get paid by the Israeli and the US government to do their job.
We dont recognize United Nations as a body
We only recognize Allah
Israel wont last long Indeed, Allah will repeat the Holocaust right on the soil of Israel
Takbeer!
Response: Allahu Akbar!
* * *
No wonder they call you sons of apes and pigs because thats what you are.
We know many government services are watching us
Such as the FBI CIA Mossad, Homeland Security
We know we are getting on their nerves
And so are you .
So we say the hell with you!
May the FBI burn in Hell
CIA burn in Hell
Mossad burn in Hell
Homeland Security burn in hell!!
Islam will dominate the world
Islam is the only solution
Islam will dominate the world
Islam is the only solution
Takbeer!
La ilaha il Allah, Muhammad-ur Rasool Allah
* * *
Another mushroom cloud, right in the midst of Israel!
Takbeer!! Allahu Akbar!
This from Michelle Malkin’s site. The exerpts are chants of the crowd from a protest march against Israel. Apropos to this topic as it implicitly references the Iranian nuclear bomb.
Oh. The march was held in New York City.
“…I expressed an opinion. I did not state a fact. As it is an opinion, expressed for some undefined future time given a specific set of future events, I need offer no proof to substantiate it.”
We all have opinions here, and all opinions are based on our digestion of news and facts. On what do you base your opinion about “the latent anti-semitism that infests the Left”?
If it was a joke, it was extrordinarily slanderous, even for you, and possibly even downright dangerous, so I’d hope you would have the decency to apologize here so impressionable young minds (hi, Medium John!) don’t get the wrong idea.
If you meant it on some level, you ought to be able to defend it somehow. None of us are responsible for accurate prediction of the future, and I never asked that of you. I wanted to know what you’ve read/heard– in the past tense!– that would make you utter such crap about “Liberals” when “Liberals” are actually the opposite of what you suggest.
As you responded without vulgarity or personal attack, Gus, I will respond. I do not believe that the Left will accept an attack on Iran under any conditions, including Iran’s use of nuclear weapons on Israel, given the direction of their discourse on Iraq. They will argue that any response should be left strictly to the facilities of the UN; this means nothing will happen, since China, and Russia to a lesser extent, are solidly behind Iran and have more to gain by supporting the Islamic panoplia versus the Zionists, and can exercise the Security Council veto to block any UN response other than a “strongly worded condemnation.” I base that on a number of observations which give me a jaundiced view of the Left’s worldview. Your counter to that is that Israel has bought and paid for our politicians (both Democrat and Republican) and thereby corrupted our national political dialogue by swaying it solidly behind any and all actions by the Zionist state — and as “proof” you give me some propaganda published by AIPAC. This argument of yours is part and parcel of the anti-Jewish screed running rampant in places such as Kos and DU; recall the underlying anti-semitism in rants used against the “neocons” by your fellow travellers. Furthermore, the Left is overwhelmingly about the “rights” of the “poor, downtrodden” Palestinian “freedom fighters” and condemns any moves by Israel to protect itself from them. I simply take this woldview a step further, incorporate the blatant strain of anti-semitism shown daily by your fellow travellers on popular Leftist web sites, and conclude that your fellow travellers are actually likely to be pleased (albeit secretly, I’m sure) to have a final solution to the Israel problem. That is a jaundiced opinion, leading to my ironic posting above.
Feel free to repudiate all anti-semiticism pouring forth from the Left. Feel free to defend Israel once in a while. Feel free to condemn the Palestinians once in a while. Feel free to praise US actions in Iraq once in a while. Feel free to condemn the stated goals of the Iranian leadership. Gus, feel free to make yourself stand out against the prevailing attitudes we see daily from the Left, and perhaps I will make an addendum to my opinion, such as “the Left — except perhaps people like Gus — may…..” However, don’t demand a retraction, don’t demand an apology, and don’t use quasi-legal jargon such as slander when you talk to me about my opinion. What will you do, file Federal charges on behalf of “the Left” to force me to court or have Mlah’s blog shut down? Because I don’t cite Wikipedia articles to support my opinions? What are you, a moron? Or are you simply employing the Left’s favorite tactic of using the courts to suppress anyone who disagrees with you or posits a worldview not in accordance with your own?
