Those insidious lavender linguists might have provided useful intelligence in Iraq, which is painfully short right now.
Multiple CIA sources, who spoke freely only in exchange for anonymity, said the agency’s mission of recruiting and managing human spies in Baghdad was stillborn in the weeks following the 2003 invasion and has never recovered, despite adding hundreds of personnel in the past few years. That failure has virtually crippled U.S. strategic intelligence — inside information on the personalities and plans of the often hostile U.S.-backed government, not just the multiplying insurgent groups and armed militias — in Iraq. […]
Tactical intelligence — the locations and types of enemy troops and weapons — is also suffering from a lack of access to the population and almost nonexistent language skills on the part of both CIA and military intelligence personnel, say these same sources, all of whom have decades of experience in clandestine operations.
It might seem counterintuitive that knowledge is a bad thing for America, but that is just pre-9/11 thinking. You see, for Republican administrations accurate intelligence causes more problems than it solves. Without knowledge a leader can’t discover that his addle brained theories are wrong. For example if nobody translates al Qaeda intercepts then nobody can conclude that the terrorists badly wanted Bush to win re-election (surprised? just ask Dinesh). So no more complaining about inteligence gaps crippling our operations in Iraq. An intel vacuum is good for the Party and, as long as you define America and the Party as one and the same, good for America.
Jake
Jeeze Tim, do you want to risk the possibility that thousands of people might owe their lives to a gay man or a lesbian? Who knows what those people might demand by way of gratitude [squirm]. And look at how WWII made women and African-Americans so uppity. [/snark]
In light of the Surge, I find it more than a bit disturbing that one part of the plan involves US soldiers living in neighborhoods outside of the Green Zone but according to one of the articles no one knows what’s going on in these neighborhoods. I guess you go to war with the intelligence you have, not the intelligence that might save your life.
Darrell
Tim, is it a “slam dunk” that Iran can’t get nuclear weapons for at least 10 years?
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Pay no attention that I was proved a liar and a fool once again. Look at the shiny Rabbit!
TenguPhule
That pre-supposes the idiots actually cared about discovering that their addle brained fantasies were wrong.
Plausible Insanity.
TenguPhule
Operation Lambs to the Slaughter is proceeding as Planned.
Darrell
I blame Bush for the pre-2001 firings.
Tim F.
Many in the attack-Iran crowd insist that the problem is so urgent that the only realistic option is to attack immediately. When you add together the colossal stupidity of attacking Iran right now, the political convenience of the neocons’ urgency act (they spent that credibility in Iraq) and the unlikeliness that Iran would commit suicide-by-nuke it seems utterly sensible to take the best estimates of the intel community into account and calm down.
Sure, studies can be ignored and usually are. The real problem is when the public finds out that the Party was wrong about something. Since any given information can leak at any time it seems preferable to not assemble the information at all. See for example, the Iraq NIE that I cited in the post.
TenguPhule
Hey, Darrell you lying sack of shit, finish the quoted paragraph next time and you won’t look like such an Scs.
And for reference, 2004 only had 543 Arabic speakers graduating from the DLI per the MSNBC article. So it’s not like we have all that many to spare in the first place.
Darrell
TengFool, tell us, what did I “lie” about?
TenguPhule
Few people go broke betting on the apathy and stupidity of the general public. Their MO is to dump it out in large Friday batches and let it get lost in the general news cycle tide. Even those of us who try to keep an eye on it all can’t due to the sheer volume of crap they keep pumping out.
Darrell
I take it you are unaware that Ahmadinejad has praised martyrdom in connection with coming of the next islamic messiah.. Do I need to dig up the citations for you Tim, or are you willing to concede the ignorance of your comment?
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: I have a perfectly good explanation for this smoking gun in my hand.
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: When Bush and his people says stupid shit, they don’t mean it. When the Iranians say stupid shit, they mean it.
Tim F.
Ahmadinejad doesn’t control the nuclear program. Next dumb question please.
Mr Furious
Give us a fucking break, Darrell. The complete paragraph would have rendered your comment moot. So you chose to leave it out. Selective, misrepresentative truth is the same as lying in this case.
You got caught and called out. Don’t waste everybody’s time with your disingenuous bullshit.
—
Any firings before Bush was President (while equally pointless) also took place before there was an alleged “war” on, making them slightly less inexcusable and costly.
Jake
Rather like intelligence agencies trying to stay on top of reams of data.
“Look! We’ve been tracking e-mails! Sort through it and tell us if there’s anything important.”
“Uh, great. We’re trying to follow a lead on-.”
“And their phone calls!”
“Dandy, but we have some information that urgently-”
“And their credit card activity!”
“AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!! I quit!”
“Fine, you cut n’ runner.”
Darrell
It’s kinda painful to watch you keep digging that hole Tim, but whatever
Tim speaks with such confidence, as if he has a clue.
Darrell
Talk about lies, how do you kooks live with yourselves?
Jonathan
It’s my belief that no really exalted position in any government is occupied by real believing theists. The magical thinking required of theists precludes the amount of Machiavellian thinking that is really needed to truly stay on the top of the heap of the hordes of competitors for such positions.
There are some fairly obvious exceptions, Jimmy Carter comes to mind, but look at how he is viewed by most political pundits. Carter also didn’t last long, one term and he was done. Carter was also a reaction to the presidency of Richard Milhouse Nixon so he was something of a statistical outlier if you will.
I doubt Ahmedinejad truly believes his rhetoric, it’s just a convenient way for him to wrap himself in the flag, mom and apple pie, Iranian style.
No modern leader leads from the front today, and none of them are going to subject themselves to possible death in pursuit of their policies. It’s easy to send others out to die for your glory, it’s much more difficult and irrational to put your own ass on the line.
TenguPhule
So much for spreading Democracy
Oh and Darrell, at least read your own articles so you don’t end up looking like an idiot all the time.
And who are these people?
Your Curveball needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: I know you are but what am I?
TenguPhule
Shorter Jake: I am DougJ.
Mr Furious
[rolls eyes] Same old Darrell. Caught red-handed. Retort with an insult and pretend nothing ever happened.
Show of hands for who thinks Darrell is contributing here?
Anyone?
Hello?
SeesThroughIt
Yes, it looks/sounds bad. But actually living within the local culture and integrating with the people rather than sequestering yourself in big bases is actually a big part of proper counterinsurgency. If all Iraqis see of the U.S. is a bunch of soldiers who hang out in the Green Zone (that has electricity, water, and luxuries 24-7, while Iraqis don’t) and only venture out to conduct convoys and kick in doors…well, Iraqis aren’t going to be too fond of us and will likely perceive us as occupiers (which, sadly, we have been basically the whole time).
On the other hand, if you actually live and work with the civilian population, it’s a show of good faith. It allows you to form working relationships where there was previously only suspicion, if not hostility.
The problem is that you’re supposed to integrate immediately. We’re trying to do it years after the fact–and in a pretty half-assed way. A lot of the good will we could’ve earned has long since evaporated. Basically, this tactic is the right idea, but it’s too little too late.
Darrell
I think the responsible thing would be to not take Ahmadinejad at his word when he threatens to annihilate Israeal or when he praises martyrdom and talks about the islamic messiah .. it’s not like Iran supports terrorism or anything.
As long as you “feel” he won’t carry out on his stated threats, that’s what really matters.
Tim F.
Tenguphule got there first. After all this time, Darrell, you really ought to learn some skepticism when it comes to politicized groups with an axe to grind. You might not believe it but yes, in fact there is more than one Ahmad Chalabi on Earth.
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Take my shiny rabbit bait, damnit!
Tim F.
Heh, that’s putting it mildly.
Darrell
The same for Tim, squared. You spoke as if you had a definitive understanding. You didn’t, and you don’t. It would be nice if you wrote in a manner which acknowledged that fact.
TenguPhule
It’s early, but what the Hell. Darrell’s Irony of the Day(tm).
Tim F.
Fair enough. My understanding reflects that, as quoted, senior Iranian clerics have no intention of handing over nuclear control to the president. I was not even aware that this was a controversial point. If your argument is simply to inform me that the point is controversial rather than settled in your favor as you seemed to imply, then sure. Thanks for the genial update.
Pb
Ahem:
Chalk up another point for Tim F.–oh, and Darrell (Quixote)? Sometimes the windmills hit back!
