Asked by the interviewer about Iran’s calls for the destruction of Israel, Olmert replied that Israel had never threatened to annihilate anyone.
“Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map,” Olmert said. “Can you say that this is the same level, when you are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?”
Granted that everybody more or less knows that Israel maintains a nuclear arsenal. On one level you could argue that Olmert’s slip changes little. But on the rhetorical level there are several very important reasons why Israel has made some effort to keep its arsenal under wraps. First, a frank admission turns around the domestic calculus for regional competitors like Iranian president Ahmadinejad. Iranians have mostly balanced a feeling of national pride with legitimate concerns about provoking the international community, leaving Ahmadinejad with a mixed mandate at best. I expect that this news will change that.
Second, even UN bashers will should acknowledge (this is a debatable point?) that Bush needed UN Resolution 1441 before he could move against Iraq. The Iran debate will also play out first and most importantly in the UN Security Council. Thanks to the wreck our president has made of America’s credibility our brief is weaker than it should be – keep in mind that Iran denies a nuclear program and we have no credible evidence suggesting they have one. None of us want Iran to go nuclear, but absent international action there isn’t much of anything that we can do about it. Even if we had the resources to knock out Iran’s facilities we don’t know where most of them are*.
If strong international action is needed to get inspectors into Iran, and I think it is, an expanded nuclear map in the mideast is not something that will help us. Olmert’s slip seems like an opening for Iran to declare that she will gladly admit nuclear inspectors, as long as Israel does the same.
(*) Presupposing that Iran’s bomb program exists, which, again, it might not.
Steve
Redstate seems to take the position that Olmert’s slip of the tongue was quite calculated. Since they seem to salivate at the very notion of saber-rattling in the Middle East, however, they may be a bit biased. I’m not prepared to dismiss the notion out of hand, though.
The fact is that Israel has nukes, everyone knows they have nukes, and any diplomatic initiative which is premised on the fiction that “gee, maybe they do and maybe they don’t” is never going to achieve serious results. We need real diplomacy with Iran, the world needs it, but I see no sign that it will happen any time soon. Because, you know, Iran is evil and we can’t trust them. Of course, the USSR was evil and we couldn’t trust them, but Reagan ignored the hard right and negotiated with them anyway, and that turned out okay.
We point to all the provocative acts of Iran, their threats against Israel, their decision to hold a Holocaust denial conference – and these things ARE provocative as well as disgusting. But when we label Iran as part of an axis of evil, when our Congress passes laws calling for regime change in Iran, our actions are no less provocative. We can blame the leaders of Iran for being bad people, but we can’t hold them solely responsible for the escalation of this drama.
We need a holistic diplomatic solution in the Middle East that involves the world setting bounds and conditions for Iran as well as a renewed push to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, something that is going to be a precondition for the cooperation of Arab nations in the diplomatic effort with Iran. Regrettably, we elected the wrong guy to get this done, and nothing happens without the cooperation of America. So how do we see our way through to a good outcome?
Zifnab
You’re going to have to drop a name here. I’ve typically heard UN Bashers insist the Iraq invasion was OK because we had the standing UN 1441 resolution. However, I’ve never heard one claim we could not have gone in without one.
The joke is that Bush will play on that knowledge and fear as best he can. We all know nukes in Iran are bad. Thus, if our diplomacy is hopelessly incompetent and/or constantly hamstrung by its own administration, we absolutely need to start dropping bombs or else.
Tim F.
Fixed. Out coalition would have fallen apart, England probably would have dropped out and we would have been left all alone. I seriously doubt that in those conditions Bush would have gone in alone.
Sherard
Cool. Nice long narrative which summarily is nothing more than moral equivalence of the following equation:
Israel with Nukes = Iran with Nukes.
Sorry, not buying it and supposing that the International community shouldn’t see that for the horseshit that it is, is nothing more than intellectual masturbation. Granted, I expect nothing more from this site.
Steve
Don’t forget Poland, bitches. You always forget Poland.
Sherard
As if ignoring them worked out any better ?
Tim F.
With summarizing skills like that, I can’t imagine why Cliff’s Notes turned your application down.
srv
Where were all these nuclear facilities and enhrichment programs from 1979-2000?
Tim F.
correction:
This is a typically blinkered summary by our local drive-by hate artist, Sherard. If I ever said that the two were morally or in any other way equal then gosh, I sure would feel embarrassed. Too bad I never said it. You’re all anger and no skills, man.
Steve
Your implication seems to be that “ignoring them” is the type of thing we foolishly did under Clinton, whereas I would contend that what we’re doing right now is tantamount to ignoring them. Diplomacy is hard work; you have to build bridges with allies, you have to make concessions and do things your allies might prefer in order to secure their cooperation, as Bush 41 did when he assembled the Gulf War coalition. The far, far easier course is to ignore the situation and simply whip up hate for the adversary as a way of appeasing the hardline base and gaining domestic political capital.
The thing is, this latter course is pretty much worthy of small-time despots and nutjobs like Ahmadinejad. Look how easy it is for assholes to achieve power in the Middle East; all they have to say is “America is evil!” and wham, instant political support. If we seek a stable world order, we have an obligation to chart a better course than just playing “Iran is evil!” games with ourselves. Part of that, frankly, means promoting a diplomatic atmosphere where the more rational leaders in the Middle East don’t face the prospect of instant rebellion if they’re perceived to be on the same side as America. (Just look at what’s happening in Lebanon the last few weeks.) We’ve lost an awful lot of credibility that we need to get back.
The Other Steve
Yes, but this is good… Right?
Becuase now we have enemies, and enemies are good politics.
Steve
Tim, I’m not sure I follow you 100% here. Are Iran’s obligations under the NPT in any way contingent upon Israel not having nukes? In any event, Israel might call their bluff. I don’t know that I agree with your assumption that Iran is likely to go down this road.
Steve
Well, it works for Ahmadinejad. It works for Hugo Chavez. It may work for the Hezbollah-backed opposition in Lebanon.
These aren’t the people whose tactics I would choose to emulate, but then again, I’m not running for anything.
wilfred
True, they just kill or imprison Palestinians, they never actually threaten them. So what’s the play here? Just keep denying that plucky little Israel is actually a nuclear power, an Army with a state? As if the Arabs/Iranians didnt’t know already know it. Nixon said it, for God’s sake, Gates just admitted it, too.
The only people who shouldn’t know are Americans. After all, we might have to ask ourselves some questions about the narrative we’ve been force fed for the last 40 years. Jimmy Carter (commie, pinko, fag, Muslim loving scumbag) just wrote a book about some of that narrative and is getting the full Aipac treatment.
Richard Bottoms
Israel’s been nuclear for 40+ years, big fraking deal.
Remember back two years ago when I said we didn’t need to kiss conservatives asses to win the 2006 elections? Al the dire predictions about being divisive and the Democrats had no hope of winning?
Well I was right.
And I’m right again: This. Story. Is. Huge.
Please stop ignoring it.
Tim F.
I don’t think that she automatically will, but it seems like a political play that was much less of an option before. You’re right that Israel has no obligations as a non-signatory to the NPT, so perhaps it wouldn’t work anyway.
srv
In Sherard-world, our leaders words don’t matter. They can never, ever, under any circumstances have any impact on Iranian or NK nuclear policy. Everything Bush says exists in a vacuum.
For instance, when Lil Kim turned off the UN cameras and removed the fuel rods for “reprocessing” after the Axis-of-Evil speech. That was just coincidence. There is no possible way any of that was connected to what Bush was saying.
Pb
At least that would be progress…
Steve
Expanding on this thought, more honesty and transparency in the Middle East may be the key to getting things done anyway. As a legal matter, yes, Iran doesn’t get to make its compliance with the NPT conditional upon what Israel does. As a practical matter, if Israel insists on its right to be cute about nukes, it’s hard to argue that other countries in the region are doing something wrong when they similarly act cute.
But if Israel comes clean, countries like Iran aren’t in a position to argue that now they need nukes to defend themselves from Israel; Israel has never been a signatory to the NPT, and Iran shouldn’t have signed it themselves if they wanted to reserve the right to have an arms race with Israel. If Iran’s position is going to be that they need nukes to defend themselves from an aggressive nuclear power, they could simply make that argument with respect to the U.S. right now. We certainly rattle the sabers a lot more frequently than does Israel.
grumpy realist
Whenever I see our interactions with the Mid-East, I think of the old saw: “everyone else is playing chess, and we’re playing checkers.”
Will Rogers said it best:”If stupidity got us into this mess, why can’t it get us out again?”
Not just “Accidental Empire”, but “Accidental FALL of Empire”, too.
Punchy
Tim…with all due respect…you’re joking, right? Since when has Bush cared about what the Europeans think? How badly did we villify the French for taking their (correct) course of inaction? Surely we would have gone in alone (“no guts, no glory” would have been the bumpersticker rage), and eviserated the Brits for their “cowardice”…
Also, you MUST stop this asterik stuff you’ve developed. Too distracting…too ghetto.
Steve
Steve Clemons reports:
Tsulagi
Nah, let Israel do it. They’ve already bought bunker busters from us and also long-range F-15s and 16s to deliver them.
Andrew
Sweet, I wonder what other foreign policy blunders we can stumble into using horribly strained sports metaphors.
demimondian
Richard, here why that nightmare scenario is not as troubling as you and other people think. Look at the half-life there. Polonium 210 has a REALLY short shelf life — it’s very much a use it or lose it kind of thing. It’s also phenomenally expensive to synthesize.
(And, no, it is not a coincidence that it both is highly radioactive and has a short half-life. The two properties travel together.)
ThymeZone
Relax, we have until January 2009 to find out. Watch, and learn.
demimondian
Damn it, TimAndJohn — did you folks start stripping links to wikipedia? This should be a link to an article on Polonium 210.
Andrew
I’m going to make a play for going back to the gold standard because of ping pong, and for invading Lichtenstein via curling.
James F. Elliott
“True, they just kill or imprison Palestinians, they never actually threaten them.”
Whatever one’s opinions about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and vice versa (and mine are on the whole negative without calling into question the right of Israel to be secure and, you know, exist), it is facetious in the extreme to try to equate brutality (or apartheid, if you must) with the advocacy of genocide, which is clearly what Iran’s leadership advocates. You cannot compare the two and retain a shred of intellectual honesty.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
Remember it doesn’t pay to bet against the administration’s stupidity.
TenguPhule
But it never stops people from trying to anyway.
Pb
There we go with the polonium again:
Tony J
Now, is this in the sense of “Bush needed to get at least one Resolution out of the UN, since he was using Iraqi violations of UN Resolutions as justification for the US military build-up” or in the sense of “1441 gave Bush the authority he needed to justify his war of choice as enforcing a UN Resolution”? Because if it’s the former, I’m with you, but if it’s the latter, it’s one of those ‘conventional wisdom’ memes that piss me off when they get repeated by people whose opinions I respect.
Short Version. The White House screwed 1441 out of the Security Council by promising everyone else that it contained no “automatic trigger” for armed intervention. Even Syria signed off on it, during that frustrating phase for the neo-kons when even their chosen adversaries refused to play the role of cartoon bad-guys. All that it said was that Iraq had to prove that it hadn’t rearmed with WMD by producing a report giving detailed proof that it had complied with the UN’s disarmament orders, and by co-operating with UN inspectors by allowing them to confirm or deny the claims made by Washington and London.
Fats Forward: The Inspection Body led by Hans Blix had basically shredded the US case for war by finding nada, bup-kis, totally shit-all sign of WMD anywhere in Iraq. The Bush White House responded to this good news by swift-boating Blix and demanding that the Security Council authorise military action on the authority of 1441.
The Security COuncil said no, and the French reinforced this reminder of international law by telling the US that even if they did try to bully a majority of UNSC member-states into pushing through a majority vote authorising military action (which wasn’t going to happen anyway), France would just veto it. So, like, shut-up and stop acting like children.
In response, the US saw a flush of headlines basically saying that France had proclaimed it would veto the UNSC authorising ANY use of force against Iraq, so America had no choice but to invade without a follow-up Resolution because the French wouldn’t let them.
Cue all that ‘freedom-fries’ BS and a lingering pro-Bush talking-point that seems to rile me up more than most. Sorry, but we’re a notoriously touchy lot down our way.
Oh, and by the way, it appears Sherard also likes pie.
Steve
I’m pretty sure we all mean it in the sense that he needed a fig leaf, period.
Tim F.
Demi,
We don’t edit comments unless the post suggests will, e.g. that pie thread. It was probably the same gremlin that wrecks my perfect grammer when I’m about to push the ‘publish’ button.
Krista
…not to mention your perfect spelling.
Darrell
Since Iraq had violated so many other UNSC resolutions involving the terms for cease fire in ’91, did the US really need UNSCR 1441? Doesn’t violation of terms of surrender = resumption of hostilities?
Darrell
Ok, let’s assume that for sake of argument that we negotiate with Iran. Given their track record in their negotiations with the Europeans and UN, and their calls for Israel’s destruction and apocalyptic visions of the 12th imam islamic messiah returning, negotiations look to have slim chances of success.
What’s plan B for those who place so much faith in negotions?
Tony J
Wasn’t even a fig leaf, though, was it? Getting that promised follow-up resolution authorising the use of force from the UNSC in response to proven Iraqi non-compliance would have constituted a ‘fig leaf’.
Running away from the UN like a snotty little teenage bitch because he couldn’t parlay America’s superpower rep into getting his own way, as El Res did, just suicided about thirty years of diplomatic cred from America’s CV while proving for good-and-all that this Regime was deeply “unserious”.
srv
So verbal lip service to ‘genocide’ (not that Mr. A has actually used that term) is worse than actual apartheid?
What a curious set of morals you have.
queue the next ‘Hitler’.
Steve
Well, it was enough of a fig leaf to get folks like Britain to go along. Supposedly without the ‘fig leaf’ it would have been a deal-breaker. So in a purely political sense, it was worth more than nothing at all, which is what I take a ‘fig leaf’ to mean.
Darrell
When was the last time we saw “strong” leadership from the UN? And let’s be forthright about the reality of Iran’s “cooperation” with inspectors
Zifnab
I’ll say. They wanted to keep their weapons inspectors in Iraq for a few more months to see if they could find those ellusive WMDs and we just punted them right out of the country. What a bunch of pussies. Why can’t the UN grow some balls and “lead” rather than just fronting for warmongering thugs?
Darrell
After being kicked out in 1998, do you think that those weapons inspectors were finally re-admitted into Iraq because of a strong UN, or because 150,000 US troops had guns pointed at Saddam?
Zifnab
Let’s go down the list of options:
We can negotiate with them (which apparently doesn’t work)
We can sanction them (which also apparently doesn’t work and just leads to rampant corruptions – see: Oil for Food)
We can bomb them (which worked soooo well in Desert Fox under Clinton that we decided to invade 4 years later)
We can invade them (Mission Accomplished!)
We can ignore them (but then the terrorists win)
That’s all the options that I can name, except maybe wholesale genocide across the country. All of them come across as bad ideas. Negotiation seems like a bad idea that won’t cost us $8 billion a month and 23,000 dead or wounded soldiers.
cleek
who cares. where are the WMDs ?
Darrell
Europeans and UN have been negotiation with Iran. How’s that been working out? What’s your Plan B?
TenguPhule
And let’s not assume they will automatically fail.
We could start by stopping Bush’s ‘bend over and take it before I speak to you’ bullshit.
Zifnab
I listed plans A-F. Even Plan G(enocide). How many more do you need?
Darrell
Your assume that all bombing plans will be like Desert Fox? Why do you make such an assumption?
TenguPhule
Compared to Iraq? Pretty damn well.
Iran doesn’t have nukes, no evidence they have a weapons program….what’s wrong with that?
Negotiation is not Capitulation, Darrell.
How about we start with Plan A first? Rather then the Bush ‘No Plans here’ approach?
srv
Can you go one paragraph w/o making shit up? Saddam didn’t ‘kick’ anybody out.
Darrell
Tell us what happened in 1998 then srv?
Zifnab
You assume that any military campaign WON’T end like Iraq? And quit dodging. I assume you would suggest we just drop bunker busters from one edge of Iran to another? What happens when they start making nuclear weapons under their pre-schools and next to their X-ray machines? How many Chinese Embassies need to get leveled before we feel safe?
We couldn’t bomb bin Laden and we practically owned Afganistan. We couldn’t find WMDs and we walked right into Bagdad. Why do you think we could shut down the Iranian nuclear program from the air?
wilfred
Ok, humor my dishonesty. At what point do you personally draw the line? Does Israel’s right to exist and feel secure trump the rights of Palestinians forever? Does it in fact justify the brutal treatment that you acknowledge the Israelis mete out on a daily basis?
Of course it does. Does your own brand of intellectual honesty consider the fact that since WWII, the only genocide committed on European soil was that made against Muslims at Srebinica? Does your dreary high-mindededness recognize that nearly all of the victims in this war on terrorism have been Muslims? Can either of you pompous hypocrites recognize that Muslims might feel that they are becoming the victims of genocide?
Of course not. To you, Iranian blustering is the same as Israeli use of fragmentation weapons in Lebanon. The word is the same as the act.
If you accept the Israeli version of events then anything they do is justified: Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that?
TenguPhule
After the last 6 years of Suicide bombers and Palistinian gunmen mowing down women and children in their beds, I’d say the Israelis have more justification to lock down Palistian travel then the Palistinians have a right to move about. Your argument might have merit were it not for the wide support and celebration on the part of the ‘oppressed’ for deliberate atrocities that are then excused as ‘natural acts of retaliation against the oppressor’.
The Palistinians made their bed when they set up Sharon and his Likud to take power through their rejection of the peace deals back in 2000. I cry no tears for a bunch of greedy idiots who calculated that violence would sweeten the pot for final settlements and got a backlash instead.
Zifnab
Listen buddy. 9/11 changed everything. Maybe you didn’t get the memo. Killing brown people is now totally cool because they started it. Bulldozing Palestinians out of their homes is totally legal because of the Holocaust, and England kinda-sorta said it was ok back in the 50s. Christian Evangelicals in Iran are “oppressed” because they get locked up for trying to convert Muslims. Muslim Congressmen in America are free to take their Constitutional vows on any Bible they want. But they can’t ride on airplanes if they start praying.
You just need to stop getting so angry and shrill and settle down. Then maybe you will have the patience and understanding to find out why you hate America.
chopper
the cease fire was between iraq and the UN, not the US. if the UN didn’t want to resume hostilities, that’s their bag. it isn’t the US’s job to enforce UN resolutions against their will any more than it’s nevada’s job to enforce NY state law against its will.
israel has violated a lot of UNSC resolutions, should anyone get to invade her if they want?
srv
If the truth mattered to you, you wouldn’t be making shit up.
chopper
that’s true. desert fox was run back when we knew what we were doing. a great bombing campaign which got rid of the few WMDs saddam had left.
and the (sane) WMD believers would have been shown to be wrong if only the inspections were allowed to run their course.
instead we spent $350 billion and thousands of american lives and hundreds of thousands of iraqi lives and quite possibly screwed up the middle east for decades to come, all to prove that bill clinton finished the job in 1998.
bravo, guys. let me know what you’re gonna do for an encore so i can start digging a bomb shelter.
chopper
sorry, darrell, but srv is right. clinton pulled the inspectors out in 1998 to start bombing. they weren’t kicked out by hussein.
TenguPhule
It never ceases to amaze me how much Darrell dreams of pie in the sky when it comes to bombing Iran.
I mean, it’s not like they’ve been preparing for this kind of a fight for at least the last….5 years or so?
Sure, they’ve deliberately spread out their civilian nuclear structure in such a way so that any attack would result in mass civilian casualties and still fail to cripple them, but this is all about stopping Darrell from wetting the bed with fear so obviously it must be a good case.
jh
And dead is the same as alive?
I smell a thread derailing a’comin’ this-a-way.
Darrell
The difference being, and it’s a huge one, is that unlike with Iraq, no binding Chapter 7 resolution has ever been passed against Israel.. only Chapter 6 resolutions which are non-binding essentially.
The Other Steve
On October 31st, Hussein announced they were no longer going to cooperate with the UN.
The UN recalled it’s staff on November 10th.
So the inspectors weren’t technically kicked out.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronology.htm
Not that the truth or facts matter to you much.