As for the mental faculties of young adults like Medium John, I trust he is able to make his own decisions and conclusions based on his own internal mechanisms (despite his being a product of the public schools system), and that he does not depend on me to make his decisions for him. You should give him that credit as well. Unless, of course, you are simply showing your belief that the average American is incapable of thinking, that you really consider the American people writ large to be merely sheeple. Is that what you are really saying, Gus?
Whatever, shithead!
A cunning linguist we have on our hands.
“Whatever, shithead!”
Jeanna: “A cunning linguist we have on our hands.”
Whatever, baybee! It’s frustrating when people propagate vicious crap.
Yup said: “I do not believe that the Left will accept an attack on Iran under any conditions, including Irans use of nuclear weapons on Israel, given the direction of their discourse on Iraq.”
I think I see some of our disconnect here. I’ve been confining my ire to the specific case of an Iranian attack on Israel being supposedly accepted by the Left. Within that context, what you suggest is CERTIFIABLY INSANE.
The other possible misunderstanding here is that when you said “Liberal establishment”, I assumed you were referring to elected Democrats. If that is not what you meant, then of course my quotes from AIPAC aren’t relevant. (And BTW, your calling those quotes “propaganda” is way off– they are a PAC, which has a responsibility to call ’em as they sees ’em and plenty of Repubs are also spoken well of there.) If individual posters on Kos and DU represent the “Liberal establishment” to you, that is a terrible mistake in itself which we can discuss if you like. Tell us– who, specifically, is the “Liberal establishment” to you?
Back to the meat of your post.
Much of the resistance to the Iraq war came from the fact that Saddam was contained and had not attacked anyone lately. Given a scenario where Iran attacks anyone, especially an ally of ours, and *especially* especially with nukes, then the “direction of their discourse” will naturally take a much different tack, and very quickly. Guaran-frickin’-teed! Hell, just look at the coalition we had to get Saddam out of Kuwait! All our old friends were there.
There is no great consensus about what to do with Iran right now or in the future. Any military attack of ours will have heavy consequences in many dimensions. IF, the reasoned Liberal argument runs, we’re thinking of going into Iran with as little thought for what happens after the military fireworks end as we did in Iraq, THEN this probably requires more thought. That is a narrowly focused proposition, but one I believe even you can agree with, yes? Diplomatic means are currently being attemped, and even our lapdog Britain will surely not be so foolish as to go along with us on any half-crocked adventures this time, never mind continental Europe, Russia and China. What happens after Iran attacks Israel? We attack Iraq, that’s a given to anyone who gives the matter a moment’s thought. What happens after that is a difficult question though, and certainly not pretty.
I myself don’t know what to do with Iran and am still taking suggestions. If they did attack Israel, that could conceivably be the beginning of WWIII: The Final Conflict: Armageddon. Will they risk it? As you suggest, they probably are bluffing, and we need to bluff along with them right now. I’m not really worried it’ll come to anything anyway– since they are at least 5 years away from being able to attack anybody w/ nukes– except living with a nuclear Iran as we live with nuclear Russia/China/Pakistan. At the moment they are well within their responsibilities are signatories to the Nuke Non-Proliferation Treaty.
“panoplia”– what lanuage is this?
“Your counter to that is that Israel has bought and paid for our politicians (both Democrat and Republican) and thereby corrupted our national political dialogue by swaying it solidly behind any and all actions by the Zionist state”
“Solidly”? yes;”any and all”? close but not quite. And Israel hasn’t done the corrupting but pro-Israel American citizens who can be Jewish, Christian or anything else.
“recall the underlying anti-semitism in rants used against the neocons by your fellow travellers”
Which “fellow travelers” are you thinking of? Bush the Elder’s National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft?
“Sharon just has him (GWB) wrapped around his little finger.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1016-04.htm
GWB’s Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell, who called Douglas Feith “a card-carrying member of the Likud” and the neo-cons in the Pentagon as “the Gestapo”?
http://tinyurl.com/z4awz
Playing the anti-Semitism card everytime someone complains about specific Israeli policies is a cheap-ass, bankrupt, irrational propaganda tactic. And it’s not true, either. Worrying about anti-Semitism and Israel’s security are valid and everyone I know worries about them, too. But to cynically conflate the actual evil folks (Islamofascists and neo-Nazis, etc.) with those who deplore Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians (and the US complicity in same) is invalid demagoguery.
