Act Now!

'Pre-emptive' Peace Actions--UPDATED

posted by Peter Rothberg on 04/22/2006 @ 7:12pm

This post was updated on April 22.

In a very informal, unscientific straw poll I took this week of eight acquaintances spanning the political spectrum--three distinctly right, three distinctly left and two from the mushy center--no one thinks it's anything other than insane for the Bush Administration to consider any military option against Iran. And, Bush's posturing of "keeping all options on the table" aside, the Administration has gone out of its way to discount any attack plans. But Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker reporting suggesting otherwise--and the Administration's track record of doing incredibly stupid things--have got people spooked. As Phyllis Bennis wrote recently on CommonDreams, "the danger of such a reckless move is real, and rising. The Bush administration claims that negotiations are their first choice. But they have gone to war based on lies before, and there is no reason to believe that they are telling the truth this time."

Consequently, peace groups are mobilizing to prevent possible war in Iran. Most of the campaigns involve communications to Congress. This can sometimes feel futile, but on the cusp of critical midterm elections, our elected reps could be unusually vulnerable to the popular will.

AfterDowningStreet has a petition to Bush and Cheney as well as an international call against an Iran attack; Code Pink has an email to Kofi Annan; the Department of Peace Campaign is urging emails to the President and Congress; TrueMajority takes an interesting approach with an email to the Democratic Congressional leadership; VotersforPeace adopts a similar tactic with its petition targeting leading Democrats; Progressive Democrats of America has an email to Congress. United for Peace and Justice is circulating petition drives to both Congress and the UN; We've created our own action letter to Congress urging support for Rep. Peter DeFazio's Sense of Congress resolution, which would remind George W. Bush that he is legally bound to obtain the approval of Congress before launching a military strike against Iran. If you live in London, the StopTheWar coalition is planning a march against possible Iran actions at 1:00 in the Peace Garden at Tavistock Sq. on May 6. Finally, read what could be a blueprint for the peace movement's plans on Iran by Mimi Kennedy, Jodie Evans and Tad Daley, published recently on Alternet, as well as Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith's Nation online exclusive, Attack Iran, Ignore the Constitution.

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Fox News...But Were Unable To Ask

Our friends at MediaChannel.org have arranged an interview between MC's Rory O'Connor and Senior Vice President John Moody, who oversees all story content for Fox News and is responsible for both the design and editorial direction of the Fox News Channel. Moody has agreed to be interviewed next week. Click here to submit questions. Please make them specific, thoughtful, and respectful.

Comments (320)

  1. 2 points, PETER

    1. I heard this weekend that some Congressional DEMOCRATS said they'd support air strikes.

    2. "AfterDowningStreet"???....you think a pro-Impeach Bush website is going to influence Bush's thinking on Iran?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2006 @ 1:22pm

  2. Actually, this is quite a positive move for the antiwar crowd. Uh, have any of these groups also petitioned Iran not to go to war and not to use Nukes and not to destroy Israel? Antiwar or antiBush?

    Posted by woodyee at 04/20/2006 @ 1:42pm

  3. Frank,

    Agree that our country has been dumbed-down during the last five years, and I have had enough.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/20/2006 @ 1:52pm

  4. WOOD -- I feel very comfortable taking both an antiwar and anti-Bush stand. No contradiction there. And if Iran ever does launch a premeptive attack on Israel, I promise you that The Nation will oppose it. I think there's a difference between the idiotic rhetoric, but largely hollow threats, issued by Iran and the Bush Administartion's saber-rattling.

    MASK --Lemme know which Dems and I'll do what I can to tarnish their reputations!

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 04/20/2006 @ 2:07pm

  5. Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday that he would back a U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomatic options fail, becoming the first Democrat to announce his support for such a move.

    "I think the only justifiable use of military power would be an attempt to deter the development of their nuclear program if we felt there was no other way to do it," the former vice presidential candidate tells the Jerusalem Post.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/19/164250.shtml?s=lh

    What a concept- it's justifiable to use military power, including nuclear weapons, to deter a country from exercising it's international treaty-guaranteed rights. Don't worry, Joe, the Bush administration will make sure the "diplomatic options" fail. You know that, of course.

    The United States may turn to the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency to exert more pressure on Iran out of frustration with Russian and Chinese opposition to firm Security Council action, diplomats said Wednesday.

    The diplomats told The Associated Press that the U.S. delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency has contacted other nations over the past few days to gauge support for a special IAEA board meeting on Iran's nuclear program.

    The envoys, who were familiar with the discussions but spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal the American initiative, emphasized that no decisions had been made.

    Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman, said the United States was waiting for a report later this month by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei about Iran's nuclear program.

    "We will study that report carefully and decide on next steps at that time," Ereli said.

    Still, diplomats' statements that Washington might consider such action were significant.

    `````````````````````

    Years of U.S. lobbying paid off in February, when the IAEA's 35-nation board agreed to refer Iran's nuclear file to the Security Council.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060419/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 2:23pm

  6. Thanks REDBIRD -- I shd've figured it was Lieberman who was the Dem to the right of even Rumsfeld on Iran. All CT DEmocratic voters reading this should vote for Ned Lamont in the primary. And watch ActNow for more on Lamont--coming next week.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 04/20/2006 @ 2:34pm

  7. Another item illustrating how the reign of the barbarians in America is damaging America's long-term interests. The Bush administration is single-handedly responsible for producing a wide range of new security and economic relationships whose objective is to exclude what is increasingly being regarded as a metasticizing threat.

    Kiss the peace dividend goodbye. Eliminating that alternative is the main objective of the reinvigorated warfare state.

    In February, Iran and Syria inked sweeping economic and trade agreements including one establishing gas, oil, railroad, and electrical links between Syria and Iran via Iraq. Both countries are looking to the emerging economic powerhouses of Asia to build new trade ties as an alternative to Europe and the West.

    "Syria has been signing oil and gas contracts with India, China, and Russia," says Mr. Landis, the Syria expert. "Syria and Iran are thinking they can build Iraq into their northern tier, building gas and oil pipelines across the region."

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0420/p01s03-wome.html

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 2:37pm

  8. Years of U.S. lobbying paid off in February, when the IAEA's 35-nation board agreed to refer Iran's nuclear file to the Security Council.

    Years of cheating by Iran had a lot to do wit it as well. When a chronic liar is caught on multiple occassions, one is permitted to demand additional assurances as the IAEA has done.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 2:37pm

  9. Thanks REDBIRD -- I shd've figured it was Lieberman who was the Dem to the right of even Rumsfeld on Iran. All CT DEmocratic voters reading this should vote for Ned Lamont in the primary. And watch ActNow for more on Lamont--coming next week.

    Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 04/20/2006 @ 2:34pm

    And every sensible American should contribute whatever they can afford to Lieberman's opponent.

    I didn't see MASK's comment. He got blanked out for his singleminded pursuit of the sand-in-the-gears title. Let me guess- "a progressive alternative is impossible". It was pretty close to that, wasn't it?

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 2:45pm

  10. Years of U.S. lobbying paid off in February, when the IAEA's 35-nation board agreed to refer Iran's nuclear file to the Security Council.

    Years of cheating by Iran had a lot to do wit it as well. When a chronic liar is caught on multiple occassions, one is permitted to demand additional assurances as the IAEA has done.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 2:37pm

    Is one permitted to demand additional assurances from a country that proliferated nuclear weapons to israel, a country which dismissively refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty? That country, of course, would be the United States, along with Britain, France, and Germany.

    Peculiarly, they are the same countries that are demanding additional assurances from Iran which has no nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapon program, only a peaceful nuclear energy program.

    It also goes without saying that since Iran has no nuclear weapons it cannot be formulating plans to use weapons that it does not have against anyone. On the other hand, the US is finalizing plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran.

    That, at one and the same time, illustrates who the untrustworthy party is and also who is providing other countries very good reasons to want nuclear weapons as a defensive measure.

    Anyone who backs policies like this is a rank fool. They are, in fact, directly responsible for a future WMD attack against the US. They've jumped on the war wagon and lost their minds.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 3:00pm

  11. Anyone who backs policies like this is a rank fool. They are, in fact, directly responsible for a future WMD attack against the US. They've jumped on the war wagon and lost their minds.Is one permitted to demand additional assurances from a country that proliferated nuclear weapons to israel, a country which dismissively refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty? That country, of course, would be the United States, along with Britain, France, and Germany.

    Peculiarly, they are the same countries that are demanding additional assurances from Iran which has no nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapon program, only a peaceful nuclear energy program.

    The IAEA didn't assist with Israel's nuclear program, and they're the ones who caught Iran, are demanding the assurances and who have referred Iran to the Security Council. Further, without the extra measures the IAEA demands, you can hardly conclude that Iran has no nuclear weapon program; again they've cheated for well over a decade.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 3:13pm

  12. EDIT

    Anyone who backs policies like this is a rank fool. They are, in fact, directly responsible for a future WMD attack against the US. They've jumped on the war wagon and lost their minds.

    That's just borderline hysterics. Further, asking for sanctions isn't "jumping on the war wagon".

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 3:14pm

  13. The IAEA didn't assist with Israel's nuclear program, and they're the ones who caught Iran, are demanding the assurances and who have referred Iran to the Security Council. Further, without the extra measures the IAEA demands, you can hardly conclude that Iran has no nuclear weapon program; again they've cheated for well over a decade.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 3:13pm

    Listening to you, one would never guess that the US is fully capable of bending international institutions to it's will, which is far removed from the obvious reality.

    An IAEA which announced that the pathetically amateurish Niger uranium letter was a fake isn't anywhere close to being immune from US manipulations. The US came close to getting the head of the IAEA fired for that indiscretion and he has since released only statements much more in line with US objectives.

    The UN itself is very much a creature of US objectives, regardless of the occasional ineffective whining.

    Anyway, what difference does it make if the IAEA didn't assist israel's nuclear weapons arsenal? The point is that the IAEA sure as hell has done nothing to impede it. Guess why? The US. That's hard to figure out?

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 4:16pm

  14. Listening to you, one would never guess that the US is fully capable of bending international institutions to it's will, which is far removed from the obvious reality.

    Listening to you, it's clear that any organization that says something opposed to your assumptions must be doing so ONLY under US duress.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 4:20pm

  15. FRB: Anyone who backs policies like this is a rank fool. They are, in fact, directly responsible for a future WMD attack against the US. They've jumped on the war wagon and lost their minds.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 04/20/2006 @ 3:00pm (reinserted for context)

    That's just borderline hysterics. Further, asking for sanctions isn't "jumping on the war wagon".

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 3:14pm

    Iraq wouldn't by any chance be an item you would want to enter into evidence, would it? Your statement is surprisingly and blankly non-sensical.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 4:26pm

  16. FRB: Listening to you, one would never guess that the US is fully capable of bending international institutions to it's will, which is far removed from the obvious reality.

    Listening to you, it's clear that any organization that says something opposed to your assumptions must be doing so ONLY under US duress.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 4:20pm

    That isn't much of an argument about anything. In any case, I'm basing my opinions on easily observable facts which you prefer to ignore. You're the one with the assumptions and they're out of line with reality. That's the end result when you start with the assumption that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons although you lack the tiniest shred of evidence.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 4:34pm

  17. The USA is going to attack Iran. It's a done deal. It was going to be in June, but now they've pushed it back to September. If the threshold was to actually have nukes.....Bush would give them nukes so that he could then attack them with impugnity. But the threshold is not going to be the use of nukes, ownership of nukes, or even a viable nuke production capability. The threshold is.....BUSH IS INSANE! The threshold has been met and welcome to armageddon.

    Elections in the USA have consequences.....ON IRANIANS! Thus I suggest if you don't like hundreds of thousands of innocents slaughtered, get your lazy asses to the polls at least once every four years and don't elect psychotic Presidents anymore!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/20/2006 @ 4:51pm

  18. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 04/20/2006 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person

    FREE, if I save this post of yours and re-post it on October 1st and we haven't even touched Iran....any excuses?

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2006 @ 5:00pm

  19. That isn't much of an argument about anything. In any case, I'm basing my opinions on easily observable facts which you prefer to ignore. You're the one with the assumptions and they're out of line with reality. That's the end result when you start with the assumption that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons although you lack the tiniest shred of evidence.

