Yesterday von made an excellent point at Obsidian Wings:
Best sign that Jim Baker hasn’t lost his political touch?
Somehow, he managed to co-author a report on Iraq that Democrats, Republicans, alleged Libertarians, and even Andrew-freakin’-Sullivan can claim, like, totally validates at least one of their dearly-held positions. Sure, they all find problems to pick at. But c’mon: Give props to the political maestro at work.
Thoughtful left-of-center blogs also sensed that we are in a protean period where the ISG report can mean almost anything to anyone. Despite the often harsh rhetoric, in that context the report could actually be an opportunity for the White House. Kevin Drum touches on this point and Steve Benen has identified at least one loophole big enough to drive 17 brigades through.
For several reasons the Iraq panel, like the 9/11 Commission, holds the media high ground right now. The ISG seems to deliver a good deal of exactly the new thinking that American voters demanded only one month ago, making this the government service equivalent of receiving your perfectly-seared duck breast before you finish handing the menu back to the waiter. The panel’s bipartisan triangulation hits the media’s centrism tic right in the sweet spot, guaranteeing that pundits will reflexively dismiss anybody who deviates too far on either side. As I said before the Panel’s biggest impact will be to shift the narrative, to slide the Overton Window of ideas that conventional wisdom deems reasonable, away from Cheney and towards Dean. Smart politicians will need to find a way to merge the ISG’s position with their own or else face the wrath of the pundit class.
In my view the president could win back quite a bit of political capital by publicly embracing the ISG report. Press would eat it up and Democrats would be forced to either cooperate with the president, try to claim the ISG mantle for themselves (not a sure winner by any means) or go back to living outside the Overton Window. I’m not saying that the move would be a slam-dunk, but for a seasoned pro like JFK or Nixon the move would be a no-brainer.
Here’s the catch: to embrace the ISG Junior has to acknowledge that he deserved Baker and Hamilton’s starkly-worded spankings of his policy and execution. Good luck with that. For depressingly personal reasons I think that it will be completely impossible for the president to do the politically smart thing. Bush only had a few days at best to shape ISG perceptions to his advantage, and it’s safe to say that he blew it.
You could see it in Tony Snow’s presser of two days ago. “Spanking? What spanking? They were shouting boo-urns.”
Now the president has made it official – the ISG can pound salt.
[W]hile the president called the Iraq Study Group’s ideas “worthy of serious study,” he seemed to dismiss the most significant ones point by point. He noted that Blair is heading to the Middle East to promote Arab-Israeli peace, but he gave no indication that he plans an aggressive new push of his own as proposed by the commission. Bush said he, too, wants to bring U.S. troops home but noted that the group qualified its 2008 goal by linking it to security on the ground.And he repeated his refusal to talk with Iran and Syria unless Tehran suspends its uranium-enrichment program, Damascus stops interfering in Lebanon and both drop their support for terrorist groups.
I especially like that last part: Bush won’t talk to Iran or Syria until they agree to everything America demands, in advance. The president might as well have added, Before we let you leave, your commander must cross that field, present himself before this army, put his head between his legs, and kiss his own arse. I guess that’s how we negotiate in Texas.
I hope that Junior enjoys life outside the Overton WIndow, looking in.
Krista
Well, according to Darrell, Bush shouldn’t talk to Iran or Syria at all, regardless of the circumstances. So there’s definitely a shared mindset, there.
Myrtle Parker
But Darrell has no problem talking with Saudi Arabia which is funding the Sunni insurgency.
dd
WASHINGTON (CNN) — In an emotional speech on the Senate floor Thursday night, Sen Gordon Smith, a moderate Republican from Oregon who has been a supporter of the war in Iraq, said the U.S. military’s “tactics have failed” and he “cannot support that anymore.”
Smith said he is at, “the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up the same bombs, day after day.
“That is absurd,” he said. “It may even be criminal.”
Smith said he has tried to quietly support President Bush during the course of the war — and doesn’t believe the president intentionally lied to get the U.S. into the war — but now recognizes, “we have paid a price in blood and treasure that is beyond calculation” for a war waged due to bad intelligence.
Moved this week by the findings of the Iraq Study Group, Smith said he needed to “speak from my heart.
“I, for one, am tired of paying the price of 10 or more of our troops dying a day. So let’s cut and run or cut and walk, but let us fight the way on terror more intelligently that we have because we have fought this war in a very lamentable way,” he said.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/gop-senator-criticizes-iraq-war-in.html
Salty Party Snax
We have about as much chance of seeing Shrub publically embracing the ISG report as we do of him giving a big squeeze to James Gannon.
According to a new AP/Ipsos Poll a full 71% of the American public now think Bush’s handling of the Iraq debacle sucks. Something that makes me wonder just how long he can keep his “victory in Iraq” charade politically alive. He’s gotten pretty much down to rock-bottom on this issue.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/161072491/
Pb
That’s also almost exactly what he said to Saddam, before he invaded. Also note that Bush’s demands themselves escalated, probably just to head off the possibility that Saddam might agree to them. There was a nice diary about Wes Clark’s position on Iraq on Daily Kos that had a great quote (from 2004) regarding Iran and Syria, and the lessons of Iraq:
Cyrus
This is far from the first time this situation has arisen (though this is much more imminent than most have been). “Bush might do X. If he did X, it would be the ethical thing, the pragmatic thing most beneficial for the nation or even the world as a whole, and it would be the most politically savvy choice, leaving his rivals with no choice but to either praise him or take the objectively wrong position just for the sake of being obstructive. However, there is no way that Bush will do X.”
I’m torn about this. Does it make me a bad person, hyperpartisan and concerned with party or even just playing “gotcha” before country, to enjoy seeing these situations arise? Am I just too complacent, and they’re neither sure things in general nor in this case? After all, Bush hasn’t quite screwed up everything.
Then again, maybe I should just enjoy these guilty pleasures as a respite from what is, after all, a pretty bad situation for America by almost any measure. Ah well.
Andrew
That’s the good insurgency.
stickler
Cyrus:
We have almost 150,000 military personnel and about 100,000 civilians in Iraq. They are at the end of a very long and tenuous supply line. And if President Bush decides to solve this crisis he’s made with a Flucht nach Vorne, he could jeopardize the entire force.
This is a very, very dangerous phase for our people over there. Americans need to understand that Bush could actually provoke a total military catastrophe. Worse than Chosin Reservoir. Worse than Little Bighorn. Much worse than Khe Sanh. We are going to have to leave Iraq, sooner rather than later. That withdrawal will either be a carefully planned withdrawal — or it will be a rout. An attack on Iran will result in the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, and denial of the Persian Gulf to our Navy. Think about the implications of that for a minute.
That’s why your Schadenfreude should taste like ashes in your mouth. This is deadly serious.
SeesThroughIt
Are you happy now, ISG? You made Senator Gordon Smith hate America!
SeesThroughIt
Are you happy now, ISG? You made Senator Gordon Smith hate America!
wilfred
Baker and Hamilton are pretty canny. Of the 79 recommendations the only one that really matters is negotiating with Iran and Syria. Baker said talking to Iran was worth it if only to reveal Iran’s ‘rejectionist’ attitudes, knowing fully well that is not the case: sounds like advice ffrom a divorce lawyer looking for a settlement. But recall A’jad’s previous written overtures – the Iranians really do want to deal.
Baker also said that he’s already spoken to the Iranians, acknowledging to Lieberman that they don’t want to ‘help’ the US. But of course that isn’t their intention, why should it be? They want something(s), and it’s not too hard to figure out what those things might be.
The Other Steve
I still think it is absolutely critical for Democrats to make certain the American people are aware.
This wasn’t a Bush disaster.
This was a Republican disaster. It was not Bush, it was the policies, the ideology. The Republican party has been taken over by the John Birch society, and we are now paying the price.
Tulkinghorn
The ISG implies directly is clearly a Bush disaster. As the ISG puts it, the choice is between withdrawal without victory or increasing troops. But we can not increase troops, because we do not have enough to finish the job. Whose fault is it that we do not have enough troops?
This is not a strategic failure, but a policy failure. Bush alone is responsible for the policy of jumping into wars with inadequate reserves.
In his testimony to Congress Baker called it a failed policy. Since Bush let no-one else have a hand in forming the policy, this is his damn fault, 100%.
Jake
Gee. A leader who can’t admit/understand that it is wrong to lie his country into war now can’t admit/understand he fucked up and can’t admit/understand that for every minute he refuses to change what he’s doing more people die.
When dealing with bi-pedal creatures who have the power of speech (sorta) and opposable thumbs, it’s easy to fall into the reason trap: We try to find reasons for their actions when the only reason is “Because I wanna!” This can be hard to accept when dealing with people over the age of 25 and really fucking hard when the person has started a war, but there it is. The ISG had its turn, next comes Congress, the Pentagon and the Three Wise Men for all the good it will do. Any group that comes out with a suggested course of action that isn’t “stay the course” will be told to take a flying leap because Bush doesn’t wanna!
It would be funny, in a watching the town drunk step on his own fingers sort of way, if people weren’t dying. But they are. So it ain’t.
cleek
“pound salt” is right. Bush is The Decider. he’s not going to jump to implement ideas that he can’t take credit for.
TenguPhule
Always bet on Bush to do the wrong thing at the worst possible time in such a way as to achieve the most catastrophic result possible.
dan
“I guess that’s how we negotiate in Texas.”
What, you never watched ‘Dallas’?
stickler
Well, that sounds about right. So get ready for a very interesting Christmas, America!
“On the first day of Christmas, my President gave to me
Shock and awe and the bombing of Iran.
On the second day of Christmas, Ahmedinijad gave to me
Closure of the Straits of Hormuz…
On the third day of Christmas, Mr. Sadr gave to me
10,000 Americans taken prisoner…”
Fill in the rest of the verses yourselves.
Elvis Elvisberg
I’m too young to remember what the atmosphere was like at the end of Vietnam. Is there any chance that elite consensus cannot constrain the Overton Window at this point?
Feingold said the other day, accurately, that the people are out ahead of the elites on this one. Plus, logic just isn’t on the ISG’s side. “We’re losing, and we’re unlikely to win. Let’s stay put for a couple years then draw down.”
The next month will be very interesting. I’m going to go ahead and predict that a more withdrawal will cease to be politically incorrect.
Elvis Elvisberg
more *rapid* withdrawal will cease to be politically incorrect, that is.