The Other Andrew
Semantics alert: note how Darrell put “feel” in quote marks. Traditionally, in political stereotypes, liberals are all about the feeling, you see. Hardcore cons say that we’re all naive and well-meaning, but disconnected from hard reality. I believe I once saw Darrell joke about how liberals think that if we all hold hands, the situation in Iraq will be magically solved.
But it’s clear that the Republican party is the party of feelings. Faith trumps science, for instance. Bush has been preying on fear and vengeance ever since 9/11, and Iraq is certainly a war based on feelings, rather than facts. They had incredibly optimistic Magic Plans, and they “felt” we could win, so reality be damned. And, gee, as long as we’re over there and coincidentally just lost our main rationale for war, wouldn’t it be nice to spread democracy to those poor oppressed Iraqis? How very utopian and humanistic. Nevermind that doing so will create an ally for Iran, nevermind that the conservative internationalist idea of spreading democracy can actually hurt our national security, as democracy can empower populations that are hostile to us, when repressive-but-friendly governments keep them in check. And if we all clap louder and visualize a pony, we’ll magically win in Iraq.
The Republican party is truly schizophrenic, right now, full of paradoxes and faith-based truthiness. As a liberal moderate isolationist, it’s quite interesting to watch.
Darrell
Tim, you suggested that there is some substantive difference whether it’s Ahmadinejad firmly in control of Iranian nukes, or the revolutionary guard in control of them, or the military under Ahmadinejad.
The point is, Iran’s nukes are not controlled by some reasonable, neutral group, which is why your comment regarding the “unlikeliness that Iran would commit suicide-by-nuke” was so absurd.
The Other Andrew
Incidentally, I’m a humanist, I’m just saying–it’s funny to watch them act out the traits of those they claim as political enemies.
Mr Furious
Credit where credit is due…
Darrell is engaing Tim in a genuine discussion. And while A-Jad may not actually contol anything nuke-related, he talks a big game, and I would hardly rely on the IRanian military or “senior clerics” as reasonable people I feel safe with.
Darrell
Well, when you have the world’s largest supporter of terrorism, Iran, run by apocolyptic nutjobs publicly calling for the annihiliation of Israel and praising the nobility of martyrdom.
When you have regime like this, coupled with the fact that they have been defiant in negotiations for years, is there really anything more than naive ignorant “feelings” involved to support the idea (championed by TimF and every leftist posting here) that Iran wouldn’t do anything crazy if they got their hands on nuclear weapons? Please make the ‘rational’ case for their position.. I’d like to hear it, because I sure don’t see it.
Jonathan
It’s interesting to look at the question of just who supports terrorism.
Terrorists bomb innocent people, right Darrell?
Once a terrorist, always a terrorist, right Darrell?
Why did the Israeli people elect a known terrorist as their leader?
It would seem that terrorism isn’t a problem to Israelis as long as they benefit from the terrorism.
TenguPhule
Iran doesn’t have nukes, Darrell. Quit pretending they do.
They have a nuclear program that’s enriching uranium, but nowhere near the amount needed for an actual bomb.
But facts are only for the reality based community.
srv
More lies as always. Your moonie-times Farsi translations have already been debunked quite thoroughly.
Q: Does anyone know of an instance where D. actually made a truthful remark?
Tim F.
Um, yeah, there is a difference between Ahmadinejad and the senior clerics. For example, you were prepared to put up dozens of inflammatory and borderline insane quotes from the current Iranian president. That is because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a firebrand populist politician who measures his popularity by how many of Iran’s adversaries he offends. In that way (relax, only in that way) he is not dissimilar from, say, GOP politicians who freely use Crusade rhetoric and Islamophobia to rile up the base and piss off the tarrists.
You might find that the senior Iranian clerics are more circumspect in their language because they are a different kind of politician. To claim that they are exactly the same as their nutball president strikes me as a bit much.
Darrell
Thank you Furious. I hereby retract my “Tim and every leftist posting here” to read “almost every leftist posting here”, … I didn’t think the idea that Iran has a crazed leader supported by crazed mullahs, was such a “controversial” position for me to be taking. But we are talking the ‘reality based’ community, so I suppose anything’s…
TenguPhule
Darrell, this may come as a shock to you, but Iran is not run by suicidal idiots. They have domestic problems that they need to use religion and foreign threats to distract the general population from. That the people in power there have stayed in power this long is no accident.
That would first require that they were trying for nuclear weapons in the first place. Which we have no evidence of. None.
And this may come as yet another shock to you Darrell, but the Iranians are more scared of being attacked then doing any attacking. They’ve been trying to open up talks, but have been repeatedly shot down by stupid Bush admin hostility towards Iran.
Dave
Yes.
Jonathan
The USA has a crazed leader supported by crazed preachers.
The USA has a vast, functioning nuclear arsenal and has already shown itself capable of using such against civilian populations.
Who is the more dangerous to the world, really?
TenguPhule
Implying that they have nukes *is* a crazy position to take.
As for ‘crazed mullahs’, they’ve had almost three decades to do something really crazy, but haven’t. They’re repressive, conservative, rightwingers and arrogant as all hell, but not crazy.
Jake
Just like if you “feel” the Iranians might get nukes at some point in the future, it’s OK to act as though they have them right now. In fact, we should emulate our leader:
Yeah. That works.
srv
It’s all about you and being “safe” huh? It’s because of bedwetters like y’all that we’re in this mess in Iraq.
Exactly how, has any Iranian cleric personally threatened you?
Jonathan
God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers
Judging from the quotes above, Bush is at least as deranged as Ahmedinejad.
Darrell
I love this bit of ‘reality based’ groupthink. If you are at all concerned about the leadership of Iran (which has called for the annihilation of Israel and largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world) getting it’s hands on nuclear weapons, then you are a “bedwetter”.
Darrell
I also think that it’s typical weakminded leftist idiocy to compare the Bush admin to the leadership of Iran.. a comparison which has been done on this thread.
Jonathan
Please address the facts, Darrell.
The USA has a vast nuclear arsenal.
The USA has already used nuclear weapons against civilian targets.
The USA has a leader who is being directed by God to attack others.
Jimmy Mack
The question is it a slam dunk that Iran will have nukes in ten years unless we stop them? And can we afford to live with a nuclear Iran? I don’t think either question has an easy answer.
ConservativelyLiberal
Darrell Says:
One of these days something he says will come through all of the bleating he does.
Interesting that gay linguists are a security risk. Hmm, lets look at this in a more modernistic way:
1: Gay people are, umm, homosexual! Right?
2: Muslims/Islamists are intolerant of homosexuals. Deathly so. Right?
3: Since gays are homosexual, and muslims/Islamists hate homosexuals, I come to the conclusion that muslims/Islamists do not like gays. Right?
4: Drawing on the conclusion I came to in #3, I would think that there would be no need to worry about these gay people helping the enemy any time soon, right?
5: And anyone who knows a homosexual male knows that the ‘girls’ in the relationship love to gossip between themselves just like the rest of the girls (umm, real women, just to make sure there is no confusion).
So I would conclude that having gays in those positions should not be a security risk. Of course, if they were bisexual then I would can them in a heartbeat. After all, you can’t trust them people. They will screw anyone for gain…
;)
Darrell
Well if you consider that most (all?) of Iraq’s leading clerics have led sermons and protests which include “Death to America” chants, then um, yeah, you could call that “circumspect” I suppose.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
TenguPhule
Only to the figments of Darrell’s imagination.
TenguPhule
If you’re too weak to put up with other people insulting your country, you can always find a country that nobody cares about and relocate there.
Otherwise, learn to live with it.
Ryan S.
Is it any better that a fractured Russia with nukes? Ultimatly I don’t think we have a choice, with the nuclear information and technological know how becoming nearly public domain. What singles out Iran (oil?) from other places like N. Korea, and Pakistan. What keeps other rival nation from going nuclear? No, the only deterant to nuclear stikes is global retaliation. Make it suicidal to attack anyone else with nuclear weapons, through alliances and guanteed retaliation.
Being scared sensless when another tyranical regeime seeks nuclear weapons is shortsighted, because there will always be a ‘next Iran’. I predict Venezuala.
Jonathan
Please address the facts, Darrell.
The USA has a vast nuclear arsenal.
The USA has already used nuclear weapons against civilian targets.
The USA has a leader who is being directed by God to attack others.
Andrew
You all think it’s a coincidence that the DLI is in Monterrey, only a short drive from San Francisco?
Ha!
It’s Mardi Gras beads and feather boas 24/7 while they’re learning to speak with an affected lisp in Arabic, Mandarin, and Russian.
srv
We’re concerned. You’re terrified.