    I have NEVER said that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that you attest that to me is a pretty good indicator of your fidelity to substantiated arguments. I have said that they have a track record of lying and that is attested to by the IAEA. You have never said they didn't. You are also the one who hasn't provided the tiniest bit of proof (much less "easily observable facts") that the IAEA vote was somehow "fixed" by the US or that el-Baradei's concern about Iran's track record wasn't legitimate.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 5:14pm

  20. fromredbird: i believe that the IAEA only would have the power to inspect Israel or address the Israeli arsenal if Israel had signed on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or something similar. I don't know that for sure, I am speculating, but I believe that the blame primarily lies with Israeli truculence and belligerence. Please remember that, officially, their nuclear arsenal is "secret". Strictly speaking, Israel is a rogue nation with a hugely developed modern nuclear arsenal that has belligerently refused to engage with global non-proliferation efforts and, furthermore, that has threatened to use its nuclear weapons in a first-strike capacity.

    The IAEA doesn't reign in a rogue nation like Israel; that's a matter for the western world and the UN together.

    But don't blame the IAEA for not stopping the Israeli arsenal, because the IAEA doesn't have an avenue towards inspecting Israel, as Israel refuses to be party to any agreement that would limit or halt its development of its own nuclear arsenal.

    That same arsenal, of course, can be seen as part of a regional arms race, as well as a deterrent.

    Posted by ZERO 04/20/2006 @ 4:25pm

    The IAEA has every right to address the israeli arsenal since israel has been a member of the IAEA since 1957. israel should have, at the least, been expelled a long time ago given that they have violated every principle that the IAEA was set up to promote. The IAEA has only finally begun to make any statements at all about the israeli arsenal due to over two decades of complaints from the countries of the Middle East that don't have nuclear weapons, which is every other country in the Middle East.

    It's true that the inspections regime is a function of the NPT treaty itself but there is next to zero international pressure for israel to sign that and the IAEA has been very demure about bringing it up.

    The bottom line is that the IAEA is ultimately a creature of those countries that provide the majority of it's budget and are most influential internationally. It doesn't fit US policy like a glove but certainly at least as well as a pair of trousers that are no more than one size too small.

    The also IAEA doesn't have much to say about the nuclear weapons state's complete failure to live up to their original commitment to nuclear disarmament which was the purpose of the NPT regime.

    The 1970 NPT was written as a compromise between the five declared nuclear powers--the United States, the U.S.S.R. (now supplanted by Russia), China, Britain and France--and the non-nuclear countries, which were assumed at the time to constitute the rest of the world. The chief inducement to the non-nuclear countries to sign was the pledge by the five nuclear powers that they would abolish their nuclear weapons and become non-nuclear like the rest of the signatories. Signatory countries were assured that the treaty would obligate their non-nuclear neighbors to forgo acquiring nuclear weapons for as long as the NPT was in effect.

    http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0695/9506012.htm

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 5:17pm

  21. A little history for all of us discussing the activities of the IAEA, from their own web site [iaea.org]. Let's all recall that, for example, the IAEA was created as an international inter-government agency and that the IAEA statute had to be signed off on by member nations [iaea.org]. The body of member nations, for example, does include Israel contrary to my above-stated belief and so we can ask why the IAEA has not taken any action with regards to the Israeli nuclear arsenal quite legimately.

    Posted by ZERO 04/20/2006 @ 4:36pm

    I didn't see this post before my last one.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 5:20pm

  22. I have NEVER said that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that you attest that to me is a pretty good indicator of your fidelity to substantiated arguments. I have said that they have a track record of lying and that is attested to by the IAEA. You have never said they didn't. You are also the one who hasn't provided the tiniest bit of proof (much less "easily observable facts") that the IAEA vote was somehow "fixed" by the US or that el-Baradei's concern about Iran's track record wasn't legitimate.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 5:14pm

    If you don't think Iran is developing nuclear weapons then your enthusiasm for sanctions is a little odd. Your pretension that Iran should submit to an intrusive intensity of inspections that no other state is subject to simply because they wanted to protect their peaceful nuclear activities from a country, israel, which has bombed peaceful nuclear activities in other countries with impunity is unbalanced given that you are not insisting that non-NPT signatory and nuclear-armed israel be subject to sanctions.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 5:32pm

  23. redbird: the official iaea position (see my linkout above) appears to be that the NPT specifically empowers the inspections regimes. israel is not an NPT signatory. they have not submitted a binding agreement to be subject to inspections, for obvious reasons.

    Posted by ZERO 04/20/2006 @ 5:21pm

    That doesn't mean that the IAEA can't condemn israel with the same intensity that it does other states or that it can't revoke israel's memebership in the IAEA. Why the hell is israel a member of the IAEA when it has ignored the IAEA's principles and truculently announced that it will continue to do so?

    A good example of collusionist IAEA statements: not, "There is no proof that Iran has engaged in nuclear weapons research", but, "We cannot certify that Iran has not engaged in nuclear weapons research". Perfectly suited to the Bush administration's efforts to stoke an eventual military option.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 5:38pm

  24. You are also the one who hasn't provided the tiniest bit of proof (much less "easily observable facts") that the IAEA vote was somehow "fixed" by the US or that el-Baradei's concern about Iran's track record wasn't legitimate.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 5:14pm

    I never used the word "fixed", that's your invention, but anyone who reads the newspaper could see the US lobbying for a vote which eventually matched exactly what it wanted and the way it swiftly shot down the EU3 negotiations with Iran. It's remarked on quite freely in the news media including the article I posted in this thread. Maybe you're ignoring that because it doesn't suit your pretended babe-in-the-woods attitude that the objective here is something other than the bombing of Iran by the US or israel.

    El Baradei's concern is absolutely not legitimate given a nuclear armed israel that escapes even verbal condemnation but maybe that's just another example of what you consider a fact that is not easily observable. I suggest you check your eyesight rather than trying to blind others.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 5:54pm

  25. As much as I detest nuclear weapons, could the region in general be better off with both a nuclear Israel and a nuclear Iran? Wouldn't the nuclear deterrents potentially create a stability, or balance of power, much harder to tip over than any that has existed previously? And wouldn't both nuclear arsenals be necessary for their to be a balance?

    Can you address that idea, without making moralistic or snap judgements?

    Posted by ZERO 04/20/2006 @ 5:47pm

    I don't like the idea at all. The only policy that makes the slightest bit of sense is nuclear disarmament, in the Middle East and the world. But that's not going to happen as long as the policy is, "we can have them but you can't". The US can't insist that other states are "rogues" if they want to develop their self-defense capabilities while shielding the worst, most aggressive rogue in the region. Nothing is going to improve as long as the policy is, "you're the victims and we're the perpetrators and that's how it's going to stay". It won't succeeed.

    I don't have more time today for this but I will take it up again later and I paraphrased the IAEA statement but I will look it up and source it. It's doubletalk.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 6:04pm

  26. And, Zero, I'm not trying to provoke you. I have simply noticed that the IAEA statements are much more in line with Bush administration desires since the Iraq dust up and the Bush admin's attempts to have El Baradei kicked out. IAEA statements and positions are very one-sidedly preferential to the powers that be, i.e. the nuclear weapons states failure to ever live up to their NPT commitments.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 6:13pm

  27. Here is what a tactical nuclear attack on Iran [tinyurl.com] looks like, courtesy of the Union of Concerned Scientists [tinyurl.com].

    Posted by ZERO 04/20/2006 @ 1:57pm

    The B61-11, the nuclear bomb referenced in Seymour Hersh's New Yorker Magazine article, is a strategic nuclear weapon -- not a tactical nuclear weapon. [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/20/2006 @ 6:23pm

  28. Posted by ZERO 04/20/2006 @ 5:05pm:people who see the attack as foregone conclusion should try to explain to themselves what legal authority specifically bush will invoke to attack iran.

    Bush clearly does NOT have the legal authority to unilaterally launch an unprovoked attack on Iran. But, that does not really matter. Because, Bush claims that he does have the authority. The September 2001 Yoo memo [usdoj.gov] (which is still operational) asserts:

    The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

    The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

    So, according to the administration's reasoning, the President's authority to attack other nations flows from his belief that the target nation is harboring terrorists. And if that's what Dear Leader believes, in today's Bizarro world, who is going to stop him?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 6:37pm

  29. I have NEVER said that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that you attest that to me is a pretty good indicator of your fidelity to substantiated arguments. I have said that they have a track record of lying and that is attested to by the IAEA. You have never said they didn't. You are also the one who hasn't provided the tiniest bit of proof (much less "easily observable facts") that the IAEA vote was somehow "fixed" by the US or that el-Baradei's concern about Iran's track record wasn't legitimate.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 5:14pm

    BRUNOWE, you are wasting your time with that guy. He won't bother to understand what you are saying, he will just lie and make up shit and claim you said it. Anyone who disagrees with him, he calls a fool and accuses them of all kinds of ridiculous shit.

    He is hysterical and possibly unstable. It's like trying to talk to a Republican (maybe even worse....).

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/20/2006 @ 6:39pm

  30. We have a Sec of Defense who can't admit he fucked up. We have a President who won't fire said Sec. because it would be tantamount to admitting his own incompetence. Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/20/2006 @ 6:44pm

    Frank - the only person in America who doesn't know the President is incompetent is the President.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/20/2006 @ 6:50pm

  31. BRUNOWE, you are wasting your time with that guy. He won't bother to understand what you are saying, he will just lie and make up shit and claim you said it. Anyone who disagrees with him, he calls a fool and accuses them of all kinds of ridiculous shit.

    He is hysterical and possibly unstable. It's like trying to talk to a Republican (maybe even worse....).

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 04/20/2006 @ 6:39pm

    Sounds like a perfect description of yourself but I assume that overcoming your self-professed superiority complex can't be easy. One of the more consistent things about you is that you prefer the ad hominem attack to the issues at hand . . . that and toilet-tongue verbiage.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 6:56pm

  32. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 04/20/2006 @ 6:39pm

    You promised to ignore me anyway and didn't. As expected.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 7:00pm

  33. Frank,

    I agree that 33 percent think the President is doing a good job, but I strongly suspect they know the truth -- they just won't admit it when polled.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/20/2006 @ 7:02pm

  34. The Iranian president really got himself in trouble with the anti-Israel commentary, and I continue to believe that if he hadn't made these bombastic statements about Israel, there would be a lesser degree of "concern" about the Iranian nuclear program in particular from various parties within the US.

    Posted by ZERO 04/20/2006 @ 6:52pm

    That would be a crime against humanity, and in the lack of a clear immediate, satellite-detected threat from Iran of a huge magnitude, not even the Bush administration is going to kill millions. For the US to use a nuclear weapon in Iran at this or any near juncture in history would be for the US to create the nuclear disaster in the middle east it would claim to be trying to prevent. And the Bush administration doesn't want to have to be accountable for that.

    Posted by ZERO 04/20/2006 @ 6:57pm

    Iran has been a target many, many years before Ahmadinejad assumed the stage. I also think you are engaging in a big misjudgement on the willingness to use nuclear weapons against Iran and the ability to get away with it. The israeli water bowl is always there for Bush to wash his hands of the affair.

    Have to go, wish I had more time today.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 7:06pm

  35. Twice -- very sickening.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/20/2006 @ 7:11pm

  36. How are all you guys who drive suv's handling your gas bills these days? Smiling at the pump are ya?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/20/2006 @ 6:47pm

    The same way I've been handling it since 2001, Frank: Public transportation and walking. The SUV is for shopping trips and extended road trips only. And believe me, I hate shopping...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/20/2006 @ 7:20pm

  37. BTW, FRANKGRITS, How is your son? Still in Iraq?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/20/2006 @ 7:21pm

  38. Posted by ZERO 04/20/2006 @ 6:57pm: That would be a crime against humanity, and in the lack of a clear immediate, satellite-detected threat from Iran of a huge magnitude, not even the Bush administration is going to kill millions.

    Bush does not believe it will kill millions. He thinks its just a teensy-weensy bunker buster bomb.

    For the US to use a nuclear weapon in Iran at this or any near juncture in history would be for the US to create the nuclear disaster in the middle east it would claim to be trying to prevent. And the Bush administration doesn't want to have to be accountable for that.