Fledermaus
Jebus, no wonder this moron’s businesses all failed.
The Other Steve
Article I, Section 8.
Kind of makes it difficult to claim the Republican Congress was not involved.
I know some people would like to believe Bush was a rogue, but the whole fucking Republican fucking circus was backing and cheerleading him in 2002, 2003 and 2004. I still remember some of the inane arguments, such as war being good for the country. This won’t be like Vietnam, there’s no jungle over there.
This was Republican ideology, plain and simple. Why? Because Liberals were opposed to it, and that was good enough for them to cheer it on.
The Other Steve
Oh yeah, one more rant.
TO THE FUCKING MORONS WHO THINK “WE JUST NEED TO SEND MORE SOLDIERS TO WIN THIS THING”.
It’s called ESCALATION. It’s what we did in fucking Vietnam, and IT FUCKING DID NOT WORK!
http://www.historycentral.com/vietnam/Troop.html
In 1965 we had what we had close to what we now in Iraq, just over 150k. Then it started getting ugly. So we bumped it up to 375k and that didn’t work, so then it was 500k and that didn’t work, so we added a few more.
Each time we bumped up the number of soldiers, the violence got worse.
The reason… the nature of war. There is NO SUCH THING AS LIMITED WARFARE. You either go in all out, or you don’t go in at all.
It’s too late. You can’t go down that path again, as the country has already went off into chaos. The only thing you can do is sit back and let them work it out between themselves.
Elvis Elvisberg
All true, Other Steve, it’s a Republican-led disaster. But even though the GOP timed and argued it to demagogue the Dems, which may be a party foul or a betrayal of the public trust or something, at the end of the day many Dems went along. Andto this day the media thinks that only crazy cranky people were opposed to the war from the beginning.
Even now, the serious, bipartisan ISG is only composed of war supporters. God forbid anyone who was right gets in on the discussion.
I supported the war, FWIW.
Tsulagi
Yeah, one of the first things that caught my attention was that “loophole.” A gift all wrapped up for the dipshit that so far he seems too stupid to understand. Or maybe his aides haven’t had enough time yet to explain it to him at his level while he’s been farting.
The loophole allows him to totally fall back on “Stay the Course” with “We’ll stand down as they stand up.” Of course the slogans would be renamed. That’s what makes all the difference, not the reality of that failed strategy.
Another thing I had to laugh about was the prominence and talking up of embedding US soldiers with Iraqi units while we’re withdrawing. To train them. Yeah, right.
Currently at bases where we’re training Iraqi Army soldiers there is not remotely near enough interpreters. A large part of the time trainers are reduced to mime trying to get a point across. So the 20 year-old from an Iowa farm embedded with an Iraqi unit is going to do better? Main reason I can see for the embeds is that with American eyes in those Iraqi units is the idea that maybe they’ll do less kidnappings, less dumping of bodies into the Tigris, etc. while we’re withdrawing. Maybe make things a little quieter so you can claim some sort of victory.
While that’s not a bad thing, Iraqi militia members and terrorists among the ISF would find ways around that. Some of them wouldn’t be good for the embeds.
Anyway, whether we withdraw fast, slow, stay the course, embed or not, the end result will be the same in Iraq.
Downpuppy
Bush could easily embrace 20 or 30 points from the ISG report without having to do a thing. It goes into great length about how Iraq should run its oil industry, banking, revenue distribution, etc.
The only thing it leaves out is : Why the hell would anybody in Iraq listen to them? Did all these old men doze through the entire CPA disaster?
Big Pimpin'
According to Zogby today, the Chimp is down to 30% approval.
Which basically means he’s down to the fruits and nuts.
Dennis
One of the most interesting points about his refusal to talk to Iran or Seria is the administrations refusal to talk to any regime that disagrees with American policy. The President consistently refuses to talk to anyone who dissagees with him. His staff doesn’t let anyone who dissagrees with him close to him. None of his staff dissagrees with him.
Diplomacy has nothing to do with people who agree with you. Diplomacy has to do with talking to people who dissagree with you, and seeking common ground. Bush can’t handle diplomacy.
Darrell
Of course, because terrorist supporting murderous regimes in Iran and ‘Seria’ are being criticized simply for’disagreeing’ with the US.
Think we can seek ‘common ground’ with this regime? Problem with people like you, is that you are so stupid and naive, that you’re dangerous.
Krista
Only the nuts. I can’t see the fruits wanting to have a whole lot to do with him…
Krista
So what is your solution then? You’ve been arguing all night that there is absolutely no value in even considering talking to Iran and Syria. What are the alternatives? Sanctions? Another war (or another front on the existing war)? All snark aside, and considering the current state of affairs, what would you do, if you were president?
Darrell
Who says I’m not GW Bush himself, posting from Airforce one wireless?
Given the years of terrorist supporting behavior of both Syria and Iran, I can say with an extremely high degree of certainty that we have nothing to gain by ‘negotiating’ with either country. Like Saddam, they respond to violent force, but not much else. Similarly, I think it’s well established that there is little to be gained through negotiations with the leadership of Sudan with regards to cessation of their ethnic cleansing which has been going on for years now (despite negotiations!)
Darrell
Does anyone seriously believe that Syria and Iran don’t want chaos in Iraq? Please leftists and Republican ‘mavericks’, give us a show of hands on this one
Krista
If you are, then why are you wasting so much time over here when you should be running the country?
But you still haven’t answered my question: what would you actually do? You claim that they respond to violent force but not much else. So would you threaten them with war, even in light of the limited military personnel resources and war fatigue in your country?
VidaLoca
If I’m understanding Darrell’s position correctly from a cursory review of the earlier thread, it is that you never negotiate with people who are “terrorist supporting murderers”; that fact alone puts them beyond the pale.
This seems to me like nothing more than petulant idealism. When absolutely everything else you’ve tried or considered trying has turned to shit you might as well try negotiations: what the hell, it can’t hurt.
However, negotiations themselves may yield little. Assume a best-case scenario, that we can bring something to the table that Syria and Iran might be willing to negotiate to gain — say, stability on their borders, reduction of a potential regional insurrection that might have negative influences on their regimes, freer hand in the region, whatever. This is a thin reed indeed but if we can’t assume some self-interest on their parts for negotiating, there’s not much reason for optimism about negotiations going anywhere. Our situation is self-destructing just fine from the Syrian/Iranian point of view already, with only limited intervention and exposure to risk from them: we have to make it worth their while to talk to us or talk will not happen. When it comes to negotiations we don’t hold a lot of cards.
There’s also the practical question of who specifically we would put on our negotiating team. It belabors the obvious to say that our bench is not all that deep.
The biggest problem with the negotiation issue though is that it’s based on the premise that countries outside Iraq have a major influence on what goes on inside Iraq. The Iraqis are determined to finally settle the matter of who runs their country, and how, at gunpoint: even if the Syrians or Iranians or Saudis or anyone else tried to stop them — by forcing some kind of a truce and a settlement — it’s not clear that they could do so.
For us to be spending our time focusing on negotiations that may not hold any chance of success even if they take place seems to me like a chase after jackalopes. We should be focused on getting out of there in good order while there’s still time. Stickler’s comment above is right, this could get orders of magnitude worse.
Elvis Elvisberg
Your pseudonym is too subtle, that’s why. If the president were here posting anonymously, he’s choose a handle like “ElPresidente” or “Decider43”.
They like chaos more than a pro-US stable regime, to be sure; but it’s not obvious to me that they want their borders to be aflame, long-term.
If we deign to speak with representatives of the Iranian regime, we’ll at least give them some sort of stake in the outcome there.
In all seriousness, Darrell, if you were running Iran, and the US was calling for regime change in your country, would you try to tie the US down in Iraq by fomenting sectarian violence?
We have to move away from our jihad approach to international affairs. Yes, democracy is infinitely better than the dictatorship in religious garb in Tehran. But we haven’t got a magic wand to make them all die, or see the error of their ways. Simply talking to them recognizes the fact that they’re a state; it doesn’t approve of a darn thing they’ve been doing.
Darrell
Success through negotiation with terrorist supporting murderers running Syria and Iran is non-starter from the get go. So let’s acknowledge that is the only route offered for dealing with these nations that you and your fellow travellers on the left will support. Failure in a bottle. Next move.
I fear Iran will only respond to force, and if they don’t comply with UN demands on their nuclear program, as they have been flouting for YEARS, there’s just one other option, isn’t there? And that involves our military.
You talk about “limited” military personnel as if either you or I have a firm grasp on how many personnel would be needed. We have, what, 40,000+ troops in Germany, right? And hopefully, at least 1 or 2 other allies may see fit to pitch in if Iran continues to forge ahead with their nuclear ambitions. Point is, negotiations with Iran are virtually guaranteed to be a failure, given Iran’s actions over the past 20+ years.
Darrell
And the irony is lost on the fact that Iran and Syria are the very instigators of ‘instability’ on their borders.
Darrell
Decider43. Ok, that’s good. I’ve got to give kudos on that one.
I think one would have to be unbelievably naive, stupid, and a bit loony to think that, given their past 20+ years history, that negotiations with Iran or Syria could result in any good results for the US
Krista
You’re making a lot of assumptions, though. A common theme about Iraq is that the administration grossly underestimated the number of troops needed to secure the region. There’s also the fact that the U.S. alienated a lot of allies with the “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” rhetoric. If the U.S. did decide to attack Iran, it would have to be seriously prepared to do it in a massive fashion, and to do it alone, and it would also have to be prepared for an American public which frankly, has grown very tired of war.
You’re also taking a bit of a risk in that, let’s say you attack Iran if they pursue nukes. You then have Syria next door saying, “Okay, we’re obviously next on the list, so we’d better start recruiting like mad and while we’re at it, see if we can get some nukes from Pakistan so that we have something that we can use to deter the U.S.”
I’m not saying that negotiations are guaranteed to work, and will automatically result in shiny, happy people everywhere. But, I’m still firmly of the opinion that military action should be the last resort. And if it’s the last resort, that means that you have to at least TRY other alternatives first.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
If we’ve got the resources to fight a war with Iran — why haven’t we committed them already to doing a better job winning the two wars we’ve already got in Iraq and Afghanistan? You want to up our “war load” from two wars to three — what does that gain us? We need solutions, you’re buying us more problems.
Seems to me there are two things we do not want to do:
1. Start a war with Iran.
2. Take out Sadr
because both of them lead quickly to handling a shit storm that’s just orders of magnitude bigger than the shit storm we’re not handling now.