Steve
If conservatives could bring themselves to acknowledge that Clinton did something good, which they can’t, they would have realized the PR benefit of pointing out long ago that we played a prime role in stopping that genocide of Muslims.
Not to mention, when a certain Muslim nation got invaded by an evil dictator not so many years back, it was the U.S. who built a coalition and provided the military might to kick him out.
Of course, it’s not all about having a hard-on for Clinton. It’s also about not wanting to piss off the part of the base which believes we really are in a religious war with Islam, you know, the ones who relentlessly mock Bush for calling it “a religion of peace.”
The party line on the Arab street, naturally, is that we’re nothing but slaves to Israel in its evil crusade to wipe out Muslims everywhere. The Soviet Union told some pretty bad lies about us too, as I recall, yet we found ways to compete and get the truth out there. We need to read through that playbook again, I think.
Darrell
What the hell have I “dodged”?
You assume wrong. We would bomb their nuclear facilities and perhaps some key military targets as well.
Do you acknowledge the real possibility of Iran using nukes to attack us and/or Israel if the mullahs obtained nuclear weapons. The President of Iran has spoken in glowing terms of martyrdom associated with the coming of the next islamic messiah. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs.. Is that really a chance you think we should take?
Darrell
That is some serious koolaid you’ve been drinking. Tell us more details on who verified the destruction of said WMDs as a result of Desert Fox, because you sound like you really know what you’re talking about.
TenguPhule
Darrell, stop this bullshit about nukes Iran doesn’t have and answer the real question here.
Are you willing to kill tens of thousands of innocent people for non-existant WMDs *again*?
Zifnab
Ok, before you were just kinda hedging the topic by being vague. NOW you’re dodging.
In 1998, we bombed hospitals and schools under Desert Fox because we believed they were hiding weapons there. I can think of no reason why any weapons Iran keeps wouldn’t get ferreted in similiar locations. Thus “key military targets”, even “nuclear facilities” can quickly take on fuzzy definitions, especially with the notoriously bad Intelligence we’ve been acting on.
And no, I don’t believe Iran will ever drop a nuclear bomb until they actually possess one.
TenguPhule
And you assume wrongly that the Iranians would just sit back and take it up the ass like a good Bush puppy. Our troops are dying on two collapsing fronts already, stop trying to add a third.
Our troops are not a video game, stop trying to hit the reset button.
Iran has developed ICBMs? Go ahead and show us where, Darrell.
If you haven’t noticed yet, the Iranian leadership talks big, but they will never put themselves directly in harm’s way if they can help it.
chopper
well, the US government has verified that there weren’t any WMDs at the time we invaded. unless you can offer evidence that there were b/w desert fox and 2003 and where they went, then i’m going by the assumption there weren’t any during that point either.
now, we knew there were WMDs just up to desert fox. the UN was in the middle of destroying stuff.
why, i guess that means that what was leftover must have been destroyed by clinton.
must really chap your hide that clinton of all people accomplished what bush set out to do, 5 years earlier w/o the loss of a single american. that’s gotta hurt.
Darrell
Yeah, it’s all just bullshit.
How are you coming up with an estimate of “tens of thousands” of innocents killed by bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.
And just see how out there you are, from what source did you come up with the tens of thousands of “innocents” (as opposed to combatents and terrorists) killed by US forces in Iraq?
chopper
so where does it say that chapter 7 resolutions can be enforced by the US against the will of the UN?
i mean, what difference does ‘chapter 6’ vs ‘chapter 7’ make if the US has established that any UN member can up and attack anyone else based on a UNSC resolution that the UN doesn’t want to enforce?
Darrell
What hurts is watching you try and dig out of that hole you’ve going there. You know you’re a serious koolaid drinker when you claim Clinton destroyed Saddam’s WMD program.
chopper
i love it. someone says iran doesn’t have nukes, and darrell ‘proves’ that wrong by citing a story that says “Iran moves closer to operation of a facility to enrich uranium”. like they don’t even have the facility yet, and that’s proof that they have nukes.
god bless the right-wing denial machine.
Darrell
What do you mean “against” the will of the UN?
chopper
what hole? first there were WMDs, then clinton bombed the place, then there were no more WMDs. you know where they went? no? got any proof that my statement is wrong?
i mean, you believed that saddam still had em in 2003. talk about kool-aid.
Zifnab
Do you even read the crap you link to Darrell? What part of “moves closer” translates to “has nukes pointed at Isreal/America”? If Iran had a satillete death ray, would we invade then? If Iran had a giant bottle of deadly bird flu and was dangling it over the head of Tipper Gore, would you invade then? If Iran’s army of time traveling rocket troops was going to go back in time and kill George Washington, would you invade then?
Stop asking stupid questions!
srv
On October 31st, Clinton signed the ILA. Two weeks later, Iraq resumed cooperation with UNSCOM. More play resumed. They didn’t withdraw until Dec.
Basically, UNSCOM got blocked on a handful of several hundred inspections and Clinton and the Republican Congress were jonesing to look tough. Iraq alleged UNSCOM was covering for intel operations, which was later confirmed by several team members (they were trying to monitor communications in Baghdad to locate Saddam).
In sum, the Saddam/UNSCOM games and Desert Fox were all about politics and never about WMDs. It was pretty obvious to anyone who was paying attention back then.
chopper
did the UN give the invasion of iraq the thumbs up? did they pass a resolution authorizing military force by the US?
the UN decides how UN resolutions are enforced. the US does not have the unilateral authority to enforce UN resolutions w/o the UN’s approval.
TenguPhule
Because it wouldn’t *STOP* at that. That little point seems to have completely eluded you. Bombing Iran is an unprovoked Act of War.
We’re into the hundreds of thousands of civilians dead in Iraq, Darrell. It doesn’t help your case any that the military has admitted it was fudging the numbers and *under* reporting violence and deaths there.
chopper
not to mention the fact that iran’s enrichment facilities are close enough to civilian centers that the release of massive amounts of radioactive materials by bombing would kill an ass-ton of people…
TenguPhule
Darrell’s Irony of the Day, folks.
chopper
What hurts is watching you try and dig out of that whole pie you’ve going there.
Darrell
Well I’m not going to argue that point. But I will point you to a very similar bombing situation which didn’t involve the killing of “tens of thousands of innocent lives”.. so again, where are you coming up with your estimate of innocent lives lost?
TenguPhule
‘Similar’ situation with Osirak? What the hell are you smoking?
Iran has specially designed their civilian nuclear facilities to *NEGATE* that kind of single strike effect. Between the mass bombings and resulting retaliation and resulting war, my estimates of tens of thousands of innocent lives lost is on the conservative side.
chopper
that and the fact that the iranians have far more than one single site to bomb…
TenguPhule
So Darrell, are you willing to kill tens of thousands of innocent people for non-existant WMDs again?
Or are you just going to argue on what ‘is’ is?
Darrell
And since Osirak, we have developed ‘bunker buster’ bombs and more accurate delivery systems which Iran cannot stop.
Zifnab
Fixed
Zifnab
Link plz!
We bombed the Chinese Embassy. The Chinese Motherfucking Embassy. In ’03. Stop lying Darrell.
Steve
We bombed the Chinese embassy in 2003? Are we thinking of different bombings?
Anyway, I’m tired of hearing about anticipated cakewalks, how a little air power will magically solve everything with minimal casualties, etc. Yeah, if you assume your plan will work smashingly, and the other guy’s plan will fail, your plan always sounds best. It’s like assuming you have a can opener.
Darrell
First, we bombed the Chinese embassy back in the 1990’s in the Balkans, not 2003. Second, mistakenly hitting the wrong target, and that’s assuming we weren’t trying to hit the Chinese embassy in the first place, does not negate the fact that our missile and bomb delivery systems can deliver very accurate strikes.
cleek
sure, they were 100% wrong about Iraq’s WMD program, the supposed locations and capabilities of all those secret labs and facilities… but we can trust they know what they’re talking about when it comes to Iran. we’ll hit those 100%-verified targets with our 100% precise weapons and that’ll be the end of that. sure.
and that’ll be the end of al-Queda, too! bonus!
Darrell
It had been established that Saddam had a WMD program and WMDs. By Iraq’s own admission, they had 3.9 tons of Vx in 1998 and hundreds of tons of weaponized chem, which to this day are all unaccounted for. You and others here appear to be spinning the story like Saddam “never” had a weapons program. Are you really that stupid?
srv
More crap out of your ass. Iraq said nothing of the sort.
Jake
Just a random question: Why does anyone care about what Iran might be able to do one day when North Korea has already done it and chanted “Neener, neener,” while they were doing it?
TenguPhule
Obviously you’re projecting again, Darrell.
And still ducking the question.
Iraq’s chem and bio weapons were destroyed by the Iraqis long before Bush invaded. The only place they’re not accounted for is in the delusions of those still unable to admit they were wrong.
Do you want to repeat that mistake again and get tens of thousands killed?
Darrell
srv you stupid ass.. As usual you don’t have the first clue:
Now after being humiliated, you’ll follow your predictable pattern of skulking away without ever admitting how completely wrong you were (again).
TenguPhule
Because nobody ever said the Right had to make sense.
Darrell
Can we see evidence on how “long” ago those WMDs were destroyed? Or did you simply make that up?
Saddam certainly had a helluva lot of WMDs back in 1998 when he ran off the weapons inspectors.
Tsulagi
We or Israel could drop bunker busters in Iran. They’d be very hard pressed to prevent that and those things would go boom. A few new ones in the works even have very cool, descriptive names.
There’s the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and one the Foley Republicans would cream in their pants to fund, the Kinetic Energy Cavity Penetrator Weapon. And we got others. However, just because they would go boom doesn’t mean the job would get done.
TenguPhule
Also known as dual use materials. Also known as blowing smoke out of your ass trying to claim it is ‘weaponized’ chem.
Again, are you willing to kill tens of thousands for non-existant nukes?
Steve
Did anyone else see Diane Sawyer’s recent special on her visit to North Korea? Very, very compelling stuff.
TenguPhule
Which were destroyed by the Iraqis, which they kept telling us right up to the invasion and as the UN and our own people confirmed on the ground.
I almost can’t believe Darrell is still trying to defend a line that even the Bush Admin has given up on.
cleek
been established that Saddam had a WMD program and WMDs.
show me the proof. where are the WMDs ?
Darrell
Already cited moron.
TenguPhule
We need a new rule. Generals are not allowed to name weapons after their codpieces.
srv
Iraq admitted it had produced Vx. It didn’t admit it had Vx in 1998.
That you once had a brain does not mean you had a clue in 1998.
Darrell, you’re going to need to start with remedial english comprehension if we’re going to keep this game up.
Let’s see you come up with a single reference there. Just like you admitted you were wrong about Saddam ‘kicking out’ inspectors (IN THIS VERY THREAD!).
That must have been your other Darrell.
Could we have a new rule? Only one person plays Darrell in one thread?
cleek
Already cited moron.
where? where’s those big vats of Vx and Sarin Bush told us about? where are those 30,000 chemical artillery shells? how about the mobile chem labs ? where are they ?
Tsulagi
Defense contractors knew who they were marketing their wares to. You think a GBU xx would capture the imagination and notice of Republicans in recent years. No, you go with Kinetic Energy Cavity Penetrator Weapon to get them to perk up.
Ted
Here we go again. How do you know in advance when a thread has been Darrellized before you open it? When the thread has well over 100 comments, and the preceding and following thread comment numbers are something like 18, and 34. Why? Because a third of the comments are Darrell’s.
chopper
according to the US government, it wasn’t there in 2003. wonder what happened between 1998 and 2003…a certain bombing campaign, perhaps?
wow, that’s an awesome strawman. anybody here ever say saddam never had a weapons program? ever?
Ted
Now if you really want to piss Darrell off, ask him who helped Saddam’s WMD program along back during the Iran-Iraq war.
Jake
Feexed!
nichevo
First let’s posit that negotiation will fail. (Anybody think Iran is interested in stopping, raise your hands?) But by all means play it out, whatever. Nonetheless let us now discuss Plan B.
Okay, we agree strikes against the Iranian nuclear program will be messy and of incomplete effectiveness (more so if Israel alone strikes with its smaller forces, as opposed to the US which has plenty of everything and less distance to fly).
Neither is a sufficient reason not to act – even delay has its uses. Both are good reasons to look into alternatives.
General agreement also, I think, that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs a) profess a hunger for martyrdom and b) have not yet achieved it.
So…What if we try whacking some/all of those guys? Perhaps they aren’t as stand-up as they appear. Or their replacements mightn’t be.
Various means could be used – Ahm. has been near-missed by tribesmen already; one guy is dying of cancer – if one doesn’t want to sign one’s work. Then again bombing might send a useful message, and more importantly get ’em all or mostly at once.
Or foment a coup or a revolution. Baluchis. Kurds. Students like the ones burning Ahm.’s picture at that speech.
Or destabilize the country, or at least retard the nuclear program, by other means – turn out the lights, stop the import of refined POL. Attack workers in the nuclear program. Find some kind of grip on Putin and get him to stop fissionables deliveries to Iran.
Oh, for fun’s sake, there are rumblings about KSA wanting to intervene in Iraq if we bug out. Key item here, they propose to max out oil production and reduce Iran’s income. Perhaps we could get them to do that anyway. Might help.
…
Just trying to think different. Now go ahead and call me names. Or, perhaps, offer a better idea, or at least constructive criticisms. There are of course more factors involved which for brevity’s sake I will allow others to name. Anyway, discuss.
nichevo
Ted, try Russia, France, West Germany, China. US arms and industrial sales were an insignificant fraction of totals at the time. Yeah, that’ll annoy Darrell.
I should skip this in favor of my post above but just wanted to touch on that one real quick. So I’m going to ignore chopper entirely for now, no offense.
srv
Your first mistake is to assume they aren’t rational actors. Tell you what, next time you sit down and play chess, assume the other person is crazy. See how that works for ya.
We’ve been doing this off and on since the 80’s. Remember what was happening when the Vincennes blew and Iranian airliner out of international airspace? It was in a running gun battle with Iranian zodiacs. Ever ask yourself why? Hint: don’t assume our Navy was just cruising around being sweet to everyone.
chopper
got to be careful equating the two. ahmadinejad is a nut, but he has no control of the military or any bombs iran may build in the future. the supreme council is made up of mullah-types, but they aint stupid and they aint that crazy.
as to hidden interventions, that’s pretty much all we’ll have to go one, practically speaking. problem is, we used to be pretty good at that sort of thing. i don’t think we have the good sense to pull it off anymore.
russia will be a key player. unfortunately, our relationship with moscow has gotten cold lately.
TenguPhule
Let’s posit that negotiations have not failed since they haven’t even been honestly tried yet.
In other words, bomb Iran even when there’s no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Brilliant!
Highly debatable. They send others to die, but they themselves are in no real hurry to commit suicide.
It’s been tried before, for instance remember Lebanon?
And that’s also called ‘terrorism’, which I thought we were all against, not for it.
Or we could simply send them a horsehead in their bed.
Stealing from the Godfather is not alternative thinking, merely very bad thinking.
We just attacked Syria for this kind of behavior and you want to turn around and do it to Iran? Do you enjoy pissing away American credibility?
This must be a spoof. These are not alternatives, they’re sheer lunacy.
Start from a basis in reality at least. There is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Stop trying to think of ways to get other people killed for nothing.
cleek
So…What if we try whacking some/all of those guys?
a) Bush can’t even find Bin Laden, neither in a country we control nor in a country that’s ostensibly our friend. look how long it took us to find Saddam or his sons.
b) whacking other countries’ heads-of-state potentially opens a big can of angry vipers.
c) Bush’s record as a nation builder sucks ass.
chopper
the current administration couldn’t find it’s own ass with two hands, a map, a sherpa guide and a homosexual dwarf. i doubt they’d be able to effectively ‘whack’ many of these dudes.
TenguPhule
And the US provided intelligence and funding that allowed Iraq to come back from the brink of defeat against Iran?
wilfred
Do you really think that I give a rat’s ass what you think about my argument? My function here is to show you sanctimonius, leftist hypocrites that you’re no better than your favorite whipping boy Darrel.
I’m Muslim, alhamdulillah and I’m not ashamed to say that I don’t give a fuck about Israel – I care about Palestine and the thousand of dead Muslims sacrificed at the altar of St. Enuresis. You profess to care about the Iranians to provoke this idiot Darrel, to cover your liberal credentialed ass:
I ask you again, Mr. intellectual honesty: Are you willing to kill tens of thousands of Palestinians so Israel can feel secure?
nichevo
srv:
Au contraire, not blowing yourself up is quite rational. For that matter, blowing yourself up is rational if your creed has been twisted to promote it. Getting others to blow themselves up for you is most rational of all.
Does this mean that you agree they would fear for their lives and would surrender if held at risk?
Interesting. I don’t believe the Baluchis or Kurds are seagoing tribes, though. Perhaps you would care to supply more detail?
chopper: you look serious. you’re next as I cannot keep up with everybody doing mega-posts.
Tsulagi
Or let’s send out a radiowave message to Xenu to return to Earth and turn all the Iranians into engrams. How about that?
chopper
some of us (gasp) give a fsck about people on both sides of that equation.
chopper
about the sherpa and the dwarf? dead serious.
i’m shaking at the mere spectre of your incredible
egointellect.Steve
Yeah, like, the parliament of Iran is perhaps even more wingnutty than Ahmedinejad. We’re not going to solve this with a silver bullet, taking out the one or two or three madmen who all happen to be the reincarnation of Hitler.
Ok, so if we need to get more serious than that, just foment a revolution. Well, not so simple. The Kurds, at least, were an autonomous ethnic group with a territorial base. It’s a little easier for them to rise up than, say, the revolution-minded college students of Tehran. You also have to reckon with (a) mostly because of the Kurds, we have zero credibility with any other group in the Middle East we urge to “rise up”; and (b) everything we’ve done to date to promote democracy and undermine the regime in Iran has simply served to intensify anti-U.S. sentiment. Right now there are all kinds of witchhunts taking place in Iran because the U.S. is known to be funneling money to pro-democracy groups, thus everyone who protests the current regime is assumed to be a U.S. agent. And just because someone in Iran dislikes the current regime doesn’t mean they love the U.S. (much like all the anti-Saddam Iraqis who have failed to welcome us with flowers), thus there’s actually quite a bit of support for persecuting suspected U.S. agents.
We can all agree that there is no easy answer. Still, I see no reason to dismiss the diplomatic option out of hand, particularly because accomplishing nothing more than kicking the can down the road 5 or 10 years is still a major win. A lot can change, people die and governments change, we can solidify alliances so we have a stronger base for an anti-Iran coalition the next time around. Meanwhile, if you’re convinced the leadership of Iran is a bunch of self-immolating martyrs there’s nothing I can say to you, but maybe like most political leaders their real concern is for power and self-preservation. After all, even a murderer like Osama sends other people to blow themselves up, you don’t see him giving his life for the cause. It’s entirely possible the world community can work out a diplomatic solution, as long as Iran’s leadership gets to save face as part of the deal. Right now all we’re accomplishing is letting them solidify power by building up more and more nationalistic and anti-U.S. sentiment, and I think we can be smarter.
TenguPhule
Kepping Palistinians off the roads != Genocide.
And I don’t give a damn about Palistinians locked down because of their own greed and stupidity. Israel is no saint, but the majority of them are not crazy and not the faceless cold killers you’d like them to be. A lot of them wanted to actually try to figure a peaceful way out of this mess….right up until the suicide bombings started killing without regard for which side of the debate they were on.
And then the radicals you embraced started silencing the Palistianians who wanted peace, through threats and violence, until only one voice spoke out that called for nothing but death and an endless cycle of blood.
When capturing an accused terrorist leader is labeled ‘provocation’ and revenge attacks are carried out in response against civilians, there’s something seriously wrong with the people you’re supporting.
TenguPhule
It means that Iran is not eager to commit suicide, not that they’ll meekly surrender if threatened. Stop trying to confuse the two.
Their leaders are not stupid, half of the crap they spew is intended solely to please their domestic audiences.
How about try *not* trying to pick a fight with Iran?
wilfred
My man Zifnab is reading me right:
I’m just looking for someone to hang man. The Wog Nigger who it’s okay to kill. Because, you know, the Christians of old had them strange fruit niggers who they lynched, even the odd Jew and papist – and who we got? I just want a nigger to call my own.
Help me understand, help me get on board.