    That assumes a greater rationality than the Bush administration has demonstrated to this point.

    We can endlessly debate the wisdom (or lack thereof) of launching an unprovoked attack on Iran (nuclear or otherwise). But the problem is that our President believes that this is his decision to make. And one thing our Decider-in-Chief has demonstrated is that he is a delusional lunatic.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 8:48pm

  39. It would probably be good for us to see the actual official IAEA position on the matter, from the horse's mouth. I seem to recall having seen it recently and while the agency has referred Iran to the UNSC the actual reason appears to be several demonstrated breaches of the inspections process, not outright evidence of a weapons program. And for all we know, the IAEA may simply be bound under its own rules and the NPT to refer parties found in this degree of breach of trust to the UNSC.

    That's my point exactly, I've read the documents on the IAEA site and they point out 1) Iran's track record and 2) non-satisfaction with the Iran's accounting for past breaches such as the centrifuges from Pakistan. I have never said they had a weapons program, but their withdrawal from the voluntary extra measures that had undertaken in conjunction with their track record raises legitimate suspicions. I've also never said that we should contemplate any type of military action. I do favor some sanctions, perhaps along the line of barring Iranian tourist visas, some economic sanctions.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 9:29pm

  40. Frank,

    "How are all you guys who drive suv's handling your gas bills these days? Smiling at the pump are ya?"

    I am paying them as usual..on my expense account, which I have to earn first in order to make a profit. I burn premium, so I have been paying $3 a gallon for sometime, now. My 8 cylinder BMW engine gives me 23+ miles per gallon (at 85-90 mph)and 17 mpg in the city. I have had it for 5 years and I take care of it and it takes care of me. Thanks for the concern. I, too, will work harder to earn more to pay for the gas...the price,by the way, in relative dollars, is still cheaper than in the Carter malaise years when the Arabs were so afraid of the US, they cut us off from oil.

    As for Bush at 33%, most of the anger is from conservatives for spending so much. It doesn't mean we are now in love with Dean, or anything DEM.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/20/2006 @ 9:30pm

  41. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2006 @ 8:57pm: Oh I guess that means that you are paying for my gas! Thanks!!!

    Only a slimy socialist would want the government to pay for their gas. I seemed to have missed that breaking news when the totalitarian socialist regime was announced. I find it ironic that the right is constantly portraying the left as socialists, yet you have no problem letting the government pay for your persoanl needs. Take some personal responsibility and pay for your own damn gas.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 9:32pm

  42. Frank,

    "ILP, Yes, thank you, until Oct."

    I hope and pray your son comes home to you as he left...and I thank him and you for his service...I don't see eye to eye with many here at all and disagree on almost everything, except the sons and daughters in the US military. They are the best..I want him home sooner than later and safe..

    John

    Posted by john maasch at 04/20/2006 @ 9:34pm

  43. I never used the word "fixed", that's your invention, but anyone who reads the newspaper could see the US lobbying for a vote which eventually matched exactly what it wanted and the way it swiftly shot down the EU3 negotiations with Iran. It's remarked on quite freely in the news media including the article I posted in this thread. Maybe you're ignoring that because it doesn't suit your pretended babe-in-the-woods attitude that the objective here is something other than the bombing of Iran by the US or israel.

    Okay, so you're saying that the US lobbied for a vote that matched exactly, that they fired a shot across the bow at el-Baradei after the "Niger" vote things but that the vote wasn't fixed. That's semantic flim-flam. You know damn well that you're arguing that the vote was illegitimate because of US pressure. The only problem is the only proof you seem to present if the Iran issue and that's circular reasoning.

    Iraq wouldn't by any chance be an item you would want to enter into evidence, would it? Your statement is surprisingly and blankly non-sensical.

    Not at all--I am not in favor of military action, I'm in favor of sanctions. What has Iraq to do with it?

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 9:40pm

  44. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/20/2006 @ 9:33pm: If Iran were stupid enough to supply nooklear weapons to a terrorist group for an action against the US, most of you would believe it was the CIA anyway

    It would have to be something like that, given that Iran does not have "nooklear" weapons.

    Let's just ignore Iran the way we ignored Nazi Germany.

    Right friedheart, every country we don't like is the equivalent of Nazi Germany. Tell me, dear Sir, in what way is Iran like Nazi Germany?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 9:46pm

  45. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/20/2006 @ 9:34pm: They are the best..I want him home sooner than later and safe..

    Glad to see that you have come around to the withdrawal position.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 9:47pm

  46. El Baradei's concern is absolutely not legitimate given a nuclear armed israel that escapes even verbal condemnation but maybe that's just another example of what you consider a fact that is not easily observable. I suggest you check your eyesight rather than trying to blind others.

    Israel has nothing to do with this. The legitimacy of El-Baradei's conclusion rests of Iran's actions. Constantly saying, "well Israel did it" is non-responsive. That is the attempt to blind others.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 9:51pm

  47. OR<

    Read Hitlers speeches and then read and listen to Iran....they both tell exactly what they will do..one has already done it and the other is trying to do so, and the world will watch him do it and then ask why no one stopped them...does that sound familar?

    Maybe Johannes relatives might have some ideas..they saw this first hand.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/20/2006 @ 9:54pm

  48. one of the problems redbird with claiming that the IAEA statement is warped towards the US prejudice towards condemnation is that most of us are getting our understanding of the IAEA positions through domestic American mass media accounts, which are taking on a very one-sided or even warped appearance rapidly.

    It would probably be good for us to see the actual official IAEA position on the matter, from the horse's mouth. I seem to recall having seen it recently and while the agency has referred Iran to the UNSC the actual reason appears to be several demonstrated breaches of the inspections process, not outright evidence of a weapons program. And for all we know, the IAEA may simply be bound under its own rules and the NPT to refer parties found in this degree of breach of trust to the UNSC.

    If only we had an American mass media source to go to for information that was not mainly repeating ad nauseum that the Bush administration is thought to have war plans and that it is a foregone conclusion that the Iranians are engaged in weapons development right now, meaning there is an immediate crisis at hand.

    Posted by ZERO 04/20/2006 @ 6:52pm

    I have been reading the IAEA's statements and other source materials more relevant than the US news media. I think a lot of the anxiousness evidenced by some others here is that they are getting their information from the US news media and either don't grasp or actually endorse the bias there. The statement that I was referring to is the last sentence below:

    Although absent some nexus to nuclear material the Agency's legal authority to pursue the verification of possible nuclear weapons related activity is limited, the Agency has continued to seek Iran's cooperation as a matter of transparency in following up on reports related to equipment, materials and activities which have applications both in the conventional military area and in the civilian sphere as well as in the nuclear military area. In this regard, Iran has permitted the Agency to visit defence related sites at Kolahdouz, Lavisan and Parchin. The Agency did not observe any unusual activities in the buildings visited at Kolahdouz and Parchin, and the results of environmental sampling did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations. The Agency is still assessing the available information, and awaiting other additional information, in relation to the Lavisan site and the PHRC.

    53. As indicated to the Board in November 2004, and again in September 2005, all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for. Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.

    http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-15.pdf

    The IAEA can never conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The statement is plainly illogical. A meaningful statement would be along the lines of, "the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are further undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran." Iran has been giving them every opportunity to find exactly that by allowing an intrusiveness that no other country in the world does. But, the former wording provides a nice opportunity to imply that Iran has not cooperated although the reality is that they have cooperated in a way far exceeding that of any other state.

    Read the entire document. It verges on pettiness. Note that the issues the IAEA is asking for extensive clarification on are related to the peaceful uses of nuclear power, NOT nuclear weapons related issues. For example, a program is discontinued and the IAEA is not satisfied with the documentary proof of this but demands more documentary proof that it was discontinued. A "member state" (guess who) provides a single page document that purports to reveal unreported activities. Iran states it is a forgery and no such program existed. The IAEA asks them to prove that the program didn't exist. "Member state" provides a laptop computer containing what appear to be unreported activities and the onus is on Iran to prove that it's a fake.

    The US gets much of this material from the Mujahideen Khalq organization which the US itself has declared a terrorist organization although it seems to have very good and continuing relations with it. "Terrorism", of course, for the US, is a relative term. The relevant fact being- who's getting killed. Some of the material from this group has been correct but a lot of it has been reported to be baseless. Do Americans really want their future policy so highly influenced by this terrorist cult group? I certainly don't.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 10:06pm

  49. The IAEA can never conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The statement is plainly illogical. A meaningful statement would be along the lines of, "the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are further undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran." Iran has been giving them every opportunity to find exactly that by allowing an intrusiveness that no other country in the world does. But, the former wording provides a nice opportunity to imply that Iran has not cooperated although the reality is that they have cooperated in a way far exceeding that of any other state

    But that overlooks the track record of Iran involving hiding and material for over a decade. If they've been giving access over and above the what the NPT normally requires, it's because they're track record creates a special case. At no point have you even acknowledge that they've spent over a decade hiding materials and centrifuges. The reasons they're asking for clarification is that, until the IAEA is fully satisfied regarding the centrifuges, etc., they have a right to be stricter. Iran is being subjected to a higher standard because their conduct merits it.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 10:19pm

  50. Zero: It would probably be good for us to see the actual official IAEA position on the matter, from the horse's mouth. I seem to recall having seen it recently and while the agency has referred Iran to the UNSC the actual reason appears to be several demonstrated breaches of the inspections process, not outright evidence of a weapons program. And for all we know, the IAEA may simply be bound under its own rules and the NPT to refer parties found in this degree of breach of trust to the UNSC.

    That's my point exactly, I've read the documents on the IAEA site and they point out 1) Iran's track record and 2) non-satisfaction with the Iran's accounting for past breaches such as the centrifuges from Pakistan. I have never said they had a weapons program, but their withdrawal from the voluntary extra measures that had undertaken in conjunction with their track record raises legitimate suspicions. I've also never said that we should contemplate any type of military action. I do favor some sanctions, perhaps along the line of barring Iranian tourist visas, some economic sanctions.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 9:29pm

    They have centrifuges from Pakistan, they have now been declared, they are being used for low enrichment which is consistent with nuclear power, NOT nuclear weapons. Iran acquired these secretly for the simple reason that the US has for decades been making every effort to impede Iran's acquisition of any kind of advanced technology that it can. Let's also mention israel's uncondemned bombing raids on peaceful nuclear activities.

    The IAEA is demanding more extensive information about the methods of acquiring them. Why is that necessary, if they're being used for low enrichment and were not used for any prohibited activity? It's simply a fishing expedition so that their economic and technical development can be further impeded.

    You have yet to explain why israel, with it's reported 200+ nuclear weapons shouldn't be subject to the same sactions that you're advocating for non-nuclear weapon Iran. You can step up to the plate anytime with that explanation.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 10:19pm

  51. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/20/2006 @ 9:54pm: So, how is Iran like Nazi Germany? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a candid rhetoric not unlike Hitler. Hitler was very clear on his objectives. So is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if we care to listen.

    I didn't ask you how Hitler was like Ahmadinejad; I asked you how Nazi Germany was like Iran. That is not an insignificant difference.

    But, in any event, if the extent of the similarity is that both utilize a "candid rhetoric" and are/were clear on their objectives, then there are a large number of Hitler-lites in this world.

    Would you even consider it for one moment, Orwell2005?

    I did consider it for one moment (maybe even two). I can't find much of a similarity. Enlighten me. What are the similarities between Nazi Germany and Iran?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 10:23pm

  52. I do favor some sanctions (against Iran), perhaps along the line of barring Iranian tourist visas, some economic sanctions.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 9:29pm

    Isn't the US already barring Iranian tourist visas and hasn't the US been engaged in economic warfare against Iran for decades? Or, maybe those are just another couple of those things you say I make up. Are you for barring isareli tourist visas and engaging in economic sanctions against nuclear armed israel?

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 10:25pm

  53. Israel has nothing to do with this. The legitimacy of El-Baradei's conclusion rests of Iran's actions. Constantly saying, "well Israel did it" is non-responsive. That is the attempt to blind others.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 9:51pm

    Oh, there we go. I knew we'd get there. It isn't about a general opposition to nuclear weapons, not about nuclear holocaust.