You’re not willing to negotiate with the Iranians because they’re bad, bad, bad people who do bad things. And, did I mention that they’re bad? Fine, I don’t care; I don’t see the big pot of gold at the end of the negotiating rainbow anyhow.
So, what do we do while we’re not negotiating?
Darrell
As I’m sure you’re aware, Iran has been in ‘negotiations’ with the UN and European countries for years over it’s numerous violations of its nuclear program. Given Iran’s threat to wipe Israel off the face of the map, combined with the Iranian President’s calling for the next islamic messiah to end all.. I’d say something needs to be done. Wouldn’t you agree?
Krista
Anyway, I’m off to beddy-byes — it’s almost 1am. But I’ve actually enjoyed discussing this with you, Darrell. It’s nice when we can be civil to each other (even though sometimes, a good scrap can be rather invigorating…)
Krista
Had to respond to this…don’t want you thinking I’m dodging the question. :)
How much of Iran’s threat is bluster, I wonder? And even, let’s say you are right…let’s say that Iran is seeking a nuclear program, wants to destroy Israel, etc. etc. The question is: are you CAPABLE of stopping them, or will you only be swatting at a hornet’s nest? I’m not well-read enough on this to have formulated a solid opinion on things, but I do know that there is an inherent problem with a nuclear state threatening to invade a non-nuclear state due to their alleged quest for a nuclear weapons program. It’s a damnable situation, because the other country is basically working from the position of “screw you, you have nukes, so why can’t we?” And is our only answer, “because we’re the good guys”?
I don’t know, Darrell…there’s no easy solution at all, but I really, really fail to see how at least TALKING to them will make things worse, whereas I can see very easily how attacking them would make things worse, and fast.
stickler
Hey, Darrell. What are the Straits of Hormuz? Do you know?
If they get shut down, what happens to our ability to resupply our Army in Iraq?
Simple questions, man. What’s your answer, Napoleon?
Darrell
1 am Krista? Hey, isn’t it more like 11:40 pm in E. Canada? (I claim no time zone expertise). Anyway, yeah it was interesting for me too. You’ve made me feel a bit guilty for my behaviour (spelled that way so canadians and brits can understand) toward you in the past.
VidaLoca
Yup.
I’d start with getting our troops, our equipment, and as many friendly Iraqis as we can the hell out of Iraq. Yes the result will be a bloodbath but it will be a bloodbath even if we stay there. w.r.t Iran, the benefit that our departure gains us is that now Iraq is Iran’s problem; let them deal with it and good riddance.
Until we unglue ourselves from Iraq we don’t have the material conditions for putting together a credible diplomatic or military policy. With Iraq behind us, and given enough time, we might be able to start to repair that.
Darrell
Yes. I think that’s one of the big differences between libs and conservatives, is the libs are too timid (and dishonest?) in admitting that nutcase-run countries like N. Korea and Iran, really are bad guys who shouldn’t be allowed to have nukes.
Darrell
I don’t know about that. The US military is still damn formidable even with the troops in Iraq. I think we’ve been too passive and dealing in dealing with Iran, as I think it’s clear that Iran’s regime will respond to nothing but force, or the credible threat of force.
Darrell
So your position is that the Iranian navy can outmuscle the US (and British?) Navy to control the Straits of Hormuz?
VidaLoca
If you want to propose that we attack Iran while we’re still tied down in Iraq, Stickler’s asking the right question.
You have to figure how to get all those supplies through the Strait of Hormuz and then 300 miles from Basra to Baghdad once the Iranians interdict those supply lines. Until you can do that, the Iranians are holding about 150,000 hostages.
VidaLoca
If you want to propose that we attack Iran while we’re still tied down in Iraq, Stickler’s asking the right question.
You have to figure how to get all those supplies through the Strait of Hormuz and then 300 miles from Basra to Baghdad once the Iranians interdict those supply lines. Until you can do that, the Iranians are holding about 150,000 hostages.
Without supplies, “formidable” is something that the US military is not.
Darrell
Again, do you and stickler stand by the assumption that Iran can muscle out US and likely Brit naval and air forces? I don’t think that’s a particularly well founded assumptions.
In Iran, you’ve got clerics who believe their right to have nuclear weapons is an apocalyptic defense as part of the return of the islamic messiah. It speaks to the extremism of liberals, that you all cannot admit this fact and speak plainly about it.
craigie
It seems pretty clear to me that Darrell and the Darrells of the world don’t really want to “attack” Iran. They want to nuke it.
Probably from space. It’s the only way to be sure.
craigie
Fixed. Too easy.
VidaLoca
Their navy itself, no. But they have strong capabilities in surface-to-ship missiles and mountainous terrain along the Straits in which to hide them. All it would take is one or two ships sunk in the bottleneck in the Straits, and no other ships get in — nor do any ships already in the Gulf get out: the Iranians take them out at their leisure.
Then assuming you can land supplies in Basra you still have to truck them to Baghdad, that’s apx.
300 miles through territory that’s controlled by the Shia. Take out a bridge or two (such as the
ones at Nasiriyah) and you’ve got a supply problem. Yes you can air transport supplies, but at
tremendously increased cost and your planes are vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles.
And, you’re spending money and taking casualties to protect supply lines that carry your supplies to Baghdad — what’s the point of what you’re doing in Baghdad once the supplies get there?
Well, I’m trying to demonstrate a case that it’s at least as well-founded an assumption as the assumption that the Brits will be willing to do anything approaching supporting another US military adventure in that part of the world.
stickler
Vida Loca answered this stupid query from Darrell already, but what the hell:
Darrell, I could close the straits of Hormuz, by myself, using the ordnance found on an average Indian reservation on an average July 2nd. Our Navy is not equipped with pixie dust and magic sprinkles; one sunk tanker and that narrow passageway is shut. Done. Over. Shit, a few pissed-off Iranian shepherds with deer rifles could plink the occasional deck officer and raise holy hell with our resupply. The Iranian Navy doesn’t have to do a damned thing. (Though, somehow, I suspect that they won’t just be sitting on their asses if we’re stupid enough to sail a carrier group into the
shooting galleryPersian Gulf.)stickler
So, Darrell: to repeat the question, what do you suggest will happen if the Iranians shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
Ted
I don’t think he’s thought that far ahead.
TenguPhule
And that idea is so stupid only a frothing rightwing nutbanger could still entertain it. Negotiation isn’t in your vocabulary, nor is it in Bush’s…and look where that has ended up. Two failed wars and international contempt where only 6 years ago we were seen as a shining example to strive for. You keep claiming that there is a difference between the people and the state when it comes to Saudi Arabia, but refuse to contemplate that with Syria or Iran.
Newsflash, you little pissant chicken, Iran and Syria are not composed entirely of mindless idiots who only follow the official government credo. In other words, they’re not all like you. And after being so completely wrong on Iraq, the wise old assholes who talk of military intervention need to STFU and let the adults do the talking.
Our military is not a video game, stop treating it like it has a reset button.
That’s because we do. Iran is bigger then Iraq, better armed and more prepared to fight. The initial plans for Iraq called for a couple hundred thousand troops. Iran would take a heck of a lot more.
Of course, no matter how many troops you send, Bush would fuck it up. Which is yet another reason why attacking Iran or Syria is a stupid idea.
Shorter Darrell: I can’t do fucking basic math!
What nuclear ambitions? There’s no proof and the Iranians are smart enough to keep their actions within boundries precisely to avoid looking like the idiots overreacting here.
What allied troops? Bush blew our credibility to hell.
When you start with a closed mind, naturally the doors won’t open. This may come as a complete surprise to you, but the Iranians actually sympathized with us after 9/11 and offered to open up talks. Bush turned them down and threatened them.
So if you want to blame anyone for Iraq’s ‘terrorists’ you can thank Bush for rolling out a red carpet and sending out invitations to Iraq.
TenguPhule
In America we have Republicans calling for nuclear strikes on Mecca and Iran. We have an idiot in the Whitehouse contemplating using NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS ON THE BATTLEFIELD.
So when do we get to dispatch our domestic terrorist regime?
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: I’m not thinking at all.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
stickler
Mr. Phule. Please.
You’re not being very respectful to our resident Napoleon. Let him give his subtle, yet clever, strategic insights.
So, Darrell, what is your answer? What do you propose we do if we attack Iran, and they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
Pretty simple question for a military strategist. No?
Ted
He’s gone. By the pace of his sometimes three posts in a row, all within a few minutes, he refreshes the page frantically when he’s on a roll. Get him intellectually cornered, and he’s nowhere to be found.
stickler
He’s gone. Just when the going got tough. Figures.
Look. Everyone reading this site, except for Darrell, surely understands that war with Iran would be Bad. Bad with a capital B, as far as us Americans are concerned, and frankly for everybody else too. Even the Iranians. But the Pentagon sees fit to pay a masturbatory shill to come around here and spout fecal talking points as though they have some relation to reality.
As a taxpayer, let me register my fulminant resentment at this development.
Ted
I usually have the anti-Darrell script running, but I have to occasionally turn it off to see what he’s spittling about when I see things like this:
…all in a row.
The dude is so frantic and frenetic at times, it really makes him look pathetic.
Chuck Butcher
What amature generals forget is that each combat troop requires between 3-7 support troops depending on the types of units. So 20K troops is 20K + 60K to 140K usually averaged as 1:5.
Richard 23
Darrell, do you comment on any blogs where people actually agree with you? Or do you simply enjoy slogging it out with people with whom you vehemently disagree?
It might be interesting to see how you interact with people you don’t merely insult and fling poo at all the time. Or not.
Darrell
Let’s recap exactly what halfwits like you are saying has me “intellectually cornered”:
Wikipedia
If at its very narrowest point, how does 1 tanker sunk = shut the entire passageway? If you want to argue that the Strait is a point of concern, I’m in agreement with you. But to act as if Iran shutting down the Straits of Hormuz as an absolute certainty trumpcard is bullshit. Typical knee jerk liberal weak thinking. The US Navy and airforce would almost certainly take control of that area in short order in the event of military conflict with Iran.
Furthermore, I question the all-powerful importance you place on the Strait. The US only has a small fraction of our oil come from there. And as any map will show, our military could be supplied from multiple points in addition to the Strait of Hormuz. Pipelined/trucked in from Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq on one side, and our troops have established fuel lines already coming into Afghanistan on the other side. Yet 100% of the leftists posting on this subject pretend that the Strait of Hormuz is some insurmountable problem which could never be dealt with. Some ‘reality based’ community you are, huh?