Just because you think you know Farsi does not make it so.
Ryan S.
How does he know it was God, and not satan?
Krista
Hey, who said we wanted him up here?
Tim F.
Darrell,
First, you are hyperventilating. If Iran’s leaders were crazy they would have attacked us. They have all of the international capabilities that al Qaeda has then some. Instead they have repeatedly made an effort to sit down for serious talks about normalizing relations, which our administration chose to reject. So despite their rhetoric they seem to be fairly rational actors.
Second, you have this magical ability to wander into topics more to your liking than the original thread topic. I understand that you would much prefer to talk endlessly how bloodthirsty and insane this or that mideast tyrant is. Rightwingers like Charles Johnson practically go catatonic with pleasure whenever the subject of crazy bloodthirsty arabs comes up.
Too bad it has nothing to do with the question of whether the Iran nuclear question is particularly urgent. Your favorite pundits claim that it is but people who actually know what they’re talking about seem to think that it’s not. Little details like this matter when it comes to whether it is necessary to wreck our army in a most likely futile effort to shut them down militarily.
Jonathan
When you talk to God, it’s called “prayer”.
When God talks to you it’s called “schizophrenia”.
TenguPhule
Actually, everybody likes Canada. Except for the Canadians. :P
rachel
Oh, look; Darrell’s back. He must be taking a break from hiding under his bed and sucking his thumb.
ConservativelyLiberal
Ryan S. Says:
Yup, it was Satan/Cheney who whispered in his ear while he was asleep, interrupting his dreams of lollipops and unicorns frolicking.
Darrell
What the hell are you talking about? I quoted you verbatim and addressed the crux of your comments, as well as addressing your original post. Again, what the hell, specifically, are you talking about?
My entire “hyperventilating” post which preceded that characterization
ThymeZone
Yes, a thousand times. In fact, we said the very thing two years ago here. Real damage to this country, in terms of crying wolf, when Iran, long term, represents the real threat.
Why do we not want to listen to the Neocon Boys Who Cried Wolf? Because they have been wrong about Iraq every day in every way for years. Nobody in his right mind would listen to them any more.
And uh, when you create a nice thread like this, does it occur to you that Darrell is waiting out there to pounce on it and turn it to shit?
Just wondering.
srv
We need a graphic for under-bed blogging. Maybe Jesus’ General has one.
Jonathan
Please address the facts, Darrell.
The USA has a vast nuclear arsenal.
The USA has already used nuclear weapons against civilian targets.
The USA has a leader who is being directed by God to attack others
Darrell
Tim, let me get this straight.. so while being the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, while calling for the annihilation of Isreal, while flooding Iraq with weapons and violating international diplomatic agreements.. while doing all those things, because they are willing to talk to us, that, in your view, makes them “fairly rational”? I’m trying to understand just how far out you really are..
Jonathan
Terrorists bomb innocent people, right Darrell?
Once a terrorist, always a terrorist, right Darrell?
Why did the Israeli people elect a known terrorist as their leader?
It would seem that terrorism isn’t a problem to Israelis as long as they benefit from the terrorism.
Jonathan
Darrell:
Silence is the tacit nod of acquiescence.
Tim F.
You may not be aware that when they offered negotiations, all of the above were on the table. Try to make more of an effort to distinguish between irrational and unsavory.
ConservativelyLiberal
Darrell Says:
Hey! Do not feed the sheep! All they do is bleat for more, and it makes it impossible to have a good discussion because you have to keep feeding them to keep them happy.
/me sets a PIE out on the window sill to cool
Mmmmm, pie…
Jonathan
Judging from the quotes above, Bush is at least as deranged as Ahmedinejad.
What do you think of your president taking instructions from God, and then bragging about it, Darrell?
Does that sound like the actions of a sane man?
Tim F.
I view any argument based on the premise that one’s opponents are insatiable crazed savages to be hyperventilating, pretty much by definition. In the real world insatiable crazed savages aren’t that common. Claiming that they are provides a great premise for violence over diplomacy but it does not strike me as particularly rational.
Jake
Group A calls for the death/destruction of Group B. This gives Group B the right to flatten Group A.
Great. Does anyone know Fred Phelps’ current address? Time for a Frag the Fascist Fuckwit road trip.
Pb
Wait… which country are we talking about, again?
ThymeZone
Obviously you have never spent an afternoon at Divorce Court.
Darrell
So in your view, Iran’s state support of terrorism was seriously “on the table”. I find that to be an extremely gullible position for you to hold, but others can draw their own conclusions.
And in addition, you believe that through negotiations, Iran’s nuclear ambitions would have ended or been controlled through diplomacy. How then, do you rationally square that particular view with how Iran’s flouts international agreements and diplomacy with Europeans and the UN? Just curious
TenguPhule
Darrell’s brought a date. Ewe won’t regret it.
Jonathan
What do you think of your president taking instructions from God, and then bragging about it, Darrell?
Does that sound like the actions of a sane man?
TenguPhule
Their support of Hamas and other radical organizations has always been ‘on the table’ so to speak. They do to us and our allies what our own intelligence services do to them. It serves their best interests to undermine us when we’re a hostile party. Ramping up the hostility doesn’t give them any reason to give it up.
Pay attention Darrell. Iran is not prohibited from enriching Uranium under the NonProliferation Treaty. Both the US and Europe have no legs to stand on legally speaking on this. The whole thing is a bruhaha over what they’re all afraid Iran *might* do without any real evidence to back it up.
Darrell
Well, if calling for the annihiliation of Israel, being the largest state sponor of terrorism in the world, executing 100,000 of your countrymen while leading chants of “Death to America” isn’t evidence enough for you (and most others on the left) that Iran is led by crazed nutjobs, I don’t believe any amount of evidence would convince you.
TenguPhule
Idiots who support escalation in Iraq have no credibility to accuse anyone else of being gullible.
Jonathan
What do you think of your president taking instructions from God, and then bragging about it, Darrell?
Does that sound like the actions of a sane man?
You’re breaking my liberal bleeding heart, Darrell.
Why is it that conservatives never want to talk to me?
I had the same problem over at Right Wing Nuthouse.
Is it my deodorant?
TenguPhule
And yet Saddam behaved with perfect self-interest to the end. When you stop being wrong all the time, maybe someone will take you seriously.
ThymeZone
It is, I think the Kansas Republicans should apologize.
Jonathan
Umm.. I support escalation into Iraq.
I think we need to give the Decider all the rope he wants, when he finally hits bottom it’s going to be like that execution in Iraq the other day.
Mr Furious
Darrell,
When Iran offered to negotiate, and were rebuffed by Cheney, “We don’t talk to evil….” there is no way to know exactly what would have been on the table. Shit was quite different back then…
Cheney is a fucking idiot and a sociopath.
Mr Furious
srv,
Let me clarify something I said earlier. I don’t find a nuclear program controlled by anyone in Iran to be of particular comfort — A-Jad, clerics, the military or whover owns the Iranian Wal Mart. That does not make me a fucking bedwetter, srv. It makes me a realist. It also doesn’t mean anyone should confuse that as the same position Darrell is taking. But he IS right in the sense that marginilizing A-Jad does not remove the dangers of a nuclear Iran.
I also don’t think Iran has nukes or is anywhere close to them, or that we should be doing anything to threaten them when we clearly cannot back it up.
Jonathan
Dinesh D’Souza blames half of America for 9/11.
Isn’t that sort of like saying “death to half of America”?
Faux News
John and Tim must have the patience of a saint to put up with the “Troll known as Darrell”. At least boozy scs was fun to read, and you know she really meant what she said. Darrell is just another Ann Coulter. Here only for shock value and his own amusement. Imagine his extreme pleasure in hijacking a thread, via a topic change, then gloating about having over 125 posts in the thread.
The Troll known as Darrell should have been banned a long time ago. Doing so would give “him” the chance to turn off the computer and actually get a life.
Pb
Darrell,
It isn’t evidence at all–evidence is what you use to prove your claims, not merely the act of stating them. I’ll give you the ‘chants of “Death to America“‘ for free, now find some actual evidence to support any of your other claims. (Hint: you haven’t done so, yet, and you still can’t count for shit)
TenguPhule
Then you need a good slap to the back of your head.
Giving Bush rope is how we got into the Iraq mess in the first place. Feeding more troops into the meatgrinder is just plain *wrong*.
Jonathan
Terrorists bomb innocent people, right Darrell?
Once a terrorist, always a terrorist, right Darrell?