    It's about making sure the Iranians are the recipients of the holocaust. Thanks for the clarification.

    Are all the future nuclear targets in the world listening to the freedom-loving, civilized Americans? Guess what you need now more than ever.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 10:32pm

  54. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/20/2006 @ 9:54pm: Read Hitlers speeches and then read and listen to Iran....they both tell exactly what they will do..

    There are many people who give speeches telling exactly what they plan to do. (The vast majority, by the way, are in no position to enact their plans.) If this is the only similarity you can come up, it is pretty lame.

    And, if we believe that AhmadiHitler tells us exactly what he will do, then why is your hair ablaze about Iranian nukes? AhmadiHitler has told us that Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear weapons; they are pursuing nuclear power.

    So which parts of the tell-it-like-it-is AhmadiHitler's speeches should we take as gospel truth and which parts should we take as evil lies?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 10:32pm

  55. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2006 @ 10:05pm: I own my own business, get no benefits, don't get paid for showing up, pay all my expenses, gasoline down to pens, printer ink, paper, and staples.

    Therefore the government says I have a right to deduct the costs of running my business!

    So you only object to welfare when it is to benefit the poor?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 10:33pm

  56. enough on that. good night and sleep tight. we're the biggest bully on the block and we'll remain immune forever, don't you think?

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/20/2006 @ 10:34pm

  57. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/20/2006 @ 10:07pm: But hey, as I said, this is the price of "peace in our time." Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe we'll all look back and realize what a farce Ahmadinejad was. Or, maybe we'll wonder why no one acted against him as we mourn the dead.

    Of course, we could just look to current events in Iraq to see the price of "war in our time." Hindsight is 20/20. But, we certainly look back and realize what a farce Hussein was. And we really wonder why we acted against him as we mourn the dead.

    Most of you see Bush as the real danger anyway.

    Indeed. His threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran is a threat to the future physical and financial security of my children and their children. And, it is quite insane.

    Hell, just the threat alone, even if he never actually jumps the shark and does it, is immoral.

    There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men.

    --Edmund Burke

    I suppose it depends on your definition of evil.

    Or your definition of "evil men".

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 10:40pm

  58. All this right wing dingalingery is the usual song and dance of white people who, for some reason, still insist they have to incinerate thousands of brown people in order to liberate brown people. They had the choice of rescuing a few tens of thousands of them in New Orleans last year, but that, of course, would have been a waste.

    No one who grew up black in this country is even remotely surprised at the levels of rationalization of this Iran nonsense on the part of white "moderates" and "liberals". We've heard it all before. And we still call bullshit.

    Posted by OyaSon at 04/20/2006 @ 10:45pm

  59. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/20/2006 @ 10:26pm: Well, let's see. You'd be in prison in both?

    Your point being that we should use nuclear weapons against any country that would be so bold as to imprison me if I happened to be so unlucky as to live there? While I greatly appreciate this tremendous show of military back-up you feel I am worthy of, it really is not necessary. Please, if you are doing this on my behalf, refrain from nuking those countries that would arrest me if I happened to be a citizen of them.

    In fact, I feel so unworthy of this support that I also must ask you to refrain from bombing them. Or sending in special forces. Or enlisting the assistence of terrorist groups to destabilize their governments. Or joking with Jay Garner about how maybe he can help out again on the next one. Or ...

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 10:48pm

  60. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/20/2006 @ 10:45pm: Serious question because I've been out of the country. Did Bush ever say outright he would use nooklier weapons against Iran, or did Seymour Hersch say Bush said he's use nooklier weapons?

    Both. From the 4/19/06 The Boston Globe [tinyurl.com]:

    Asked if his administration was planning for the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iran, he [Bush] responded, ''All options are on the table."

    Of course, even the "all options" line is a lie. Because the one option that is NOT on the table is to sit down face-to-face with the Iranians to discuss whatever it is that we believe they are doing that is so egregious that it justifies the threat of a nuclear attack. Why this option is NOT on the table is unfathomable. We will have to leave it to our warmongering buddies on this blog to come up with a version of reality in which this makes any amount of sense.

    My own theory is that we won't sit down with them because Dear Leader is simply afraid of them. I believe that someone said that he once heard someone claim that Dear Leader said "But don't them there irenians sometimes eat people? he he. Cause you know, I wouldn't wanna end up bein' in their falafel. he."

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 11:04pm

  61. You have yet to explain why israel, with it's reported 200+ nuclear weapons shouldn't be subject to the same sactions that you're advocating for non-nuclear weapon Iran. You can step up to the plate anytime with that explanation.

    That's because I don't respond to non-responses. When someone does a blog-entry on Israel, I won't addresses by saying "Look what Iran is doing" either. It seems that you just can't acknowledge Iran's history of concealment without either saying "Israel!" or coming up with excuses that you can't substantiate like "Iran acquired these secretly for the simple reason that the US has for decades been making every effort to impede Iran's acquisition of any kind of advanced technology that it can.". Clearly you can't accept the idea that Iran is anything but pure as driven snow.

    Oh, there we go. I knew we'd get there. It isn't about a general opposition to nuclear weapons, not about nuclear holocaust.

    It's about making sure the Iranians are the recipients of the holocaust. Thanks for the clarification.

    Are all the future nuclear targets in the world listening to the freedom-loving, civilized Americans? Guess what you need now more than ever.

    Now you're just flat-out lying. I've already said that I don't favor military action against Iran and you damn well know it. You seem to have two positions on your switch (Iran is a total innocent--Nuke Iran). I'm afraid it's not that simple despite your demagogy to the contrary.

    Isn't the US already barring Iranian tourist visas and hasn't the US been engaged in economic warfare against Iran for decades? Or, maybe those are just another couple of those things you say I make up. Are you for barring isareli tourist visas and engaging in economic sanctions against nuclear armed israel?

    The idea is that everyone does that. And the "Israel did it?" blind just speaks for itself.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 11:18pm

  62. EDIT--Messed up the italics

    You have yet to explain why israel, with it's reported 200+ nuclear weapons shouldn't be subject to the same sactions that you're advocating for non-nuclear weapon Iran. You can step up to the plate anytime with that explanation.

    That's because I don't respond to non-responses. When someone does a blog-entry on Israel, I won't addresses it by saying "Look what Iran is doing" either. It seems that you just can't acknowledge Iran's history of concealment without either saying "Israel!" or coming up with excuses that you can't substantiate like "Iran acquired these secretly for the simple reason that the US has for decades been making every effort to impede Iran's acquisition of any kind of advanced technology that it can.". Clearly you can't accept the idea that Iran is anything but pure as driven snow.

    Oh, there we go. I knew we'd get there. It isn't about a general opposition to nuclear weapons, not about nuclear holocaust.

    It's about making sure the Iranians are the recipients of the holocaust. Thanks for the clarification.

    Are all the future nuclear targets in the world listening to the freedom-loving, civilized Americans? Guess what you need now more than ever.

    Now you're just flat-out lying. I've already said that I don't favor military action against Iran and you damn well know it. You seem to have two positions on your switch (Iran is a total innocent--Nuke Iran). I'm afraid it's not that simple despite your demagogy to the contrary.

    Isn't the US already barring Iranian tourist visas and hasn't the US been engaged in economic warfare against Iran for decades? Or, maybe those are just another couple of those things you say I make up. Are you for barring isareli tourist visas and engaging in economic sanctions against nuclear armed israel?

    The idea is that everyone does that. And the "Israel did it!" blind just speaks for itself.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 11:20pm

  63. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/20/2006 @ 11:14pm: How odd. Bush saying, "All options are on the table" discounts negotiation and validates plans for nuclear attack?

    Wow, no wonder the left found language in the Constitution stating abortion is a right! You guys are good!

    So much for your "serious" question. And as for language, apparently English is not your native tongue. Our fine President said "All options are on the table" in response to a DIRECT QUESTION of whether or not the nuclear option is on the table. If you want to take that response to somehow invalidate plans for a nuclear attack, then you need to return to elementary school and do a detailed remedial study of English discourse.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/20/2006 @ 11:23pm

  64. demagogy s/b demagoguery

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2006 @ 11:31pm

  65. Cause you know, I wouldn't wanna end up bein' in their falafel. he."

    Posted by ORWELL2005 04/20/2006 @ 11:04pm

    Give us a break, Orwell. That would never happen.

    Falafel is vegetarian.

    :-)

    Posted by usc1 at 04/20/2006 @ 11:51pm

  66. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/20/2006 @ 11:37pm: All options are on the table regarding the use of nuclear weapons to me means all options are on the table. Including negotiations. My comment was directed to how you discounted that option so affirmatively.

    Your serious question was "Serious question because I've been out of the country. Did Bush ever say outright he would use nooklier weapons against Iran". We were not discussing "negotiations" (an odd concept in itself, when we refuse to directly "negotiate" with the target country). Your introduction of it into this thread shows a continuing misunderstanding of the nature of rational discourse.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/21/2006 @ 12:14am

  67. FREIHEIT -- The point I took from that quote I put in by Bush is just that he may actually be considering a military, and god forbid, perhaps, a limited nuclear option against Iran. I don't think it's likely. Even his advisors aren't that stupid. I hope. But I also don't think it's impossible, which I why I wrote this post.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 04/21/2006 @ 09:53am

  68. Bush's phrase" all options are on the table" has history. it's the same thing he said about Iraq, and he said even more, all lies. that is why almost no one believes him anymore. in contrast Hersh has a far better track record of veracity.

    I disagree with the poster who said that Israel cannot do without US. based on what? Israel has fought half a dozen wars in its 60 year existence, only one with outside military help. more accurate would be that the extreme right in Israel cannot do without the extreme right in this country.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/21/2006 @ 09:57am

  69. Peter,

    "I promise you that The Nation will oppose it."

    That's the problem with pacifists. You "oppose" acts of war, yet you don't have the intestinal fortitude to do anything about it, or to stop it.

    I "oppose" war against my country or Israel as well, the difference is, I support military actions to do something about it.

    Whinning, complaining, protesting and "opposing" are shallow attempts to change others behavior. Actions speak louder than words.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 04/21/2006 @ 10:15am

  70. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/21/2006 @ 12:24am: Ah. rational discourse = agreement

    No. Rational discourse == coherent train of thought. You asked me about whether Bush had actually claimed that nukes were on the table. I provided you with that statement. You then claimed that this statement shows that negotiation is also on the table. I do not dispute that. It is irrelevant to your original question, however.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/21/2006 @ 10:24am

  71. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 04/21/2006 @ 10:15am: That's the problem with pacifists. You "oppose" acts of war

    Actually that's the definition of a pacifist. It is only a problem in your twisted head. That's the problem with you warmongerers. You "support" acts of war.

    I support military actions to do something about it...Actions speak louder than words.

    The keyboard warrier speaks. Did you face a tough battle getting to your computer this morning? Hey Ho, ToddOK, how many kids did you kill today?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/21/2006 @ 10:30am

  72. Todt, the death guy

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/21/2006 @ 10:58am

  73. Orwell,

    "Hey Ho, ToddOK, how many kids did you kill today?"

    None. How many kids would you have killed in America during WW2 if you would have been President and exuded your pacifism allowing Japan and Germany to continue to kill Americans?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 04/21/2006 @ 11:00am

  74. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 04/21/2006 @ 11:00am: None.

    So much for "action", eh soldier?

    How many kids would you have killed in America during WW2 if you would have been President and exuded your pacifism allowing Japan and Germany to continue to kill Americans?

    Oooo. The keyboard warrior emits a non-sequitur hypothetical. OK. I'll bite. Please tell me Mr. Sports Guy. How may kids would I have killed in America during WW2 if I "would have been" President?

    And this is related to Iran, how?

    If we are really into hypotheticals, how many kids would you have killed in America during the Cuban missile crisis if you would have been President and "exuded" your warmongering by dropping nukes on the USSR?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/21/2006 @ 11:14am

  75. FRB: You have yet to explain why israel, with it's reported 200+ nuclear weapons shouldn't be subject to the same sanctions that you're advocating for non-nuclear weapon Iran. You can step up to the plate anytime with that explanation.