Now as to the subject of me being “cornered” by you leftwing hacks, can even a single one of you halfwits back up your assertions that 1 ship sunk in the Strait of Hormuz = shutting down the entire passageway?..assertions on the EXTREME fragility and vulnerability of the Strait which was the crux of your arguments?
Darrell
Richard23, when it comes to flinging the “poo”, I give almost as good as I get, as I take more abuse than I dish out in response.. You don’t have scroll up many posts to find examples
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If you were a more honest person, you would acknowledge as such.
Mike
Darrell, if you were a more honest person, you would have addressed the point made above.
You have clearly never been in the military and have no conception of what it would take in terms of lives and equipment to expand this war. Our military does not have the capability at this time to do what you seem to think they can. We know it, you know it, and the generals know it. And most of all, the troops know it. Our strength has been squandered by this Iraq misadventure and Iran and North Korea know they have nothing to fear from the paper tiger.
I think you are more intelligent than most Republemmings, but you seem to simply like being a contrarian more than anything else.
Darrell
Regarding a potential fight over the Strait of Hormuz, we fought Iran over Hormuz in 1988 with Operation Praying Mantis, the largest US naval engagement since WWII, and US forces mopped the floor with the Iranians in short order. Zifnab has asserted that the mountainous terrain along the Straits would be some great advantage for the Iranians in such a battle.. yet that mountainous terrain did nothing to mitigate Iran’s defeat in 1988 when we last fought them over the Strait of Hormuz.
Again, I’m not saying Hormuz is not a concern, but the wild-eyed “logic” coming from leftists regarding 1 sunk ship closing the entire passageway, and the assertions from the left that Iran closing Hormuz would be some inevitable, insurmountable thing.. well, those are nothing but poorly thought out assertions made by closed minds.
Darrell
Yes Mike, how ‘dishonest’ of me not to acknowledge that strawmen tripe which was itself a lie. NO ONE is saying, acting, or even remotely suggesting that war is like a video game you jackass.
The question is, and has been, are the consequences of war worse than allowing the Iranian mullahs to go nuclear.
Mike
You are using an assumption from an incident 17 years ago as a basis for the situation now in which our relative strengths are VASTLY different. We are MUCH weaker now than we were then, having fought Gulf Battles I and II, and Iran is MUCH stronger than they were then immediately following the Iran-Iraq war.
Again, you have clearly demonstrated no real grasp of the military and it’s capabilities. We do not have the strength now to take and HOLD the strait, as we would find ourselves nibbled to death as we are now seeing in Iraq. They do not have to win a single battle to win the war. This is the lesson of Vietnam that most of your side has never understood.
Ted
OK. You’re right. It just couldn’t happen that Iran would throw everything it has to in order to shut down that Strait. And expanding the Iraq war to include Iran would be a wonderful and, like, totally feasible idea.
Now, please resume frantically refreshing the page and posting up to five comments in a row. It’s funny.
Darrell
From the moron who posted this bit of military ‘insight’
Closed minded leftist halfwits, meet reality:
More reality here for those who are so closed minded and stupid to assert that the US military is now diminished to “paper tiger” status.
Darrell
You would think that after that humiliation you took over your Darrell-runs-away-when-intellectually-cornered tripe, that you would be a little more humble in your posts. But that’s the hallmark of a closed minded extremist – never admit when you’re wrong, and never acknowledge when the other side has a valid point.
Keep on limiting your posts to personal attacks. It’s all you’ve got.
Mike
Darrell, perhaps you should actually READ your “sources” before linking them because people like me will do so and use it to refute your assertions.
Your first source is an article from over a year ago, and points to the same incident you mentioned. Good use of circularism there. The author, Harold C. Hutchison, is a Freeper who does not appear from a Google search to have any military experience beyond armchair quarterbacking, and who has written a number of articles making the same sorts of assertions with the same sort of circular logic. See, I can Google too, but I actually READ the articles and checked the sources before linking. So, no reality there, just lots of assumptions, sorry.
Your second source is a US briefing from Saturday, April 12, 2003 – 9:00 a.m. EDT — hardly current now, is it? Or impartial? This of course fails to account for the fact that military supplies are running low today, over 3.5 years later, after continuous use with a very long supply line, as Congress had to just give billions of extra dollars to resupply the units rotating back here which are not combat-ready due to lack of critical equipment, the equipment which is there is being run harder than it was ever designed for and is costing more to repair, and the support of the people for such an action would be low at best. The military cannot sustain any increase like taking and HOLDING the Strait of Hormuz for the significant length of time it would take because the people of America will not support it.
Do you not understand why your side lost last month? Please come back to reality soon, ok? The contrarianism game was fun when I was 12, but not so much now.
ThymeZone
Tell us what you’ve got, Darrell. Can you state your position in a couple of simple sentences?
What’s your position on Iran, for example? If we are to deduce it from your posts, it’s this:
If that’s not your position, then explain your posts on the subject for the last year.
Darrell
What fucking “military supplies” are running low now, compared to 2003, that would reduce our forces, in your words, to a mere “paper tiger” .
Darrell
My position is that it unacceptable to allow the Iranian mullahs to go nuclear.
p.lukasiak
Regarding a potential fight over the Strait of Hormuz, we fought Iran over Hormuz in 1988 with Operation Praying Mantis, the largest US naval engagement since WWII, and US forces mopped the floor with the Iranians in short order.
Darrell, may I point out that your assumption is that the Iranians learned nothing in 1988, and haven’t made some adjustments in their strategy?
If at its very narrowest point, how does 1 tanker sunk = shut the entire passageway?
it doesn’t…you need two tankers, one for each lane….because while each channel is a “mile wide”, there are really only two “lanes” deep enough for larger vessel to pass through. (Think of it as a 600 lane tunnel…but 598 of those lanes are only high enough for passenger vehicles — Only two lanes — one going each way — are high enough for trucks. Blow up a truck in each of the two trucking lanes, and all truck traffic stops).
And as any map will show, our military could be supplied from multiple points in addition to the Strait of Hormuz.
actually, Darrell, have a look at this map…. http://www.iags.org/n1216044.htm
You’ll notice a few things. First, resupply from the south means using one of two main roads — one out of Saudi Arabia, the other out of Kuwait. The one out of Kuwait runs right through Shia territory — not a good option for resupply. The one from Saudi Arabia runs through Anbar — and last I heard, Anbar was so hopeless that we were going to pull our troops out of there and try to use them to save Baghdad — in other words, not a good idea for a supply route.
Moving north….now, maybe Jordan would be willing to let us resupply … but their road goes through Anbar as well. Even you would concede Syria as a resupply route out of the question, so then we get to Turkey….even assuming that Turkey would allow us to do so if we attacked Iran (a highly dubious assumption) there only one significant road from Turkey into Iraq…and the entry point into Iraq is about 500 miles from the nearest Turkish port — and through some rather fobiddingly mountainous areas. In other words, not much of an option for resupply.
Darrell
Strategypage where the article was published, is a pretty well respected military blog run by ex-military and DOD personnel. Other military sources came up with pretty much the same scenario that he laid out.. he wasn’t making “controversial” claims.. Although they might sound controversial to an extremist such as yourself Mike only because you are so far out there.
pie
I like you too, Darrell! [/blushes]
Darrell
Paul, may I point out the obvious, that US capabilities and strategies haven’t been standing still either. You lefties seem so emotionally invested in the “inevitability” of Iran shutting down the Strait. That you all are so emotionally invested in that position tells me that you will go to any irrational extremes to justify it.
You all act as if a damaged ship couldn’t limp onward or be towed away, whereas that is precisely what happened in 1988.
p.lukasiak
oh, and as to resupply from the air…. well, try to remember that even during our most successful airlift (Berlin), no one was actually shooting at our aircraft. The Khe Sahn airlift was resuppling only 6000 troops…not 140,000. And since that time, the development of small portable surface to air missiles has made the idea of a major airlift in a combat zone a less than realistic option….
Darrell
Belmont Club, frequently cited by John Cole and Tim F
From Bloomberg
But hey, don’t let reality get in the way of your narrative.
Darrell
sorry for the double quote in the blockquote above. Also from the Bloomberg article:
Ted
I’m so humiliated!
And Darrell, pointing out your frantic page-refreshing and back-to-back posting is not a “personal attack”.
You don’t know who the hell I, or anyone else here, is. Or what anyone here may be “extremist” about. I would dare say that, given what polls say about American enthusiasm for the Iraq Adventure, advocating an expansion to include Iran might just be an “extremist” position.
But keep flailing. It’s funny.
p.lukasiak
You all act as if a damaged ship couldn’t limp onward or be towed away, whereas that is precisely what happened in 1988.
again, its not 1988 anymore Darrell, and while I understand your confidence in the US military, the real question is whether an attack on Iran would be worth the risk? Perhaps the US could keep the straits open sufficiently to resupply the troops in Iraq. Lets even say that its 75% like that Iran couldn’t close the straits for any appreciable amount of time. Are you willing to risk the lives of 140,000 American troops with those kinds of odds?
One other thing to consider — as others have noted, resupply depends upon gasoline and other fuels. Given the location and vulnerabilities of pipelines into Iraq, they can’t be realistically counted on — and there isn’t an insurance company in the world that would write a policy for any kind of tanker going through the straits in the aftermath of an attack on Iran — in other words, whether the US could keep the straits open is something of a moot point, because the risks involved are too high for any commercial shipping to occur….
Punchy
This could very well be the funniest thing Tim has ever written. God how I love Montgomery and Smithers…
Darrell
I can see that you’re a whackjob who, like a broken record, keeps posting the same words over and over and over.. no doubt because you don’t have an original in your head.
p.lukasiak
..Rear Admiral Jeffrey Miller, deputy commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf, said, the U.S. has “the capability to keep the straits open and clean them up if that should be required.’’
Just curious Darrell…. have you ever heard of a General or Admiral who said that they couldn’t perform the speculative mission that they were assigned?
I mean, lets face it, IF in fact the US couldn’t keep the straits open, any Admiral in charge of the straits who said publicly “Honestly, Iran has us by the balls there. They can shut down the straits at will, and pretty much keep them shut down” wouldn’t be an Admiral very long.
The Other Steve
I am not afraid of Iranians.