Why did the Israeli people elect a known terrorist as their leader?
It would seem that terrorism isn’t a problem to Israelis as long as they benefit from the terrorism.
Jonathan
The troops voted for the Decider in overwhelming numbers. If they have to pay for their bad judgement with their lives, then I guess that’s Darwinism for you.
Actions have consequences.
ThymeZone
Revised.
Darrell
This is called “supporting our troops” in lefty-world.
Jonathan
I’m going to go out on a short, thick limb and make a prediction.
Ten years from now it will be conventional wisdom that the Iraq war was all the fault of the left.
srv
That’s Tims whole point. We don’t need anyone other than Darrell and his own Farsi skills to know “exactly” what the bad guys are up to.
If your sources are the Moonie Times and their “translators” you demonstrably do not know what a crazed nutjob is.
Jonathan
Ahh.. so you can see my messages.
I’m just giving them what they want.
What is wrong with that?
I thought you supported the escalation?
Terrorists bomb innocent people, right Darrell?
Once a terrorist, always a terrorist, right Darrell?
Why did the Israeli people elect a known terrorist as their leader?
It would seem that terrorism isn’t a problem to Israelis as long as they benefit from the terrorism.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
Pb
Jonathan,
Can you back that claim up?
Jonathan
Darrell:
Did you know that there is a serious lack of up armored Hummers in Iraq and that the escalation troops won’t have access to any?
Unless of course, they take it away from troops already there.
What do you think of that?
Jake
Wait, where are we talking about? Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Syria, Jordan, France?
Oh dear Lord, please say it isn’t the Canadian.
Darrell
I think you need to drop your phony pretenses about any concern for the safety of our troops. You did, after all, write this less than 1/2 hour ago:
Rome Again
I take it you are unaware that the Ayatollah has announced he plans to rein A-jad in?
link
link
grr. -ed.
Jonathan
Are you seriously suggesting that the troops voted Democratic in any sizeable numbers?
This article speaks to military political demographics.
srv
I think you need to review this:
Realism
Mr. A and the clerics are acting in their best interests. They are not demonstrably crazy or unstable (Darrells pop Farsi aside). It is in their best interest now (after not pursuing nuclear power pre-2000) to have nuclear power (maximize oil/gas export revenue), and arguably nuclear weapons to deter our leadership from attacking them (something they weren’t worried about pre-2000).
Jonathan
Most conservatives seem to wish for people to bear the consequences of their bad judgements, why is it that you do not?
Darrell, I’ve been a troop, USMC 69-71.
When did you serve, eh?
Perry Como
But the Crazed Mullahs(TM) only care about nuking Israel and Death To America. They are not rational actors that care about things like the Iranian economy and the effect of sanctions.
I heard a Gallup poll quoted the other day that said 70% of Iranians want better ties with the US and 30% of Iranians consider themselves “pro-America.” It’s clear that our only course of action is to attack Iran. Preferably with tactical nukes. That will surely win their hearts and minds.
Rome Again
Darrell, do you have any idea what the future of this nation is if we go after Iran? Kiss it goodbye. You’d better hope we DON’T go in there, or there will be not much left to protect.
Tsulagi
Not only those that might have had some ability in accessorizing, but also those of any orientation who weren’t on message. Gotta make sure we’re united on that front too. We need far more George Deutsches, not fewer.
Porter Goss made that happen after he was confirmed as CIA director. Pretty much gutted the agency putting his inexperienced former staff members in top positions for message enforcement. Anybody who didn’t parrot admin thinking was suspect and replaced with properly lobotomized Gosslings.
In one U.S. News and World Report article they mentioned “One anecdote suggests how bad things have gotten…”
Yep, can’t have defeatists like that in the presence of George II’s court. Get rid of the bastard. Get someone who ‘knows’ the truth that Iraq is just one school painting away from a monumental success story finally unveiled.
You think the King of FUBAR hasn’t laid hands on our intelligence services? And the ass-uppers just keep clapping. They’re securely warm in the knowledge that not one petting zoo in America has come under terrorist attack due to the continuing vigilance of their former prep school cheerleader.
Rome Again
Apologies, that CFR link was huge, and I didnt’ realize it. (Don’t hurt me, please)
TenguPhule
Friend Computer has determined that your error was not intentional. Therefore we will use the *small* rectal incineration device instead of the large one. Have a nice day!
Jonathan
Why is it morally obtuse to give people what they have expressed a desire for?
ThymeZone
Rome, Tim fixed your links. Meanwhile …. good links!
Iran’s president is having some troubles of his own.
To embed a link….
Type the text you want to use as the link.
Like this.
Then highlight the text, and press the Link button.
Now paste the actual link into the link window, and hit OK.
Done!
Rome Again
al Qaeda just issued a warning though, and they sound like they’ll send another attack over here (of course, they’re emboldened since we’re involved in a two front war (possibly soon to be 3 on any muslim country we can’t twist arms of)… Bush is going to kill us all.
jenniebee
No, they’re controlled by autonomous collectives of fairies, elves and leprechauns that, like Iran’s nukes, do not exist.
This has been another edition of Teh Obvious.
Darrell
Hilarious that the same person posted both statements
I’m sure the irony is lost on him/her. Mr. Furious you damn bedwetter, change your diapers and get with the program! Crazy mullahs running Iran = all Bush’s fault ™
ThymeZone
Pay attention to what Darrell is saying. He apparently advocates that any country we don’t like, which pursues …. not actually builds, but pursues … nuclear weapons, is a mandatory target for American military action.
At that point, we enter into a state of perpetual demi-war with one country after another, forever.
Welcome to Darrell’s Brave New World. We have always been at war with Fantasia.
Jonathan
When did you serve, Darrell?
Jimmy Mack
Even if you don’t think we should attack Iran, can’t you admit that the threat of us attacking them could be a powerful deterrent against them trying to get nukes? I hope we don’t have to attack them, but as with North Korea, the Clinton/Bill Richardson policy of flowers and chocolates isn’t going to cut it.
Mr Furious
srv,
Those guys (A-Jad, other politicians and the clerics, etc) are leaders and guys with something to lose. I never said they are crazy, Darrell did. What I am basically saying is that I would prefer to avoid a nuclear Iran, period. Whichever finger is on the trigger is not one I would choose.
The same holds true in Pakistan, btw (though, that nuclear horse is long since left the barn). These are not what I consider stable regimes or countries. How long ago were we talking about youth uprisings in Iran? When was the last revolution? The regime in control today might not be there in a year… Are you seeing my point now?
Pakistan has nuclear weapons. As long as Musharreff is in control, there is not much reason to fear his military striking us with a nuclear attack. But when will he be overthrown? how much power does he have over every aspect of the program? His man AQ was selling nuke technology to everyone with a credit card.
I don’t relish a similar situation in Tehran. I don’t think we should preemptively (or preventively) attack Iran, but it would be better if they never got nukes.
Darrell
You seriously believe the mullahs give a rat’s ass about their people? That’s why they have free speech, freedom to criticize their leaders… oh, wait
ThymeZone
Tell me, spoofshitstorm, how do you, in a democratic country, pretend to be ready to attack another country all the fucking time? Do you constantly whip the people into a bipolar state of fear followed by anger?
Do you do that by telling them the truth, and letting THEM DECIDE what the posture of the country should be, or do you hype the threat and gin up the reasons for hostility all the time?
Please, we await your brilliant policy paper.
Seriously, explain it. Go ahead, I double dog fucking dare you, explain it.
Mr Furious
Darrell, srv,
I certainly don’t blame Iran, NK or anyone else on Bush’s shitlist from WANTING nukes. They are obviously an effective deterrent.
Sorry to disappoint you, D, but Bush has done more to stoke proliferation and done NOTHING to stop it than I would have thought possible.
The irony is that he has so effectively crippled out military and tied us down in Iraq that these others don’t even need nukes to deter us. We’re fucking neutered.
Jimmy Mack
No, clearly they don’t, but it is a mistake to think that means that they’re crazy. They want to hang onto power and if they piss their population off too much, they’ll lose it. They’re bad people, but it is a mistake to oversimplify them, IMHO.
Darrell
When was the popular vote held to bomb Bosnia? or the Vietnam vote? Or do we elect Presidents, who, as part of their job, are the commander in chief?
We had 60%+ public approval in 2003 for going into Iraq, so what the hell could your “point” possibly be?