    That's because I don't respond to non-responses. When someone does a blog-entry on Israel, I won't addresses it by saying "Look what Iran is doing" either. It seems that you just can't acknowledge Iran's history of concealment without either saying "Israel!" or coming up with excuses that you can't substantiate like "Iran acquired these secretly for the simple reason that the US has for decades been making every effort to impede Iran's acquisition of any kind of advanced technology that it can.". Clearly you can't accept the idea that Iran is anything but pure as driven snow.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 11:20pm

    It's entirely relevant because the hypocrisy reeks when you express such alarmed concern about non-nuclear weapon Iran's history of concealment yet insist that 200+ nuclear weapon israel's history of concealment must be ignored. It means your policy is not a policy of containment or disarmament but a policy of nuclear blackmail and terrorism. That, of course, is Bush's policy.

    Given that Iran has now allowed extraordinarily intrusive inspections, more extensive than any other country in the world, has no nuclear weapons, and has not been found to have a nuclear weapons development program it is illogical indeed that you would consider them the primary candidate for sanctions. Why not israel which has 200+ nuclear weapons and allows no inspections?

    That hypocrisy and the nuclear blackmail and terrorism that go with it are an extraordinary motivation for other countries in the Middle East to develop nuclear weapons. None have yet done so but that can't last given that hypocritically bad policy has been elevated to an unquestionable paradigm by a spectrum of American opinion ranging from the neo-crazies in the White House to some of the "liberals" in this thread.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 11:22am

  76. TODD -- First of all I was answering a question. But, what you see as intestinal fortitude, I see as an uninformed reading of history. Look back. Most violence--not all, but most--begats more violence. Pacificists will reasonably disagree but, in my view, of course there are certain instances when violence is necessary. Self-defense being one of them. I think the difference in our perspectives is that I see these instances as very far and few between and you see them coming around the corner at every bend. I oppose most military actions precisely because they frequently lead to MORE war, violence and bloodshed--not less--as you idiotically suggest.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 04/21/2006 @ 11:26am

  77. It's entirely relevant because the hypocrisy reeks when you express such alarmed concern about non-nuclear weapon Iran's history of concealment yet insist that 200+ nuclear weapon israel's history of concealment must be ignored. It means your policy is not a policy of containment or disarmament but a policy of nuclear blackmail and terrorism. That, of course, is Bush's policy.

    It doesn't mean anything of the kind. That is the basic flaw in your logic that refusing to discuss Israel on an Iran-based thread somehow means I'm in favor of Israel having nukes. That is a complete non-sequitur.

    Given that Iran has now allowed extraordinarily intrusive inspections, more extensive than any other country in the world, has no nuclear weapons, and has not been found to have a nuclear weapons development program it is illogical indeed that you would consider them the primary candidate for sanctions.

    It is not illogical. They have retracted their permission for the additional inspections, they haven't ratified the Additional Protocol and they haven't completely satisfied the IAEA re the P-1 and P-2 centrifuges.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2006 @ 11:32am

  78. Brunowe,

    And what FRB is saying is.....Iran has done significantly more than Israel, (the USA, Great Britain etc.) to placate the IAEA yet we don't seem so eager to drop A-bombs on ourselves, GB or Israel to bring ourselves, GB or Israel into NPT IAEA compliance. Thus why can we have such a boner about Iran's minor infractions given the whoppers by us, Israel etc.?

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/21/2006 @ 11:43am

  79. lvliberty, the pathological liar who refers to liberals as pigs who are dead to christ said a few months ago that a few families in his "church" pay for his gas. remember that "minister"? maybe you should get a little notebook for your lies so you can keep them straight.

    Posted by loveloki at 04/21/2006 @ 11:46am

  80. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/21/2006 @ 11:14am | ignore this person

    Ya ever noice that porkfat-chewing knuckle-dragging dittoheads like OKsportsguy always bring up WW II whenever Iran or Iraq is discussed? I think it's because it's the last war these chickenhawk web-tv screwheads even remotely understood.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 04/21/2006 @ 11:47am

  81. FRB: Oh, there we go. I knew we'd get there. It isn't about a general opposition to nuclear weapons, not about nuclear holocaust.

    It's about making sure the Iranians are the recipients of the holocaust. Thanks for the clarification.

    Are all the future nuclear targets in the world listening to the freedom-loving, civilized Americans? Guess what you need now more than ever.

    Now you're just flat-out lying. I've already said that I don't favor military action against Iran and you damn well know it. You seem to have two positions on your switch (Iran is a total innocent--Nuke Iran). I'm afraid it's not that simple despite your demagogy to the contrary.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/20/2006 @ 11:20pm

    All I have said is that there is not a shred of evidence that Iran has even a nuclear weapon development program, much less any nuclear weapons. Since you brought up the subject of lying please explain how you convert that into, "Iran is a total innocent".

    What the US and israel want Iran to do is forego it's right to develop peaceful nuclear technology, a right that is guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty that both America and Iran are parties to (israel, of course, won't sign the NPT because they can do whatever they please). Setting aside a discussion of America/israel's right to demand that, do you think that economic sanctions against Iran will force them to surrender a right that every other country in the world enjoys? What if they continue to develop peaceful nuclear technology as guaranteed by the NPT? What would be the next step on the part of America/israel? Would they continue the sanctions that didn't work, cancel the sanctions, or do something else? What would that something else be? I'm curious to know since you don't favor military action against Iran. I know you don't because you said you don't.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 11:49am

  82. lvliberty, the pathological liar who refers to liberals as pigs who are dead to christ said a few months ago that a few families in his "church" pay for his gas. remember that "minister"? maybe you should get a little notebook for your lies so you can keep them straight.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 04/21/2006 @ 11:46am

    Some of his stories are a little fishy (no, I'm not referring to "fish" in the Christian sense). I've found it quite satisfactory to just tune him out along with OKSPORTSGUY, FREIHEIT, and others.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 11:55am

  83. When you consider the hero status that will be achieved by a truly nuclear Iran, then the US whining and threatening make complete sense. If Iran gets a few bombs, then Iraq will want them, and surely the desire for them in countries like South Africa, Egypt, Argentina, Brasil, and South Korea will only be intensified. More nuclear powers only weakens the US stance in the world, and limits its ability to make one-sided war as it loves to do. Just look at the history of US invasions and interventions to see their use of developing nations as punching bags. But in the end, the US cares more about their position of dominance than the security of the world (just look at the results of Iraq as an example), which is why a nuclear strike against Iran is surely on the table, so long as it impedes their joining the club. The main drawback isn't the resulting reprisals or mass death that would ensue, rather, the spike in oil prices and the effect they would have on the world economy.

    PS. TODD, the zoo called, you're due back at 6:00.

    Posted by chimichenga at 04/21/2006 @ 11:57am

  84. FRB: It's entirely relevant because the hypocrisy reeks when you express such alarmed concern about non-nuclear weapon Iran's history of concealment yet insist that 200+ nuclear weapon israel's history of concealment must be ignored. It means your policy is not a policy of containment or disarmament but a policy of nuclear blackmail and terrorism. That, of course, is Bush's policy.

    It doesn't mean anything of the kind. That is the basic flaw in your logic that refusing to discuss Israel on an Iran-based thread somehow means I'm in favor of Israel having nukes. That is a complete non-sequitur.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/21/2006 @ 11:32am

    "Iran-based thread"? People are discussing all kinds of things on this thread. You don't say anything about that but israel is verboeten. Why? It's directly relevant and a hell of a lot more relevant than lvliberty's church donations by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe, just maybe, the glaring moral flaw in your policy prescription is something you prefer to repress?

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 12:03pm

  85. That rather depends on the sanctions. You simply have to keep them in place long enough. But no, absent POSITIVE evidence of nuclear weapons from a credible source (not the US), I don't favor military actions.

    My position is:The IAEA is still assessing the issues that Iran had concealed since the mid-90s. Iran should suspend enrichment until the IAEA's assessment is done (although they have a right to do enrichment, their track record of concealment justifies a different standard until the IAEA finishes its inquiries); Iran should ratify the Additional Protocol

    FREEDOMPLEASE Thus why can we have such a boner about Iran's minor infractions given the whoppers by us, Israel etc.?

    Trust me, this issue doesn't get me hot :-).

    Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2006 @ 12:07pm

  86. It's directly relevant and a hell of a lot more relevant than lvliberty's church donations by any stretch of the imagination

    It's not directly relevant and I haven't talked about LVLIBERTY'S church donations either.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2006 @ 12:09pm

  87. All this right wing dingalingery is the usual song and dance of white people who, for some reason, still insist they have to incinerate thousands of brown people in order to liberate brown people. They had the choice of rescuing a few tens of thousands of them in New Orleans last year, but that, of course, would have been a waste.

    No one who grew up black in this country is even remotely surprised at the levels of rationalization of this Iran nonsense on the part of white "moderates" and "liberals". We've heard it all before. And we still call bullshit.

    Posted by OYASON 04/20/2006 @ 10:45pm

    Yes, the horrible truth. One set of rules for "us" and another set of rules for the "other".

    But, the bottom line is that nuclear weapons must be eliminated. The current hypocritical US policy accomplishes the opposite and causes non-nuclear states to see nuclear weapons as necessary for very logical reasons.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 12:11pm

  88. That rather depends on the sanctions. You simply have to keep them in place long enough. But no, absent POSITIVE evidence of nuclear weapons from a credible source (not the US), I don't favor military actions.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/21/2006 @ 12:07am

    You favor military actions against israel since we have photographs of their nuclear weapons program. Thanks for the clarification.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 12:17pm

  89. Yes, the horrible truth. One set of rules for "us" and another set of rules for the "other".

    Well, no one is telling the Chinese to get rid of their nukes, and Bush just signed a nuclear-aid protocol with non-NPT India, so I don't think you can argue a race thing here.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2006 @ 12:18pm

  90. Yes, the horrible truth. One set of rules for "us" and another set of rules for the "other".

    Well, no one is telling the Chinese to get rid of their nukes, and Bush just signed a nuclear-aid protocol with non-NPT India, so I don't think you can argue a race thing here.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/21/2006 @ 12:18am

    I didn't say anything about race. Why did you bring that up?

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 12:21pm

  91. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/21/2006 @ 12:18am

    The US can't tell China anything, assclown. Anyone with a brain can see the recumbent Chinese marveling as the US digs itself a deeper hole. How long until they finally stand up and give the US a kick that sends it reeling to second-best?

    Posted by chimichenga at 04/21/2006 @ 12:22pm

  92. I didn't say anything about race. Why did you bring that up?

    My apologies. It light of OYASON's comments about incinerating "brown people" and your statement about "us" and "other", I had inferred race. I stand corrected.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2006 @ 12:25pm

  93. to those who delight in bringing up WW2 in the context of Iraq and Iran, may I remind them of the Nuremberg trials, especially the part about illegal wars of aggression being war crimes.

    http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/21/2006 @ 1:18pm

  94. Incidentally, I'll go so far as to say that concerns about Israel's nuclear arsenal are perfectly legitimate. Israel shouldn't have nukes and a discussion as to what steps to take would be an interesting one. I just don't want go into what would be a very lengthy and involved discussion of this issue on a blog dealing with Iran.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2006 @ 1:27pm

  95. Incidentally, I'll go so far as to say that concerns about Israel's nuclear arsenal are perfectly legitimate. Israel shouldn't have nukes and a discussion as to what steps to take would be an interesting one. I just don't want go into what would be a very lengthy and involved discussion of this issue on a blog dealing with Iran.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/21/2006 @ 1:27pm

    This isn't a thread "dealing with Iran". This is a thread dealing with "the Administration's track record of doing incredibly stupid things" and "the danger of such a reckless move is real, and rising. The Bush administration claims that negotiations are their first choice. But they have gone to war based on lies before, and there is no reason to believe that they are telling the truth this time."

    The subject of the thread is the administration's Middle East policy and it's history of turning "negotiations" into mass murder with lies and subterfuge. Your insistence that Iran's past behavior is devoid of context is what's off topic.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 1:49pm

  96. this misadministration has refused to negotiate or talk with the iranians. i hope everyone is right and this misadministration realizes what a horrible mistake attacking iran would be. but we have all been shocked and horrified by this misadministration's actions many times. i truly hope we will not be shocked again by an idiotic attack on iran. we need people with character and integrity (if anyone knows what these qualities are anymore) to respectfully engage iran in talks.