We could use a lot less cowardice in our decisions to attack foreign countries.
So Darrell, while I appreciate your brave service as a proud member of the 101st Chairborne. Go play World of Warcraft or something instead.
Darrell
Hang on.. you’re now claiming that it would take 140,000 troops or some similar number just to secure the Straits of Hormuz?
From everything I’ve read, and I’ve posted numerous sources, with consideration of what happened last time Iran tried to fight us over Hormuz, I don’t believe Iran could control the Strait for any “appreciable” period of time.. not even days.
Ted
Go read some polls about the public’s thoughts on going to war with Iran, and then come back and resume calling people “whackjobs”. Your awareness of public opinion will then make it more ironic.
p.lukasiak
Hang on.. you’re now claiming that it would take 140,000 troops or some similar number just to secure the Straits of Hormuz?
no darrell, I’m referring to the 140,000 American troops that would be stranded in Iraq if the straits were closed. Now, of course, we probably wouldn’t lose most of them — maybe only a couple of thousand if we beat the hastiest of retreats out of Iraq. But my fear is that Bush wouldn’t see the writing on the wall…. and the costs in lives could be much higher.
John S.
Really, you all should know better than to try and refute the military expertise of General Darrell (101st F.K. Ret.) He has more sratageric know-how in his pinky than all you lefties put together.
I sleep better at night knowing that his keen mind guides the military policy of our great nation from the safety of his headquarters at ARMCHAIRCOM in Houston.
ThymeZone
That’s a rank opinion, which could be shared by anybody in your redneck trailer park. But it’s not a policy, and it’s not a strategy.
What is your strategy, unless it’s as I described it above?
Bush pounds the podium, Iran says fuck you, US goes to war.
That’s it, right? What did I miss? And why would I miss it after a year of your bullshit? Have you explained a different view? Where, when?
Darrell
One other aspect to any attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, is that Europe and China, whatever their political inclinations, would be forced by economic necessity to help us break the blockade.
So far, virtually every single argument asserting the ‘inevitability’ or likelihood that Iran could control the Strait has had the legs knocked out from underneath them. Why not just admit, “you know Darrell, you’re probably right. I get all my news from leftwing sources and as a result wasn’t aware of the military facts and history surrounding this. It’s pretty damn unlikely that Iran could shut down Hormuz for any significant period of time”
p.lukasiak
I don’t believe Iran could control the Strait for any “appreciable” period of time.. not even days.
I agree. Iran couldn’t “control” the straits — but there is considerable risk that they could close them to major shipping for a while — and more importantly the possibility of Iran “getting lucky” and sinking a tanker would mean there would be no commercial shipping in or out of the Gulf.
Darrell
You’re a whackjob because you keep repeating the same words and phrases over and over and over.. with no substance or original thought.
Darrell
I posted this about an hour earlier, quoting from a Bloomberg news article
Ted
Ahh, the assured certainties of neocons!
“We never could have anticipated Iran could take hold of the Strait….”
You’re right, General Darrell. I now completely agree with you. Going to war with Iran is a completely sensible and feasible idea!
ThymeZone
The Bush Administration is now over. It has been for a while, but this pretty much puts the ribbon around it. This is the most immediate and clear public repudiation of a president that I’ve ever seen. He’s done.
Many interesting questions are raised, among them: Why would Iran even want to sit down and talk with a US president who has no popular support and no worldwide diplomatic or policy support? Why offer aid to a failed government that has (a) recently asked for your help in Afghanistan, and then (b) treated you like the center of evil ever since? Can anyone here suggest any reason other than its own interests that would drive Iran to give a shit about talking the US? In other words, we are on our knees before them. Clinton got Monica on her knees, but Bush has the entire country on its knees now.
In any case, I would like to know why the world is clearly ready to move on the from the Jonestown kool-aid party we’ve been in for four years, but this blog is constantly mired in a daily acting out of Darrell’s OCD bullshit?
We’re in the most dangerous time this country might ever have faced, and the best we can do is play “Less filling, tastes great” with Darrell?
p.lukasiak
One other aspect to any attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, is that Europe and China, whatever their political inclinations, would be forced by economic necessity to help us break the blockade.
You really think so Darrell? Europe, MAYBE — but China…. I really don’t think so. See, China is much better positioned to deal with the impact of the kind of global recession that would result if the straits were shut down, and the oil coming out of the mid-east was reduced to a trickle — I think China would just sit back, and wait around to pick up the pieces.
Darrell
Given the military facts of the situation, the not that long ago battle fought over this very Strait, combined with the fact that Europe and China would be economically forced to help us break the blockade.. well, we can all see what a “reality based” opinion you hold. Like I said about you earlier, you’re an extremist.. because like all extremists, you can never admit you’re wrong, and you can never acknowlege when the other side has a valid point.
ThymeZone
Why don’t you SHUT THE FUCK UP?
Darrell
Let’s examine how “better positioned” China is to handle a shutdown of the Strait.
We have China heavily dependent on middle eastern oil and a high level of vulnerability to a shutdown of oil in that region. How Paul, does that in any way make China “better positioned” to weather such events as you say?
ThymeZone
Why don’t you answer my question, Darrell?
Do you actually have a supportable, arguable position here?
If not, then shut up.
If so, then explain it.
Ted
Just use the Darrell script most of the time. Normally I do as well, but sometimes you gotta join in the Darrell-spanking…
And Darrell, precious? You can throw around your “extremist” moniker all you like, but my position on US war with Iran is the same as the majority of this country. It’s just folks like you in that 30% Bush dead-ender camp that feel otherwise.
ThymeZone
Darrell’s position appears to be that he wants war with Iran.
He’ll call anyone including Cole an “extremist” unless they agree with him.
He refuses to disavow this reasonably deduced description of his view, and sits here all day doing what amounts to a harangue of anyone who won’t agree with him.
WTF? Sure I can block Darrell. At which point the thread goes away. It’s all Darrell.
It’s not about whether I’m annoyed. Nobody here, I assure you, gives a fig about that. It’s about whether we can have anything other than the Darrell harangue while the world careens toward disaster and people are dying every fucking day.
p.lukasiak
We have China heavily dependent on middle eastern oil and a high level of vulnerability to a shutdown of oil in that region. How Paul, does that in any way make China “better positioned” to weather such events as you say?
because China has an authoritarian government, and the lifestyle of its people is not anywhere near as dependent upon oil as is the United States.
Were you around during the oil embargo in the early 1970s? I was… and in terms of our dependence on petroleum products, things have gotten far worse. Any sustained disruption in the flow of oil would likely result in a complete collapse of the US economy… and the resultant social dislocation would mean the end of the United States as we know it.
Ted
I’m not sure anything can be done about it. He really approaches his thread work as though he’s a paid professional, which maybe he is.
But anyway, unlike me, Darrell is sure. About everything.
Darrell
Well, if you define “worse” as weening ourselves off middle eastern oil, then we are indeed ‘worse’ off than before, as most of our oil now comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, with a relatively small percentage coming from the middle east..
Krista
And I see not much has changed since I last checked in. :)
p.lukasiak
Well, if you define “worse” as weening ourselves off middle eastern oil, then we are indeed ‘worse’ off than before, as most of our oil now comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, with a relatively small percentage coming from the middle east..
no, but worse I mean our dependence on oil overall.
See, Darrell, if the 20% of the world’s oil consumption (and that’s 40% of the oil that is imported throughout the world) that is transported through the straits suddenly isn’t available anymore, it won’t matter where we currently get our oil from — because everyone will be going to those same places for their oil.
Which means that prices skyrocket. It also means that oil exporters get to choose who they will sell to — and there is a strong possibility that most exporters will decide that the US created this problem, and its the US that should bear the consequences. After all, given the choice between selling oil to some underdeveloped third world nation whose people will starve without access to imported oil, and filling America’s gas-guzzling SUVs and heating its McMansions, most people with an ounce of humanity are going to sell it to those poor, starving, third-worlders…
wilfred
What other reason could they but their own interest? A better question is why we refuse to talk to them. What is our interest that prevents us? Neo-con/Christianist ideology. After all, we only have to get Ollie North and Michael Ledeen out here to learn how to talk to terrorist states, or has everybody forgotten Iran-Contra? there were no neo-cons then, alas.
The Iranians want recognition, for themselves and the Muslim world, which they hope to lead. Every other Muslim government is a toady to Bush and the neo-cons.
ThymeZone
Nothing wrong with that, or good strong argument. I get in them all the time.
But Darrell isn’t actually “sure” about anything? Can you describe his positions? Okay, now can you describe them in his words? You can’t. He doesn’t bother to take a position and explain, defend, or support it.
And on the basis of no defined position, he can basically take down an entire thread with nothing more than “you’re a bunch of extremists because I said so.”
Ted
That’s different. You may be sure about a particular fact, but Darrell is sure about the outcomes of optional military conflicts that haven’t happened yet. And we’ve all seen where that gets us.
John S.
Yes. It’s the opposite of your position. Or my position. Or pretty much anybody else’s. Because the simple fact of the matter is, Darrell is a contrarian – pure and simple.
We are all insane extremists, and only he possesses the intellectual clarity to see things as they truly are.
tBone
Ditto. And this is the first time I’ve checked in for a few weeks.
Darrell is as predictable as an atomic clock. Negotiations are bad, leftists are dishonest whackjobs, black is white, up is down, we have always been at war with Oceania, pie is delicious.
ThymeZone
Yes, with a wide range of views from A to Z. About the only thing we have in common is agreement with the majority of Americans that our government doesn’t know what the hell it is doing.
So that makes 2/3 of Americans insane extremists. If that’s the case, then Darrell has bigger work to do than just be a ballbuster on a small blog.
Our insane extremist views have pretty much been the mainstream American viewset for a couple years now. How much of Darrell’s punishment do we deserve for that?
Salty Party Snax
The new Newsweek poll shows support for the ISG’s findings at 65%, with Shrub mired in the (very) low 30s. The current administration has become politically unsustainable.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, shouldn’t we throw the GOP a bone? They should be allowed to retire Cheney, appoint Giuliani the new VP, and then in one glorious moment for all impeach Bush.
They get to place one of their brightest stars in the presdiency, and the world will be rid of one of its worst scourges.
Under the circumstances I think that is a pretty good deal.
ThymeZone
Love ya Salty, and love the general idea, but not Rudy. He is not prepared to be president, not ready for the metagrinder that is DC. DC is not the NYC and its tight band of corrupt thieves and bosses. DC would eat Rudy for breakfast.