Jimmy Mack
You’re missing the point, this isn’t about our own politics, it’s about dealing with Iran. We can’t launch a full attack on them, not with so many troops dealing with Iraq. But some airstrikes could at least damage their nuclear capabilities, which they don’t want. The threat of airstrikes is real, even a full scale invasion is not.
Jonathan
It is the threat of attack that is largely driving the urge to obtain nuclear weapons.
Pakistan and North Korea have not been attacked and yet they are both ideological enemies of the US. The reason they haven’t been attacked? They have nukes.
The equation is quite clear to anyone who takes a minute to think about it. If you have nukes, the great powers fear to attack you. If you don’t have nukes, you’re a sitting duck. We have just proven this with our unprovoked attack on Saddam. We have sent the message that if you cannot defend yourself with nukes that sooner or later we will attack you.
Darrell
Well Libya sure pulled down their pants on their WMD programs after they saw what went down in Afghanistan and Iraq, didn’t they? Afghanistan is no longer a threat. And we don’t have to worry about Saddam’s WMD programs anymore either. We may not have found (known, but unaccounted for) WMDs, but he kept his programs in place.
What’s your alternative, make a Clinton/Carter-like agreement like we got suckered into with N. Korea?
ThymeZone
First, that support was based on assumptions and assertions that WERE NOT TRUE. A threat that did not exist.
Second, that support level cannot be maintained. Even if you took your stupid version of the that story at face value, which no intelligent person would do, it means NOTHING if you divorce it from the context of 9-11-01. That’s why in 9-02 it was possible to capitalize on the anger and confusion still surrounding that event and gloss over the obvious holes in the assumptions, the obvious cracks in the theories.
But 911 was a one-off event. There’s no 911 now. How do you maintain the support now? In case you hadn’t noticed, support for the Iraq war is gone and is never coming back. There’s no general support for a wider war.
Now what? More lies, more bullshit, more screeching posts by you about Iran and its “ambitions?”
Do you really want 30 years of liberal, Democrat government in this country? Because the course you are on pretty much makes it a certainty. The world has long ago run away from your bullshit views. What do you think is going to bring them back? Are you praying for another terrorist attack?
Jonathan
Darrell, when did you serve?
ThymeZone
Uh no, your posting day is over. In a liberal democracy, it is always ALL about our own politics.
If you don’t get that, you are far too stupid to be having access to a computer without adult supervision.
Rome Again
Hell, if I were in any other country in the world, I’d want nukes to save me from the empire seekers in America.
Darrell, after all the fuck-ups we’ve seen from this administration, do YOU trust them to do the right thing with a nuclear weapon in their hands? Do you really?
Jimmy Mack
Yup. Not to mention that we haven’t been attacked the past six years.
Darrell
So you’re saying you can’t be nuts (as in calling for the coming of the next islamic messiah, annihiliation of Israel, etc) and still want to hold on to power at the same time? You’re attributing a rationality to them for which there is not a shred of evidence to support.
Jimmy Mack
Probably true in a liberal democracy, such as the one Clinton presided over. Luckily, what we have now is a moderate-conservative democracy, which seems to be a bit less poll-driven.
Jonathan
What do you think of your president taking instructions from God, and then bragging about it, Jimmy Mack?
Does that sound like the actions of a sane man?
Jimmy Mack
I think the mullahs are “crazy like foxes.” I think they will respond to the threat of attack. Does that answer your question?
Ryan S.
Only in as much as they can continue to derive their power from the people, which makes them ‘non-crazy’.
If that logic worked then with 60+% of people NOLONGER backing the war should we be out of there.
Jonathan
Not for long, not the way things are going. Even the Republicans are fleeing the Decider’s administration’s Iraq disaster.
Andrew
I expect to be minimally amused when I read spoofery.
Grade: D-, BOOOOO-RING.
Try harder or don’t come back.
Jimmy Mack
There’s not much evidence to support that. Who says Bush says God told him to go in? Pat Robertson and someone like Putin (is it Putin? it’s someone like Putin). You’ll have to do better if you want to call yourself “reality-based.”
Darrell
Not if terrorists who have sworn to kill us get an opportunity to do damage. You seriously believe that we could never have another 9/11-like terrorist attack or worse?
Shabbazz
Yeah, all you weakminded leftist idiots! Bush believes in a messiah descending from the heavens to fulfill his Earthly mission and bring about the end of time known as the “Rapture”.
Ahmadinejad believes in a messiah descending from the heavens to fulfill his Earthly mission and bring about the end of time known as the “Twelfth Imam”.
See — they’re completely different!
Rome Again
I hope you aren’t betting on that to save you. The muslims have used great restraint (isn’t it your side of the aisle that says anyone can get over the border if they want to?) and once we go whole-hog into this thing, you can be sure we’ll have much more than just ONE attack.
ThymeZone
OMFG, you don’t even know what a liberal democracy is, do you?
Do a little reading and then come back when you know what the hell you are talking about, okay?
For those who just tuned in “liberal democracy” has nothing to do with American liberal (or conservative) politics. It has to do with the basic nature of the democracy. America is a liberal democracy.
An illiberal democracy is essentially a democracy in name only. For a good example, see Iraq prior to 2003.
Jimmy Mack
And yet you favored leaving that “illiberal democracy” in power…
Darrell
I don’t recall Bush calling for martyrdom againt the “enemies” of Christianity as part of his vision though.
ThymeZone
It has been, and probably will continue to be, a one-off event. If another event happens, we’ll deal with it in the appropriate way. You apparenly want people to base their policy decisions on the assumption that we are always just a bad day away from another 911. Good for you, that’s why everyone here taunts you with fearmonger stuff and calls you guys bedwetters.
I’m not afraid of terrorism. It’s been around all my life. If I had a decent Homeland Security department, I’d feel even safer. I also will not be browbeaten into believing in some piece of shit nonsense like a “war on terror.” There’s no such thing, never has been, and never will be.
Rome Again
Uhhh. Bush?
From Washington Post:
Road Map in the Back Seat?
By Al Kamen
Friday, June 27, 2003; Page A27
Imagine our surprise Wednesday to read in the Israeli paper Haaretz (online), that Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen, meeting recently with militants to enlist their support for a truce with Israel, said that, when they met in Aqaba, President Bush had told him this: ” God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”
TenguPhule
Anthrax Attacks. Washington Sniper.
Jimmy Mack has failed at life. Abort, Retry, Cancel?
Jonathan
Left Behind series
TenguPhule
Shorter Jimmy Mack: Once again I demonstrate my total ignorance of anything not related to FOX news.
Ryan S.
And we replaced that government, with what exactly?
A bloodbath that we have not the resources to quell. Perhaps that makings of an Iran mark II.
ThymeZone
No, I favored not starting a war of opportunity.
The world is full of shitty governments. There is no point in pretending to be at war with all of them.
What you have now, which is Bush approval in the toilet, an administration that can’t govern, a total collapse of credibility and respect by this idiot government. That’s just after four years of this stupid war.
What do you suppose you’ll get after four more, eight more, twelve more years of this kind of insane bullshit government?
You guys don’t learn very fast, do you?
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Ram that manly codpiece up here, Lord Bush! For I am fearful and shaking! Save me from the terrorists and do what you will with me!
Perry Como
No, we should refuse to talk to any nation we don’t like and call them things like the “Axis of Evil”, and then do jack shit when they proceed with their nuclear program. Talk tough and do nothing. See: Bush Administration, North Korea.
Strong. Smart.
ThymeZone
Snort.
Jake
But when said country tests a nuke…back the fuck off and change the subject. Again.
Jimmy Mack
What do all of you propose that we do about North Korea and Iran? More chocolates and flowers? Cause that didn’t seem to work last time.
Perry Como
We should invade North Korea. We can use our troops stationed in Germany.
ThymeZone
Maybe it wasn’t God, maybe it was Barney the Dog. Like David Berkowitz, Bush thinks he has gotten messages through an animal ……
Son of Barney Goes to War.
Great movie idea.
Darrell
Well, he talked tough on Afghanistan and Iraq, and deposed the leadership of both countries.
So you would support an attack on N. Korea? Funny thing, Chimpy McHalliburton says that China, with prevailing winds as they are, may have an incentive to help us put a lid on lil Kim… so we don’t have to do all the heavy lifting all by ourselves. Smart. Strong.
Perry Como
We should just keep ignoring North Korea. It’s what the Decider has decided and it has worked well up until this point.
Iran? We should nuke them from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure. They are run by Mad Mullahs and a guy that believes in a messiah. Any other option is unserious.