    Posted by loveloki at 04/21/2006 @ 2:12pm

  97. it's a little late in the day for the US to claim the right to decide who gets to have nukes and who doesn't. If the US had decided to share the nukes at the end of WW2 with the soviets, as they did with the british, perhaps the cold war might have been avoided. as it was, screwing Stalin again, after the russians did the heavy lifting defeating Hitler, only postponed russian nukes for a year or two.

    back to the present. the US was unable and perhaps unwilling to stop Israel, India, Pakistan, and who knows how many more, from getting nukes, so this hysteria about Iran is as phony as they come. so the leader of Iran makes some threatening remarks? what of it. Pakistan is at least as islamic fundamentalist as Iran, held back only by a military dictatorship, seized in a coup against the elected government there. they may even be harboring Osama, but they are our allies, yep, just like the Saudis.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/21/2006 @ 2:12pm

  98. FRB This isn't a thread "dealing with Iran". This is a thread dealing with "the Administration's track record of doing incredibly stupid things" and "the danger of such a reckless move is real, and rising.

    That's not correct. The blog entry dealt with this Administration's plans for an attack on Iran, Hersh's article on the same and peace demonstrations against an attack on Iran.

    JR it's a little late in the day for the US to claim the right to decide who gets to have nukes and who doesn't. If the US had decided to share the nukes at the end of WW2 with the soviets, as they did with the british, perhaps the cold war might have been avoided. as it was, screwing Stalin again, after the russians did the heavy lifting defeating Hitler, only postponed russian nukes for a year or two

    We hardly "screwed" Stalin, it's not as if he had a right to our nuclear technology. I also doubt that the Cold War could've been avoided.

    back to the present. the US was unable and perhaps unwilling to stop Israel, India, Pakistan, and who knows how many more, from getting nukes, so this hysteria about Iran is as phony as they come.

    It's not phony at all...and there are steps we can take re other countries, such as not doing that nuclear deal with India. We've also been involved in discussions with North Korea re nukes, so it's not as if we've singled out Iran.

    0

    the biggest sanction that Iran **should** face based on its documented transgressions is a MAJOR enhancement of the already heavy-duty inspections regime. they should have to open more doors, provide more proof of compliance, etc., to an epic degree.

    this is an appropriate response to the documented problems, and would tend to make it harder than ever to make any progress on any weapons development program.

    Agreed, I do think that some sort of economic sanctions may be necessary to get Iran to sign-on to an such an enhancement, at which they should be lifted.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2006 @ 2:39pm

  99. There is a misdescription here of the US position which it has talked a few other countries into accepting. The US position is that Iran must give up the right to develop parts of a peaceful nuclear program that they have a right to under the NPT. No other country is subject to this demand. It isn't just extraordinary inspections that the US is demanding but a surrender of Iran's sovereignty.

    It's unreasonable, it won't work, and aligning ourselves with it leads to the US goal- unreasonable economic sanctions followed by military attack with a nuclear component included. Iraq is the template- ever more unreasonable inspections and demands combined with propaganda that rationalizes the eventual planned military conclusion, nuclear attack, most likely carried out by israel after the US war party has prepared public opinion.

    The conclusion that nuclear weapons will not be used is wrong. A conventional attack will be completely unable to attain the goal desired- a shutdown of Iran's treaty right to peaceful nuclear power.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 3:33pm

  100. This isn't a thread "dealing with Iran". This is a thread dealing with "the Administration's track record of doing incredibly stupid things" and "the danger of such a reckless move is real, and rising. The Bush administration claims that negotiations are their first choice. But they have gone to war based on lies before, and there is no reason to believe that they are telling the truth this time."

    The subject of the thread is the administration's Middle East policy and it's history of turning "negotiations" into mass murder with lies and subterfuge. Your insistence that Iran's past behavior is devoid of context is what's off topic.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 04/21/2006 @ 1:49pm

    That's not correct. The blog entry dealt with this Administration's plans for an attack on Iran, Hersh's article on the same and peace demonstrations against an attack on Iran.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/21/2006 @ 2:39pm

    Your attempts to apply shears to the subject at hand in order to force the discussion into a disconnected, blurry, one-sided frame of reference that excludes the major factor in the region contributing to the conflict, nuclear-armed israel, and the Bush administration's well-documented history of "negotiations" subterfuge leading to mass homicide would be humorous if the endpoint of endorsing the Bush administration policy wasn't murderous.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 3:46pm

  101. i continue to believe that the most important outcome of all these discussions is that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for any near-term attack on iran, and i further maintain that any totalistic sanctions regime would be a terrible, terrible idea.

    the biggest sanction that Iran **should** face based on its documented transgressions is a MAJOR enhancement of the already heavy-duty inspections regime. they should have to open more doors, provide more proof of compliance, etc., to an epic degree.

    this is an appropriate response to the documented problems, and would tend to make it harder than ever to make any progress on any weapons development program.

    likewise, this problem will never, never be solved until Israel is put on a nuclear leash itself.

    Posted by ZERO 04/21/2006 @ 2:33pm

    brunowe: the use of economic sanctions unfortunately is a slippery slope. the bush administration will simply see the sanctions as part of warfare against iran, and do everything they can to create an iraq-sanctions like regime.

    if there really is evidence sufficient to require a sanctions regime, the primary focus of the sanctions should be on containing and slowing nuclear development and on enhancing inspections.

    and in the case of sanctions, Iran's NPT rights cannot be cast aside, because that treaty has to be respected.

    Posted by ZERO 04/21/2006 @ 3:35pm

    FRB: you beat me to it. one of the most overlooked aspects of this dicussion is the fact that Iran, under the NPT, has a right to a peaceful nuclear energy program. Iran must be seen, via its acceptance of the NPT, as having largely complied with the world's non-proliferation goals in international law. the same cannot for example be said about Israel.

    unfortunately, any sanctions regime will be badly exploited and abused by the bush adminstration as a de facto weapon of war against iran. i wonder if nothing good can from inspections.

    Posted by ZERO 04/21/2006 @ 3:37pm

    Something that would work is a general conference on nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nuclear disarmament of israel combined with security guarantees, if necessary, for both israel and the other states in the Middle East, and inspections that would assure no development of nuclear weapons by any state in the Middle East. I believe that Iran and other states in the region would gladly accede to that.

    But you see, a nuclear-free Middle East is not what is desired by israel or the US. What they desire is a Middle East in which only America and israel have nuclear weapons. That's where the impasse is located, not in Iran . . . and that will be the eventual cause of any use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

    I absolutely do not entertain any positive attitudes toward a "nuclear weapon-balanced Middle East". What we're talking about here is weapons of mass death. A weapon will eventually be used, count on it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 4:01pm

  102. FRB

    You're presupposing that Iran nuclear aspirations, if any, are based on Israeli and American nukes. I don't buy it. Both the US and Israel have sufficient conventional preponderance for their needs and I would argue that any Iranian interest in, at the very least, having the capability of developing nuclear weapons is aimed at offsetting that.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2006 @ 4:39pm

  103. Posted by ZERO 04/21/2006 @ 4:28pm

    Realistic as what you're saying is I see no reason whatsoever why any well-intentioned person should sign on to any of the "negotiations" charade that the bipartisan war party is stage managing.

    Their goal is not an inspections regime that ensures no nuclear weapons in Iran, their goal is an Iran that has been forced to surrender it's sovereignty. That's exactly what we've just forced Iraq to do and any pretension that the goal in Iran isn't the same exceeds credibility.

    I absolutely will not contribute any kind of assent to any part of that subterfuge .

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 5:28pm

  104. FRB

    You're presupposing that Iran nuclear aspirations, if any, are based on Israeli and American nukes. I don't buy it. Both the US and Israel have sufficient conventional preponderance for their needs and I would argue that any Iranian interest in, at the very least, having the capability of developing nuclear weapons is aimed at offsetting that.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/21/2006 @ 4:39pm

    You didn't read what I said at 4:01pm. Either that or you're ignoring it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 5:32pm

  105. ZERO -- I absolutely agree with you about both sanctions and inspections. I'm not sure how effective inspections will be but they seem to me both legitimate and necessary whreras total sanctions will only end up strengthening the hardliners in power while hurting the most dispossessed of Iranian society.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 04/21/2006 @ 5:44pm

  106. If there is to be a nuclear weapon in Iran, at some point, if it is something the US cannot stop without a military action that devastates all parties, then I can't help but wonder if a detente, as opposed to first strike, situation wouldn't create a stability in the Middle East that has not existed before.

    Posted by ZERO 04/21/2006 @ 4:28pm

    This is hoping for the best given what you consider an unchageable circumstance- israel. But, we don't always get what we hope for. How do we know that some state that's under the boot won't succeed in developing or acquiring enough nuclear weapons secretly to smuggle them into three cities in israel and half a dozen American cities and strike first? That becomes even more likely if another state has nuclear weapons.

    How long do we keep accepting a paradigm that will continually threaten us? The same also applies worldwide, not just in the Middle East. The time to address the underlying situation is now and no change will occur until it is. Accepting it, adding to it, and extending it just provides more time for the worst to happen.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 5:45pm

  107. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/21/2006 @ 5:38pm: the fact that I am not bothered by the added gas expense since I write it off as a business expense

    The Great Socialist LVLIBERTY feeding his car off the backs of others. Remind me again why you hate welfare, Mr. "I am not bothered by the added gas expense"?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/21/2006 @ 5:45pm

  108. LVLIBERTY,

    I have an idea. How about setting fire to yourself like the monks at Hue, Vietnam, only instead of protesting like they did, heat yourself up in support of your pal Bush. It will send a real message to us infidels who question your faith and believe that smug, arctic heart of yours can extinguish any flame. I promise you someone else will relieve you of paying for this expense, too.

    Posted by chimichenga at 04/21/2006 @ 5:54pm

  109. LVLIBERTY,

    The last time I was in Caracas your boy Chávez was selling gas for 13 cents a gallon. You could fuel your bullshit dynamo for a hell of a lot cheaper down here...

    Posted by chimichenga at 04/21/2006 @ 6:09pm

  110. LVLIBERTY,

    I have an idea. How about setting fire to yourself like the monks at Hue, Vietnam, only instead of protesting like they did, heat yourself up in support of your pal Bush. It will send a real message to us infidels who question your faith and believe that smug, arctic heart of yours can extinguish any flame. I promise you someone else will relieve you of paying for this expense, too.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 04/21/2006 @ 5:54pm

    What a phenomenal idea! I'll bring the marshmallows.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/21/2006 @ 6:20pm

  111. ZERO -- I absolutely agree with you about both sanctions and inspections. I'm not sure how effective inspections will be but they seem to me both legitimate and necessary whreras total sanctions will only end up strengthening the hardliners in power while hurting the most dispossessed of Iranian society.

    Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 04/21/2006 @ 5:44pm

    Let me clarify that it has not been my position that Iran should not be subject to inspections. The fact of the matter is that Iran is already being subjected to an intensity of inspections beyond what any other state is and Iran even voluntarily accepted restrictions on activities guaranteed them under the NPT. The thanks they got for that was the immediate breach of the agreement by the EU3 (subsequent to US pressure) and a ratcheting up of the warlike proclamations from the Bush administration and it's allies in Congress, Republican and Democratic. Is it surprising that they ceased their submission to extraordinary procedures and restriction of NPT-legal activities? This is what the Bush administration is referring to when it says, "Iran is not living up to it's obligations". That's a completely bogus statement given that it was voluntary and a doubly dishonest one given that the US was the main impediment to allowing it to work. The IAEA says that it wants Iran to resume it's submission to extraordinary procedures and restriction of NPT-legal activities but is utterly silent on the complete failure of all the other parties to live up to their side of the agreement (the Paris Agreement). This is why I say that the IAEA is not non-partisan in this dispute.