Steve
Yeah, so, your interest is peace with Israel, right? Because getting rid of Israel is not an option so long as the U.S. has all the guns, I think we can all agree on that.
This is why the major ME actors like Saudi Arabia have been doing everything in their power to get the Israel-Palestine peace process back on track, which means getting the U.S. to reinvolve itself. And frankly, solving this problem is a precondition to solving anything in the region.
Israel was actually making pretty good progress over the last few years towards doing the right thing, until the Lebanon mess got it largely untracked. Still, the real issue isn’t the border with Lebanon, it’s the situation with the territories. Mainstream Israeli opinion has already decided to reject the far-right settler agenda – hell, even Ariel Sharon realized he had to reject it – which means they’re heading down the right road. It’s conventional wisdom that our grandkids will still be lamenting the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I think we’re actually not that far from real progress, if we set our minds to it.
nichevo
chopper Says:
I think, that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs a) profess a hunger for martyrdom and b) have not yet achieved it.
Ahm. therefore may be the one to kill in order to make an example – Maybe some nice polonium ;>? – precisely because he wouldn’t really threaten the status quo. If the mullahs can be warned off this program by such means, fine.
Otherwise, the entire mullah-based government would need to be subverted. If you like, maybe alternatives to death could include Photoshops of key people in bed with live boys or dead girls, heroin in car trunks, unexplained dollars/rubles/euros, that sort of thing. A society like Iran’s is doubtless brimming with watchmen-of-the-watchmen.
I do see what you mean. Well, Afghanistan seemed to go pretty OK in that sense, of small covert action teams. And we do catch the odd baddie here and there, and who knows what we don’t know about?
Also, I would imagine the Israelis haven’t lost all their chops. Some of the Europeans MIGHT help, properly incented. There are as I say tribes and such who might provide at least aid/comfort, let alone maybe proxies. Conceivably some Arab countries with no love for Iran? And, as you say, there are the Russians…
Yes, the Russians. I have to see them as feeding the crocodile. Surely nobody thinks Russia and Iran are long term natural allies? I have to see current posture as one of convenience.
As long as they get paid, they should have no kick coming, unless they really want to arm Iran against the West. Perhaps some not too revolting deal could be concocted with facts on the ground in the vicinity.
OTOH, they are getting a bit squirrelly, aren’t they? Good question, what to do about them. There are always Chechens to arm, if we go that route, to pressure them. And there is the perfectly overt NATO expansion. I wouldn’t like to throw anyone to the wolves but perhaps deployments could be arranged in some relatively reassuring fashion.
Meantime, though, they are taking numerous hostile or just wacky steps, aren’t they? I think I heard that they just ripped off Shell on some oil deal. Hmm, dunno. But I’m not sure how they could really stop us in our tracks, doing this. I do wonder if Bush needs to perform a new eye exam on Putin or something, the last one apparently isn’t sticking.
But by all means let’s don’t jab Russia in the ass for no reason. What can we do for them without giving away the store? Offer them a place in the new Moon base? Put more of their women in pornos? Shrug.
…
TenguPhule, you’re next. I would ignore you but at least I suspect your heart’s in the right place on this one. At least you have this wilfrid PO’d at you.
TenguPhule
Why you would endorse terrorism against a foreign government is beyond me. There’s a very good reason for that gentleman’s agreement about assassination.
nichevo
chopper – also you raise another interesting point. Perhaps we need to look harder at their military commands, their scientific infrastructure, their industry, as the people to subvert. After all, is some mullah going to bother with PALs, or trust in inshallah and his faithful Rev. Guards?
In a military context, EMPs might prove useful to subdue conventional and nuclear forces while we go in and demo some sites. Maybe the thing is to bribe the right border guards or the right missile-radar crews. But chain of command, Iranian military estimates, not the kind of stuff we’re likely to have access to.
wilfred
Yeah, that must be why Olmert made Avigdor Lieberman a deputy prime minister, a man committed to the ethnic cleansing of all Arabs from Israel. Deafening outrage from the American left on the appointment of the circumsised Pik Botha.
Boy, you’re really well informed. The Israeli rap is they’re committed to peace and a two-state solution – minus all Palestinians.
TenguPhule
Gods help us, you’re advocating using *NUCLEAR* Weapons now?
TenguPhule
I see Arab Israelis.
I see no Jewish Palistinians.
Care to explain that or does it not fit in your twisted world view?
chopper
i don’t think that ‘taking out’ ahm. is going to get the mullahs to just up and quit what they’re doing. it will, however, enrage iran to the point where the dude that replaces ahm. will be 10 times batsht-crazier. and it will only strengthen iran’s belief that they need nukes to keep the US at a distance.
subversion is really the only method we would have. unfortunately, we’re not talking about some tiny group of learned citizens. the assembly of experts is 86 strong. it wouldn’t be easy. we’d have enough trouble taking out one major player in iran, much less 50 or more.
a big problem with these subversive acts is they’re much, much harder to pull off than they used to be. nowadays a stone falls in the mid east and half the people on earth know about it within a few days.
Steve
You didn’t think Sharon’s formation of a new party represented a major, major change in Israel’s direction? Such things happen every day where you come from?
Look, the settler agenda is not without its supporters. They didn’t get this far by having no political backing, but the evident fact is, mainstream Israeli opinion has turned away from this route. I realize it’s always hard to see the other guys as good-faith actors, so I won’t try to go there with you. But I think there’s serious potential for things to go in the right direction, if the U.S. doesn’t keep blowing off the narrow windows of opportunity. Look how we nearly blew it all by failing to capitalize on the Cedar Revolution.
nichevo
TenguPhule Says: never mind. I was going to try to go point by point, but
1) you apparently can’t read, and/or don’t know history (Godfather! Ha, ha! Is Sun Tzu more to your taste?)
2) if you could you’d see we are agreeing on a number of points, for instance you will notice I am trying to AVOID mass deaths, I would be just as happy to get Iran to back down peacefully,
3) but I don’t take seriously the notion that the Iranians are, status quo, innocent little lambs who just want to run their electric space heaters, so that is just a waste of time.
You’re making like a lawyer with Reasonable Doubt. It don’t apply. Maybe this is all due to a mismatch in rhetoric, like that mother-of-all-battles, stomachs-roasting-in-hell stuff from Baghdad Bob and the Iraqis. If nothing else, they will learn to talk straight.
wilfred
Who the fuck said that you stupid shit? Jimmy Carter said it was apartheid, which it is. The only people capable of making genocide in the Middle East are the Israelis and the US – we have all the droplet bombs, Minerva tanks, F-16’s and nukes.
You are the worst kind of sniveling leftist, the kind Orwell mocked.
demimondian
Actually, wilfred, *you’re* the kind of leftist that Blair memorialized in _Farewell to Catalonia_. You might go read it .
Steve
I didn’t even know Tony Blair wrote a book.
nichevo
Cleek, fair enough: let me reply. Also hopefully this respons to chopper, below.
a) Ahm. and the mullahs are public figures. Ahm. himself has been found several times, the Baluchis just needed better shooters. Obviously, some can openers would be useful – surprise, allies, etc. I was thinking more along the lines of – it would be easier to bomb the Capitol than to shoot 435 Congressmen – surely they conclave somewhere, sometime?
b) True, maybe. Covert – proxies – false-flag ops. Assuming a coup, have someone else do the dirty work. Maybe they can be made to flee to Iraq for succour ;>!
c) We don’t have to nation-build. Part of the swooning here stems from a misapprehension that we will need a million guys on the ground. No. This would be an Air Force, Navy, SOCOM operation. Unless a coup or revolution went off and we WERE welcomed with flowers and such, just punish till they figure out that they should be afraid and obey.
TenguPhule
I know enough about history to know that trying to topple another country’s government short of imminent threat is not a good idea. They rarely work the way they’re supposed to.
Back down from what? They’re within their rights to enrich, and without evidence of a weapons program there’s no room to stand on for any sort of ‘corrective’ action against them. Your ideas will only result in mass death, not prevent them.
They’re not innocent lambs, but we have *NO* *EVIDENCE* of a nuclear weapons program. That puts them on a lower priority then say…North Korea. At the worst, talking buys *TIME* to find out more, at best it can resolve a lot of bad blood between our countries.
We’ve already seen how competent Bush is at picking fights, please stop trying to give him another chance at one.
TenguPhule
Shock and Awe went out of style in 2003.
nichevo
TenguPhule seems to be playing Jeopardy:
I think this was meant to be a statement, but came out of the form of a question. Rephrase? Details maybe?
I doubt that anything we provided was unique – as if they couldn’t get dollars elsewhere. Pretty much it was Warsaw Pact gear, with the odd Frog rocket or torture tool mixed in, some kraut chemistry kits.
But in fact, if you will recall the current of the times – I think it was Henry Kissinger who said, Too bad they can’t both lose. Would you have liked Iran to win? How do you think that would have played out geopolitically? Much different from now?
Can you think at all? But stay, no doubt I will taunt you more below.
wilfred
Who said I was a leftist? I’m pro-Muslim and Pro-Palestinian. I support a two state soultion in Palestine according to 242. My Israeli brothers are anti-likudinik and anti-neo-con. I take my screen name from Wilfred Thesiger, a true friend of the Arabs and the Muslims.
I piss on your bullshit hypocrisy and your ‘moral’ support of the aspirations of the Palestinian people.
TenguPhule
Additionally nichevo, consider how official American recognition of Iran’s government would play out back in Iran. The hard right would be furious with their own government, weakening their power structure & allowing the ‘liberals’ in Iran to campaign against the ‘corrupt American loving’ mullahs.
Sometimes you need to keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer.
TenguPhule
Well Iran was perfectly fine…up until Bush invaded Iraq.
We were actually coming close to the point where serious talks were possible. If that idiot in office hadn’t needlessly decided to make Iran ‘Axis of Evil’, chance are good we’d have seen more moderate reformers taking power in Iran instead of the mess today. Bush’s actions drove the hardliners further into power, and his government only makes it worse with every new threat and warning uttered.
Steve
Yeah, uh, you know how you guys are always like “silly liberals, so naive, thinking diplomacy might actually work”? Now multiply that amount of naivete by like a factor of 10.
Let’s look at things from Iran’s perspective. Gee, there was this tyrant in the country right next door, and maybe he had nukes, maybe he didn’t, but he sure made the mistake of being cute about it, didn’t he? And what did that nutty cowboy George Bush do? Invaded the country, captured the dictator and put him on trial, killed his sons, scattered the regime to the four winds. Yeah, things haven’t gone so great overall, but still, no one would question that Saddam and his regime got demolished big time.
This is what happened to the country RIGHT NEXT DOOR, when its leader made the mistake of getting too cute about his supposed nuclear ambitions. Yet, in case you haven’t noticed, Iran appears strangely unafraid! And yet the response in some quarters is “we must apply even MORE force! we must keep getting more and more ruthless until they finally learn to fear us!” Maybe, just maybe, you’re operating from completely the wrong paradigm.
TenguPhule
But our government chose to provide it to them, which seriously undercut any moral grounds we had on condemning Saddam’s behavior later on.
Pb
I suppose I should mention that Cheney surely didn’t think they needed UN Resolution 1441–after all, he was gunning to invade Iraq back in 1990 without having Congress authorize the war…
And really, I suspect that if it weren’t for Colin Powell, they very well might have gone to war against Iraq earlier–maybe much earlier–and definitely without all of that negotiation with the UN.
nichevo
wilfred, may I chime in? A few questions to begin.
Wilfred is no doubt your slave name. Are you a black American, or are you, say, a white European, or something else? From what religion, if any, did you convert? To what sect of Islam do you belong?
But to your points:
Bad faith, wilfrid. If you’re not interested in responses, are you just talking to hear the sound of your own voice? If you’re not open to others, why should they be open to you? Because you’re Muslim and everybody else ain’t shit?
You’re probably not talking to me here.
If true, why don’t you counsel them to bite the bullet? Or at least to stop killing each other. Lebanon’s gonna have a bloodbath that makes all the Israeli conflicts look meek and mild. Do you feel good about that, or bad about that? (And what would you like to do about it? Should Leb. maybe lie down for Syria?)
I agree, this is horsefeathers.
Me? Sure. All of ’em, if necessary. I would prefer they learn to behave. I mean, you are obviously willing to kill everybody in Israel to have your way, and IMHO the Israelis are more valuable than your whole ummah, let alone the Pals you use and throw away like a condom.
The problem is you don’t know when to quit, because your faith is essentially a religious translation of master-race theory, and you apparently cannot allow for the fact that your ass is ours and the best thing you can do is “islam” (uh, I mean submit) to modernity.
Or maybe (to your credit) you think we haven’t got the guts to waste you in cold blood. Well, a few more catastrophes laid at your door and people will wake up.
I know you don’t see it like this because you’re a convert and no matter how you try, you can’t take Western Civ out of the boy. C’mon, do you really dig the idea of chopping off thieves’ hands and stoning girls who put out?
You probably just see NOI, or whatever you are, as a way out of your sociological trap. All fine, self-empowerment is fine, but you really have no idea what you’re signing up for, which is a world of hurt. My friend, they will use you and throw you away just like they do the Palestinians.
Steve
Where I come from you don’t talk this way about someone’s religion. Disgusting. Try to be a little less of an ass.
chopper
man, the newbies got a temper to em.
nichevo
Tsulagi – Xena? I loved that show! Hells yeah, she’s probably kick all their asses. Get Hercules too if he’s not filming.
chopper – play nice, eh?
Steve – I don’t massively disagree with you in any particular part. I know the coup/revolution idea in particular ain’t simple, especially to pull off clean. Destabilizing the country would be easier, but unintended consequences, yadda yadda. Any of these alternatives would have to be studied, sure.
As for diplomacy – sure, fine, whatever. Diplomacy is the art of saying “Nice doggy” while you find a rock. Meanwhile, though, it does not seem to be stopping them building. Who says we have 5-10 years? But I don;t oppose it on principle. Maybe even the 5-nation Euros will get sick enough of getting irrumated to pony up for at least sanctions. Maybe. Of course as their domestic Muslim problems increase upon them they may be less up for anything.
As for the mullahs not wanting to die – yes! Ding! I quite agree. Easy enough to send men out to die – nevermind men, children with plastic keys to Heaven walking across minefields – little harder to raise your own hand.
ISTM therefore that decapitation or direct pressure on the decision-makers might stand a chance of working. People whine about the legalities, but I think that’s codswallop. What is worse, to lose a dozen leaders, or ten thousand or a million men, women and children?
Hey, I don’t have all the answers. Maybe you don’t even have to kill them. Some form of subversion might be better, sure. Bribes, blackmail, honeytraps, mind control, who the hell knows? Worth looking into – as I keep saying – as an alternative to mass deaths. Sheesh, like we never bought a foreign government before?
nichevo
TenguPhule:
Re: you vs. wilfred – Right on!
Re: this mess –
Does this mean that you agree they would fear for their lives and would surrender if held at risk?
But them getting nukes is suicide. I don’t suggest to merely threaten, they don’t respect that at all. Though if the leaders knew that they, personally, and all their clans, would get it in the neck, they might think different. Or are they so very different in Iran than in Iraq?
Their leadership could find lots of ways to please their people without jumping up and down begging us to annihilate them.
Pick a fight, no. But like your Scots-Irish hero Webb, I am generally OK with giving one to somebody who asks for it.
Tengu – I see that in later posts you are a little more creative. I will leave off for now and scroll down.
wilfred
It’s not about me, man. I just wanted to see if you were any different from LGF. Why is your Your argument is about me?
I’m as American as you, does my color really matter?
That sounds like a threat. That’s what we want to hear.
There you go. I knew you’d feel better if you only said it. I helped you find you’re inner hate site, because you’re the only one talking about killing, just like always.
Clock this, man. You and your white hood crowd are not dealing with Stepin Fetchit Negros or shtetl Jews.
nichevo
TenguPhule Says:
No, I have always favored taking out an evil leadership rather than taking it out on the poor dumb masses. Whose blood would you rather have on your hands – Hitler’s in 1932 or five million Germans (etc., etc., etc.) in 1945?
Besides, call me a troll, but I don’t gather that many people on this board would weep for Bush. Or maybe you would rise above your transient glee, I admit. Maybe ;>
Darrell
Not when the ahole explicitly spells out in black and white that he/she is a supremicist who really and truly does subscribe to the master race, or at least the ‘master religion’ theory
Steve just wants to be liked.
Darrell
Steve’s got his pants down ready to lay down and be your bitch.
wilfred
I want you baby – i hear you got a flat head where I can rest my bean pie.
nichevo
Tengu, there are non-nuclear EMP weapons now. I will not call you stupid for not knowing that.
Chopper – maybe, maybe not. I grant you it is not a gimme. I would say that the death of Ahm. would seem pretty easy to arrange. How, and to send what message or none, I agree is more important.
I do think that you should be able to hit any assembly they make and to kill everybody there. Only works once of course. But that would hit the US real bad if you blew up Congress with the President inside. Maybe Iran’s Minister of Agriculture is also badass but it seems less likely and he would have less to work with, and other problems on his hands.
I do think it would be relatively straightforward – not easy, not ideal, but doable – to reduce Iran to chaos to the point where they would have no capacity for nuclear activities unless they were going to take people and money off crowd control, say, or food, power, etc. Obviously that would be bad and I would prefer something cleaner. Maybe at that point it is better just to bomb, even.
Hahaha, you know George Orwell’s real name was Eric Blair, right? Still, teh funny.
Tengu again – 9:16, – if you feel better, consider that I am PLANNING ahead, for what I consider inevitable, but by all means, if the cookie-pushers pull one off, that’s all just fine. Then we can go back to watching them whip their women with electrical cables. Not a problem.
9:18 – re Shock and Awe, different concept. I wish you may believe me, though, when I tell you that if we actually went after all 600 nuke targets, and destroyed them, and added on a few hundred infrastructure targets as I think would be necessary, they would be pretty well shocked and awed.
nichevo
Tengu 9:25 – interesting, but I think I missed something. Did you drop a post that would make this make sense? What is this recognition stuff?
9:29 – huh? I mean HUH? Iran was fine till Carter shafted the Shah. After that, not so much. And never mind the revolution and our grudge – just as the whole regional Sunni-Shiite thing is now a problem, how do you figure it wasn’t then? Do you think Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, etc., weren’t afraid of Iran in the 80s? D00d, follow the money. If Iran had not been contained, there’s your broken eggs for you.
Darrell
Wow.. I just wanted to blockquote that bit of leftist deep thinking so we can all ponder the brilliance of it.
Darrell
Hey Wilfred, are you a Brit?
nichevo
Steve 9:29 – re naivete, I am not at all expectant of the flowers. Should we work an angle where everything came up jackpot, maybe, but even in an ideal outcome I expect little enough gratitude.
re: the Iranian posture – unless it is what the coach said about Jackie Robinson’s miracle catch – “I’d like to see the SOB do it again” – I agree it is confusing. One alternative is that they already have some nukes, bought from greedy Russian (or Pak) supply sergeants or whatever, and believe they have MAD. Do you offer an explanation? Maybe I misread you.
Tengu 9:31 – I am not sure that the premised loan, ostensibly for agricultural purposes, was so blatant as to expend all out moral credibility, unless somebody who didn’t like the US on general principles wished it to be so. And I haven’t seen any links to military sales worthy of the name.
You missed that we sent them some botulinum toxin, under scientific auspices, but happily I don’t think that was misused. I think, however, that would be about it. Oh yeah, I think they got some helicopters. Bad USA.
Pb 9:34 – if your point is not simply to say “Bad America! Rabid Cheney! No doughnut!” then it might be mentioned that without the UN delays, things might have worked out better on the ground.
Steve 9:49 pm : Where you come from you can’t recognize Judenhass when you see it, so enough of that. Wilfred’s a man, he will come back swinging. Could I have said it nicer in fewer words? Well, I did omit the part where their Paradise is an eternal whorehouse. But is it that I was wrong about Islam’s inherent “destiny” being world conquest, or that I was mean to say so?
Wilfred 10:03 – there you are. You deserve my full attention so I will post this and come back to you.
TenguPhule
And the whole point is we have no evidence they are trying for nukes, all attempts to scare them into trying to the contrary.
Which to be honest, initially had me surprised. After Bush invaded Iraq that didn’t have chem/bio weapons and stalling for time with North Korea which now does have them, I figured they’d shrug their shoulders and figure that there’s no point in waiting for the next attack coming at them and go at it full bore.