TenguPhule
Shorter Jimmy Mack: Just because Bush and his Republicans fucked up the Deal Clinton brokered, Clinton obviously was an unserious peacenik who believed in flowers and chocolate.
The only candy and flowers ever mentioned were by GOP wingers on Iraq. To say otherwise is to be a lying sack of shit like Darrell.
Jimmy Mack
Which is exacly why bilateral talks are a mistake. I don’t get the whole liberal fixation with the bilaterals, when China has more to worry about than we do and, in the area at least, more muscle to flex.
TenguPhule
And look what that got us, the Mother in Laws of all FUBARS.
Shorter Darrell: How dare you mention the Hypocrisy of Bush’s actions against North Korea! Lick the Manly Codpiece!
A smart person would take North Korea very, very seriously and not dick around with ‘China can do it for us’. Nuclear missiles capable of hitting Hawaii are not a laughing matter.
Perry Como
And both places are bastions of Democracy. Heckuva job, Bushie.
Sure. I never liked Seoul anyway. And really, what’s the worst lil Kim can do with a few functional nukes? Hopefully our troops stationed in Germany can help. And after lil Kim lights off a couple it will be fun to see who goes nuclear next, Japan or South Korea (well, what’s left of South Korea).
Strong. Smart.
Shabbazz
No, he just dismisses entire nations as “Evil” and sends his “Armies of Compassion” to “liberate” them because God is on our side.
ThymeZone
Here’s a map of the countries (the ones that aren’t green) that the Darrell/Jimmy doctrine will require us to declare war on sometime soon.
Please be patient, the one or two hundred years of war these idiots have mapped out for us are going to require some patience.
Jonathan
You still haven’t answered this question JM.
What do you think of your president taking instructions from God, and then bragging about it, Jimmy Mack?
Does that sound like the actions of a sane man?
Perry Como
It’s very close to “bisexual” which is something else liberals are fixated on.
TenguPhule
Wrong camp. The Bush admin wants bilateral. The sane people would like to try one on one. China can *not* be counted on to put American interests over their own.
ThymeZone
Yes they are.
TenguPhule
Baghdad Bob has changed employers
TZ, with all due respect, *Not* *Funny*.
Darrell
Actually, he goes out of his way describe the ‘regimes’ as evil, not the people.
Darrell
Give diplomacy a chance!
TenguPhule
And promptly plans to bomb the people in order to change the regimes.
Oops.
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: We haven’t gotten enough people killed for nothing yet. We have quotas to fill, folks!
ThymeZone
Darrell is a big fan of aerial warfare.
His summer of 2006 was his best ever, with the daily incinerations of Lebanese. It was like a festival for Darrell.
Pb
And second, we never actually had 60%+ public approval for going into Iraq. That is, not until after we went in. According to Gallup, it went from 56/41/3 (Approve/Disapprove/Unsure) the week before–the highest numbers they recorded in the run-up to war–to 71/26/3 the week after. And even after that, it only took three months to get >50% of America to decide that it was a mistake in the first place. But don’t worry, folks, President Bush doesn’t
listen to the American peoplegovern by polls!Shabbazz
And that little (recent) nuance makes it all OK! Hoorah for semantics!
Pb
The word you’re looking for is crusade:
Silly Europeans and their… ah… in retrospect entirely justified fears.
srv
Furious:
You need to stop reading the Moonie Times. Iran is not unstable. It is propaganda. Just like D’s Farsi language and reading skills. Stop being afraid.
Well, that’s why we’ll lose. While Darrell is hysterical about Iran, only Pakistan and Saudi Arabia really matter.
Rome Again
Sorry Tim, I won’t let it happen again. Don’t hurt me please.
I never had that problem before, my my, CFR creates some long ass strings on their links.
Darrell
Well, if you’re going to say 2002 is “recent”, whatver.. I think it’s important to call a spade a spade, so I don’t have a problem with including Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, as a member of the axis club. Do you?
srv
You don’t even understand christianity. It’s past-tense in that religion “they died for freedom”, “we can’t leave now, or their sacrifice will have been in vain”.
ThymeZone
You really love slogans, don’t you?
rachel
Hey! I live here!
srv
He’s speaking truth to the mullahs power.
Darrell
Read it here Furious. It’s happy kite-flying days in Iran.. what with all the hangings, stonings, and beatings of political prisoners, and killing of gays, not to mention lack of freedom of speech, or freedom from islamic garb.. it’s like a party!
Only the “moonie” times would have you believe things are bad in Iran.
Perry Como
Not for long, if Darrell gets his way.
Jonathan
Everyone take note.
There are certain subjects that righties simply cannot and will not address in any way shape or form.
Those are the subjects that you have to keep on hammering them on. Take a cue from the righties themselves and stay on message. Do not relent.
The lurkers are watching and they will get the message.
The way I was ignored today by Darrell and Jimmy Mack was exactly the way I was ignored at Right Wing Nuthouse and other sites I have posted on.
I demolished some right wing Christians on Salon’s letters section the other day by pointing out that blue states almost invariably have lower divorce and illegitimacy rates than red states. They simply had no answers and the one time that one of them replied to me with a link I surgically dissected all the bad logic and outright falsehoods in the link. I never heard back again.
I long ago figured out that the harder I hit my mark and the more devastating my argument, the fewer replies I get. Now I just aim to get as few replies as possible and keep mocking my opponents with their impotence.
Did anyone notice that today on this thread, the one time I didn’t provide a link to a claim somebody asked me if I could back up my statement?
Perry Como
Or a Red Stater’s wet dream.
Rome Again
If you lived in Iran you would. But, since you don’t know anyone there, you’re not going to miss them. After all, they’re only human beings, that’s all.
How many innocents have to die before you would say that it’s unjustified?
Rome Again
Sorry Rachel, you’re gone (no offense, I like ya, but Darrell says you have to go).
Darrell
Rome, please stop pretending you give a rat’s ass about the Iranian people. You haven’t said one damn word about the murdering oppressive scumbags running Iran. Why is that? Because in your mind, George Bush is worse
srv
Well, it’s easy now, now that only the craziest of wingnuts still make any noise. The rest have slunk back under their beds to await their next awakening.
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: It’s all happy fun or it’s all evil terrorism hell. There is nothing else aside from those two extremes.
TenguPhule
Right, so Darrells are all lying sacks of shit.
I certainly feel better now.
Jimmy Mack
I’ve heard Tehran of today is worse than Afghanistan under the Taliban. You can’t convince me that the Iranian public might not use an attack on Iran to rise up and overthrow the mullahs. The Iranian public, don’t forget, is pro-western.
ThymeZone
Absolutely. George Bush can ruin America. Nobody in Iran can do that. George Bush can send American troops to die in somebody else’s civil war. Nobody in Iran can do that.
George Bush can trash the Constitution. Nobody in Iran can do that. George Bush can bankrupt our country. Nobody in Iran can do that. George Bush has squandered the goodwill of the Western world toward America. Nobody in Iran could possibly do that.
George Bush can turn Americans against Americans. Example? Well, you, for starters. You come in here every day and trash fellow Americans. Nobody in Iran is doing that.
Yeah, Bush is definitely more dangerous to this country than anything in Iran. Without question.
Jimmy Mack
Nor something to be warded off with flowers and chocolates.
Rome Again
Do not pretend to project on me the hatred for humanity that you yourself feel. I care about every single human being in this world. That was low, and uncalled for. How many of the bombs we send are going to hit “leadership”, huh? How many nukes are going to only take out “leadership”?
If you think I care less about innocent Iranian humanity than I do about Bush’s fuck-ups, you got another thing coming. I got news for you, I am by no means a warmonger. How DARE you insinuate that I couldn’t care about people. Perhaps Darrell, you should spend some time looking at the images of war, the dead children, the bodies in the streets, don’t you presume to tell me what I care about ASSHOLE.
You know, I’ve actually agreed with you once or twice, NO MORE, you just crossed the line. Even if I do agree, I won’t speak up to defend you after that shit. GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE DARRELL!
ThymeZone
That’s more than you can say for yourself. You set up shop here every fucking day and crap on the American people. That’s your stock in trade. It’s all you got.
According to you, half of Americans are “scum.” Your word. Your level of respect for “the people.”
TenguPhule
I call bullshit. Voices in your head don’t count.
Shorter Jimmy Mack: I am totally full of shit!
Simple explanations for simple people: Attacking Iran will make the opposition bury their hatchets and turn on the *US* instead of the government. People tend to rally to the local government when attacked by outsiders. “pro-western” doesn’t mean they’ll tolerate being attacked by a western nation.