And of course the GOP won’t embrace him. He’s too liberal.
ThymeZone
“meatgrinder”
Darrell
Let’s examine the dishonesty:
I never wrote I was “sure” about the outcome, but given military facts and history which I cited extensively, one can draw likely conclusions. Furthermore, my arguments were refuting others who were themselves claiming to be absolutely “sure” of the outcome
ThymeZone
Answer my question, Darrell. Explain how your position is anything other than “War with Iran.”
Explain why people here should put up with your daily harangues, being called “extremists” for basically agreeing with the majority of the American people ….by somebody who won’t even take the time to define and explain a viable position on the subject.
If “War with Iran” is not your position, then explain your last year’s worth of posts. If it is, then explain why you aren’t the “insane extremist.”
Cut the crap.
Salty Party Snax
Is Darrell a supercilious twat or what? Rarely has such patent idiocy been expounded with such smug self-assurance.
Darrell
Yeah, that’s it ace. Another leftist “deep thinker”. Unbelievable how stupid so many of you are.
Salty Party Snax
TZ: Turning Giuliani into an up-to-date version of Gerald Ford does have its good points.
Darrell
I think the majority of Americans are smart enough to realize that the reason we’re not negotiating with Iran, has nothing to do with “Christian ideology”.
VidaLoca
For those of you who might be interested in something more … substantive — Pat Lang has a new post up this morining here highlighting an article that he did with Larry Johnson in spring 2006. They couple a high-level walk-through of some of the disastrous consequences of military action against Iran with a prediction that such action is more than 50% likely to take place before Bush leaves office.
Darrell, you’ll be so pleased.
As for the political context, one of the commenters there puts it rather well:
ThymeZone
Nobody asked you what you think about the intelligence of the majority of Americans.
I asked you about your position on Iran. You appear to be in favor of war. No other conclusion can be drawn from your posting history.
If that is not your view, then what is it? How does that view jive with your posting history?
If it is not your view, how do you propose that war be avoided? What policies and strategies will prevent it?
If you can’t explain these views, then what are you doing here?
Darrell
Classic leftist idiocy on full display. The problem is not that crazed Iranian mullahs with apocalyptic visions are actively trying to get nuclear weapons… no, not at all, because smart leftists know the real reason is that the “chimp” needs to prove he’s a man or show his father he’s worthy, etc.. Or the threat of Iranian mullahs obtaining nukes “does not exist”.
Brilliant.
Darrell
You’ve asked me questions and I’ve answered. Now I’ll ask you – if negotiations with Iran do not deter Iran’s attempt to build nuclear weapons, and negotiations with Europeans and UN have not deterred them in the least so far, are you willing to let the mullahs get nuclear weapons because attacking them is an option you refuse to have on the table?
If that is the case, I wish more of you whackjobs would say so loud and clear, so that the American people can see how extreme you truly are.
Salty Party Snax
The problem, Darrell, is that after 6 years of the incompetent rule of the Bush administration, we are now faced with a rash of rather dire problems in this world.
Your “blow ’em all up” approach to solving these difficulties, however, is a solution that has fallen into disfavor as of late.
You see, we tried that in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the results were not all that good.
I can’t help but feel that much of what you yammer about here is little more than an attempt at blame-shifting. Bush lost the war in Iraq, but in your opinion that loss is the fault of those who have spoken the truth about our situation there. Through neglect Iran and North Korea have become (or will be soon) the owners of nuclear weapons, but in your opinion that fault lies with those who do not want to go to war with these countries. South America has swung decidedly to the left over the last six years, and we don’t hear a peep put of you over that one.
So how does it feel to be a serial apologist for the failures of this horribly failed administration?
ThymeZone
Submitting a post is not an “answer.”
Are you or are you not promoting war with Iran?
If not, how do you propose to avoid it? Can you point to any post you’ve ever made here in which you described an action, policy or strategy that would be aimed at avoiding such a war?
Pb
So, lots of news about Iran out there today, some of it obvious, some of it expected, but a lot of it out there:
“Olmert not ruling out attack on Iran”
“Olmert, Putin discuss UN sanctions against Iran”
“Palestinian PM in Tehran nods to Iranian support”
“US criticises Iran over Holocaust conference”
“Iran offers to help US withdraw from Iraq”
“Rice wary of seeking Iran, Syria’s help”
“UN resolution on Iran revised for Russia and China”
…
…I’d say Pat Lang and Larry Johnson definitely had a point there…
Darrell
Let me get this straight.. are you seriously claiming that Iran or Syria weren’t serious terrorist supporting threats before Bush took office? that Iran suddenly became a problem only after 2000?
SeesThroughIt
Yeah, well, Americans hate America and want the terrorists to win. Obviously.
Pb
Darrell unmasked–it’s Tony Snow!
VidaLoca
Actually, Darrell, if you read the article (which you didn’t bother to do, now did you?) you’d see that Lang and Johnson accept the premise that Iran having nukes is a Bad Thing. Then they go walking over essentially the same terrain that every unhinged, irresponsible, unserious, extremist commenter here has gone over. Their points can be summed up as follows:
1. Appreciable military capabilities of the Iranians.
2. Objective difficulties of a successful ground offensive.
3. Objective difficulties of conventional air strike.
4. Objective military and political difficulties of a nuclear air strike.
5. Vulnerability of US forces in Iraq to counterattack.
6. Vulnerability of out-of-theater regional assets (e.g. Saudi oil fields) to counterattack.
7. Non-military issues, e.g. vulnerability of US economy to disruptions in flow of oil; China dumping dollars as their value falls, as a consequence.
So Lang and Johnson conclude that while the situation with Iranian nukes is real (as opposed to the Iraqi WMD’s which were fake), costs of military action against Iran outweigh the benefits. They end up arguing for negotiations with the Iranians as a default alternative to doing nothing.
For Bush, and seemingly for you, none of these downside consequnces matter: you’ve spent most of this thread demonstrating how you go about wishing them away. In spite of your wishing they haven’t gone away, yet you (and Bush, and the neo-cons around Bush) persist.
This is the height of irrationality. It’s so irrational that it’s not about hunting, Darrell. For Bush and the few people he listents to, war is the force that gives their life meaning.
Salty Party Snax
Darrell – See? Blame-shifting and apologies are all you have to offer. Were Iran and Syria problems before 2000? Of course. Are they worse problems now?
Infinitely. Especially after the buffoonish George W. Bush so thoughtfully demolished their enemies in Iraq.
You know why Bush is in such a panic over removing our troops from Iraq? Because it will both make Iraq’s victory and his defeat all the more apparent.
Darrell
I tried to, but you link didn’t work (see for yourself, it links to a BJ page), so I read what you posted, and took note of the blog commenter that you recommended and cited when he wrote “This is not about the Iranian nuclear capability the power to undo which does not exist.”
I thought that was pretty damn idiotic. I think most people would agree. Can you fix or re-post the Lang and Johnson link?
ThymeZone
Answer the question, Darrell. Are you or are you not promoting war with Iran here?
Darrell
So you’re definitely of the opinion that we should have left Saddam and sons in power? And how exactly did taking out Iran’s enemy have anything to do with their nuclear aspirations? I don’t follow your “logic”.
ThymeZone
Are you or are you not promoting war with Iran here?
Darrell
Leftist ‘deep thought’ summed up:
I can understand now why you were so impressed with the hunting story/analogy. Your beliefs really are that far out there.
Pb
Looking back on it–once it stopped being addressed, it definitely became a much bigger problem–so, effectively, yes. As to what the turning point was, or how many there were… some would cite 9/11/2001, but for them, that’s just a transparent excuse. The problem got a lot worse after 1/29/2002–the State of the Union aka Axis of Evil speech–and not just with Iran, but also with North Korea, as it greatly clarified our policy towards them and Iraq–shoot first, negotiate later:
Got that? Regimes that sponsor terror. We know their true nature. Constitute an axis of evil. Threaten the peace of the world. Nice job there, Bush. Turning point #2 was 3/20/2003–when President Bush made good on his promise not to wait for a threat, and invaded Iraq, third on the above list. Before then, however, our relations with North Korea had already fallen apart, and the lack of diplomacy between then and now inexorably led to their first actual nuclear weapon test. Perhaps Iran is on that same path–after all, we invaded the one country on the list that was least likely to have nuclear weapons, and we’re still there…
Ted
Darrell may think preventing Iranian nuclear weapon capability is a slam-dunk political issue that no one can disagree with, and he’s right; no one here wants them to have nukes. But two of Iran’s neighboring countries also have nuclear weapons (Israel, Pakistan) and are already a clear and present deterrent to Iran using them aggressively.
I guess what we should really be asking Darrell is if he is willing to sacrifice the life of his own child (if he has one, or is capable of empathetic imagination) in the cause of waging a war against Iran to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons they won’t dare use against us or Israel knowing they’d be annihilated.
VidaLoca
Oops — my apologies. Lang-Johnson article “Iran — revisited” here.
Darrell
What “stopped” being addressed? This is fascinating to see how extreme so many of you are, blaming Iranian nuclear aspirations and N. Korea all, or mainly on Bush. Wow.
Pb
Darrell,
Iran, idiot. We’re talking about diplomacy here. Write it down, because I know it isn’t in your dictionary.
ThymeZone
Darrell is advocating war with Iran, but doesn’t have the balls to say so when asked directly.
My question is, why is this extremist asshole being allowed to post here and disrupt these threads?
“Open comments” means that anyone can come here and do anything and say anything and make threads intolerable?
Sorry, that’s not only crazy, it’s contrary to the stated and demonstrated policy at this blog.
Darrell wants war with Iran, and won’t permit any mention of any idea that is not in compliance with that goal. He’ll label any opposition as “extremist” and keep up the harangue morning, noon and night.
Darrell
I honestly don’t remember, after Iran sponsored the attack on Khobar towers in 1998, was Clinton in “dialogue” with them to tell them to stop killing Americans? I thought after Khobar, there wasn’t much diplomacy.
Either way, the problem isn’t that Bush hates diplomacy, the problem was that Iran got caught with an uranium enrichment plant in violation of its NPT obligations. What do you think moron? if we just sit down and talk with the mullahs and listen to their desire to kill infidels and “wipe Israel off the map” that will make things better? Maybe if we just bought more of their pistachios.. Iran needs to abide by their treaty obligations with regards to their nuke program, which they are violating with impunity.