But then I realized with Iraq gone to hell in a handbasket there really wasn’t much need for nuclear weapons on their side. Not with 155,000 US troops within easy range for use as hostages if it comes down to the worst.
The whole Kabuki dance is to keep anyone on our side from doing something stupid which will result in them doing something equally stupid and final to the people we have on both of their borders.
TenguPhule
You do recall how Iran offered their sympathies to us after 9/11 and made overtures to talks, right?
We had a foot in the door right up until the ‘Axis of Evil’ drove Iran’s moderates out of favor and put the hardliners into power.
Bush’s actions were as counterproductive to his stated goal as Palistinian groups are to theirs.
Darrell
You do recall that the govt of Iran leads “death to America” protests in both their parliment and on the streets, right? Just so we get sense as to how stupid you really are..
Darrell
I think the Iranian govt had only the best of intentions before bellicose warmonger Bush took office.. that much we know for sure.
TenguPhule
The problem with all of them is 1) our government isn’t competent enough to pull it off and 2) getting caught will open an even bigger can of worms then a hostile Iran.
TenguPhule
You do recall the moderate got thrown out in part due to Bush’s idiocy in portraying Iran as a threat that needed to be dealt with? Your memory really isn’t that short, is it?
Darrell
You’re absolutely right… I blame Bush! And the Jews too!
TenguPhule
If that’s how you approach Diplomacy all you get is a hand missing a couple of fingers.
Military force is supposed to be a last resort when all else has failed, not the first button pushed because of something that hasn’t been found yet.
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Look! A distraction!
nichevo
Dear Wilfred,
1) Hohoho, this is no LGF, believe me. They pretend (or used to) to be “moderates” or even at one time Republicans on this board, but as long as I’ve been coming here, they are to my mind wacky Left. I admit they are not Left enough to root on Jimmy Carter and the terrorists, but they will try to split the difference.
2) I apologize if you feel singled out because I asked you those personal questions. You are different from most of these guys and I wished to take your measure – to understand where you are coming from. For instance, I wanted to know whether you were Sunni, Shia, Sufi, whatever.
My intuition told me you were a black American – at first the name kinda threw me, I thought maybe an Englishman, but never mind esp. as you say it’s a nick – but I do not care about that.
I don’t care, that is, in the sense that I think you would then be worth three fifths of a white man, or could be bought off with fried chicken and watermelon, or anything like that ;-). No, I own black men to be my equal, inasmuch as anyone is my equal.
The reason I pry is that I am trying to understand the nature of your religious background, education, orientation. I would be speaking to a different person if you were a Saudi whose blood runs back to the first Caliph, or an Iranian Safavid, or a Sufi mystic (who is a heretic to many orthodox Muslims), or an Indonesian, or whatever.
My guess was, and is, that you are NOI or some other form of “Black Muslim” as the term is commonly understood. Alternatively you could be a black, or a white, Chinese, whatever, American convert to Islam in an orthodox sect, but it was NOI, not black, that I was keying on.
As such, perhaps you don’t know, but you would be considered by many orthodox Muslims also to be a heretic. Not a “real” Muslim. Almost like an Uncle Tom to them – you know, don’t you, that Arabs took millions of African blacks for slaves into the East? – and while they may be polite to your face, in fact you might mean nothing more to them than cannon fodder.
Again, as an American, I would not be talking to you so much. I do not think the American Muslim population is in the main a grave danger. Unlike in Europe, the American Dream is pretty open to our Muslim immigrants – at least, many make money here. I’m not the one to tell you about the black experience in America, but as I am saying, NOI is not the threat, at least not the source of the threat, though some NOI or Black Muslim sects may be used.
Again, I am talking to the terrorists in the Middle East. I don’t think you are one of them. If you cling to them you may have trouble, but as I said, you don’t read like you want to do that.
Solidarity and brotherhood is all fine in the abstract, and you might like to help a brother out and think all Muslims are your brothers, but would you yourself willingly do the barbarous shit they do over there? I noticed you didn’t come back with a Damn right! for the stoning and the hand-chopping.
You want to gang-rape teenagers over some clan beef you know nothing about, as a matter of honor? Or kill your little sister because she got raped, or even put out for some guy, or maybe just the wrong guy? You want to cut off little girls’ clits with broken bottles? You want to chop heads, drink blood? You want to make whitey wear funny hats and step off the sidewalk when they see you coming?
I don’t think you want to go the full trip, Wilfred. I think youhave honorable intentions. You heard the good side; something in it called to you; I can’t fight that. But I can see that you have been getting only one side of the story. You are young and naive; just as Tengu and half the posters here are young and naive; and filled with certainty.
Those people are the ones we really have to deal with. If you are with them, you will get stomped. If not, you’re fine with me, but maybe you shouldn’t go over there and think that you’ll be all right because you don’t eat pig. You may not be talking about killing and destroying and conquering, but they are.
Naw, I’m with the Jews, shtetl or otherwise. As far as I am concerned everybody can live in peace and happiness forever, but mess with me and mine and you’ll get what I got to give. The reason I jump salty is because we’ve been getting messed with for a very long time and I for one don’t intend to have any more of it. I am guessing that you know what I mean.
Darrell
Yeah, it’s not like the mullahs have a 25+ year track record of supporting terrorism or anything.
nichevo
Tengu 10:51, 10:54 – the people, yes, the rulers, no. Don’t be fooled by that moderates jazz. Just as Ahm. is a guy with no power, so was Montazeri or whatever his name was. You notice that there were no competitive moderates in the last election, it was Crazy and Crazier. But even so, president is a figurehead, the council of mullahs has the power. Show me some evidence of moderation *there*.
And I agree Iran is not implicated in 9/11. And I agree that at this time there is no proof that they have designed engineered manufactured and assembled a reliable fission weapon.
However, I see every indication that they want one, are trying to make one, and will use it as soon as convenient. This will not be allowed to happen.
Also, I think we have pretty good proof that they are not exactly helping in Iraq. They are sending men and money and arms. That to my mind is a really great reason to paste them, BTW, but am willing to hold off for now. It does not imbue me with a confidence in their essential harmlessness, though.
Steve
Your religious bigotry is a fucking disgrace and I’m not ashamed to say so. Folks of all political stripes are welcome here, but I sure hope the site administrators boot your ass right quick if you don’t cut the LGF bullshit.
“Where I come from” we have a huge Jewish population, a huge Muslim population, and you know what, everyone basically gets along. Please forgive me for feeling like we might have it all a little more figured out than you do.
Beautiful shit you spew. You know, don’t you, that many fundamentalist Christians believe you’re going to burn in Hell because you don’t acknowledge Jesus as your Savior? Blah blah blah. Yeah I’m sure you take it as a major concern, and you make damn sure people like that don’t get anywhere near the levers of political power in this country… right?
Shape up or ship out. You can take your hate where it’s welcome.
nichevo
So where do you come from, Steve? If one may ask? I assure you that wherever it is, you don’t have more of either Jews or Muslims than I do here. You feel superior (like you have it all figured out, etc.) because it is in your nature to do so. That, and because you have probably never been in a situation of which you were not the master.
As for Christian fundamentalists, I know just what you mean. I have had long, cordial discussions with them; a memory of one on a train occurs to me when a kindly looking woman noticed I was reading a Bible.
Unfortunately, just like you and others on this board, she had an unfortunate habit of seeking to place all mankind into pigeonholes – Oh, you’re a secular humanist; Oh, you’re a this, Oh, you’re a that – which rigor I found uncongenial. But we managed neither of us to consign the other to hellfire.
Actually, having spent some time in the South, I learned that indeed, they don’t all bite snakes or even sleep with their daughters. Some Christians are very fine people, even the ones I didn’t grow up around.
As for the truth of my spew – have you read The Autobiography of Malcolm X?
If you can ban me, do so, otherwise why don’t you attempt some physical impossibilities. The owner obviously has his choice. As I said before, I don’t usually spend much time here anyway. Though if I were the kind of troll you would like to make me out, the easy pickings here would hardly tend to drive me away.
Actually, though, the reason I have posted here two days in a row is that from time to time I am able to find someone to talk sense for a short burst. And this discussion is interesting. So here I am till you bore me again.
Meanwhile I thought you were going to ignore me, you precious, you. Since you cannot separate what is true from what is nice, though, perhaps you would feel better if you pretended I was not here.
PS Wilfred can of course speak for himself, but why don’t you ask him which of the two of us he respects more? At least he hasn’t offered to punk me. Though the night is young.
nichevo
BTW, wilfred, whatever you think of me, please don’t associate my positions with the other wonderful, wonderful, wonderful people here. As you can see, I don’t fit in much around here either. My brother hastens to deny me, I suppose because he thinks you can’t take it (he is mistaken). So please Hammer don’t hurt ’em, not on my account.
…
Okay Steve, now I’m sure he’ll use the K-Y.
And if you ask him nicely, maybe he’ll let his bean pie cool off before he lays it on your flat head.
(Wilfred, did I mention before: ROFL LOLOLOL Mmmmmuuahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahaha!)
nichevo
BTW, wilfred, whatever you think of me, please don’t associate my positions with the other wonderful, wonderful, wonderful people here. As you can see, I don’t fit in much around here either. My brother hastens to deny me, I suppose because he thinks you can’t take it (he is mistaken). So please Hammer don’t hurt ’em, not on my account.
…
Okay Steve, now I’m sure he’ll use the K-Y.
And if you ask him nicely, maybe he’ll let his bean pie cool off before he lays it on your flat head.
(Wilfred, did I mention before: ROFL LOLOLOL Mmmmmuuahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahaha!)
nichevo
BTW, wilfred, whatever you think of me, please don’t associate my positions with the other wonderful, wonderful, wonderful people here. As you can see, I don’t fit in much around here either. My brother hastens to deny me, I suppose because he thinks you can’t take it (he is mistaken). So please Hammer don’t hurt ’em, not on my account.
…
Okay Steve, now I’m sure he’ll use the K-Y.
And if you ask him nicely, maybe he’ll let his bean pie cool off before he lays it on your flat head.
(Wilfred, did I mention before: ROFL LOLOLOL Mmmmmuuahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahaha!)
nichevo
Oops, multipost. My bad. Perhaps 128 open tabs is too many ;bum steer ;>
nichevo
Sorry, I was saying:
Anyway, wilfred, I thought Steve was more of a pointy-head. Darrell might have given you a bum steer ;>
Ted
I see we now have two professionals here. Lovely. I certainly hope it pays.
bernarda
Israel has at least twice threatened its neighbors with nuclear destruction. The first time was during the 1967 war when they had two or more warheads. The second was during the 1973 war when they had dozens of warheads.
As to the statement, “None of us want Iran to go nuclear”. Not me, I think that Iran should go nuclear. It wouldn’t be any worse than Pakistan and would help stablize the region by countering Israel’s nuclear extortion.
The Israeli government is a least as bad as the Iranian government. Israel is just another theocratic know-it-all state that will stop at nothing, Iran but with nukes. Well, that is unfair to Iran, which has not repeatedly invaded its neighbors and massacred their citizens.
You can say that Iran has archaic laws that allow it to stone people, which is atrocious. Israel has modern laws that allow it extra-judicial killings and use modern stones like cluster bombs to carry them out.
Krista
And the U.S. has twice used nuclear weapons on other human beings.
And yet, they’re the good guys who should be allowed to tell the rest of the world whether or not they should have nuclear weaponry.
(And no, I’m not saying that the U.S. and Israel are the “bad guys”, but it is a little bit of a case of pot, meet kettle…)
Darrell
So many leftists really do feel this way. I’m glad at least a few of you are willing to admit to it.
Darrell
Yes, who are we to tell countries run by sociopathical nutjobs like North Korea or Iran or even Sudan, that they shouldn’t have nuclear weapons. We’re no better than they are. Look at what the US did in WWII!
chopper
i really think bombing iran’s assembly would accomplish two things, both of them very bad; 1) they’d ramp up their fledgling nuclear program for defensive purposes omnce the dust settles and 2) they’d likely make iraq their new fun-time play land. imagine millions of pissed off shiites in iraq and more pouring across the border. imagine being a us troop in the middle of that. well, at least imagine being a us troop for the short time you’d have left.
you’d also have everybody in the world against us. and i don’t mean little things, i mean trade sanctions and worse. blowing up another country’s congress (basically a rich man’s 9/11 attack) out of the blue would have political ramifications that would last decades.
chopper
plus, if you’re going to go after any one person, ahm. is not the guy. you’d want the supreme leader, he’s the dude with the power. you kill ahm. and you kill a figurehead, the supreme leader is in charge of the military. and i think he’s a bit better protected than ahm.
Darrell
Given the mullahs track record in supporting terrorism, if the rest of the world went against us for taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities to deny the mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons, that would tell you everything you need to know about “world opinion”, wouldn’t it?
Zifnab
Ok. Apologies. I’m getting all my bombings mixed up. Jordan Embassy in 2003, Chinese Embassy in 1999. Regardless, my whole “we couldn’t bomb bin Laden then so we’re not going to get all of Iran’s (non-existant) WMDs today” statement still stands.
Furthermore, the Pentagon has a less than perfect record on bombing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2116942.stm
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/27/smn.20.html
link
Regardless, Donald Rumsfield clearly couldn’t bomb his way out of a paper bag without blowing up a convent full of nuns first. And he couldn’t find WMDs if he was sitting in a nuclear silo. I just can’t trust Gates until I see him in action for a bit longer. And since neither of them actually pull the trigger (that’s left to the Fighting Jesuses of the US Airforce) I don’t even know if changing head guys will matter. So dropping oversized hang grenades over Tehran hardly seems like a viable military option, at least for the time being.
Zifnab
Why does the world hate America?
chopper
after 9/11, pretty much everyone in the world was against al qaeda and the taliban. we enjoyed support from near everyone. and that was despite any of the bad things the US had done in the past, all of the terrorism we had supported, the democratic governments we had toppled.
not that what iran supports is better, the people they support do worse. however, if iran gets their own 9/11 from the US, the world will similarly turn against us for being responsible.
Darrell
A consistent theme of the left is that the US is not fundamentally a good nation. That’s why we hear so many leftists saying “who is the US to tell other nations they can’t have nuclear weapons?” and “despite the US’s horrible past”, etc. Let’s start a tally: bloodthirsty Europeans started two world wars and the US bailed their asses out both times. We bailed out Europeans again in the Balkans in the 90’s. The US led the fight against communism during the cold war, and was the primary reason the Soviet Union was bankrupted. The US, more than any other nation, has taken in the oppressed people of other nations. That is our history which so many of you leftist dirtbags denigrate.
We’re not perfect, but overall, there isn’t another nation even close to as virtuous a history as the US. So why the leftist tendency to slam the US, particularly in comparison to other countries? So many of you really do hate the US. How else to explain your double standards in singling out the US for your criticisms?
Zifnab
Which, to be fair, is all that really matters. But Iran doesn’t have tons of sympathy from Europe, as far as I’ve seen. America was the hero of WWII and the champion of freedom during the Cold War. The Twin Towers were seen as bastions of Western Civilization. I don’t think Iran shares that level of prestige globally. And with his dumb-shit Holocaust denial and Isreal-oblitaration rhetoric, Amedinajad hasn’t built up alot of global likeability. But he will get support from his neighbors who will most likely see this as one more step in the grand American march to conquer the Middle East.
Zifnab
I agree, Strawman McLiberal Pants is totally out of line. We need to rein that guy in. He can’t open his mouth without talking about how much he hates America. Remember that time he wanted to poison a Supreme Court Justice because she didn’t rule his way? Or when he claimed that voting for a certain home-grown American political party was the same thing as voting for terrorism? How about that time he took $2.4 million in kickbacks? What a traitor to our country. What a crook. Guys like that make me sick. I hate Strawman McLiberal Pants.
chopper
a consistent theme of mine is that the US is not perfect. it has done some very bad things in the past.
funny thing, as soon as i hit ‘post’ i knew that you’d zero in on that one phrase and use it to brush ‘leftists’ with something or other. you’re as predictable as you are stupid.
truth is, we’ve done our fair share of dickish stuff. yet when we were attacked on 9/11, people everywhere forgot about that stuff and supported us. the same will happen with iran if this mythical plan to blow up their government comes to fruition. missing the point, as always, is darrell. take a bow, darrell; folks, isn’t he great?
chopper
thing is, we’re talking about blowing up iran’s government. that would be seen as a really big deal all over the world. tho most of all in the ME of course.
i doubt that europe, even with its dislike of iran, wouldn’t raise hell if the US bombed iran’s parliament.
Zifnab
I think we’re a few steps shy of that. Even the US would raise hell about Bush bombing their legislative body. And we’d most likely see a new wave of military resignations. Bush just wants to bomb “nuclear sites” aka “places that make good TV coverage on CNN”. They’ll lay waste to a few power plants and manufactoring sites, roll out the Mission Accomplished banner, and say they saved the world from Nukular Iran.
Darrell
Truth is overall, there’s not another nation on earth with a history as virtuous as that of the US, and for you to paint the US with the broad brush of “supporting terrorists” with zero context demonstrates that you’re engaging in “dickish” behavior yourself.
ThymeZone
Nice speech, if only it contained a grain of truth. From the Shah of Iran to Saddam Hussein himself, the US has supported any number of despots and asshole dictators just in my lifetime.
I don’t find that a result-oriented policy is partcularly a bad thing unto itself. There is the matter of the greater good involved in most cases.
What I do find nauseating the “US as virtuous” bullshit. The US is not and should not try to be entirely virtuous, it should do what nations are supposed to do, which is to effectively assert its interests and its allies’ interests in the most peaceful and nondestructive way possible.
The game fails, of course, when assholes like you come along and try to first create a false mantle of virtue, and then cloak yourselves with it as a way to fend off criticism of your bullshit and hypocritical views.
People who wrap themselves in flags, or false patriotism, or false piety are usually directly connected to the cause, not the solution to, big problems.
cleek
So why the leftist tendency to slam the US, particularly in comparison to other countries?
ummm…
because we, al of us, are responsible for what this country does, at home and abroad. everything our government does, it does in our name: your name, my name, our names. so, we want it to do things, in our name, that we can be proud of. all that “dickish stuff” has our names on it.
slamming other countries for what they do is just talk – none of us are morally, legally or ethically responsible for what France, for example, does. we can bitch about it, but it’s just hot air.
Steve
What’s ironic is that, while this is true, it’s not because of Reagan and the arms race, it’s mostly because we funded Osama bin Laden. I get the sense that not many people know that.
jh
Nations typically don’t have virtuous histories. The US is no different.
The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you will kick the “we are justified in killing people because we are gooder than them” habit.
That is the first step in becoming a decent human being and world citizen vs. a blind spotted, hypocritcal nationalist.
Zifnab
Actually, from what I’ve read, its more because a hard-line communist one-party oligarchy makes hard work meaningless and only encourages climbing one ladder – the One-Party political ladder – to personal achievement. Thus, you end up with a political/economic system where everyone at the bottom doesn’t work or works without motivation and everyone at near the top runs around backstabbing each other for the exponentially greater gains of higher status.
Afghanistan wasn’t going to bankrupt Russia any more than Iraq will bankrupt America. Rank universal corruption and a failure to encourage business enterprise is what does a country in. Mega-Corps, Endron-style book keeping, and one-sided trade with giants like China will topple our economy.
jh
The USSR was on a collision course with collapse with or without the U.S. as an adversary.
The whole “Cold War Arms Race Spending Bankrupted the Soviets” meme is PR designed to prop up the legacy of Reagan’s presidency, which doesn’t look so hot when viewed in the context of his hideous policies in Central America, S&L meltdowns and upwardly redistributive economic policies.
Truth of the matter is, the Soviets realized at a point that they couldn’t keep pace with US defense spending so they stopped trying.
What their arms spendind DID do, Afghanistan in particular, is create a drag on their political and economic system which let to the eventual collapse of that system
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
Steve
Yeah? An expensive, protracted 10-year foreign war doesn’t make a difference to your bottom line, when your economy is fundamentally weaker than a capitalist system like ours? Not really buying it.