    The rest of the IAEA's issues are relatively secondary and NOT related to nuclear weapons. Here is the Feb 2006 report:

    http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-15.pdf

    Iran's comments on the issue for which they had to purchase an ad in the New York Times to have them made public and which NYT refused to put on their website:

    http://www.antiwar.com/blog/more.php?id=2523_0_1_0_M

    My contention is that the inspections that are being advocated are a red herring and the bad faith on the part of Bush and his allies on the issue in Congress is palpable.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 6:28pm

  112. ok, liberty, i see your point about the pig analogy. but what about the dead to christ thing? and thanks for capitalizing all the letters in baal's name like that. i notice you didn't capitalize god the almighty like that, hmmmm.....

    Posted by loveloki at 04/21/2006 @ 6:31pm

  113. To good not to share:

    I'm the Decider

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2006 @ 6:34pm

  114. ok, liberty, i see your point about the pig analogy. but what about the dead to christ thing? and thanks for capitalizing all the letters in baal's name like that. i notice you didn't capitalize god the almighty like that, hmmmm.....

    Posted by LOVELOKI 04/21/2006 @ 6:31pm

    It's probably good if someone talks to him. Otherwise he might actually set himself on fire.

    Just not me.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 6:35pm

  115. To good not to share:

    I'm the Decider

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/21/2006 @ 6:34pm

    Jeezus. At the end Bush, on the tape, said, "I hear the voices".

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 6:41pm

  116. LVLIBERTY,

    There you go again with your malarkey. You're so full of yourself, I mean, you're obviously someone with knowledge of the Scriptures but surely no pastor. As I've suggested before, go drink some wine and take your SUV out for a spin on a desolate and precarious road...

    Posted by chimichenga at 04/21/2006 @ 6:43pm

  117. FromRed

    Yeah...heard that in the Press Conference and wondered what kinda Fruedian bits are involved....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2006 @ 6:57pm

  118. we screwed Stalin throughout WW2, promising that we would invade France for years, while he was facing the preponderance of the german military might. the brits did not have a right to US nukes technology but we gave it to them. Stalin was our ALLY, we materially under wrote his military with US trucks and supplies.

    Bruno, you are very selective in your opinions. we are talking with No Korea, but we refuse to talk with Iran. we did NOTHING to prevent Pakistan and India getting the bomb, nothing to prevent Israel. that's why it's so phony.

    Read a good history of the cold war, then at least you will have some facts to base your opinions on.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/21/2006 @ 7:39pm

  119. hey SUV guys, see how you like gas at $4 a gallon. hahahah

    maybe your friend Bush will pick up the phone and call his good friends the Saudis...hhahahaha

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/21/2006 @ 7:55pm

  120. OH Glorious Friday. The end of another successful week of toil. We clean up, chill out, and prepare for the evening ahead.

    To all my liberal friends here at the nation, may you have a week end of good cheer, friends and family.

    To all my favorite hamsters scampering for cover out in hamsterland. I wish for you alfalfa pellets...

    all you can eat.

    :)

    Smile everyone... it's Friday.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/21/2006 @ 8:31pm

  121. Smile everyone... it's Friday.

    Posted by WILL C. 04/21/2006 @ 8:31pm

    I started at 5PM yesterday. Hic!

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 8:36pm

  122. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/21/2006 @ 6:24pm: Start your own business, bear the risks like I do and you too can write off your business expenses. Of course you have to give up a guaranteed paycheck, but that should be no problem, right?

    Thanks for the advice. But I was not asking how to take advantage of corporate welfare. I was asking what is the principle under which you support welfare for business owners while opposing welfare for poor people. Do you really believe that your cruising around in an SUV is more worthy of government subsidies than someone trying to get enough food for their children?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/21/2006 @ 8:48pm

  123. As Iran faces international pressure over developing the raw material for nuclear weapons, Brazil is quietly preparing to open its own uranium-enrichment center, capable of producing exactly the same fuel.

    Brazil -- like Iran -- has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and Brazil's constitution bans the military use of nuclear energy.

    Also like Iran, Brazil has cloaked key aspects of its nuclear technology in secrecy while insisting the program is for peaceful purposes, claims nuclear weapons experts have debunked. -edit-

    Brazil initially refused inspections by the International Atomic Energy Association, arguing that providing full access to its state-of-the-art, Brazilian-designed centrifuges would put it at risk of industrial espionage. Since then, IAEA inspectors have visited the plant many times, monitoring the uranium that comes in and out, but they're still prevented from seeing the actual centrifuges, which are covered with opaque screens.

    http://tinyurl.com/p38ux

    There are no Iran-type hysterics in the case of Brazil so there appears to be a great measure of theater involved. The three act play is a prelude to 'bombs away'.

    Iran, you see, is closer to that special country. No, that special country is not the United States, at least not in the estimation of Bush and his War Party allies.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/21/2006 @ 9:01pm

  124. Ahh,

    A rematch of the priests of BAAL vs Elijah and God Almighty!

    Sounds like an interesting matchup.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/21/2006 @ 6:22pm | ignore this person

    F you, scumbag, lying, false prophet. I'm a priest of nothing, nor do I suport any priest of anything.

    Got to hell, Liberty.

    Oh, and have a nice weekend.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/21/2006 @ 9:24pm

  125. support

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/21/2006 @ 9:24pm

  126. "Got to hell" should "Go to hell", but you already knew that.

    And Loveloki may have accepted your bullshit about why you compared liberals to pigs, but I've just come to realize you like to shit on people and then hide behind the "metaphor" excuse.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/21/2006 @ 9:26pm

  127. (Can you tell I've already been to happy hour?) Typing is the first casualty!

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/21/2006 @ 9:26pm

  128. FREIHEIT -- The point I took from that quote I put in by Bush is just that he may actually be considering a military, and god forbid, perhaps, a limited nuclear option against Iran. I don't think it's likely. Even his advisors aren't that stupid. I hope. But I also don't think it's impossible, which I why I wrote this post.

    Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 04/21/2006 @ 09:53am

    "limited nuclear option" - contradictory terms. There is nothing limited about any nuclear option. The use of one nuclear weapon is an uncontrolled act of

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/21/2006 @ 9:26pm

  129. Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/21/2006 @ 9:26pm:"limited nuclear option" - contradictory terms. There is nothing limited about any nuclear option.

    Furthermore, even just the threat of the "nuclear option" in the context of Iran is highly insane and highly immoral. It leads one to wonder just what we have become.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/21/2006 @ 9:29pm

  130. To continue:

    ...uncontrolled act of insane desperation.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/21/2006 @ 9:29pm

  131. Orwell,

    Thanks for completing my statement. I accidently hit the "submit" button before I finished writing my post.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/21/2006 @ 9:30pm

  132. PRB

    You didn't read what I said at 4:01pm. Either that or you're ignoring it.

    I did read it, I just don't agree with it. I don't think that Israeli nuclear disarmament, although a good thing in itself, would necessarily garner the same Iranian reponse.

    JR

    we screwed Stalin throughout WW2, promising that we would invade France for years, while he was facing the preponderance of the german military might. the brits did not have a right to US nukes technology but we gave it to them. Stalin was our ALLY, we materially under wrote his military with US trucks and supplies.

    Bruno, you are very selective in your opinions. we are talking with No Korea, but we refuse to talk with Iran. we did NOTHING to prevent Pakistan and India getting the bomb, nothing to prevent Israel. that's why it's so phony.

    Read a good history of the cold war, then at least you will have some facts to base your opinions on.

    You clearly know just as much about WWII you do about the American Revolution. Our not invading France until 1944 wasn't screwing Stalin over, it was military necessity. By 1944 we had garnered amphibious experience and experience against the Germans in Africa and in Italy. The first US land encounter against the Germans was Kasserine Pass in February 1943, we got our asses kicked. Do you really think it would've been a good idea to go ashore in France with that military? BTW, Stalin didn't exactly join us out of the goodness of his heart--Hitler gave him no choice. On the other hand, the British could've dropped out of the war in June 1940, they came damn near close to doing so but chose to stick it out.

    We had sanctions against Pakistan for some time because of their nuclear program, but they did it anyway with CHINESE help, so take that up with them, while our vaunted CIA didn't see the India test in 1998 coming. Further, the IAEA is talking with Iran and the EU did, so our lack of direct involvement doesn't prove the phoniness of anything.

    I think it would be possible to start off with non-total sanctions such as visa restrictions, barring travel by their sports teams; perhaps closing some of their consular offices abroad.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2006 @ 9:42pm

  133. When GM and Ford lays off all of its workers in the U.S., who will buy their cars?

    Oh, I know; the automobile workers making two dollars a day in Asian and other very wage-poor nations.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/21/2006 @ 10:42pm

  134. Alright, had a couple of hours and time to stop fuming. I feel better now.

    Liberty aside (way aside), I've been trying to listen and learn with everyone today... Even JM.

    We lost the thread about 'Pre-emptive Peace Actions' a while back, and I'm partly to blame, I admit it.

    Just for the record, personally, I don't believe in them.

    Everyone have a nice weekend, friends and enemies alike. We'll all get together and make each other incensed again next week.

    Looking forward to it.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/21/2006 @ 10:48pm

  135. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/21/2006 @ 10:03pm: Orwell,

    I'm curious how you determined that the expense I and other business owners incur in producing income are corporate welfare.

    Cut the crap. The need to cruise around in a gas-guzzling SUV has little to do with the expenses you incur in producing income. Your statement "Oh I guess that means that you are paying for my gas! Thanks!!!" indicates that you understand that you are simply taking advantage of a rigged system to cruise around on the backs of others.

    I thank you for the trite tutorial that comprised the remainder of your post. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my question. You have indicated in the past that you oppose welfare. Do you really believe that your cruising around in an SUV is more worthy of government subsidies than someone trying to get enough food for their children?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/21/2006 @ 11:37pm

  136. Isn't liberty an insurance agent?

    Students probably use as many pens and pencils and as much paper, desk space, heat, lights, etc as Liberty yet they get no tax exemption.

    It's the costs of life baby.

    Oh and liberty, considering all the write offs you either legitimately get or manufacture... we really won't be interested in hearing how the government doesn't let you keep the fruits of your labor...

    anymore

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/21/2006 @ 11:52pm

  137. Orwell,

    LL fails to understand that tax deductions are subsidies/welfare.

    Prime example is the tax deduction for home mortgage interest paid -- please note that the home ownership tax subsidy is capped and is not granted to the renting population.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/21/2006 @ 11:56pm

  138. Re: "limited nuclear option"

    I just watched a NOVA online program about "The Theory of Everything"; and in the show, the narrator talks about the "weak nuclear force" (aka radiation) still being present at Trinity Site, fifty years later, at ten times the normal level for radiation. Again, no such animal as "limited nuclear option".

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 12:00am

  139. I saw that NOVA!

    What is it with the hamsters that the are incapable of uncoupling themselves from anything done in reagan administration? Limited nuclear war was one of Ronny's bigguns. As was star wars, as was tax cuts for the wealty, as was supporting international terrorism, as selling arms to Americas enemies...

    hey do you think the current bunch running the Habitrail Matrix is selling arms to our enemies?

    or is it just our heavy industry that they are selling?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 12:08am

  140. correction... as was selling

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 12:09am

  141. Bruno, nicely papered over but wrong. Stalin bitched about this for two or more years and they kept promising. this is history not the kind of revisionism you practice. but all this is not that germane here. what is important here is negotiations, instead of brinksmanship and posturing. these are wars of choice, mainly undertaken for domestic consumption, to stay in power, in the US and Iran.

    your point about england is mistaken. England was under air attack for the duration of the war, V1 and V2. also they didn't give the nukes to them until after the war, and they could also have given them to Stalin, and the cold war might have been avoided. the fact is that during the cold war many opportunities for detente were wasted , almost all by the american side. american exceptionalism has been going on for a long, long time. by the way HAVE you read a history of the cold war?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/22/2006 @ 12:35am

  142. So once more you have succeeded in mixing things that are unrelated and attempting to make some kind of slanderous charge from it. It only shows your ignorance and hatred of Christian conservatives. That is your problem, not mine.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/21/2006 @ 5:38pm

    It's kind of funny that a few months ago liberty rationalized the purchase of the hemi because he needed it to deliver his charity goods to wherever he takes them for his international relief effort. But now apparently he takes the gas he uses for his church work as a business deduction for his insurance business.