Darrell
Thank you for spelling out your position. You don’t want Iran to get nukes, but you’re reluctantly willing to permit the mullahs to obtain nuclear weapons because you believe Israel and/or Pakistan will deter them.
ThymeZone
So what? I lived for fifty years in the shadow of the Soviet nuclear threat, including the constant diplomacy and negotiations that that involved.
Why should cowards like you now think that they can make me quake in fear of Iran’s nuclear program? Do you think I am going to let a fucking intellectual pygmy like you scare me into supporting war with Iran without even exploring all the alternatives? Do you think that the likes of you can scare me into giving a failed president who can’t manage a hurricane relief effort into drumming up a war with Iran?
What the fuck is the matter with you?
ThymeZone
Or what, big mouth?
Darrell
What alternatives? Iran keeps on and on breaking their word and their treaties. Diplomacy is buying them time to develop nuclear weapons. Their president has declared his intention to “wipe Israel off the map” as part of his belief that the next Islamic messiah is coming.
Unlike the Soviets who didn’t want to die, Iran’s leadership praises martyrdom.
Darrell
That sums up the left’s position very well.
Ted
Yeah, I think it’s reasonable that Israel will provide a good deterrent. Pakistan isn’t all that Iran friendly, either. You know, sometimes you can’t have everything you want. Sometimes you can only have what you can live with. Conservatives like yourself need to grow up and stop acting like 5 year olds.
The question is, if you think Iranian nukes is an unacceptable outcome, what the fuck do you think should be done about it? Would you sacrifice your own child on the alter of no-Iran-nuke? A Texas-sized country on the other side of the planet? If not, would you sacrifice someone else’s? If the latter is so, you’re despicable individual.
ThymeZone
Thanks anyway, but when I need ideas for alternatives, I think I can do better than asking you.
So, your position, is War with Iran, right? Say it, you worthless coward. Say it, you big strong asshole who defends the bombing of children.
What are you afraid of? If bombing kids doesn’t put you off, what in here could possibly keep you from an honest statement of your views?
Darrell
Would you accept the sacrifice of your own child as a result of an Iranian nuclear weapon? You pretend that there is no possibility of lethal outcome if the mullahs get their hands on nuclear weapons.
Yes, like a spoiled 5 year old who doesn’t get his ice cream, nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist supporting mullahs is just something ‘we must accept’… because mature, enlightened liberals like you say so.
ThymeZone
.
Who hired you to write “the left’s” position on anything?
You can’t even write your own fucking position.
ThymeZone
Are you promoting war with them, then?
Answer the question, you bottomless pit of cowardly shit.
Darrell
The thing about the internet, is that many use it as a means to vent their mental illness. Kind of a cyber-street corner, where instead of screaming at passerby’s incoherently, they do so using their keyboard on the internet.
Ted
Actually, yes. I’m not piddle-soaked in fear that Iran will nuke the US or Israel.
Ted
Actually, yes. I’m not piddle-soaked in fear that Iran will nuke the US or Israel.
Iran is a country of 120 million people. Not a 5 year old child. It can’t be dealt with by making decrees that we can’t back up. And since this country is in no mood to sacrifice its children and treasure to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons, I think that pretty much settles the issue.
You neocons need to realize that sometimes Americans won’t sacrifice their kids for purely foreign regional goals. They’ll wait for actual threats to the US for that possibility.
Darrell
That’s right, keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of the mullahs is merely a ‘foreign policy goal’, rather than a threat to our security. Nothing to worry about folks. Btw, how does deterrence work when you’re talking about Iranian leaders who celebrate martyrdom?
Pb
Darrell,
First, that was in 1996; of course they investigated the attack, and they definitely suspected Iranian involvement, and had reason to; and shortly afterward, Clinton did sign sanctions against Iran into law. But they were still smart enough not to just shoot their mouths off about it to everyone, i.e., to be diplomatic about a sensitive situation. That diplomacy was ongoing, and those sanctions were later loosened in 2000.
And as for what Clinton was saying:
Ted
I don’t know. How do ICBM’s work? How do Trident missiles work? How do B2 bombers work?
You seriously need to relax. Iranians are human beings, which I’m sure is a surprise to those like yourself. The country is not not willing to self-annihilate.
Darrell
‘Sensitive situation’ = Let’s not harp on the fact that the Iranian govt sponsored an attack on American military
So then, did Iran stop sponsoring terrorism in 1997 like Clinton asked? Or did they step up their sponsorship of terrorism?
ThymeZone
And why should they be, when all they have to do is show up on 60 minutes and get cowards like Darrell to wet themselves in fear?
A guy who won’t even type the words “War With Iran,” he is so afraid of the idea, but wants to pretend that somehow we are the problem here.
Pb
I do find it interesting that most of the time Darrell can’t be bothered to make arguments, but rather, he just makes assertions about how ‘extremist’ one position or another *must* be, with no evidence apart from his personal extremist opinion on the matter. No doubt he thinks that The Washington Post is another hotbed of extremism for their similarly extremist positions, or that James Baker is another rabid extremist, due to his extremist advocacy of diplomacy:
Of course, the real extremists are the ones who don’t understand the very idea of diplomacy, the very reason to negotiate. The Darrells of the world are few and far between–but in this case, unfortunately, alarmingly prolific in his need to display his abject ignorance as well.
Darrell
We’re not talking about average Iranians.. we’re talking about the oppressive terrorist sponsoring mullahs who run Iran. Just so you know.
Pb
Why don’t you tell us for once, Darrell. After all, I’ve already done your homework for you a couple of times in this thread.
ThymeZone
You mean, the ones you’d think nothing of bombing and slaughtering?
Lying coward.
West Coast libertarian
OK I’m late to the party but I’m dying to know the answer. Let’s assume that negotiations with Iran go nowhere and we decide that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to American interests. Then what?
Do we: 1)invade and hold
2)invade and leave
3)simply bomb without committing any ground troops
I guess I’m asking those in favor of war with Iran (Darrell) what would this war look like. How would we know we had won it?
Darrell
I’d appreciate it if you all wouldn’t say I “want” war with Iran or that I’m “in favor of it”. If Iran won’t comply with their treaty obligations on enriching uranium, I think we need to bomb their nuclear facilities, committing few or no ground troops. I believe it would be wildly irresponsible to just sit back and permit Iranian mullahs to obtain nuclear weapons.
Darrell
What I meant to communicate in my prior post, is that I wish it wouldn’t come down to military action. But if Iran’s govt. refuses to comply with their treaty obligations, I feel they leave us no other choice but to militarily destroy their nuclear facilities.
ThymeZone
Well, that’s a gross hypothetical.
The nuclear genie is long out of the bottle. America appears to have a policy that is based on the idea that nuclear proliferation is okay or not okay depending on the political winds blowing in the US. We’ve created this Frankenstein, and now we are going to have to live with it, for the simple reason that the alternative …. war with any country that doesn’t do our bidding … isn’t acceptable, isn’t doable, and isn’t even going to be politically viable in this country.
The fact is that the ensemble of nuclear actors is going to expand and we need to be developing policies and strategies to invent a world that can handle that. Our present phony bellicose attitude — call it the Darrell-Bush attitude — is just nuts. It won’t work and has no future. We can’t even handle a war with a Middle Eastern country that couldn’t put up a fight when we invaded, and we think that we are going to now go forward and gin up wars with the likes of Iran and Syria?
Maybe four years ago, before Americans saw how feckless this government is, they’d have entertained an idea like that. Not now. That idea has no future.
It’s time to cut the crap. What 911 proved was not how powerful and scary the terrorists are. It proved how ill prepared we were to protect ourselves against them. That’s something we can fix without declaring permanent war on Eastasia.
West Coast libertarian
Then what?
West Coast libertarian
What I meant to say was
But if Iran’s govt. refuses to comply with their treaty obligations, I feel they leave us no other choice but to militarily destroy their nuclear facilities.
Then what?
(I couldn’t activate the blockquote)
ThymeZone
Not only am I opposed to that, but based on what I know today, I’d be in favor of a large national march on Washington and bringing our government to a halt before I’d sit still for it.
The government we have today WILL NOT be empowered by the people to wage another dumbshit war over there. I wouldn’t trust them to wage a war on Disneyland, much less a real country.
Take your stupid nutty idea and go fuck yourself.
ThymeZone
You can prevent it with clear and unambiguous statements of your position, then, dumbass.
Then, once you have stated your position, you can support, defend and argue in favor of it using conventional methods of doing so.
That might work better than making fifty posts a day stating that your adversaries are “insane extremists” and therefore you’re right.
Darrell
What’s sort of ironic is that most (but not all) of those who are telling us that we ‘must accept’ terrorist sponsoring nations obtaining nuclear weapons, are the same people by and large, who want strict enforcement of gun control.
Seems like they’d be consistent and just say “we can’t very well prevent people from getting guns, including fully automatic military weapons, so we need to just ‘grow up’ and accept that they’ll get these weapons and hope police deterrence and other people owning guns will control things”
tBone
So, Darrell pulls out one of his favorite stock phrases, one we’ve all seen dozens of times:
It made me realize that sometimes Darrell is right. For instance, when he says:
or:
Ah, pie.
Darrell
Even if the alternative is having Iranian mullahs obtain nuclear weapons? We should just learn to live with it? Maybe blame Bush for it too?
West Coast libertarian
May I have an answer to my query regarding what happens after we take out their nuclear facilities?
ThymeZone
Are you serious? First of all, the NRA is in favor or strict enforcement of existing gun laws. I support that position, and anything else that promotes gun safety and security. I don’t agree with NRA on a lot of things, but on enforcement of existing law, I’m right there.
As for “accepting” Iran with nuclear power and weapons?
Get serious, dummy. The world is what it is. You know who needs to wet themselves over Iranian nukes? The Iranians. Because they will know and we will know that the day they use or threaten to use their capacity against us, or Israel, or any US ally, they are toast.
We are not going to go out and embark of wars of choice against countries we don’t like in fear of things that haven’t happened yet. Not until long after the bad taste of Bush government and Iraq is out of the American mouth.
Forget it, ain’t gonna happen. Pimp it up in your patented cowardly way all day, if you want, it ain’t gonna happen.
ThymeZone
Heh, yeah, that’s basically the other half of the NRA position, isn’t it?