“Medium John, I trust he is able to make his own decisions and conclusions”
Not with people like you polluting the stream of information! Yes, MJ, seeks all sides and make independent decisions, by all means! Cuz the crap around here often stinks really bad if you look at it closely enough!
“Feel free to repudiate all anti-semiticism pouring forth from the Left. Feel free to defend Israel once in a while. Feel free to condemn the Palestinians once in a while”
I do repudiate any anti-Semitism coming from anywhere! I do defend Israel’s right to exist, right to defend itself, etc! I have found the Palestinian leaders largely lame! But not the Palestinian people as a whole– that’s your and Israel’s racist generalization! What I cannot abide is their humilation of the innocent population and contravention of the Geneva Conventions, among other things. Fuck the settlements! They’ve always been illegal and assholish, always!
You just said you would be able to live with a nuclear Iran much as we live with a nuclear Russia/China/Pakistan. My response? al-Malhama al-Kubra!
You state that we have years before Iran has nukes. I heard the same thing about North Korea, once, too. But at least they are lead by a crackpot who has goals we can negotiate over, and not some messaianic nutjob out to completely destroy the nonbelievers.
Iran is well within its responsibilities as a signatory to the NNPT? Explain yourself. And what happens when Iran abrogates the treaty? But the treaty is merely a piece of paper, after all, and there is a great tradition within Islam that allows you to lie to the nonbeliever; Mlah has preached on it before.
And no, I don’t see everyone getting riled up to attack Iran when it uses its nukes on Israel. Consider the paralysis that would engulf Europe, which just recently had a lesson on massive Islamic activism within its own borders. France has been posturing about its nuclear response, but the whole premise of that is an attack on France. Not in defense of any other country. Would any rational military commander argue that ground forces and conventional methods be applied against a country that just demonstrated that it is willing to use nukes against civilian population centers? Don’t you think that those same nukes would just as soon be turned against the ground forces attacking Iran? Leaving which response available? Nuclear! Do you REALLY believe that the American public, especially the most vocal part — that being the Left — would stand up and demand that Iran be nuked in retaliation for their nuking of Israel? Or don’t you think that there would be a clamoring for “cooler heads to prevail” so that we could work out a “diplomatic settlement” to the crisis? How about sanctions? Think that would force Iran to become a tame nuclear power like France? As for Russia and China being behind us if we were to move against Iran after they nuke Israel: pshaw! You truly are ignorant, aren’t you? China, and to a lesser extent Russia, are firmly behind Iran, have more to gain in supporting the Islamic world that defending Israel, and no doubt have hopes of cashing in when Iran no longer trades with the West.
So Kos and DU are merely fringe elements of the Left? Oh, well that changes everything. The Left is personified in more rational and balanced individuals like….Dan Rather, that scion of the MSM? Who would push false documentation on the American public and defend it even after proven false, because he just knows that the message contained therein is true?
Wow, you went to Wikipedia for information on “conservatives” being against “neocons.” Scowcroft was not talking about neocons, he was talking about the Bush-Sharon relationship. Recall that Scowcroft, whose entire outlook was shaped by the Cold War and the need for broad coalitions against the USSR, is strongly in favor of negotiated peace for Palestine, and refuses to see how the West has been played like a fiddle by Arafat (remember Wye?), so he is naturally against allowing Israel the freedom to engage Palestinians as they see fit (and W apparently had decided to abandon the negotiating table which had been tried oh so successfully by every president since Carter to try a different tack). As for Powell, he is alleged to have called Feith’s the “Gestapo office” in the Pentagon. The Powell I’ve seen is much more reasoned and deliberative; I don’t see him talking with a reporter (Woodward) on the record or off and using intemperate remarks which he later would have to claim not to remember ever having made.
But your examples show criticism of unabashed support for Israel. You decry the anti-semitism card being played, but all of the neocon-bashing has its start there. Of course, there is also criticism of neocon columnists and media, such as the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard. Can you explain that?