A lot of things contributed to the breakup of the USSR, but I think there’s no denying that the Afghanistan war was a big, big factor.
pie
You make an interesting point here. I just realized that the “Reagan won the Cold War” meme also contains an implicit endorsement of Soviet economic policies. The argument states that if it weren’t for its Cold War defense spending, the USSR would still be here. Ergo, the Soviet Union’s economic policies would not cause an internal collapse. Ergo, according to this line of reasoning, Communist economics works out just fine, in the absence of a Reaganesque opponent.
Ergo, Republicans = Marxists.
Steve
That’s a pretty funny point. Of course, it might be true. Certainly, most people felt that even if the USSR was headed for eventual economic collapse, it was going to take several decades longer than it did.
However, it’s kind of pointless to speculate about how long the USSR might have lasted without the expensive military endeavors, since expansionism and exerting control over a far-flung empire were fundamentally what the USSR was about. It’s like saying, you know, Hitler could have been Chancellor for 10 more years if he hadn’t decided to invade all those countries.
It seems to me that virtually every great power in history has fallen due at least in part to expensive military adventures, so we discount the Afghanistan factor at our peril in this case.
Darrell
I don’t believe that’s not true
Darrell
Hah! Double negative. Should have read “I don’t believe that’s true”
Darrell
Yeah, if starving to death during winter = “just fine”, then sure, you’ve got a helluva point.
Tim F.
You’re plainly sharp enough not to mistake an offhand comment for the point of two posts. Spare the outrage but relax, brother, it takes a lot more than an intentional misreading to make a martyr around here.
Let’s look at your ideas.
A clearing of the throat, but it establishes some credibility on your part. As does this:
Running down your alternatives:
* What if we try whacking some/all of those guys?
* Or foment a coup or a revolution.
* Or destabilize the country,
* or at least retard the nuclear program, by other means.
The first three basically reiterate the neoconseravtive position. Among other problems we lack the intelligence to successfully locate enough Iranian leaders to perform a decapitation strike. Saddam was only one guy, right? An incomplete strike, unprovoked and in the absence of solid evidence that Iran has violated the NPT, would leave the country more or less as it was except rallied against the US and justified in retaliating.
Fomenting a coup would work if we had close ties with a large enough faction inside Iran to create a credible counter-leadership, and if the Iranian public leaned more towards the US than towards their clerics. The Kurds have no more ability to lead a revolution in Iran than they do in Turkey or Iraq. They have enough resources to irritate a state enough to (they hope) let Kurdish regions splinter off but they lack the wherewithal to threaten any state outright.
Stipulated that the clerics lack a certain rock-star status among the public at large. Nonetheless it is a mistake to assume that the US is any more popular. If you want to assert that point then you will need to support it somehow. Otherwise US support for a revolutionary faction, assuming that we find one willing to work with us, will merely deligitimize it. Even Reza Pahlavi, in an interview that largely hews to your point of view, acknowledges that externally imposed change will do little good.
All of this leaves aside the more obvious point that our forces in Iraq and our warships in the Gulf are essentially Iranian hostages. Say that we commit an act of war but fail to eliminate their leadership entirely. Iran can easily shut down the supply lines to our Iraq bases and close the Strait of Hormuz though scuttling of one or more tankers. The persians have plenty of Sunburn antiship missiles which reach from the Iranian short nearly across to the Iraqi coast. Hence both our bases and our ships would become a shooting gallery.
Elsewhere you dismiss Iran’s influence on oil supply by promoting Saudi Arabia’s ability to “max” their output. Other than the Saudis’, by whose word do you hear that SA is not already maxed? I don’t doubt that there is some elasticity in their production levels but the suggestion that they have a roof that far above current production strikes me as outside most realistic estimates.
Characteristically the neocon position is utterly dire about the character of our adversaries, blind to our capabilities and pollyannish about the dangers of acting unilaterally. To your credit you get our capabilities right.
That aside, your fourth point (by my reading) stands out as practical. Obvious even. John Bolton would choke on his mustache before he’d propose working creatively with Russia and (presumably) other nations, even giving up some strategic interests for the sake of others, in order to limit Iran’s options. That almost sounds like textbook international relations. Why not give it a try? We should. But given present leadership you can take it to the bank that we won’t.
Jake
Yuck. A wave of spoof just squirted out of my monitor!
TenguPhule
We got into WW II *LATE* and not with the initial intention of ‘bailing out’ the Europeans. Stop trying to rewrite history, your twaddle is as false as the ‘French were cowards’ myth that sprang up after Germany outflanked them.
Darrell
Tim, first of all, virtually all military leaders knowledgeable on the subject say that Iran couldn’t close the Strait of Hormuz. Missiles or not, our navy and airforce would almost certainly mop the floor with them in that region.
Second, we have pipeline and truck supply routes from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq on one side of Iran, and established supply routes to our forces in Afghanistan on the other side.. so even if the the Straits of Hormuz were closed temporarily, it certainly would not bring our military fuel supply to a grinding halt.
TenguPhule
And where is the *EVIDENCE* of that? That’s the problem you keep dodging. We have no evidence at all of what you *think* they are trying to do.
Bombing other countries just so you can feel better is not good foreign policy.
Tim F.
Darrell, our military fuel supply is not the problem. The vulnerable point is the economy at large. If Saudi Arabia cannot pick up Iran’s slack, and I have serious doubts that they can, then the pain will be the $300 that it will cost to fill up your SUV, times 100 million.
Please cite them. I don’t necessarily think that you are wrong in this case, I could simply have heard this from less-informed sources and would appreciate hearing more about it.
TenguPhule
*Snark*
Why do Darrells want to kill Supreme Court Justices?
After all, they all act the same…
*/snark*
Darrell
We saved their asses in WWII, late or not. The turning point in the war was Stalingrad, which was almost lost. And although there wasn’t an American on the battlefield there we were the decisive factor in that Russian victory. Russians lacked the refining capacity for needed fuel and relied almost entirely on the US, especially for their Yak fighter planes. And the Soviets depended on the maneuverability provided to them using US trucks which was another decisive factor in their victory. Without the US intervening to save Europe’s ass, the entire continent would have been speaking German.
No rewriting of history needed to counter the points made by the little minds on this thread.
Darrell
A spike in oil would almost certainly take place, but only a small fraction of US oil comes through that Strait. Europe and China would be the ones taking the economic brunt of any closure to the Strait of Hormuz, which brings up the next point – despite how Europe and China may feel about US military action against Iran, out of economic necessity Europe and China would almost certainly intervene if needed to help secure passage of oil..
TenguPhule
,blockquote>We saved their asses in WWII, late or not.
Which they were and still are grateful for. But doesn’t change the fact that we entered later then we should have and only because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. We didn’t go into WW II with any noble intentions of saving Europe, we went in with blood in our eye. And as a result of our late entry into the war the Europeans faced the brunt of the Nazi war machine alone for three years. Coming in as Tail End Charlie isn’t something to brag about.
Darrell
I cited several on that very subject on another thread a few days back.. I’ll have to dig them up. Furthermore, we fought Iran in 1988 over the Strait of Hormuz and mopped the floor with the Iranians. Google Operation Praying Mantis.
TenguPhule
Here we go again.
Darrell, for the Nth time, just because we don’t buy a lot of oil directly from the Gulf anymore doesn’t mean that it will not directly affect our oil prices when havoc breaks out there. The oil that Europe and China can’t buy from there they will buy from the pumps supplying *OUR* oil.
Any major supply disruption is felt by everyone, regardless of who they buy from.
So enough with the mental masturbation of bombing Iran, try to keep your fantasies to something that doesn’t involve the deaths of tens of thousands and the suffering of billions.
chopper
i understand, but i was discussing the idea put forth by whatshisname upthread of blowing up iran’s legislative body.
chopper
that doesn’t mean we haven’t done dickish things. we’ve done plenty.
uh, that’s because we’ve supported terrorists.
TenguPhule
And of course they haven’t learned anything in the last 18 years because their military commanders are all intellectual geniuses like Darrell.
Darrell
Bloodthirsty Europeans started both world wars last century. It wasn’t our fight, but we got dragged into to save their asses.. which we did. A lot of American blood and treasure pulling Europe out of their own mess. We have a lot to proud of regarding our role in helping to save them.
Darrell
Are you referring to our support of French terrorists fighting Nazis in WWII? What are you talking about specifically?
Darrell
You think our military has stood still in time over those 18 years? Little minds at work on these threads.
TenguPhule
Perhaps the Iran/Contra scandal for starters?
Tim F.
I hope that you’re right. I just wonder what shape their intervention would take and whether they would wait for the US, which has a less elastic oil market than China and no gas taxes to cut, to get knocked down a peg first.
Thank you. I don’t keep up with every thread.
TenguPhule
And Iran has seen what our military can do…and what it can’t…in Iraq. Can your little mind grasp the picture being drawn here?
We’ve never seen the Iranians in serious action for almost two decades. And they have all the incentive they needed during that time to prepare for a US attack. And then you just waltz in and imagine pixie dust and cotton candy will result from an unprovoked attack on a country that doesn’t seriously threaten us…unless you decide to smash that hornet’s nest in.
TenguPhule
And that’s precisely the kind of thinking that kept us out of WW II until it was almost too late to make a difference.
Krista
Um…what?
I mean, not that you guys haven’t been great. You have. Historically, the U.S. has done some great things, and has also been one of the “good guys”. But to say that it has a more virtuous history than EVERY other country on Earth, despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki, despite the Trail of Tears, despite McCarthyism (to name just three examples), well…I don’t know.
A virtous history? Sure.
The most virtous history? I’d have to hear a pretty strong argument for that.
Darrell
First of all, let’s acknowledge up front that our war with Japan was a defensive one. They attacked us at Pearl Harbor to start the war. Second, virtually every historian agrees, that use of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki SAVED lives.. American and Japanese lives, as otherwise Japan was not going to surrender, and an attack on their homeland would be bloody as hell. See the battle of Okinawa as a preview, in which more lives were lost than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
In hindsight with historical context, the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a net positive for both sides.
nichevo
Tim, reasonable ripostes. I need to treat in detail later. Let me hit just a couple of points right now:
1) Our military capabilities are pretty good in terms of being able to control Hormuz, Iranian airspace, etc. They have indeed been beavering away at doing what they can, and in fact they occasionally like to trumpet some “secret weapon” from time to time, but in fact they are sadly reduced and their Navy and Air Force are more than overmatched.
They can perhaps strike a blow here and there, but aside from a silver bullet, say sinking a supertanker in the exact wrong spot, they really can’t do much. The United States Army has not been under enemy air attack since 1945 and Iran is not going to interrupt that streak.
The notion of Iran stepping up hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, raised by another, is also to my mind laughable. Gee, will they send MORE IEDs and infiltrators? Okay, so there will be four car-bombs instead of three. Bad, but they still cannot substantially threaten the US establishments by any permutation of ground forces.
The idea that they will march in 4 million Basij and take over the world is risible. One only wishes (humanitarianism aside) that they would provide such a fat target – they would be meat. The ability of a ground force or combined armed force in the Middle East to engage and defeat even an American company-sized element does not exist (without some elaborate sneak attack, secret weapon or mass incompetence hypothesis), let alone a large base.
Not to mention the Iraqi (and Afghanistan for Chrissake!) populations would also have comment. Just as you say a badly sold US attack on Iran would realign loyalties, I don’t think Iran’s stock (or that of its proxies) would rise if it invaded its neighbors. As well, coalition ROE in such a scenario would be liable to change, which would much favor our forces.
So I am pretty satisfied that the Iranian military cannot overtly prevail against our forces except in isolated cases (say, they might intercept a special forces team or shoot down a couple of a/c or get a lucky hit, not a kill, on maybe one ship). I rather discount your “shooting gallery” notion; again they might get off a missile or two but we would root them out in short order. They could at most harass at sea.
I am confident the Saudis can move the market at least in the short term. A coordinated plan on this could also serve; most of the other OPEC members are Sunnis, for instance. Iraq itself (assuming the can opener of adequate security and infrastructure) can pump a lot more oil than they now are.
And as posited, the US would feel this oil impact the least, and the least immediately (though yes, oil is fungible), and other nations would be incentivized [incented??] to intervene. Among other things, the SPR would sustain us for at least 90 days or so IIRC; I don’t think Iranian resistance TO USN/USAF strikes could last that long.
Hey, if you want to figure on a long conflict, let’s throw in some long diplomacy, and do a crash shale oil/tar sands project. Anyway, it will be good for alternative energy one way or the other, right?
Also, closing Hormuz goes both ways. Iran will run out of money and die before the rest of the world runs out of money and dies.
I understand this is woefully incomplete but I do have some work to attend to. I agree this discussion has, mostly, been far more civil and less poopy-headed than hitherto. TTYL.
Steve
Hang on a second here. We were supplying munitions to Britain and Russia long before Pearl Harbor. In 1940 we gave destroyers to the Royal Navy. In early 1941 there was Lend-Lease. An awful lot of Americans, including FDR, understood that there was a good team in this contest and that we needed to help them before it was too late. In fact, the case for helping the British was so strong on the merits that the Republican candidate in 1940 flatly rejected his party’s isolationist base and came out in support of FDR on the war. Let’s not oversimplify all this by acting like we had no interest in the European war before we got hit at Pearl Harbor.
nichevo
Krista, I just gotta hit this real fast: Have you rivals for ‘virtue’ in mind, your nation or another nation perhaps?
May I ask from which country you hail? Unless it’s some ahistorical place like New Zealand, I almost guarantee I can come up with worse things your country’s done than anything by the US.
jh
Not to nitpick, but if you are implying that Europeans, as a whole are uniquely bloodthirsty in comparison to their more enlightended American counterparts, I beg to differ.
Re: The straights of Hormuz
The Iranians may not have the ability to completely close down the straights, conversely it is doubtful we will be able to completely neutralize the tactics the Iranians will bring to bear to do so.
What we will have on our hands is called a “fight”.
And a “fight” in the Straights of Hormuz will spike oil prices, even more so if they can sink a tanker or two.
Which begs the question: Why on earth anyone would you want provoke Iran
right now, with 100K Plus US troops bogged down next door and an intelligence apparatus that judging by the results in Iraq, is severely impaired, can only be chalked to a bad case of Armchair WarmongeritisTM.
Here are the ugly truth(s)
– Iranians haven’t forgotten or forgiven for the whole CIA coup/Shah thing. Not even the moderates.
– Bush, with all of his ‘Axis of Evil’ talk has probably fucked up any chances Iranian moderates will have of getting back into power any time in the near future.
– Iran IS going to get nukes whether we like it or not.
– The Iranians aren’t suicidal. Yeah, they talk big about wiping out Israel but the idea that they are going to develop a rudimentary nuke and go gunning for Israel (or anywhere else) the following week is absurd.
But suppose, the mullahs are as crazed and suicidal as you claim they are (if you ask me, you need to pull your skirt up) you’ve got 5-10 years before the Iranians could develop a reliable delivery system (read: ICBM) that could penetrate Israeli air defenses.
Which means that even if we assume the worst, we have some time to make diplomatic inroads with Iran.
With competent leadership, a decade or so is more than long enough.
This is reason enough to rule out immediate military action against Iran.
When weighed in tandem with our checkered history and our less than stellar success rate with bombing adversaries into submission and you have a pretty good argument for not going down that road.
ThymeZone
Right, it won’t matter except to the disposable Iraqis who happen to be in the way. But who’s counting them?
Literally. Who is counting them?
jh
This is um, a false binary.
What exactly qualifies a nation as “ahistorical”?
bargal20
New Zealand only exists in the now. The Maori are just mythical beings, like orcs and hobbits.
Krista
As jh said, what exactly qualifies a nation as “ahistorical”? A lack of bloodshed?
Besides, it’s a moot point. The statement was this: “Truth is overall, there’s not another nation on earth with a history as virtuous as that of the US” (emphasis mine).
If one is going to make such a sweeping statement, then one has to be expected to be asked to back up such a statement.
nichevo
Krista, I don’t think it was I who made just that statement. Now, can you identify a rival or not? Let’s skip ahistorical – remember, you also have to have good to place against the bad. Do you want to name New Zealand? Anyplace else? Anyplace in Europe? In Asia? In Africa? In Latin America?
ThymeZone
Pat “virtues” of the country aren’t relevant here.
What is relevant is the virtue in the present government of the country.
A glance at the old virtuometer shows the needle in the red.
TenguPhule
That’s not the problem.
The problem is you end up with Iraq style guerilla tactics amplified by *lots* of trained experienced military units.
They won’t bunch up in big inviting targets, they’ll be spread out, attacking multiple weakpoints and areas of vulnerability. Infrastructure, convoys, places we can’t armor up because we simply don’t have the numbers to do that. They haven’t funded anti-Israeli groups for nothing, the Israelis are arguably *better* then we are at that kind of fighting and even they can’t stop that persistant bleeding.
We are already being pushed out of Iraq, don’t try to kid yourself thinking we’re ready for Iran. Especially over something that doesn’t exist.
Zombie Santa Claus
My workshop is a semi-autonomous state, and we haven’t harmed a soul. We make toys for children.
Well, I GUESS if you count all those Inuits I killed off 1,500 years ago, then we did a LITTLE bit of evil. But hey, the last 1,500 years of free toys should make up for one little genocide, shouldn’t they?
Enough talk, anyway. Talk is bullshit. I’m here for the brains. Gimme!
jh
No, Darrell did. And it was an idiotic statement.
Nations don’t have virtues, they have histories and those histories are often bloody. It all depends on the decade or century you look at.
Without even googling, it seems to me that the US is has a fairly decent history in the 20th century, but the 18th and 19th centuries, we were pretty shitty.
Guess what? We still look like assholes compared to places like Iceland or Trinidad, regardless of era.
And that was the point wasn’t it?
TenguPhule
Fixed.
nichevo
ThymeZone, I find that just a little too dishonest to treat further. Maybe Krista will like to speak up.
ZSC, if your offices were at the South Pole I would have mentioned Antarctica. But the North Pole is not land nor is it a country. Thanks for playing! ;>
TenguPhule, a little more detail? I don’t see it. No armored vehicle or troop transport will cross the border alive the day after we will it. No aircraft. No ship, no boat, no raft will sail in the Persian Gulf without our say-so.
So you have a lot of light infantry running around, doing what? How are THEIR supply lines? Who’s feeding, arming, clothing, medicating THEM? Camels?
And like I said, you think the natives are going to lie down for this, going to support them? (Are they that rich? Yay USA!) You think the Iranian forces would try to avoid civilians for that matter? I mean, how do you think this works?
1) Iran sends in 4 million guys.
2)
3)
4)
5) PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!
Need a little more detail in the scenario before I soil myself.
Krista
The onus is actually on the person who made that statement to back up their claim. And no, I know it wasn’t you who said it.
But if you insist on making a game of it, fine. How about…Iceland? Please tell me how their history is less virtuous than that of the U.S.
nichevo
jh,
1 ) What, exactly, was wrong with our 18th, 19th centuries? Particularly, what do you want to lay on the USA instead of colonizing powers? Do consider context. And remember, among other things, that every slave America, or England, or France, or Turkey bought was a slave that Africa sold.
2) As I said it’s a balance. Without digging into any evils of Iceland, Trinidad, etc., what have they done for the world? Pepperpot and akvavit? Oh yay.
Steve
I would have suggested Sweden, but my Swedish friend tells me the mythology behind their flag is that they once slaughtered so many Finns in a battle, God showed his pleasure by causing a cross of gold to appear in the blue sky, hence the flag design. So maybe Sweden is out.
How about Denmark? They’re a pretty nice country, and the girls are cute. The king sure was awesome during the Nazi occupation.
nichevo
Krista,
1) Do you refuse to name your country of origin or identity? Krista (if that is your name), that sounds pretty much European. English? German? You want to run them head to head vs the USA? French maybe? Dutch? Belgique? Spain?
2) As above, I don’t know any of their sins, but what positive has Iceland ever done for anybody? The best thing I can think of them having done is serve as a US base in WWII and the Cold War. Which would seem to prove my point.
nichevo
Steve: Hamlet ;>
Yay the King, to be sure.
jh
For our resident armchair generals,
If we attack Iran without provocation, Iraqi Shiites are not going to take kindly to it, making life for our troops more of a living hell than it currently is.
Likewise, Iran doesn’t need to send any large numbers of infantry. They just need to supply Iraqi Shiites with materials and intelligence.
As for controlling the Iraq/Iran border – that’s a laugh. We don’t control it now.
What would change?