TenguPhule
Shorter Jimmy: Bush’s pony rides make my ass hurt.
Steve
Has Darrell actually taken any position in this thread, or is it all just evidence-free mocking of liberals like every other day?
Oh, you say he also dishonestly truncated a quote? That’s a GOOD day. Have a lollipop, Darrell.
ThymeZone
Snort. Food spit. Please, you’re killin me.
Tsulagi
I am disappointed Bush didn’t take up Ahmadinejad’s offer/challenge for a debate. Downside of course would have been Bush embarrassing the country. But he’s been doing that non-stop for six years so it wouldn’t have added much. That debate would have been comedy platinum.
PeterJ
Both those countries where pushovers. It’s like a 15 year old boy starting a fight with a two 6 year old kids.
Furthermore, the problem is when the boy turned around after punching the first kid a couple of times, but without finishing him off, to start hitting the second kid (who was a bit beefier than the first one), the first kid started biting on one of boy’s feet. The boy, a bit exhausted, now got a bit of a problem with the second 6 year old, who really wasn’t that small after all. Still the boy is for some reason starting to size up a 10 year old standing in the corner.
More simpler.
Iran and North Korea aren’t anything like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Shabbazz
Believe it or not, I prefer a grow-up approach to foreign policy that does not include labeling countries as “good” and “evil”. Go figure.
Jonathan
As you say, they’re the craziest ones, but they’re still arguing with just about everyone else but me.
Why do you think they ignore me so completely?
Do you hear me? Am I talking loud enough?
Secular Humanist Revival.
Rome Again
Oh, I beg to differ, their murderous scumbags to you. They’re people who are trying to defend their country from a hegemonic empire to me. I did in fact say two damn things Darrell, they were so big, Tim had to come in and edit them. Perhaps you should go back and read what I inserted. Then don’t ever speak to me again until I see an apology.
Rome Again
Good idea!
PeterJ
About labeling things good and evil, could someone tell me how the border between Iran and Iraq works, because for some reason shiamuslims in Iraq are good, but all that are in Iran are bad.
It’s the same thing with the border between Iraq and Saudia Arabia. If a sunni muslim is in Iraq than he’s bad, but if he’s in Saudi Arabia than he’s good…
Proposed soultion to the current problem.
Move every sunni in Iraq to Saudia Arabia and move every shia in Iran to Iraq.
Then you can give Iran to Halliburton.
Rome Again
What do you do with the Sunni/Shi’a mixed people? There’s a lot of those, and I don’t think they’d take to kindly to being moved away from their in-laws/grandparents. Do you split Sunni husband from Shi’a wife?
Actually I don’t think it’s a good idea to move them anywhere, I have an idea, why don’t we just get the hell out of Iraq?
Steve
Seems to me we have already been implementing the Solomonic solution with regard to a large number of Iraqis, so I wouldn’t be so hasty to rule it out.
Rome Again
Do you trust BushCo to not fuck it up? If not, don’t do it. If you do, then may I ask why when everything else they’ve done has turned to shit?
jake
Hey now. There’s no need to make fun of Darrell’s favourite hobby.
ThymeZone
My impression is that they basically run the country according to their ongoing game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.
The Other Andrew
A new variation on an old favorite:
1. Forgo “flowers and chocolates” and air-strike Iran to Teach Them A Lesson.
2. Watch as Iraq’s Shia and possibly the Iraqi government turn against us, to the point where we’re ridiculously outnumbered.
3. ????????
4. Victory!
Tsulagi
No way. Why do you carry their water? A monkey with a crayon could be expected to get some answers correct on a multiple choice test. They are way, way behind that curve.
Jonathan
You know, I must have posted this at least half a dozen times in this thread. I would think that it is a fairly controversial statement to some on both the right and the left. And yet, I haven’t had any replies at all.
Aren’t there even any Jews reading this that want to take issue with my conclusion?
You could at least call me an anti-semite, eh?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Jimmy Mack
What does that even mean? How does Israel benefit from terrorism?
ThymeZone
It might be that the flame war I carried on last year on this topic has scared everyone off the topic.
During the insane and stupid war Israel waged on Lebanon, I gave them hell on a Ritz Cracker. I personally think that Israel has discovered the benefit of perma-war and does not want peace. I also think that the US is the enabler of this dysfunctional and sociopathic course of policies. I also think that the neocon “movement” in the US is the child of this grotesque perversion.
But of course, I was charged with anti-semitism and so forth.
But for real fun, you should get Darrell going on this topic. He is more of an Israel dittohead than he is a Bush dittohead. Complete sellout.
Rome Again
Sorry, I didn’t think it was all that controversial. It’s a control tactic, and they do it best. America takes lessons from Israel (that’s one of the reasons why we want to topple Iran, and why we did topple Iraq – the other of course, is OIL).
ThymeZone
You must be kidding. Israel was born out of terrorism, and terrorism is the coin of the realm in that part of the world.
Do you suppose that the Arabs and Israelis have wanted peace for sixty years and just can’t figure out how to get it?
I think if they wanted it, they would have it.
srv
Clue:
1) Look at a map of it circa 1948
2) Look at a map of it today
This isn’t rocket science.
Jimmy Mack
True.
That is only true if both sides want it. And the Aran states don’t. So where does that leave Israel?
Krista
Don’t hold your breath, hon. Darrell does not believe in apologizing when he defames someone here. And if you keep asking him, he’ll tell you you’re an “obsessed whackjob.” Really, a lot of the posts here are probably written by lefties imitating Darrell at this point — he’s just that predictable. It’s getting quite tedious, really.
Rome Again
Oh, I don’t expect it, but he did say I didn’t mention the leaders and I did. He’s WRONG (which shouldn’t surprise anyone but him). I am not expecting Darrell to be decent about the whole thing really.
Jonathan
Jimmy Mack:
Apparently you haven’t read the thread.
Menachem Begin, a former Prime Minister of Israel was a terrorist before he became PM.
The way Israel benefited from terrorism is that extremist Zionist terrorism was part and parcel of the forces that led to the establishment of the state of Israel.
ThymeZone
Right where it started, apparently. In a land where its neighbors don’t want it, and apparently convinced that God wants it to prevail.
In other words, in a state of perpetual war.
Their divine right makes it impossible for them to change their view. The fact that they basically have been trying for 60 years to kill anything and everyone that doesn’t agree with them, and failing, doesn’t seem to phase them.
If that were all there was to it, that would be okay with me. Too bad for them.
But that isn’t all. As near as I can tell, both the Israelis and Arabs would be perfectly happy to watch the world go up in flames in order to prove how passionately they both believe they are right.
Well, good for them. But … I’m the world, and I am not willing to settle for that outcome, and I am not willing to take sides in the conflict to make either one of them happy. My position is, fuck both of them. This is the best they can do? Then fuck ’em. I have no loyalty to either of their causes. It’s my world, they don’t get to burn it down.
Jimmy Mack
I know. You’ll see I agreed to to that earlier.
Jonathan
Now perhaps you will understand when I say that Israelis do not mind terrorism as long as they benefit from it.
They benefited from the terrorism of Menachem Begin and then elected him Prime Minister. Thusly, the Israeli people approved of terrorism.
Rome Again
The true fact is that most of the populations on both sides want peace, it’s the leaders and their fundy followers (like we have in this country) that don’t.
That war has been going on for so many years, nobody knows what up and down are anymore. That doesn’t mean peace isn’t an objective, but one side takes advantage and the other retaliates, then both sides escalate from there. They seem to think the way to get it is through more war now. It’s a runaway train. The only way you can say the Arabs don’t want peace is if you’ve been in their heads. Have you?
Darrell
Krista, where did I “defame” anyone. Please elaborate. Specifics would be nice.. especially since you’re pretending to be honorable. You’re phony as hell, as usual.
Darrell
“Mention” Iran’s leaders is all you think you should have done? How about, in the context of the discussion on human rights, you should have mentioned ONE WORD about what murderous, oppressive, and criminal the leadership of Iran is, and has been?
Rome Again
Darrell, you owe me an apology. You stated that I never mentioned the leaders of Iran, and I did. I posted two articles which made the page so wide Tim had to come in and edit my post. You are a liar. Apologize NOW!
Rome Again
Ah, but that’s not what you said Darrell, now you’re going to qualify it? Really. You stated
I did say one word, I said that the Ayatollah was planning on reining in A-jab. Now, Apologize.