Which NRA are you misrepresenting? The “enforce the law” side or the “anybody can get any weapon and any ammo” side?
In any case, the comparison is inapt. With nukes, only deterrence has any particular future. The comic book notion of a bellicose US kickin ass and doing the Shock and Awe thing every time somebody gets out of line has no future. Seen that movie, and it isn’t going to cable.
Perry Como
We are greeted as liberators.
West Coast libertarian
Of course. How foolish of me for not remembering
Darrell
Iran cleans up the rubble, and is unable to build nuclear weapons for their islamic messiah. See here
grumpy realist
Yet another thread Darrelled into non-existence.
And anyone who wants to have an attack on Iran, I suggest reading a history of WWI and how it got started. I also gently suggest some comparisons be made between Iran and Iraq, the relative population, the relative amount of mountainous country, and the like.
Price spikes in oil–> how long do you think the US economy can put up with that? Heck, the stock market gets the jitters every time China makes a quasi-statement about Not Buying More Dollars or No, We’re Not Going To Revalue Our Currency. If the Straits of Hormuz get shut down at all, I imagine a splendid crash in our stock markets. Anyone want to take the chance?
China’s been getting rather friendly with Iran, BTW. Nice noises to each other about oil from Iran going overland to China. Work on pipelines, Uzbekistan, other stuff in Caspian Sea, etc. We attack Iran, China isn’t likely to be very nice to us in return. Heck, if they really wanted to put the kibosh on us, they would just have to say “by the way, we’re not going to buy up any of those gov’t bonds you just put out in an attempt to pay for this war.” Oh, and you can probably kiss off Taiwan.
I seem to remember there was a war games strategy session carried out several years ago as to what would happen if the US attacked Iran. The first run-through ended up with the US not succeeding. After some effort, they managed to figure out a scenario which resulted in a US success, but this could only be done by putting in a lot of assumptions (such as the Iranians acting stupid, for example.)
When your military strategy depends for winning on several “suddenly a miracle happened here” bits, you know you’re up the creek. Or at least the realists do. The neo-cons…well, they probably think if they pray hard enough, it will all work out.
lard lad
But we don’t actually know exactly where many of Iran’s nuclear facilities are, now do we?
And aren’t the ones that we do know of situated deep enough in the ground that only a nuclear weapon of our own will destroy them?
Yeah, that’s what we need in Iran… Hiroshima and Nagasaki writ large. That’ll play well. Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol will come in their pants.
(apologies for distateful imagery)
Pb
Which just might be a good thing for us in the long term–fiscal responsibility, baby! Of course, in the meantime, it would really suck, but if that’s what it takes…
p.lukasiak
Heck, if they really wanted to put the kibosh on us, they would just have to say “by the way, we’re not going to buy up any of those gov’t bonds
Actually, “not buying” would probably be insufficient to create major problems….now DUMPING the US notes that China already has — THAT could cause problems….
whatsleft
Iran meekly cleans up its rubble. Daddy has administered the appropriate punishment. All the other naughty children take note and shuffle obediently into line. Yep, that’s worked every time.
Mmmm, pie.
Area Man
I, for one, look forward the inevitable convergence of Liberal Socialism with Islamic Fascism. Higher taxes, no earmarks for pork. Everyone wins!
Area Man
to
Pb
grumpy realist, p.lukasiak,
Looking at the numbers, we have seen foreign holdings of US debt go up by 205.8 billion in the course of a year (Sep 2005 – 2006), and note that the biggest holder is not China (they’re #2), it’s actually Japan, but what I find to be really interesting is that the UK has been picking up the slack recently–while Japan’s selling has cancelled out China’s buying, the UK’s increased holdings account for over half of the total increase over the past year–that’s $112 billion dollars!
Our other helpful backers over the past year–to the tune of $37.3 billion dollars–have been the ‘oil exporters’–i.e., “Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria”–I do wonder which ones in particular have been the most helpful, though. And past that, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, and Turkey have also helped out, in that order–no doubt oil figured into some of that as well. The biggest sellers were Japan (already mentioned), the hedge funds, (i.e., “Carribean banking centers”) and France.
Of course, which countries have been taking up the slack has changed over the past six years, but our habits haven’t–we’re talking about over a trillion dollars in foreign debt over the past six years. Before that, for the year 2000 for example, it was -73.7 billion, and really the bulk of this recent borrowing splurge started in 2002.
Darrell
No
Darrell
More problems for China than us, as an export driven economy, if they dumped their US notes, their renminbi would skyrocket, causing their export prices to skyrocket with it..They’re a poor country on per capita basis, and that sort of hit would not only pound their economy, it would risk revolt among the populace. Anything’s possible, but China dumping US assets is very, very unlikely.
Darrell
Osirak is a much more analogous situation.
p.lukasiak
More problems for China than us, as an export driven economy, if they dumped their US notes, their renminbi would skyrocket, causing their export prices to skyrocket with it..They’re a poor country on per capita basis, and that sort of hit would not only pound their economy, it would risk revolt among the populace. Anything’s possible, but China dumping US assets is very, very unlikely.
obviously, economics is another of your “not strong suits”.
The result of a sell-off of US debt by China would be a massive drop in the value of the dollar versus ALL other currencies, but the value of the yuan relative to other currencies would rise but remain fairly stable.
(this, of course, assumes that China would stop pegging the yuan’s value to the dollar — an assumption that has to be made for a dollar dump to make any sense at all. If the yuan stayed pegged to the dollar, it would drop in value as much as the dollar did.)
Darrell
Research “FOREX” and likely consequences to the renminbi should China dump US notes en masse… and then report back to the class on what you learn. One lesson you should take away from this little episode is not to stake such strong positions you can’t back away from when arguing with your betters.
ThymeZone
That’s why you never take any actual positions here, you little pencil-dick?
demimondian
Herb, have you been arguing with me behind my back, again? As far as I know, I’m your only “better” here, so that must be the case.
whatsleft
No one could have anticipated that the Chinese would surreptitiously dump USD in a “thousand paper cuts” kind of way….
ThymeZone
Must be a British thing. Americans don’t have “betters.”
God save the queen, and all that. Pip pip.
Pb
Ok, here we go… for those who are interested, a rough graph of our foreign debt holdings over the past six years. As you can see, Japan, China, and the UK hold over half of our foreign debt, with the rest spread out amongst oil exporters, hedge funds, and a host of other countries. Also, you can graphically see how it has ballooned by over a billion dollars over the past 4-5 years or so.
ThymeZone
Like Stephen Colbert, I look skeptically upon your fact-based agenda.
Darrell
Cool graph.. thanks for posting it. US debt has skyrocketed, no doubt about it. But at the same time, let’s acknowledge that the US has the most transparent, attractive, investor-friendly financial markets in the world.
demimondian
Actually, the amount of foreign-held debt has ballooned by about 1000 Billion dollars. But what’s three orders of magnitude among friends? Pb, I predict a bright future for you in the Republican party.
Darrell
I should have added that because our markets are so transparent, attractive, and investor friendly, an overall “dumping” of US assets is not likely… at all
Pb
Darrell,
Naturally… we’ve made it easy (to get ourselves into this mess)!
Pb
demimondian,
Whoops, make that ‘trillion’… a billion here, a billion there, and sooner or later we’re talking about real money!
ThymeZone
Dr. Pangloss will see you now.
Ted
LOL! Yes, because hundreds of thousands of people die every year around the world from nuclear weapons, and they’re commonly fired at people during drunken bar fights, spurned lover scenarios, 7-11 holdups, etc.
grumpy realist
Oh, I’m sure I could dig up some similar nice-sounding comments about how wonderful the US stock market was as a place to trade in 1928. Didn’t help us in 1931.
And actually, we’re getting less and less easy to work with, what with all those %$#%!!! regulations that got added due to the PATRIOT act. There’s a reason my next company is getting formed in Japan.
Add to that the Big Bang in London, Singapore’s attempts at becoming even more of a financial center, and no, I don’t think the US dollar (or the US) is going to be the best currency to hold in the future.
And I’m putting my money where my mouth is, BTW.
TenguPhule
A belated Irony of the Day.
TenguPhule
And Darrell proves he’s a complete dimwit even for a gutless armchair general.
As if our troops don’t have enough trouble running supplies into Iraq…he thinks it would be no trouble on LONGER routes through enemy territory.
Newsflash Darrell, Iranians and Iraqis are not as dumb as you are. They actually know where to go after points of vulnerabilty.
TenguPhule
Fixed. And I call Bullshit on Darrell for pretending his stupid assertions that ‘the military can take Iran and will probably have to because they’re scary nuclear terrorist wannabes’ do not constitute a indifference to the US military by treating them like a video game where a reset button lets you magically start over and erase the current status that said military is in right now.
So far we’ve got no proof Iran is going for nuclear weapons, despite Republican efforts to make shit up about it and Bush doing his damn best to scare Iran into going for it. As for the laughable assertion that ‘we shouldn’t talk to nations that sponsor terrorism’, following that idea to its logical conclusion, nobody would be talking to the USA and should invade it on the Darrell principle of using force because obviously talking won’t do any good with a nation led by terrorist loving religious fanatics.
Why is a panty like Darrell is so afraid of talking to other nations?
TenguPhule
Are you willing to risk killing several million innocent people with another war where no WMD are found?
TenguPhule
Scratch that, this is truly Darrell’s Irony of the Day.
TenguPhule
And given your 0.0000 track record so far on Iraq and everything else, we should give you any credibility on what you think because…?
With citizens like Darrell…who needs Iran?
TenguPhule
Wrong.
Enrichment isn’t an NPT violation UNLESS it’s used for nuclear weapons. The amounts they’ve found are nowhere close to what’s needed for a weapon.
But little panties try to lie and say what isn’t true to try and make everyone as scared as you.
TenguPhule
Fallacy. You’re assuming they’re developing nuclear weapons based on zero evidence. Your one track mind can’t distingish between your paranoid delusions unsupported by the facts and the actual truth that we haven’t found any evidence of a nuclear weapons program. For all your desire to attack Iran you have never once cited ANY evidence of such a program even existing.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
ThymeZone
On Darrell’s globe, Persia appears to be glowing. What more evidence does he need?
Pb
Make that North Korea–I think Ahmadinejad has slightly more credibility than Darrell, whereas Kim Jong-Il is about on par with him and scs.
ThymeZone
Yes, but Ahmadinejad is just fucking with us much of the time, whereas Darrell is all too serious.