ThymeZone
So if I follow this harangue correctly, past American virtue, and/or past foreign non-virtue, determine the level of present American virtue?
Does this work with people, too? Could I say that if my parents were really virtuous, and our neighbors lacked virtue, then I must be really really virtuous? Enough to lord it over other people now?
I like this scheme, really, because it absolves America,and probably me, of any responsibility for our own virtues.
First thing I can do is get rid of those shitty Bill Bennet books.
Darrell
It’s not just lack of bloodshed. It’s a history of saving the world, as in WWI, WWII, Cold War, Balkans… A New Zealand or Sweden (oops, Vikings slaughtered plenty in their history) just hasn’t had the impact on history that the US has had in the last 200 years.
And I’d have to look it up, but since Krista raised the Trail of Tears issue, doesn’t Canada have a history of brutal slaughter of Indians? Didn’t Canada expel the Acadians too? Or was it all a big group hug througout Canadian history?
Darrell
Bipartisan agreement on the Danish girls. But Danes have the Viking history of raping and pillaging. How about Lichtenstein (sp?)? I don’t recall that they’ve caused much trouble?
jh
Cute. Nobody forced US to participate in the slave trade.
That’s a BIG black mark on our record – a monstrosity on par with the Holocaust.
Thanks for playing.
Krista
No Darrell, of course it wasn’t a big group hug. I would say that every country, if you go back far enough, has periods of history that are not exactly shining moments of humanity.
You still, however, have yet to really make any sort of case that the US has a more virtuous history than every single other country in the world. It’s your hyperbole that I’m taking issue with. If you’d said that the US has overall, a very virtuous history, I don’t think anybody would have made a peep about it. But right now, your argument has been no more convincing than a bunch of shirtless guys in face paint, chanting “USA!USA!”, while high-fiving each other.
In other words, it’s admirable that you think the US is just the bestest country EVER, but don’t expect everybody to take your word for it unless you start coughing up a tiny bit of evidence.
Krista
Oh, and actually, just to make a tiny point, Darrell. Canada didn’t expel the Acadians. The Acadian expulsion was in 1755. Canada didn’t actually become a country until 1867. It was the Brits who expelled us, so that little episode goes on their record, AFAIC.
Darrell
1. Saving the world, WWI (debatable)
2.Saving the world, WWII (pretty much fact)
3. Almost single handedly fighting communism throughout the Cold War period
4. Saving Europe from more bloodshed in the Balkans
5. US donates more food aid than every country in the world combined
6. etc, etc
Wild hyperbole or the likely truth? Draw your own conclusions..
Steve
If you hold Denmark responsible for the Vikings, you’re going to box yourself into a corner where America is responsible not only for all the Indians that got killed, but for all the people who got killed by the Indians too! In other words, I don’t think Denmark was exactly a country back when the Vikings held sway.
Oh, and Iceland clearly has the best girls of all, so I really don’t feel they’re obligated to do anything else for the world. That’s good enough for me right there.
TenguPhule
Right, because we do such a good job on the *Iraq* borders we control. So naturally we can do the same thing to a country with even *bigger* borders.
In addition to vehicle support, we’re talking soldiers armed with portable missile launchers and RPGs who have had to learn how to live in the field without the luxuries our troops have grown accustomed to. Yeah, they’ll probably use local livestock like sheep, goats, asses, long as it does the job for them. Just because you sneer down at the methods doesn’t make them any less effective.
Like how it works in Afghanistan and Iraq. The locals hate our troops more then they hate the Iranians. They’ll protect, aid and provide intelligence against our forces.
Granted that Al Queda will probably do its best to kill any Shiites they can catch in Afghanistan and the Sunni in Iraq have no fond feelings for them either…but then nobody expected the Sunni to ally with Sadr during his uprising either.
TenguPhule
Which are balanced by just as many fuckups, slaughters, injustices and what have you as the other developed nations in the world.
America is no higher or lower then anyone else.
Darrell
On what basis? Europeans started both world wars last century, and ended the century with another bloodbath in the Balkans. And all your “begging to differ” talk doesn’t change those facts one bit, does it?
nichevo
jh Says:
Meaning people who disagree with you, right? Because you’re a real live general. Maybe a field marshal.
That cuts two ways. Perhaps the Sunnis will chill out then. You can game that all kinds of ways but you show nothing dispositive. After all Saddam bombed the crap out of Iran and Shiites fought for him.
You mean, like they’re doing now? As you say below,
Confronted by invasion our priorities, tactics, and ROE might change. You note I mentioned specifically any movement of armor or heavy equipment, and conceded they might string in men and man-portable weapons. Which, without resupply, tend to get hungry, tired, thirsty, out of charge, unloaded, poor, hunted, etc.
In short you mean to tell me that Iran could not invade Saddam’s Iraq, but can swarm all over us?
December 14th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
TenguPhule
Darrell, now you’re just being silly. Let’s just substitute an equally absurd generalization which is just as true as the one you came up with.
*White* *Men* started both world wars last century, and ended the century with another bloodbath in the Balkans.
Equally true and yet equally absurd. I suggest a refresher course in World history to learn about differences between different countries.
Darrell
So then, following your ‘logic’, US is no better than say, Zimbabwe or Sudan?
jh
On the basis of the bloody coups (see Iran), the conquests (see Phillipines), covert support of Central American death squads, the unequal treatment of the descendents of African slaves, etc. – all in the 20th century.
All right alongsidde our inarguably good works.
We are just as dirty as anyone you’d care to name Darrell. No more moral. No more virtuous. Just as human.
American exceptionalism is a myth.
Steve
By the way, arguing that we “saved the world” in World War I isn’t “debatable,” it’s actually pretty silly. And if Germany doesn’t insist on sinking our boats, we pretty clearly never would have gone, so it’s not like we were looking to save the world either.
jh
Have you been paying attention?
No one, suggested that agression against Iran would result in Iran coming overland in large numbers (with heavy equipment) into Iraq to fight us.
No, they would simply take much more interest in supporting the insurgency with funding, arms and even a few men. They would also certainly take pains to close the straights of Hormuz, all of which would make things worse for us, not better.
Tim F.
nichevo, I think that we need to clarify what Iran does and doesn’t have to accomplish in order to make us miserable.
Iran does not need to float freely in the Gulf or fly freely over its own airspace. They only need to make ship traffic in the Gulf untenable, which they can do using Sunburns fired from shore. Look them up, they’re quite a nasty little force-leveler that the Soviets cooked up when they realized that they couldn’t take us carrier-for-carrier.
Afghanistan is nowhere in my comment for a reason, so do me the favor of not lumping Afghanistan and Iraq together in your reply. For our purposes Afghanistan is irrelevant. Shiite Iraq, on the other hand, is in effect an Iranian client state. Moqtada Sadr has more of a competitive relationship than direct clients like SCIRI but the vast bulk of Iraq’s shiites would gladly side with Iran over the US if it came to that.
Let’s do some simple math. All Iraqi households are armed. That’s 100%, give or take the ones whose AK’s don’t work or can’t find them. It is just a sad consequence of the current state of anarchy. Most Iraqi districts at this point have their own self-defense militias armed with light explosives, machine guns etc.
The fuel, ammo, resupplies and food for our numerous bases in Iraq come almost entirely by truck convoy from Kuwait along highways that stretch through up to 500 miles of shiite territory. That is 500 miles of communities which currently let the Americans pass because they don’t have a compelling reason to shoot at them. If that changed Iran would scarcely need to send “4 million Basij” across the Iraqi border, much less armored vehicles or heavy weapons. The millions of armed Shiites who line the hundreds of miles that our trucks drive every day can do the job just fine. No invasion needed, no Iraqi nationalist counterreaction to Iranian aggression and there goes the bulk of your point.
When I said that flirting with the neocon mindset makes one pollyannish about risk, I couldn’t have illustrated it better than this. Do you think that we are at war with Iraq’s shiites? With SCIRI, the Badr Brigades and every unit of Sadr’s extended following? On top of the Sunni insurgency of course. That would put us at war with, let’s see, every living Iraqi outside of Kurdistan. You should guard your credibility more carefully than this.
That makes twice that you have asserted it and no times that you have supported it.
Darrell
The bloody coup in Iran was also spearheaded by the UK, a European country. US conquest in Phillipines was child’s play compared to the brutal mass murder and bload soaked oppression the Europeans gave to their colonies.
And French europeans and Arab slave traders were far more brutal than Americans. As for our support of death squads in C. America, we were opposed by Cuban and soviet sponsored death squads on the other side struggling to overthrow democratic, or at least semi-democratic governments at that time.
I can see you really ‘know’ what you’re talking about.
TenguPhule
And the US bombed the crap out of Iraq…and they sure as hell are not willing to fight for us. Dreaming of ponies is bad strategy.
They don’t need to control Iraq or Afghanistan. they just need to make *OUR* position in both untenable. Which it already is, but they can up the nastiness by several orders of magnitude.
wilfred
Okamoto is now a Superior Court judge in California. The images recall something more recent.
What we do, as heirs of the Western cultural tradition, is forgive us our sins, be they the Holocaust (and please remember that as much as A’jad may deny its history, the Iranians didn’t do it – not a peep about the Germans or the Russians in all of this), slavery, endless brutal wars and current dehumanizing treatment of suspected terrorists in this the latest incarnation of the Phoenix Program.
But once we establish the axis of evil, with ourselves as the axis of good, there’s nothing left but eradication of the Other who, since he’s forever evil, is beyond redemption. The ‘savage’ (evil of course) has been Indian, Black African, Papist (see Cromwell and Thomas Nast cartoons), Jew, Commie Gook and now Arab/Muslim. Each one the personification of evil in his day.
nichevo
ThymeZone Says:
Fine, thanks for playing.
jh Says:
Aside from there being no “US” in 1620 or so when the first slaves came to the English sectors, or earlier when the Spanish started up (of course they may have needed fewer slaves as they enslaved the local populations as well),
I will simply remind you that other European powers did so the same or more, even outside the current borders of the US – negating the uniqueness of US guilt over this. Or do the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, say, get a pass for some reason?
Krista: There’s plenty of ev on the US record. Again, I invite you to offer rivals. BTW, you have not said so explicitly, but you are of Acadian origin? So you are no longer in Canada? You are an American then despite your prior implication? Did you go “home” to France? Or what?
TenguPhule 3:52 – Seeing much armor out of Iran right now? Admittedly we would have to start blowing up trucks, which is easier to do in a war situation that a nominal peace situation.
Anyway, you do realize that
Iran-Iraq border = Iraq-Iran border
don’t you? Or who else are they invading?
Oh, Afghanistan? Mmmmuahahahahahahah. Good luck with that, Mahmoud. Better just blow out your brains right now. Oh yeah, the Afghans are going to lie down for that. No doubt it will go smooth as glass. Oh yeah. Tell us another one. Please, Ahm., send all your guys into Afghanistan right now. I’ll give you a pony.
Irrespective of the use of animal vs. mech transport, the logistics train back to Iran will be formidable. Meaning a big fat target. Just try to picture to yourself how this is going to work at any distance over say 20-30km.
And again, what land are they going to live off? US food deliveries? Gee, what if the US cuts off food deliveries to affected areas? Gee, what if Arab Shiites regret Persian Shiites taking the family cow or the family goat or the family horse? What if they have cell phones? What if the Shiite militias who don’t love Iran do something about it?
What can I say but NOT?!?!?! To the extent that it happens they won’t get much more. And I really, really don’t think their presence on Iraqi soil will make them better loved. Didn’t do much in 1980-88, I remind you.
As for Afghanistan, again, Ha ha!
Darrell
My problem with liberals is that by and large, they are uncomfortable talking about the US in positive terms. Hence, the one-way smears on the US, characterizing it as a “terrorist supporter” who has no business telling countries like Iran whether or not they can have nuclear weapons.
So then US is no better than Iran, Sudan, or Zimbabwe because no one is better than others. We’re all equal.
TenguPhule
When your silliness descends to the defense of terrorist death squads, you can no longer seriously argue moral grounds with anyone.
TenguPhule
Yeah, their feelings didn’t change a whit after having US forces ruin their own country. If you want to get other people killed based on old and out of date perceptions, you’re making a good effort.
Darrell
Why is it silly? I also defend our alliance with one of the most brutal mass killers in history, Joseph Stalin, in order to help defeat Hitler. In life, one often has to make choices between least bad alternatives.
It’s called reality TenguFool.
Steve
I’d like to think that someday, we can have a bipartisan consensus on thinking of the U.S. positively without taking it to extremes like “we’re the most moral country EVER, don’t even question it.” Because it seems to me that in all areas of life, once you start thinking that your own shit doesn’t stink, you set yourself up for a lot of bad consequences.
America is far from evil, but when you catch yourself arguing that we treated the slaves better than some other countries treated their slaves, or that our death squads had better intentions than the other guy’s death squads, it’s time to take a step back and look at yourself.
wilfred
Yeah, we are. Once we differentiate we have to make a decision about whether we’re better or worse than the other person/race/country. I’ve lived a bit and I never met anyone who thought he was different but worse, it’s always different but better.
We, the US, are richer and more powerful than anyone else but we, as Americans, aren’t any better.
I’m no better tha
jh
Darrell, you make my points for me.
For every atrocity we’ve named, the US was in some way involved, complicit or accessory.
And that is the point.
Because we were less brutal slave traders than the Portuguese, or our death squads (it’s nice that you can acknowledge them as such) were less ‘deathy’ than those sponsored by the Reds, or the subjugation of the Phillipines wasn’t as nasty as what the Belgians did in the Congo isn’t the point.
The point is this:
We are no more innocent or virtuous than any other (developed) nation.
Most nations are born in sin with copious amounts of blood on their hands. Almost without exception.
I will say it again. American exceptionalism is myth.
TenguPhule
You’re pulling a Rumsfield.
There won’t be any logistic train back to Iran to hit, if they have anyone with even an ounce of sense they’ll be carrying their supplies with them as they march, drive, ride. Long enough to deploy, go out and hit their targets, then come back. I’m not sure if they already have caches of supplies built up in various areas to make it even harder to trace them, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
You’re thinking of conventional warfare, which is not what our troops would be facing should Bush order an attack on Iran. The Iranians have seen what does and doesn’t work and they have the potential to make it the ugliest guerilla war ever seen in that region of the world.
Zifnab
Republicans don’t like the guilt. It’s so much easier to do the wrong thing, say it was the right thing, and move along. There are still numerous lost souls out there who think Vietnam was the right thing to do. Or that Pinochet was a blessing for Chile. Or that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a moral and rightous decision.
All of these acts were cold and ruthless, sad and regretable. Some within the United States have learned how to admit mistakes and recognize failure so that we do not repeat them. Others invade Iraq.
Darrell
First, I was responding to leftists who were referring, without context, to the US as a “terrorist supporting” nation who had no business telling Iran whether or not the mullahs can or cannot have nuclear weapons.
Second, I’ve never asserted on any level, that the US’s “shit doesn’t stink”. When one side, the left, makes all their characterization of the US negative and derogatory, you’re damn right I’m going to point out IN RESPONSE, that most other countries have worse track records, and have contributed less than the US.
Regarding the slave trade comment, it was in direct response to another poster who was claiming the US was far more brutal and bloody than Europeans, bringing up the slave trade as evidence. In that context, it was entirely fair to bring up that the Europeans had a far more brutal history with slavery, than Americans.
Again, I was RESPONDING to others who were attacking and smearing the US, so get off you fucking high horse Steve.
TenguPhule
Because you’re trying to argue moral superiority and then you immediately defend with moral relativism.
Which makes you look like a complete hypocrite and an idiot.
TenguPhule
Yes, the 3,000+ American & Alllied troops killed there even as they are being driven out of province after province are laughing right along with you, I’m sure.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
Steve
I think you take a pretty extreme position when you insist on maintaining that we’re the best ever. That’s all.
jh
I think you take a pretty extreme indefensible position when you insist on maintaining that we’re the best ever. That’s all.
Better.
Darrell is absolutely batshit at liberals ‘smearing’ the ‘good name’ of US, but a few (thousand) innocent deaths at the hands of shitty US policy is hardly worth mentioning.
He makes me proud to be an American.
TenguPhule
Sure you didn’t, that’s why you claimed “Truth is overall, there’s not another nation on earth with a history as virtuous as that of the US”.
Darrell, you’re arguing in circles and now you’re right back where you started.
Steve
By the way, just as a footnote, here’s Winston Churchill in 1936 on the issue of whether America “saved the world” by entering World War I:
All pure hindsight of course, but it would have been an interesting alternate history. Fortunately for everyone, we didn’t hold these comments against him.
nichevo
Tim, I owe you from before and now. Anybody who feels ignored, pipe up and I will try to service you.
Tim F. (before) Says:
…
…
So my various forms of subversion are neoconnish. Okay, who owns bombing? Nuclear bombing?
And who owns “trust them,” “buy them off,” “how about Gaza?”
As for incomplete intelligence: You have to remember that Saddam was just about the hardest target around. His was a totalitarian state centered entirely around him. I repeat that Ahm. has been repeatedly targeted with near-success; I also would like proof that even the mullahs are equally hard targets. Do they all have numerous doubles too? In any case, they all convene at times; I imagine those are of public record; in any case I doubt it is impossible. I could be convinced but not by assertion.
To be determined. Kurds would be more formidable if we armed-trained-equipped-etc. them. Special Forces would have to be used to do this sort of recruiting, incitement, whatever you call it; that’s just what they did in AF. It is not a gimme, but does not seem impossible. Remember that half of Iran is non-Persians. And even if not entirely successful, they can contribute to instability, and be used for acts like assassinations without revealing the hand of the US. CONCEIVABLY proxy armies from Iraq, AF, or other neighbors could be used as well.
I would have to research, but I think it is supportable, and could be improved with various strategies such as a campaign of media disinformation or propaganda. (I will concede, right here, that this is an area where we have done poorly, and do not understand quite why; but ISTM we could do better. I dunno, assume a can opener.)
I agree we need a delicate hand in terms of coup or revolution, unless there is some sort of provocation we can use – internal atrocities, A-bomb test, evidence of Iranian aggression, corruption, etc. — Coup, somewhat less so: we would swap in a new set of mullahs or a junta or something, which would need less popular legitimacy; not whipping chicks in jeans might be enough.
Again I disagree. I believe they can harass, and can get lucky sometimes, but not decisively. We can hunt down all those Sunburns and so forth, that’s a one-trick pony.
Again, whether genuine or no, I believe short term pressure on the market can be had that will a) harm the Iranian position, b) ameliorate any supply disruption.
Always “neocons.” Is there ANYBODY else who opposed your views? What do paleos think? “Regular” conservatives? “Moderates” who watched TV in 1979-80?
As for unilateral – we are letting the Euros negotiate, as I thought was supposed to be a Good Thing. BTW are they getting anywhere? I believe so – they’re getting closer to sanctions.
As for their character – you explain it all to me. I believe that both our presuppositions will not quite match the truth. I mean, who would figure that any Lebanese or Pal would “betray their country” and help Israel? Yet Hez., Hamas, etc. kill “collaborators” all the time. In Iraq we have lots of people who constantly risk death in our common cause. The reason why we are being so delicate with ROE in Iraq is because we recognize the presence of friendlies.
Happily for you (it seems), you won’t have Bolton to kick around anymore. Colin Powell did so much better, of course.
But in any case the UN is irrelevant; such dealings would surely be bilateral between the US and Russia. I know you know that. All I can say is, I hope we don’t know what they are doing on that front. I really don’t think publicity would help. Or do you think that say selling our Georgia will look good, either in history or on the nightly news?
December 14th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
……………
jh 4:10: Perhaps you did not; certainly no one wants to own that one after seeing how silly it is. As for “more interest,” as I will elaborate, this would not be cost-free to Iran, either in expenditures or in the retaliation they would suffer.
—
now Tim F on 4:12pm
You don’t really mean it when you tell me to look up the Sunburn missile, do you? But ha ha, good one. Yes, it presents a moderate threat to US naval forces. Yes, it presents a high threat to civilian shipping, e.g. tankers. I was confused for a minute between it and the Yakhont and Shipwreck, but yes, it is non-negligible. However, it represents a finite threat and can be managed, primarily by air attacks on its launch sites. Please don’t let yourself be hyped up on it.
AF: I wasn’t talking to you I think. Please excuse, you may have noted I am getting quite a few responses. Glad we agree on that though.