Medium John has to wade through the pollution every time he turns on his television to watch Katie Couric and Dan Rather, every time he reads a posting by trick_shot_f-in_cheney or an article by Juan Cole. So what’s new? I still credit him with being able to determine his own truth, unlike you, Gus. Were he a 12-year-old reading this blog, I might be concerned. You seem to treat all people as impressionable children, rather than adults capable of making their own decisions. Must be why you are so in favor of the nanny state.
So it’s the Palestinian leaders who are out in the streets dancing and carrying on when terrorists score. It’s the Palestinian leaders who installed the terror group Hamas in charge of Palestine. It’s the Palestinian leaders who supply the endless remuda of homicide bombers for use against Israeli civilians. The population of Palestine is innocent of all wrongdoing. And if I disagree with you, I am racist, the most evil wrong an American can do in the eyes of the Left. Humiliation of the population? Explain. Contravention of Geneva Conventions? Explain. Settlements are illegal? Funny, I don’t see you decrying the 12 million and growing illegal immigrants coming into our country with anything near this level of viciousness.
“You just said you would be able to live with a nuclear Iran much as we live with a nuclear Russia/China/Pakistan. My response? al-Malhama al-Kubra!”
I dunno what that means, but if Russia was sane enough not to try to nuke us or our allies for all those years, Iran might be, too. Especially with different leadship than they have now. If we oust the present kook and install someone more moderate, who knows? I’m just saying it’s one possiblity out of countless ones.
“You state that we have years before Iran has nukes. I heard the same thing about North Korea, once, too.”
Everyone who knows about such things has said at least 5 years, that’s all I know.
“Iran is well within its responsibilities as a signatory to the NNPT? Explain yourself.”
Oh Jesus, look it up on Wikipedia yourself!
“And what happens when Iran abrogates the treaty?”
That’s a good question. I’m not saying we shouldn’t attack them unilaterally before they do so, you understand that, right? I’m just saying that doing so will likely be awfully problematic. I like to think that we are in agreement on some level, my friend.
“How about sanctions? Think that would force Iran to become a tame nuclear power like France?”
Not as tame as France, but in general I dunno, dude. Seems like the thing to maybe attempt before going in there w/ guns blazing, though.
“And no, I dont see everyone getting riled up to attack Iran when it uses its nukes on Israel.”
Nobody would have the opportunity to discuss it. Our retaliation– whatever form it takes– will be instantaneous. Don’t you think? So this whole question is pretty moot. Europe, China, Russia, the “Liberal establishment” and I just be walking around saying “Whoa, I’m glad I’m not Iran right now. That’s gonna leave a mark…”
“As for Russia and China being behind us if we were to move against Iran after they nuke Israel: pshaw! You truly are ignorant, arent you?”
Ahh, no. I never suggested as much. Your reading comprehension needs some serious work, son.
“So Kos and DU are merely fringe elements of the Left?”
I’m not really sure, because I never read them. As I understand it, though, I think they are safely in the left wing of the Democratic party. Anyway, who on either site said anything anti-Semitic? I can’t believe that you spend your time trolling around there, so I doubt you can come up with a shred of proof to back up your statement to begin with. Please prove me wrong if you can 🙂 I’m a rational man and will consider myself enlightened if you can do it, I promise right here and right now. I imagine that if some random commenter did so, they would be shouted down and even banned (i.e. it wouldn’t have been any of their designated posters, but a random commenter in the hundreds of comments those posts attract from anyone walking in off the street). If you still insist on taking such random commenters to be the “Liberal establishment”, then I will hereafter consider every nutjob bozo Freeper to be representative of the “Conservative establishment”. Deal?
“The Left is personified in more rational and balanced individuals like .Dan Rather…?”
Ahh, no. In your eyes, perhaps, but I never recognized him for his political opinions. Wikipedia has a nice capsule of Rathergate. He said something really funny:
“If I knew then what I know now I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”
Do you get the joke? Hint: It was sixteen words long.
Anyway, I asked you for your idea of the anti-Semitic “Liberal establishment”, and you suggested Rather, which doesn’t make any sense cuz he hasn’t said anything remotely anti-Semitic. C’mon, we’re all still waiting to hear who you were referring to!!