Darrell
When now-Israelis were engaged in what you call terrorism, Israel at that time was not a country, but part of the Ottoman empire. Fighting bloodthirsty arabs over an oil-less patch of dirt that few thought anything of prior to the Jews buying the land.
Rome Again
I’ll tell you what Darrell, I’ll mention plenty about the “murderous scum” of Iran, after you admit we have our own “murderous scum” right here in this country.
Darrell
In the context of your accusations at me regarding human rights in Iran, are you seriously suggesting that you said one fucking word against the murdering scumbags in Iran. You’re a liar Rome. You apologize to me
Rome Again
Me apologize to YOU? After what you said to me? You’re JOKING right?
Darrell
As if you give a flying f*ck about the Iranian people. If you have .00001 of a shit about their situation, you would have been honest enough to criticize the murderous leadership which is oppressing the Iranian people. But in your world, Bush is worse. Sad, really. But it’s how so many of you leftists actually think
Jonathan
You missed the part where the extremist Zionists blew up a hotel with innocent people inside. That was terrorism, Begin was a terrorist leader who ordered the attack, much like Osama bin Laden.
Jimmy Mack
There’s no point in trying to get the left do condemn Iran. Their dislike of Bush is too strong for them to admit there’s someone far, far worse out there.
But I don’t think that proves they don’t care about the Iranian people, only that they care more about hating Bush. It’s a sad statement, all the same.
Rome Again
You don’t know me Darrell. And you support a terrorist state by being an asskisser for Bush. You’re a hypocrit. Not even worth my time. Scum? I see scum, right there, with the name Darrell plastered on it.
Jonathan
We hate Bush because he is destroying our republic. That is good and sufficient reason to hate him.
Rome Again
What accusations? I was merely pointing out that innocent people were going to die. I never accused you of anything jerk. I DO care about innocent life, all over the world, that includes Iran and Iraq. I do not support this war. YOU DO!
But, of course, qualify your words, obfuscate, accuse, demand, jump and down like a petulant child. Darrell didn’t get his way, so he’s going to have a tantrum now. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
You’re PATHETIC!
Jonathan
Here are some quotes from Zionist leaders.
Jonathan
And another quote:
Rome Again
Ya know what Jimmy Mack? When Bush goes into Iran, we’re going to have far more problems here. But, go ahead and sidle up to your buddy Darrell, and when you’re finished ruining this country, look back and remember what was here before this charade.
I really think you’re young and impressionable, you seem like you haven’t been studying all this for very long. You’re embracing an ideology of hate. Please stop and think about what you’re doing, before you end up being part of the ones responsible for completely annihilating this world. Think about it.
Jonathan
And another quote:
Jonathan
Another quote:
Rome Again
Damn Jonathon, you pulling those out of your ass? That’s a fast conveyor belt you got going there.
Jonathan
No, that is wrong. Palestine was under British mandate, not a part of the Ottoman empire. The Ottoman empire was destroyed after WWI.
Rome Again
and I mean that in the kindest of terms. I agree with your points, but damn you got a LOT of material there.
Yes, but we all know Zionist leaders only want to be the light of the world (except when they don’t).
Jonathan
They were all at the link I gave with the first quote.
But thanks for the compliment anyway. ;-)
Rome Again
The Brits gave Israel to the Jews, in the Balfour Declaration.
Jonathan
That’s why few conservatives want to talk to me, I have a fairly good command of the facts and I’m a good researcher.
Last time I took an IQ test, I scored 100th percentile on the logic portion too.
Google is your friend. :-)
Rome Again
Wow, smart man. The kind I want to have on my side when we’re fighting a war with fish who don’t know how to let go of the hook (and are taking this whole school of fish down with them)!
Anyway, good night.
Jonathan
The Balfour Declaration
Jonathan
The Balfour Declaration
Jonathan
The Balfour Declaration
Jonathan
Damn, my browser stuttered, sorry about that.
Steve
I don’t agree with you. I think you’ve taken a totally simplistic point of view. But I’ve learned over the years that arguing about Israel is like arguing about abortion, so I try not to waste my time.
Richard 23
The real question is: what would BIRDZILLA say?
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Sure I want to kill them by the thousands in a stupid war over non-existant nukes. But I do it because I *care* about the Iranian people.
Lying sack of shit Darrell, that’s all he is.
Jimmy, when you finally graduate from grade school maybe you’ll get a clue. Until then, stop trying to lower the average IQ on this thread with your ignorant GOP talking points bullshit.
Raincitygirl
The Balfour Declaration didn’t actually do a whole lot. I mean, it was a declaration, not a treaty or something. There were no binding provisions nor any concrete responsibility on the British government for making it happen, just a public statement that it would be nice if it did happen. Yes, getting Balfour to make the Declaration, was a significant PR victory for the Zionist movement, but still, mostly just PR.
Jonathan
What have I written or quoted that is incorrect?
What logical fallacies have I committed?
A list of logical fallacies.
jake
Steve
What part of “I prefer not to waste my time arguing about Israel” did you not understand? I only spoke up because you seemed ready to declare that all the Jews in the world tacitly agree with you.
You have the tone of someone who likes to go on and on and on about how America was founded on genocide. You can ruin a lot of Thanksgiving dinners that way. And somehow, even if your logic is impeccable, people get the nagging sense that there just might be a little more to the story than you let on.
Jonathan
I don’t think I’ve ever even mentioned it.
I usually confine my politicking to online boards where people are interested in such. What’s the point of trying to argue with people who don’t even care about what you wish to talk about? I spend Thanksgiving playing with my grandkids and enjoying eating a good meal that I don’t have to cook or clean up after.
If you’re not interested in talking or arguing politics, what are you doing reading this blog?
I actually prefer strong opponents, Darrell and those of his ilk are simply too easy to be of much enjoyment. Who wants to watch a race where the winning car is fifteen laps ahead of the competition? I mostly do it to keep my mental faculties engaged and sharp, but it is rather like using a sledgehammer to swat a mosquito.
Steve
Let’s take a step back. This is a post about our lack of human and tactical intelligence in Iraq. You launch into a lengthy, multi-post dissertation about how Israelis are a bunch of terrorists, etc., and how striking it is that not even the Jewish commentors will express disagreement with your iron-clad conclusions. I note my disagreement for the record but make clear that I’m not going to get into it with you.
And your conclusion is that I shouldn’t be reading this blog, because I’m not interested in debating whatever random topic you bring up in the comments? Heh, any regular around here would laugh at the notion that I don’t like debating politics.
I simply know how unproductive it is to argue with people who have an obvious ax to grind regarding Israel. As I said, it’s like debating abortion – another topic, I might add, which has nothing to do with our intelligence capabilities in Iraq.
GOP4Me et al
Yet strangely enough, nuking Iran will solve the problems of all three areas- it will secure Israel, bring peace to Iraq, and make abortionists think twice before plying their murderous trade.
ThymeZone
As I said, I have no particular desire to reprise our former battles on this subject …. but this is out of bounds.
“Ax to grind?” Excuse me, Israel is the central focus in the most volatile set of situations in the world today, where the outcomes affect the lives of millions.
It’s not just appropriate, it’s essential, that every aspect of their policies be subject the most rigorous criticism and examination by every sentient person on the planet.
If you want to argue, argue, but try to do it without appearing to be interesting in shutting down someone else’s argument.
ThymeZone
“Interested” not “interesting”
Steve
You win the thread, as usual.
ThymeZone
Well stated. All glory to God. He works His wonders in mysterious ways.
Let’s add, btw, it will also put a stop to gay scout leaders camping with our innocent children and working their evil agenda on the next generation of Americans who only want to grow up in a world where they can be free from being FUCKED IN THE ASS. Literally, as opposed to politically, which as we all know, is perfectly okay.
Jonathan
That’s what it started out as, true. But by the time you got to my post the thread had looong since devolved into a Darrellfest.
You are the one who kept on reading once the topic was lost and you want to blame me for it.
Actually, I really don’t have any particular axe to grind regarding Israel, I was using it as a convenient example of how the definition of “terrorist” gets warped by political considerations. The point being that Begin was a terrorist and yet to the Israeli people he was a heroic “freedom fighter” whom they later elected Prime Minister. Go back and look at my original post on the subject of Begin and you will see that I was responding to a post about terrorism.
I was really quite surprised that no one called me on claiming that Israelis had no problem with terrorism as long as they benefited from it. Most places I’ve been online, such a statement draws immediate fire.