Iraq/Shia: Again I will remind you that Iraqi, Arab Shia fought Iranian, Persian Shia from 1980 to 1988. I think it will not be as simple as you think on that score.
Are you going with 4 Million Basij Invasion or with Massive Iraqi Shia Uprising? Or both? It would help me structure my responses.
Okay, you seem to be going with the latter. Well, if you’re sure they can be spared from killing Sunnis…in that case, perhaps the Sunnis can be of use somehow. (Haven’t thought that through but it is one option.)
I will say, that we would change tactics. I would also say, that this tends to assume Iran can take this forever, as well. We need no ground forces at all to bomb them back to the Abbasids. Perhaps eventually they will cry “Hold, enough!” After all, as you say, they are rational actors.
If the Iraqi Shia were so monolithic…let’s just say history would be different.
Re: Saudis and oil…I would have to dig for details. But they CAN move markets, temporarily, just by opening their mouths. As you know, their resources are not public knowledge. There are arguments on both sides to be sure. My judgment, which for the third time I am not backing up with reams of evidence and liks, is that they can sustain a short term production boost, and the rest of OPEC would tend to fall in line.
And again, in these circumstances you can assume Iranian oil revenue will closely approach zero. Other than that the Iranian economy is peanuts. Excuse me, pistachios. And carpets and caviar. They also have to import refined petroleum products and they won’t get any of that. How long do you think THEY can hold out?
…Okay, you want a factoid on Saudi oil? Here’s one from 2005:
I would post the link but I’m afraid it would bust the word wrap. Tell me how you want it.
Anyway, that could all be lies, but even so it is a threat the Iranian decision-makers would have to face. Almost any oil well can be boosted in the short term by methods such as water injection.
Tsulagi
Saw the comment count had gotten over 300 and of course had to take a look even though I shouldn’t have.
Good to see the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Feith school of military stratergerists is still producing graduates. Hey, for those saying protecting shipping and U.S. warships inside the Persian Gulf would be another cakewalk, maybe you can get an Iranian ex-pat or two to swear that in the Strait of Hormuz Iranians would welcome us as liberators. Sounds like a plan.
Think in the comment skim I saw not that much oil passes through Hormuz. Yeah, only about 40% of the traded oil for the planet. Drop in the bucket.
And if shipping were somehow stopped, which couldn’t happen with the stratergerists at the helm, we could just wait the Iranians out. Sounds like another great plan. Not only sure to be a winner here at the gas pumps, you could count on the Japanese, holders of the world’s greatest amount of Bush debt, to be patient. They only get 75+% of their country’s oil from the Gulf region.
BTW Tim, in addition to Exocets and Sunburns, the Iranians also have the Yakhont. The successor to the Sunburn that is faster and almost twice the range. Range that gives them the ability to cover virtually the entire Persian Gulf.
nichevo
Tengu – dreaming of ponies? huh? I seem to have to remind you, Iran bombed the crap out of Iraq, but Iraq will fight for Iran? Perhaps you should switch to turtles.
You keep talking about “untenable.” I do not think it means what you think it means. Appealing to authoritah, note that even Tim F parts company on your AF fantasy.
wilfred 4:18pm – interesting as usual. Now, would you like to tell the class about some of the tactics used by the Union Army in the War Between the States? Omit the nice ones.
But that was a good war, right?
nichevo
Tim, you’re lucky, almost double posted my last one to you.
Steve
I remember folks on the Internet who tried to use a bunch of glib paragraphs to make another recent war out to be a cakewalk. And yet they seem to have learned absolutely nothing at all. THIS time, they apparently tell themselves, I’m thinking of everything.
TenguPhule
Not for Iran, but *against* the US. There’s a difference.
The enemy of my enemy is worth working with until our common enemy is not available to keep us working together.
And yet they’re *making* *up* thanks to a mutual loathing for our forces there. Things change, relying on what happened in the 80s when different people were in command is not a good idea.
And all your talk of coups, assassinations, airstrikes and assorted destructive mental masturbation is the exact same thinking that got us into Iraq. Please stop digging the hole deeper.
TenguPhule
The armchair generals will always dream of ponies.
nichevo
Well please learn how, then get back to me. I really can’t be bothered, there are other customers. This isn’t the first time. I’m skipping you for now, repost when you’re ready. Maybe put all of your little sprouts of genius into one post, it will save everybody time.
Everybody on US Morality: Just tell me this – what in history has the US done that was worse than the Belgian Congo? I haven’t really got the heart for more of that right now.
Zifnab, I don’t recall if you were an American or not. What do you and your country regret? What has it stopped you doing? I think you’re a Muslim, right? Anything the global ummah has done that you don’t feel so good about?
All you people taliking about guilt. I guess the US can’t do anything right. Tell me, when you and Pat Buchanan screw, who gets on top? Let’s take our bat and ball and go home – now, 1990, 1964, 1940, 1917, 1860, 1776, anytime – and see how the rest of the world likes it.
It’s all jabber designed to induce paralysis. While we figure out the proper rhetoric to get through to you, meanwhile, we will keep doing what we think is right. Which sadly for some does not include allowing Iran to do whatever the hell they want.
tengu 448pm what are you drinking? i want some.
more on US=Bad: Again, everybody LUUUUVS to pile on he evil…I remind anybody who cares to deal honestly, how about positive contributions? Nobody, not even Darrell or the straw men created in his image, ever said the US was “perfect.”
Steve 515: interesting. See above about Pat Buchanan.
Tsulagi: valuable as always. You know everything: tell us, please, how long Iran can function without refined petroleum products, let alone any other imported goods. Just a round number.
nichevo
Steve Says:
You’re welcome to add your 2 cents. But comments like this have no semantic value. Tim at least poses worthy issues to be considered. I did not say I had all the answers. I posted to prompt discussion. This is not discussion, it’s just nyah-nyah.
cleek
why, nothing! (as long as you don’t count the millions of native Americans we killed as we pushed westward)
nichevo
tengu –
Right, Iraqis will fight and die because the US attacks Iran. But that’s not for Iran.
Wow, we’re mending 1400 years of history? Good for us. I knew we were doing the right thing.
Language please.
More importantly, whatever threat Iran poses will not be reduced by our letting them have nuclear weapons. If by “stop digging the hole deeper” you mean stop thinking, well, you first. Or, convince me of a better way, or prove these arguments untenable. That does not mean jumping up and down about it.
So far nothing I have resembles a finished plan.. I repeat that I don’t have all the answers. But no one here has convinced me that they do either. That said, some have contributed. Tengu, perhaps you would like to join them.
ThymeZone
Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!
Did you check the name of the blog?
If hot air is not to your liking, maybe this isn’t your place?
nichevo
cleek 6:11 Is that all? Anything else? Just checking before I get started.
nichevo
thyme:
semantic value = 0
thanks for playing
cleek
cleek 6:11 Is that all?
is that all ? we nearly wiped out the entire population of an entire continent.
Zifnab
Let’s not even talk about how fucking evil it all is. The idea that you can just run around putting bullet holes in world leaders you don’t like was the sort of immature and childish notion you play with in grade school. Imagine if Mexico said they were going to have the Prime Minister of Canada killed because he was providing financial aid to Ortega. How shocked would we all be? Imagine if Hugo Chavez decided to put out a hit on Tony Blair because of an oil dispute. People would flip.
I mean, who are we, as a civilization? The country of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, or are we the country of the Corleones?
Darrell
Good article – Were American Indians the victims of Genocide? For those interested in more than just one dimensional talking points to bash the US
TenguPhule
More importantly, whatever threat Iran poses will not be reduced by our letting them have nuclear weapons.
And you keep repeating the same false talking point.
There is no evidence Iran is going for nuclear weapons.
All the rightwing whooping and screaming on cable and print about ‘Nuclear Iran is Bad’ seems to have convinced you that Iran *must* be attacked for our own good.
You trot out the same arguments that were used to justify war with Iraq….and look how that turned out.
Unlike military action, direct diplomacy rarely results in stupid things that can never be taken back once committed. And while some may find it slow, it beats trying for the ‘short victorious war’ that you are so obssessed with.
Zifnab
Hahahaha. Yeah, something like that. I’ve dropped the phrase Go Horns enough times to leave a few hints. But maybe you haven’t been on the site long enough to catch those. But I can tell you a number of things particular to Texas that embarasses me as a statizen. I’m embarassed we’re still too bull-headed to get a state income tax, when we’ve been bickering over how unfair property taxes are for the past twenty years. I’m embarassed that we see the death penalty less as a last resort and more as a spectator sport. I’m embarassed that we can’t treat our southern neighbor as a friend rather than a threat to national security, and that we still have a $5.15 minimum wage. And I’m embarassed that Mack Brown banged up our all-star quarterback before he was finished with his first season. (Don’t even start me on that A&M game).
Does this mean I “hate Texas”? No. It means I love Texas and expect the best out of her. Like a father encouraging a child, a husband supporting his wife, a son looking after his mother, I want to bring the state pride and I want the state to be something to be proud of. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.
cleek
For those interested in more than just one dimensional talking points to bash the US
from the link:
yes, a “collision” that killed 12,000,000, which was caused by the actions of a huge population of Europeans who pushed their way westward (how nice of Mr Lewy them to use my words), resulting in the near extinction of the native population. just like a said.
if you want to argue over the meaning of the word “genocide”, take it up with the guy in the mirror.
Darrell
You know, for all those who are criticizing the idea of bombing Iran’s nuclear facility, what is/was your opinion about the relative success of the arial bombardment in the Balkans to control Serb violence in the 1990’s?
nichevo
cleek, just checking if that was your only point or if you wanted to hit slavery, no Miranda, no FDA, no Federal Reserve, no food stamps, global warming, whatever. Indians? Indians it is.
Want to firm up dates while I have your attention? For instance does the US have to eat it for the English sending out those pox-infected blankets? Or are you more focused on the Trail of Tears, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sand Creek type stuff?
Also, does it count that the Indians were also not entirely nice? I mean, the Allies killed people in WWII as well.
It is interesting, nobody here seems to disagree that WWII was “the good war.” I couldn’t get a bite on the Civil War either nor the American Revolution.
TenguPhule
POTD.
nichevo
TenguPhule, why don’t you game us some diplomacy, since it chiefly interests you? Give us some scenarios. Or are you still busy trying to figure out what happens after we bug out of Iraq?
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Look! A distraction!
nichevo
Zifnab: Noted. Yes, I am new here, thx. Well, we differ, I hope that’s possible.
I think we need lots more executions, I commend Texas for that. But that’s my personal opinion.
Couldn’t speak to the tax issue.
So Mexico poses no issues or problems for us? They are a free good? Do you intend to moderate this with a higher minimum wage? Or just have fewer summer jobs for teenagers?
No really, what min wage would you want and why? Do you make min wage? What purpose does it serve? Do you really want guaranteed economic security for all? Have you taken a look at France lately?
I’m sorry your football teams are bitches. True dat ;>
…
but speaking of pride/shame, how about the whole Texas-used-to-be-part-of-Mexico, Alamo, Goliad, San Jacinto thing? Ashamed of (y)our part in that? Wish Texas were Mexican? I’m guessing, no.
So in other words, you believe that net net, all the killing, etc., to get you to here was worth it. Si?
TenguPhule
First off, ease off the fearmongering and actually do them the courtesy of talking directly with them. Then go from there and listen to what they request in terms of foreign policy and economic policy. Use the time to gather more background information on Iran, if there’s a few carrots that can be given without much cost/risk, dangle them for a few equally non-risky concessions on the Iranian part.
In short, work on rebuilding our credibility first while checking to see what if anything there is actually going on in Iran. Our intelligence there is almost as lacking as it was in Iraq.
We leave, Iraq falls apart. We do the best we can to help the refugees and stay the hell out of the internal powerplay until we can negotiate with a clear winner after the dust settles. Given our current leaders, that’s realistically the most we can hope for.
Tsulagi
LOL. You do crack me up. Seriously, I am impressed by your ability to spew copious amounts of popinjay drivel at will. My typing speed skills are no match for yours. Surely you must me one of the vaunted 101st Keyboardists protecting the country from evildoers within. Bravo.
As you know, Iran has the refining capacity to meet its domestic needs. Of course, though, you’ve thought ahead. In any hostilities you and Cheney would rush to show your tits in taking out those refineries and any storage facilities. Smart thinking. Not that Iran would think to tat doing similar to oil fields in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, or those guys. Nope, they have nothing but love in their heart for the Sunni royal family in Saudi Arabia.
Don’t worry, they likely wouldn’t do Iraq, you’ve already given them that place. But if they did do the others, I’m sure we can be treated to Condi on TV saying “No one could have imagined they would do that.” After her address, we can watch the images of ME countries in flames. During commercial breaks, we can check out the latest companies offering loans to fill up your gastank. Sounds like another great plan. Why fuckup just one country when you can multitask?
You’re funny, but not that much. I’ll leave you here to continue playing with yourself.
cleek
cleek, just checking if that was your only point or if you wanted to hit slavery, yadayadayada
if you think you can spin slavery, etc. into shining examples of American Virtue, go right ahead!
Or are you more focused on the Trail of Tears, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sand Creek type stuff?
and while you’re polishing those other turds, go ahead – see if you can turn the Trail Of Tears into a proud moment in American history.
Krista
By the way, nichevo, I’m a bit curious — you seem to be very, very interested in the geographic localities of everybody with whom you argue. Why does it matter so much to you?
TenguPhule
Oh thank you for that wonderful image. X(
Krista
I bet Cheney has some pretty awesome man-tits, too…
ThymeZone
Fuck you.
Darrell
Really
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Look! Another obvious distraction!
nichevo
Tsulagi – no, I do not know that Iran has sufficient domestic refinery capacity. I had understood that they import gasoline. Do tell.
cleek – touchy, are we? Like I said, just trying to delimit the discussion before we go another 300 comments.
Krista – “Everybody” is imprecise. This is about the eighth time you’ve dodged it? Fine – but you used some construction like “you Americans” so I wondered where you were from.
It seemed to be you who brought it into play. And “my country sucks” is a bit of a different proposition from “your country sucks.” N’est-ce pas?
Oh, btw, if I referred to your breasts, would you a) consider it a matter of witty badinage or b) be insulted?
(If a, what is your bra size?)
I admit, you would have a bit more cause than the following…
ThymeZone Says:
1) Maci looks a little young for me. (Looked at your site. I assume she is my proposed date since I see no pictures of you and I don’t go for cats.)
2) I can’t help it if your contributions to the discussion are worthless. Why don’t you try harder? If you’re not smart enough, get someone to sharpen your crayons for you.
3) To paraphrase Dr. Who:
“‘Fuck you?’ Splendid! What a finely tuned response to the situation!”
4) Naw, just kidding. You really earned my respect now. Good job!
nichevo
TenguPhule Says:
No, he backed me up wrt Tulagi, above. (Thank you. D.) Tengu, you don’t have to show class by apologizing or anything, but it would be interesting to see how you admit error.
TenguPhule
nichevo’s Irony of the Day, folks.
nichevo
And we have our answer. Thanks for playing!
jg
Could be that it only looks like they’re fighting for Iran. It looks that way because you’re looking at it from the perspective of someone who thinks the border lines on a map mean anything to the people who live there.
TenguPhule
Thanks for proving my point.
ThymeZone
What point would that be? That you think you can post any horseshit and people should kiss your ass?
TenguPhule
ThymeZone, you’re aiming at the wrong person again.
nichevo is the ass you’re looking for.
ThymeZone
Actually, she’s my granddaughter you stupid jerk, like it says on the caption.
Actually, it’s considerably better than you deserve.
ThymeZone
Indeed he/she/it is. Sorry.
Ted
I don’t know why you folks debate and argue with paid professionals. We’ve got two of them here now, and that’s just great.
If you have both Darrell and ‘nichevo’ in your pie list, the thread length is almost literally cut in half.
ThymeZone
Darrell is a paid professional ….?
I thought he ran a septic tank truck.
TenguPhule
No Harm, no foul. I can understand how his stupidity can cause problems.
nichevo
jg – First, I want to thank you for providing an example of a post which can be attempted to be responded to. And not a cuss in the bunch. Some posters here could learn from you.
It is, however, not a perfect post. It is a little sly and generic, but many favor these tactics. The thing it that it makes it harder for me to give you a really good answer. But I’ll try.
This was in context of Iraqi Shia taking the part of Iranian Shia against the godless United States/Coalition. Right?
Your comment seems to imply that a) the Iran-Iraq border is not firm and historical, but is maybe some colonial remnant like Sykes-Picot or the Durand Line, b) that Iran and Iraq Shia are racially or tribally identical, separated by this artificial barrier.
a) I think is not correct. While in the time of the Persian Empire there may have been some flux, the Iraq side is all tweaked up, but I’m pretty sure Iran has been Iran for a good long while, and that particular border pretty consistent. I would also expect that over centuries, that divide was such that populations aligned to it. Their confessionals are different. Persians are not Arabs.
b) therefore, I think, is incorrect. Again, let me remind you that Iraqi Arab Shia fought Iranian Persian Shia in the 1980-88 war. With sincerity. It would seem a natural for mass defections and the like, were b) to be true. Unless Saddam’s commissars were that effective and that thick on the ground, which is not my understanding.
So while your comment has validity in the abstract, in this particular situation I think you need to flesh it out a little more and see if it still applies. I would like your comment much better as applied to Afghanistan/Pakistan, for instance.
TenguPhule
Fixed. :P
Tsulagi
Okay, last time. Niche and D sometimes are just too precious. Still haven’t decided which is the big one and which plays mini-me to the other.
Liked the article you linked to Darrell. Off to the side was “Mover-and shaker Baker too dictator friendly for Bush.” On the front page of this serious “news journal” in bold type was “Arrogant, castrating blow: The Baker-Hamilton catastrophe.” You really need to get out more.
Okay, I know this source isn’t near as authoritative as WorldTribune.com, you know, given how Bushy and the boys staff government agencies, but here’s a few figures from the Dept. of Energy…
Thank you, Halliburton, for helping them increase capacity!
So the point is right now they are just meeting domestic need. Yes, the report also mentions they are importing gasoline. Demand has been great because the government subsidizes the price to $.40 a gallon. Gee, ya think if there was some shooting going around they might drop those subsidies for a bit to lower demand? Cut down on drives in the countryside? Naw, no way.
This has been another simple edition of playing with the retards
TenguPhule
Right, because nobody named Saddam and his Sunni minority were not running the country. And no Shiite rebellion against Saddam occured that was then not crushed while US forces just watched. And so of course they will not take advantage of any aid not offered from Iran against the not hated occupiers.
TenguPhule
Because they’re neither paid nor professional. Nobody gets paid enough to spout that kind of bullshit unless they really believe in it, not even Tony Snow.
nichevo
Well, I’m glad that you have established mutual support on this fine online community.
Ted – Is “pie” referencing some type of “ignore” functionality on the board? Please tell me how to use it! Then again, I hardly ever see you post, so on you it would be wasted.
Anyway, I don’t know what you mean by ‘professional’ (is that a synonym for ‘concern troll?’ I don’t know what that means either but leftists often fling it about) but if it eases you and cools you to label me, I’m happy for you. No doubt it will save you a lot of difficult, hateful mental effort.
Tengu – OK, you’re evidently having IQ problems again (or is it merely reading comprehension). Let me spell it out for you (but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong! Maybe I missed something myself) about the apology business.
Darrell posted in response to Tulagi about Iranian refinery capacity. You interpreted this, incorrectly, as a distraction of some sort, and chaffed him. I advised you that in fact it was very much on point (from my point of view, and presumably Tulagi’s).
Unless by “professional” you mean “Tengu pays Darrell to post what Tengu wants,” ISTM you were wrong to tweak Darrel, and should admit it.
I invited you to show class.
You decided, in the cant phrase, to show ass.
And then, to cap it off, here comes the Mother Of All Ironies! Aagh! Our stomachs are roasting in hell! (By the way, that’s really just a Tu quoque the way you use it.)
Then of course Thyme came across you and was mad, but I don’t blame him. Anyway, do you deny you were mistaken about Darrel’s post? If so, kindly explain. If not, that’s where the apology, statement of error, whatever, would come in.
Okay, Thyme:
1) Perhaps people with granddaughters should learn to rise above the promiscuous conversational use of “Fuck you.” Either in terms of their own dignity and station in life, or because they should be thinking of, oh, their grandchildren.