“Scowcroft was not talking about neocons, he was talking about the Bush-Sharon relationship”
Guess what? W doesn’t make policy in a frickin’ bubble! W’s post-9/11 Middle East policy has been driven by the neo-Cons. The Iraq war started in March ’03. W refused further dealings with Arafat in July ’04. Scowcroft said this in Oct. ’04.
Anyway, the point was that most criticism of Israeli policies and US support for them cannot be pooh-poohed as mere anti-Semitism, as you and the pro-Israel lobby would so demagogically have it. Noted Conservatives have done it, not just the mythical “Liberal establishment”.
“But your examples show criticism of unabashed support for Israel. You decry the anti-semitism card being played, but all of the neocon-bashing has its start there. Of course, there is also criticism of neocon columnists and media, such as the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard. Can you explain that?”
Could you kindly rephrase the point you are making and what you are asking of me? I understand all the words you’re using, but not in this order. I’m not being a jerk here, I really just don’t understand.
I assume the “examples” you refer to mean the Scowcroft & Powell ones, yes? I do “decry the anti-semitism card being played”, but “all the neocon-bashing has its start” where? There’s also “criticism of neocon columnists and media” (WSJ & WS)? What is it you want me to explain?
Yours truly,
Gus.
sorry, have important things to do right now. my daughter wants to watch Dora with me.
I didn’t know you had a daughter, Yup. That’s so cute!
Gus, I tire of this argument. I commend you to the hands of this learned Democrat.
oh, and this article of his colleague, as well.
A learned DINO (Democrat-in-Name-Only), you mean. I can’t see why VDH still aligns himself with them, if he hates them so much.
The (conservative) National Review Online, WSJ, Hoover Institution and (neo-con) American Enterprise Institute’s magazine can keep him, for all I care.
Anyway, his point seems to be “Shut Up, Retired Generals!” That’s really constructive.
“What we need, then, are not more self-appointed ethicists, but far more humility and recognition that in this war nothing is easy.”
“So let us have far less self-serving second-guessing, and far more national confidence that we are winning…”
Lame-o! No one made these career military guys speak out. It’s so hilarious how the Right is always supporting the members of the armed forces… until they criticize Bush, that is, then you slam their asses! Just like you did with Kerry, as a matter of fact. Disgraceful hypocrites.
And this can’t pass without comment:
“First of all, whatever one thinks about Iraq, the old question of whether Iraq and al Qaeda enjoyed a beneficial relationship is moot– they did.”
That is a hot, steaming pile of horsepuckey that we’ve been over before here!
The 9/11 Commission, the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq all found NO proof of a relationship between them. Why do you drink this guy’s Kool-Aid?
Honestly, Yup, I’m not even sure why you brought this article to my attention. It only glancingly touches upon what we were talking about.
I’ll comment on the anti-semitism article later…
typical. ignore the contrary evidence to cling to your own worldview. then accuse the opposition of doing exactly what you yourself are doing. Gus, I forgive you, for you do only what the Left in its entirety does. (Or to quote someone more famous, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!”)
When are you guys going to aecpct that Obama's very plan is the destruction of Israel AND the United States of America?
kathrynapierceHey man. I don’t care what you say about Obama. I am in the below poverty range, so yes I am the deiofitinn of DIRT POOR and might I had being smart as I am doesn’t get you far at all with out money~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ms. Kathy, Voting for Obama isn’t a smart move. Like they say, ‘It’s the economy stupid’. Obama is going for the uneducated vote. They will vote for Obama because they think they will get benefits .they don’t care that the country is going the way of Greece . I guess you fall in line with that mentality. As long as I get mine the rest of the country can go to hell . Obama is counting on you.1. Look gas prices doubled since Obama has been in office. That sure helps the dirt poor. 2. Because of that, prices of food, goods and services have risen. the poor love that. 3. Unemployment is high over 23 million people are jobless. Obama is making more people poor so they can vote for him. Also, these poor will be competing with you. .waiting in lines. 4. While you dirt poor people continue to struggle, Obama is yuking it up with the rich .fundraising. 5. Yeah Obama is making it easier to achieve college Don’t hold your breath, In order for him to pay your student loan ..he has to ask the Chinese for mo money.Look at what’s going on in Greece and Spain .They are at a point where they have to do some major cuts and raise taxes .those poor people who got used to the government will have a harder time. Poor people in America have that to look forward to. September 26, 2012