2) Better than I deserve? Well, lay it on me. Show me all the toys in your box. You’re probably older than I, so maybe you know many more vile things to say.
The funny thing is that with age is supposed to come wisdom, so you might have been expected to develop a vocabulary enabling you to avoid foul language, as well as inner restraints.
Of course you may come from a lower social order, or were raised poorly, or had a brain injury like that of Phineas Gage, or an organic disorder like Tourette’s Syndrome, or are/were a stevedore, a Marine, or something coarsening like that. In which case: too bad, pity, pity, pity, too bad.
But “Fuck you” does not impress me, it does not intimidate me, it fails to have any effect whatsoever except to lower my estimation of you. Or, perhaps, to confirm my prior estimation of you, which as you’ve probably deduced, was low.
But now it’s not good enough? Can any words really express your hate and fear and rage? Perhaps you would like to kill me, or at least thrash me? We could always exchange emails and addresses and have our seconds call upon one another.
No – that won’t work; you’re far too old; the code duello has its limits.
But in the meantime, whatever you have to say to me in that vein may be considered to be said right back at you, with interest. E.g.,
“Fuck you”
“Well, fuck you, fuck your granddaughter
Maci, and fuck your cat”
Now do you feel better? But as I said, if you have some more words like that, feel free to share. This board evidently has no abuse policy. Go ahead, get your ya-yas out.
Meanwhile, if you come up with anything germane to say, I may still be here.
So, like I said, thanks for playing! Perhaps now you’ll play nice.
TenguPhule
Shorter nichevo: When all else fails, there’s always good old fashioned ‘polite’ insults to try and get a rise out of somebody.
ThymeZone
Perhaps. Or, perhaps you should just go fuck yourself.
This is your lameass version of “Bring it on?” Okay.
Really? You haven’t been able to take your eyes off it so far. And why would I care what impresses you?
Fuck you.
cleek
Like I said, just trying to delimit the discussion before we go another 300 comments.
riiiight.
nichevo
Tsulagi: Last time? How I’ll miss you!
Let’s see what else that report contains. Ah yes, as I thought, rather than trusting you, better to read the whole thing. Talk about assuming a can opener! Oh sure, they’ll just ration it. (Never mind expanded needs in wartime!) Everybody loves that.
Maybe they won’t need evil neocons’ help to destabilize the government? Especially if they had a nasty accident at a key refinery. Like Abadan, Isfahan, Bandar Abbas…
Those crazy Baluchis!
Bad minority! No doughnut!
…Gee, where has Halliburton been active? Those incompetent sluts! I wouldn’t be surprised if their equipment explodes!
For anyone who is interested, I pulled some more of the juicy bits below. If you think I have bowdlerized like Tsulagi, RTWT.
You’re right, Tsulagi. What was I thinking? Those cats in Iran are fat, dumb and happy!
Shouldn’t play with retards, Tsu. Looks like it’s catching.
….
Iran Energy Data, Statistics and Analysis – Oil, Gas, Electricity, Coal:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/Oil.html
….
…maybe that was why Saddam tried to grab them up. Wonder how we’d do. Think anything in Iran could stop a US armored brigade heading east? Maybe they’ll blow up their own oilfields first!
Point for you…perhaps in a few years they won’t be able to pay for nukes, if we could stall them. OTOH, if they laid off the nukes, not only could they afford development, but other countries might be more disposed towards a little FDI love.
Severe shortfall! Oh, well, they can just ration that away.
Hmmm, on who gets the oil:
Top Ten Iranian Crude Oil Export Destinations
(Thousand bbl/d)
Rank Reporting Country 2003 2004 2005
1 Japan 685,034 630,462 570,604
2 China 247,235 263,446 284,830
3 SKorea 171,563 173,144 195,654
4 Italy 194,055 188,033 193,935
5 France 115,209 128,892 142,811
6 Nethlds 130,214 138,751 139,246
7 Turkey 138,683 114,217 138,873
8 SAfrica 118,695 189,613 134,646
9 Taiwan 167,003 138,518 125,031
10 Greece 88,781 115,533 105,236
Reporting Total 2,056,472 2,080,609 2,030,866
OECD Pacific 728,320
OECD Europe 826,584
Source: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas, July, 2006.
Teh suxx0r! Better get it together boys. Do you know how much it’ll cost to develop enough nuclear power to make up for ALL THAT OIL?
This little tidbit…
(Norway agrees; evidently, so do Spain and others)
Ahh, that free market Iranian capitalism.
And on the original subject, gasoline…
nichevo
TenguPhule Says:
You’re incoherent enough when not trying to play with grammar. Put it down, it’s too sharp, you’ll cut yourself. At a glance, you should check your dates.
nichevo
Thyme, am I supposed to be impressed yet? Is this bringing it on?
So far we have one more:
“Fuck you, fuck your granddaughter Maci, and fuck your cat,” plus one:
“You, your granddaughter Maci, and your cat should go fuck yourselves” (or each other, as is convenient).
As for “taking my eyes off it,” if you didn’t want it read, why did you post it? Remember, I don’t know how “pie” works. So far your posts have been entirely without merit so I see no big risk in pie-ing you, but there you are.
C’mon. Show me what you got. Maybe you were a sailor or a pimp. In which case you must really know some hot ones. Bring It On. Escalate. Destroy me. Nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah. What magic words would you like to hear? Should I call you a little old bitch or something? Insult your family some more? I’d rather not, but then I’m not a barbarian like you.
I would thank you for playing, but your heart’s not in it. You know you’ve been a fool and you haven’t the grace to know how to back down. This is a no-win for you unless of course you can get me banned (I don’t see why) and then insult me some more after I’m gone.
Here’s the secret. Just post. Try thinking first. Make sure it says something. Edit it to remove obscenities. Then hit Submit Comment. I won’t insult if you don’t.
But if you keep this up, and you have a heart attack or a stroke or an AVM or something, I disclaim all responsibility.
Unless they sell tickets, then I want a cut.
nichevo
Sorry, cleek. Where were we. Indians? Yes, well why don’t you state your case, since I don’t quite seem to be making it for you?
ThymeZone
Fuck you.
nichevo
Thyme,
Fuck you, fuck your granddaughter Maci, and fuck your cat.
Thanks for playing!
ThymeZone
Fuck you.
nichevo
Oh, so you’re going to outlast me? Well, I understand the elderly need less sleep. If I should nod off, just remember, whatever you say, right back at you and your family.
Besides, unless your tits are better than Krista’s, you’ll just have to wait your turn. Unless you want to sell me on Maci, which however is kind of disgusting on your part. I mean, start with a daughter! Really, I don’t know about you, but personally I do prefer a little grass on the field.
Oh, and thanks for playing.
ThymeZone
Fuck you.
nichevo
Thanks for playing!
ThymeZone
Fuck you.
Steve
For the record, of course Iran doesn’t have enough refining capacity to take care of itself. If you take just a moment to think about it – that’s why they can plausibly claim that they need nuclear power!
My browser is too full of pie to understand why this was relevant to anything, mind you, but a fact is a fact.
nichevo
Steve Says:
You know, that’s cute, but think a moment. What is gasoline used for? Internal combustion engines is about it. What does nuclear power create? Electricity. What does electricity NOT work with? Internal combustion engines.
Unless you think Allah is going to drop a few million hybrids or fuel-cell cars on Tehran, that dog won’t hunt.
Then don’t pay no never mind. If a Jew is afraid of a little reading, what has the world come to?
…
ThymeZone: Thanks for playing!
Steve
Um. What? I’m not the idiot arguing that Iran doesn’t need nuclear power because they have so much oil.
Ted
That’s because I have a life. I don’t have time to post 58 out of 374 comments, many of them a page long, on a comment thread on a blog. 56 others of them were by Darrell. You both need to get a life.
“Professional” is a reference to the fact that both you and Darrel strike me as people who are being paid to do this shit. Ever heard of Netvocates, or similar companies? If you’re being paid to do this (promote the Republican faith on blog comment threads), then that’s fine. When your shift is over, you’ll likely resume your daily life. If you’re not being paid, then you really should get out more.
“Hateful”? o..k…
nichevo
Steve – Did you read the article you linked?
Ted –
1) But when you do post, I at least find it usually of little value. This one happens to have been fairly good because you are making an effort to communicate instead of to vent or to obscure or use jargon. If you would talk straight more often, you would do better.
2) Probably right. Pity you have such an ideological imbalance. Since you all pile on, often with many little irrelevant posts, if I try to be comprehensive, it adds up. OTOH, I am a prolific writer and a fair typist so it is less difficult for me. I would do better to ignore crap posts but somehow that seems not the etiquette. Perhaps I will try it. This pie/ignore tool, if it exists, would be handy.
3) Wow, you can get paid? I was a debater in high school, I could do either side. Do you know how much it pays?
I could say No, I am not a pro. But then would you believe me? For the record, Not.
4) Frankly it’s so long since you posted that I fail to recall the context. But I think you were “the labeler,” which I regard as dehumanizing, and symptomatic of someone who doesn’t like to make the mental effort to treat each person as an individual.
Ted
It does. Pity you don’t have it. Between you and Darrell it can really cut down the nonsense. Shaves 115 posts of chaff off this thread alone.
nichevo
See, now, Ted, you’re lying to me. That’s not nice.
Krista
Considering how disgusting and offensive you’re being, you really have absolutely no moral standing upon which to chide ThymeZone for his language.
chopper
i dunno who’s spoofing this nichevo guy, but turn the ego down a few notches. it’ll sound better.
“turn down the treble…that’s my word”
John S.
Speaking of disgusting and offensive comments by our new resident conservative troll…
Between that and the comment Krista cited, you just ceded whatever high ground you thought you were standing on top of, nichevo.
But thank you for playing.
John S.
Now there’s a retarded gem. I almost missed it buried amongst all the other rubbish.
Gasoline is merely one refined state of oil. Obviously there are others, like what many people use to heat their homes with or what fossil fuel power plants run on.
If you’re going to come in here strutting and claiming to be of superior intellect, it would behoove you to at least get your facts straght – or at the very least not use the Chewbacca defense when trying to make your points.
Steve
And yet, John, we have the Vice-President of the United States going around making the case that we know Iran is lying about their nuclear program, because they have so much oil they don’t need nuclear power.
Even though he knows fuel oil is produced through refining, and Iran doesn’t have the refining capacity. He puts the lie out there, knowing the rubes will buy it.
It’s aluminum tubes all over again. See, if you’re convinced that a war would be a good war, it’s ok to lie to get public support for it. It’s shameless, and you never hear a wingnut say “gosh, I support this war, but I wish they’d be more honest in making the case for it.” Because they feel the same way. The ends justify the means.
In my view, the election results represent a repudiation of the ability of these pernicious, pro-war extremists to redefine reality as they choose. It’s going to be a bunch of clueless fools on the sidelines, cheering for a bombing of Iran that will never come. But we’ll see how that works out.
Tim F.
Moderation Note
I have temporarily banned Wilfred for this comment and nichevo for this comment. I think most people appreciate that we set a high bar here for intervention. Obviously a high bar is still a bar; racist language and bringing someone’s younger relatives into a flamewar are things that we prefer not to pay to host. Feel free to appeal, berate and declare your general disappointment by email.
Krista
Thanks, Tim. We’re pretty freewheeling here, and can all be pretty obnoxious, but yeah…things were starting to get kind of creepy.
Zifnab
You can suck my nuts, nichevoOops. Um… takebacks?
Steve
Appreciated, Tim.
Darrell
Let’s examine who the real “rubes” are. If Iran has been deficient in refining capacity for some time, and it appears they are, why haven’t all those R&D efforts and budget over the past 10 – 20 years gone into developing and expanding refineries instead of developing nuclear technology? Including costly buried nuclear facilities.
Has that raised any suspicions in your beautiful mind? Or is that only for us rubes?
Darrell
I hope wilfred and nichevo come back. They raised the collective IQ of this echo chamber by half.
Zifnab
Yeah, the slander and vulgarity was hovering right around your IQ level Big D.
Darrell
Funny, I never heard you complain about this
You know why you didn’t complain? Because you’re a damn hypocrite, who only objects to vulgarity if it comes from the ‘other side’
Zombie Santa Claus
All I know is, nichevo’s getting coal for Christmas. Talking about my workshop like it isn’t a nation just because it rests on an ice-sheet instead of dry land really clinched it for me. (What about the undersea kingdom of the mer-people, nichevo? Their civilization has flourished for millenia, yet to you it wouldn’t constitute a “nation” just because it occurs on the Atlantic Shelf rather than ashore. Moreover, they’ve been nothing but virtuous, peaceably scavenging from shipwrecks and teaching sexy mermaids to sing and beguile sailor-princes.)
Well, MAYBE if he leaves some brains and a glass of milk by the chimney, I might give him something. But as things stand now, nichevo’d better be dreaming of a bituminous Christmas.
Ho, ho, ho, bitches!
nichevo
ZSC,
1) Blame the UN. Of course once they kick out Taiwan and Israel, there may be room for you and the merfolk.
2) Do you deliver to the alleged merdudes? How’s the sled hold up underwater at hypersonic speeds? (I know as a member of the undead you don’t need air, but how about your reindeer?) Or do you just depth-charge ’em?
3) Besides, though as much a present-monger as anybody, I gotta pull you up on the virtuous bit. Don’t you know about the Siren Conspiracy? Duh, Santa, the mermaids beguile the sailors ONTO THE ROCKS so the mermen can strip the wrecks! I know you only go back 1500 years pr so but does that mean you can’t read Greek mythology? C’mon, you have 364.25 days of the year free, crack a book! Noam Chomsky goes on and on about it in The Grecian Formula: How Hellenes Are Dragging Us Off To Hell.
4) I am getting wonderful unhomogenized whole milk from the greenmarket – covered. You can skim the cream right out of the neck of the bottle. As for brains, if I can keep what I need to squash this crowd, I can probably still spare you at least half of mine. Solid?
5) If not, I love coal like these beeyatches love pie. I stuff it up their cracks and the next morning pull out Koh-i-Noors. Bring it on, Zombie Nick! Just watch out for the shotgun in the chimney.
Krista
Darrell, come on. I know that you hate all lefties in general (and ThymeZone in particular), but are you seriously trying to claim that there is any sort of moral equivalency between one commenter saying “Fuck you” and another commenter speculating on the idea of having sex with someone’s 18-month old granddaughter? ThymeZone was being vulgar, but no more so than you (and I) have been. Nichevo was being disgusting, offensive, and beyond anything resembling human decency. Please tell me that you can actually detect the difference between the two.
Steve
I don’t trust Iran’s claims about their nuclear program, for the record, not until they can be verified. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a complete lie to argue “Iran doesn’t need nuclear power, because they have lots of oil.” Dick Cheney knows that Iran can’t make electricity from petroleum without a refining process, and they don’t have enough refining.
It’s an argument only the ignorant would fall for, but the pro-war fanatics have no problem with it, because anything that helps persuade the masses to support an attack is fine with them. Just like the aluminum tubes.
nichevo
Again, Steve, you are simply wrong: they have a surplus of fuel oil, they export it. They also have natural gas which is ideal for electrical generation in situ. What thry lack is gasoline, which no nuclear power can provide, but which new refineries can, at far less expense.
Darrell
What claims are you referring to? Are you suggesting that Iran has little or no nuclear development in place? Who’s the rube now?
Refining technology and construction is relatively cheap easily available, and proven, and Iran has lots of nearby oil. Only the ignorant masses would question why Iran wants to pursue nuclear energy under that scenario.
TenguPhule
Darrell
It’s incredible really, the denial of reality on the left. Iran has nuclear development facilities in place which have been inspectected and verified by the IAEA. Contrary to Steve’s igorant assertions, there is no doubt whatsoever Iran has a nuclear development programs and facilities in place.. the only possible question which could be raised is over uranium enrichment, and whether Iran’s program could be used to develop nuclear weapons.
Construction of refinery facilities cost far less money, and doesn’t carry with it the risks that nuclear technology involves. You really have to know what you’re doing with nukes. With refining, it’s much more proven and straightforward.
But that’s just one rube’s opinion, as the beautiful minds on the left like Steve seem to really know what they’re talking about.
TenguPhule
Three Darrells have the same intelligence as one.
TenguPhule
And there’s no evidence they are using them to develop nuclear weapons.
And yet the Right would have us believe nuclear power is safe and should be increased at home to cut our oil dependency?
Iran appears to be thinking in terms of long term power production and wants to sell more of the oil they use now to the market.
So until there is evidence to the contrary, the armchair generals so eager to get other people killed for nothing should STFU.
Darrell
It is safe if you know what you’re doing. We’ve constructed a ton of nuclear plants which are operating safely. Westinhouse and a few other contractors have that technology down. Iran does not. For them, it’s something unknown and unproven.
typical stupidass leftist
TenguPhule
That statement is so far into spoofery, nobody could spoof it further.
Darrell
TengFool’s idiocy boggles the mind. Iran has never built a nuclear power plant. Nuclear technology is complicated to build and implement. In other words, you need to know what you’re doing. We’ve built plenty of nuclear power plants here in the US that have been operating safely for years.
Why is it that the stupidest of the stupid virtually always turn out to be leftists?
Steve
Uh, I kinda thought the question of whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons was the whole ball of wax here.
Perhaps you could quote some of my “igorant assertions” where I question whether Iran even has nuclear facilities, peaceful or otherwise.
TenguPhule
So nobody who has ever built a nuclear power plant should ever be allowed to build one because it’s complicated and they won’t know what they’re doing? Are you even listening to what you’re saying anymore?
I know you see Iran only through the lens of the 80s…but this is just plain silly.
Fixed.
No evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons development still sticks in your craw, doesn’t it?
TenguPhule
It is. We have no evidence of any such development, but that doesn’t stop the bedwetters like Darrell from shrieking with terror and trying to cry that the sky is falling.
Darrell
Let’s recap: Steve asserts that Iranian nuclear development is entirely reasonable (only “rubes” would disagree) given it’s lack of refinery capacity.
I respond by pointing out that if Iran’s nuclear development efforts really were about offsetting a lack of refining capacity as Steve asserted, then why over the past 20+ years hasn’t Iran taken all the money and R&D it spent on nuclear development and instead used that money to add refinery capacity? Given the economics and risks involved, particularly when most of those decisions were made years ago, it doesn’t make sense that an oil rich country like Iran would pursue nuclear development instead of building/expanding refineries with all that money.
In that context, Steve responds “I don’t trust Iran’s claims about their nuclear program, for the record, not until they can be verified”. As if they have no nuclear program. In that context, how else could it possibly interpreted, other than to suggest that Iran really does not have a nuclear development program?
Please tell us the alternative interpretation to your assertion Steve, given the context of what was said.
TenguPhule
Congratulations Darrell, you’ve failed basic reading comprehension.
Steve is questioning Iran’s claims on it, not the existance of their civilian nuclear program.
Steve
Yes, clearly I said Iranian nuclear development was entirely reasonable. In some language that only Darrell can comprehend, apparently.
This is such a ridiculous interpretation that it speaks for itself. Once again, a big waste of space on the page simply establishing that Darrell makes up his opponents’ arguments altogether and has no basis for what he says, and I apologize to those who would rather eat pie.
Darrell
Hang on a minute.. If Iraq is developing nuclear capabilities to offset lack of refinery capacity, why then wouldn’t they take all that money and R&D and use it to build refinery space instead of spending it on a nuclear program? A program fraught with risk and expense..
What then, in response to that point which I made earlier, could you possibly have meant when you said in response: “I don’t trust Iran’s claims about their nuclear program, for the record, not until they can be verified”. Iran clearly has nuclear development facilities. That is not a disputable point, even by us “rubes”.
Why then Steve, don’t you clarify what you meant as requested, instead of getting all defensive like a little girl?
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Why is Chewbacca on Endor!?
First you argue that Iran acts irrational, then you argue that Iran should behave in a rational manner.
For the Nth time, Darrell, Iran is diversifying away from pure oil supplied energy. Which makes sense since they can then *Sell* the oil that would have been consumed. Just because you think they should rely only on ‘cheap oil’ doesn’t mean they share your shortsighted view. And just because you think all Iranians are ignorant hicks unable to put together and run a working nuclear power reactor, doesn’t make it true.
Reality knocks, but Darrell is still deaf.
John S.
Or in Darrell’s case, petulant like a little boy.