    (we all need a hemi to stop by office max)

    So not only is our resident evangelic pastard a liar, he's also a thief

    Is any one surprised?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 01:01am

  143. Bruno, nicely papered over but wrong. Stalin bitched about this for two or more years and they kept promising. this is history not the kind of revisionism you practice. but all this is not that germane here. what is important here is negotiations, instead of brinksmanship and posturing. these are wars of choice, mainly undertaken for domestic consumption, to stay in power, in the US and Iran.

    your point about england is mistaken. England was under air attack for the duration of the war, V1 and V2. also they didn't give the nukes to them until after the war, and they could also have given them to Stalin, and the cold war might have been avoided. the fact is that during the cold war many opportunities for detente were wasted , almost all by the american side. american exceptionalism has been going on for a long, long time. by the way HAVE you read a history of the cold war?

    I know Stalin bitched about it for two years, but it can only be counted as screwing him over if we could've delivered but didn't. We didn't even get Operation Torch launched until November 1942, a full eleven months after the US got into the war. You've overlooked the fact that the US didn't have a large peacetime army and actually had to build one up. It wasn't screwing Stalin over to not make the very first use of raw US troops in combat an attack on the French coast, it would've been a disaster, benefitting no one except the Axis powers. Further, Allied efforts in the Med did divert some forces. The landings in Italy not only forced German troops into Italy itself but also forced them to committ larger garrisons into Yugoslavia. The point is that the Anglo-American allies did what they could (incl. the strategic bombing campaign, the Murmansk convoys, etc.--and don't forget the need to go after Japan) and, until you provide proof that an earlier invasion of France would've been anything but a disaster, you statement that we betrayed Stalin is conclusory.

    Re Britain, your point about the aerial bombing and V-1 and V-2 rockets attacks is totally non-responsive to my point about Britain having had an opportunity to drop out of the war. The point is that in May 1940, the British War Cabinet actually explored trying to negoatiate their war out of the war, using the Italians as intermediaries. Hitler had actually assumed that Britiain would do something like that and was surprised by British resolution.

    Re the Cold War, yes I have read up on the subject. So which opportunities for detente were wasted? When the Soviets blockaded Berlin in 1948, the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia of that year. The suppression of the Hungarians in 1956 and the Czechoslovaks in 1968. You're going to have to substantiate that argument.

    Likewise, the idea that giving Soviets nukes would've stopped the Cold War is conclusory and utopian. This is given substance by the fact that it was the Soviets who rejected the Baruch Plan. This would've called for nuclear disarmament (which meant, at the time, by just the US), inspections and safeguards to ensure that, and int'l regime for the peaceful exchange and use of nuclear energy).

    Finally, asking Iran to ratify the Additional Protocol and refrain from enrichment until the IAEA is fully satisfied re the activities that Iran spent over a decade concealing isn't "brinksmanship and posturing".

    Posted by brunowe at 04/22/2006 @ 08:18am

  144. well, this is obviously a matter of opinion and a very old beef indeed. I will just call your attention to the Paris summit with Krushchof, sic, there was a huge opportunity that was blown by Eisenhower and the chiefs, when they continued the U2 flights. the Baruch plan confirms my conclusions in that we evidently were rubbing their noses in the fact that we had the nukes and they didn't, so why should they have signed on?

    the talk of "tactical" nukes etc and the talk of wiping Israel off the map, that is brinksmanship and posturing.

    I think in this and in our previous argument, which you were so kind to dredge up again, we have two people mustering facts and issues, which may be right on both sides and the difference is how those facts and issues are interpreted.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/22/2006 @ 09:49am

  145. hey do you think the current bunch running the Habitrail Matrix is selling arms to our enemies?

    or is it just our heavy industry that they are selling?

    Posted by WILL C. 04/22/2006 @ 12:08am

    LMAO. The answer is both.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 10:15am

  146. ORAIBI1952, Yes, "limited nuclear option" was incorrect on my part. Thanks for pointing that out. I said it to make it different from "turning Iran into glass," but, again, I stand corrected. Limited nuclear action is like saying just a little AIDS.

    Nuclear saber rattling is what bad guys do.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/22/2006 @ 12:44am

    My comments on "limited nuclear option" are not directed at you or anyone personally or otherwise.

    I feel very strongly that we cannot allow the "Misleader-in-Chief" to be disingenuous with the American people concerning the serious ramifications of using nuclear weapons on Iran, or any nation.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 10:30am

  147. OR,

    Just caught this line this morning,

    "LL fails to understand that tax deductions are subsidies/welfare.

    Or fails to understand the difference between the cost of doing business and the the profit from doing business.LLs gas is part of the cost of manufacturing or selling his end product, as much as the steel or labor or whatever. By allowing the costs of a product to be subtracted form taxable profit is not welfare but it is separating the profit out so it can be taxed. Corporate Welfare would be giving the company a check for nothing and expecting nothing in return. It would be just a check.

    Prime example is the tax deduction for home mortgage interest paid -- please note that the home ownership tax subsidy is capped and is not granted to the renting population.

    Rentors do not pay interest, so no deduction...unless you want to send them a check with nothing expected in return..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 10:50am

  148. Deductions for automobile gasoline as a cost of doing business, but not for an employee who has to drive to and from work. Note - the owner could get into a different kind of business where he didn't have to use a vehicle.

    Mortgage interest charges on apartments are not passed through to the renters, but are absorbed by the apartment owners; yea, and Brownie did a heckuva job too.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 11:01am

  149. "Note - the owner could get into a different kind of business where he didn't have to use a vehicle."

    Why, if his business model is taking into account all areas and it works, so he feeds his family? An apple cart maybe, but doesn't the person who wholesales the apples to him drive them to the market?

    Is it because you feel he is getting free gas? Many companies provide not only gas, but the car as well for the employee who is out selling their products. It is part of cost of doing business.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 11:06am

  150. JR

    the talk of "tactical" nukes etc and the talk of wiping Israel off the map, that is brinksmanship and posturing.

    On this, we are in agreement.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/22/2006 @ 11:17am

  151. My last comment on the subject of tax breaks as subsidies, which is not related to this blog's topic.

    Tax deductions are subsidies/welfare regardless of who gets them; businesses, business owners, homeowners, etc.; the tax code is one of the tools that we, as a community, set our priorities.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 11:25am

  152. Should read "...we, as a community, use to set our priorities."

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 11:26am

  153. Six months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the CIA had evidence that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction but was ignored by Bush et al. [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 11:35am

  154. ZERO -- for what it's worth, I agree with your clarification on inspections.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 04/22/2006 @ 11:40am

  155. The consistency of your lies about my statements continues to remain the gold standard for leftwing smearing. Work is work and ministry is ministry. You have proven yourself incable of being anything that is the definition of liberalism.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/22/2006 @ 09:50am

    Hmmm... decisions decisions.

    Should I belive the liar...

    or trust the word of a thief?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 11:48am

  156. Bruno, not on the Paris summit? I'm also troubled about the Brits in 1940. as you know the battle of Britain fizzled by October, so when exactly would they have considered pulling out of the war and reaching some kind of accommodation with Adolf?

    this is more in the way of a dialogue rather than an argument.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/22/2006 @ 11:48am

  157. one more thing, the situation in Yugoslavia, had, I believe more to do with the english invasion of Greece,, a cock up that ended with them withdrawing not long after, and Partisan activity in the Balkans, as well as political developments in Yugoslavia, than with the US invasion of Sicily. I believe the entire Italian campaign was a disaster for the americans, a waste really. it was known for 2000 years that an italian campaign favored the defender by far. so if you don't mind shoot back to me on some of these issues.

    I think the consensus among historians is that Eisenhower, while skilled diplomatically, holding together this coalition, was far too cautious militarily, a good manager but NOT a great general.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/22/2006 @ 11:53am

  158. John Kerry will be a guest on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos". [abcnews.go.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 11:54am

  159. JR,

    Re: Eisenhower was cautious general.

    Eisenhower's job was more diplomatic than military; his immediate staff were the war planners and his various combat commanders(Patton, Clark, Bradley, et al) were the war fighters. His role is almost identical to that of today's SACEUR.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 11:57am

  160. "John Kerry will be a guest on ABC's"

    Yawn. So what, expect him to say anything new, or change his history again. Yawn.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 11:59am

  161. Iran and Russian reach an enrichment deal. [tinyurl.com] Oops, there goes another opportunity lost because of Bush's incompetence.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 12:02pm

  162. "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."

    -- William Shakespeare

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 12:07pm

  163. Oraibi, well SOMEONE was too cautious

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/22/2006 @ 12:08pm

  164. JR,

    I think the cautious part was the result of having to build a consensus of action among the allies. It was not anybody's fault singularly; just the inherent nature of combined operations.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 12:14pm

  165. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/22/2006 @ 08:18am: Finally, asking Iran to ratify the Additional Protocol and refrain from enrichment until the IAEA is fully satisfied re the activities that Iran spent over a decade concealing isn't "brinksmanship and posturing".

    It is when you threaten to nuke them if they don't agree to your request.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/22/2006 @ 12:42pm

  166. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/22/2006 @ 09:50am: God.. Hell. Souls... blah. blah. salvation. blah. Good. blah. Evil. blah. blah. Pray.

    Please do not waste your time praying his soul, Mr. "Oh-I-guess-that-means-that-you-are-paying-for-my-gas!-Thanks!!!". I think Will C.'s soul is doing just fine and dandy. It's your soul that is showing some strains.

    Again I repeat my question regarding your Godly principles. Lets see if you have the moral fortitude to answer it. You have indicated in the past that you oppose welfare. Do you really believe that your cruising around in an SUV is more worthy of government subsidies than someone trying to get enough food for their children?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/22/2006 @ 12:55pm

  167. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/22/2006 @ 10:50am: Or fails to understand the difference between the cost of doing business and the the profit from doing business

    As I said earlier, the use of LoveGod's SUV to cruise around the city has little to do with the cost of doing business.

    Furthermore, even if LoveGod had a real business need to cruise to the local mall in his SUV, why should this be subsidized by the government? His workers (assuming he really has any) also need to pay for gas (or other transportation) to get to and from work. Yet, they are NOT allowed to deduct their commuting costs so that they too are only taxed on the "profit" of their labor. What's the principled difference between the commuting costs of the business owner and the commuting costs of his employees?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/22/2006 @ 1:03pm

  168. hey I missed that part of liberty's post to me. My bulshit alarm went off before I got there.

    Thanks Orwell.

    so liberty. Your getting warmer. But your still missing that spark of undertanding. What we know as the ten commandments are the ten hells you create for yourself here on this earth. Any other hell you might find yourself in is created by others.

    and the hot firey place that popular fiction says we go to if we're bad...

    doesn't exist

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 1:07pm

  169. JR

    Happy to, I like a historical discussion now and again. I suppose it wouldn't have hurt to have discontinued the U-2 flights, at least during the summit; I'm not so sure about giving them up permanently before we had satellites.

    Re WWII. I was talking about May of 1940, before the battle began. John Lukacs has a book called Five Days in London: May 1940. This covers the period when the BEF, Belgian and French forces were pinned up against the Channel and before Dunkirk. It was at that point that the British were considering a negotiated piece. I think it's one of history's great what-ifs to ponder what if Hitler had ordered the panzers in at Dunkirk and crushed the BEF. Re Yugoslavia, you're generally correct, what I'm talking about is the knocking of Italy out of the war which forced the Germans to contribute more troops to make up for those Italian occupation troops who were now out of commission. I don't entirely agree about Italy. I think taking the Italian Navy out of the picture, such as it was, and securing the southern third was useful (for strategic bombing bases as well as Mediterranean considerations) but I suppose you could've argued that grabbing Sardinia and Corsica and then threatening the mainland might've been a better idea afterwards then trying to push up past Monte Cassino.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/22/2006 @ 1:31pm

  170. It is when you threaten to nuke them if they don't agree to your request.

    Posted by ORWELL2005 04/22/2006 @ 12:42am

    Yes, it is.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/22/2006 @ 1:32pm

  171. OR,

    "As I said earlier, the use of LoveGod's SUV to cruise around the city has little to do with the cost of doing business. "

    It may or may not be. I don't know his buisiness. I don't believe any commuting is deductable, however, one can either deduct actual milage or the direct cost(gas, repairs, maintance,ect,) as the cost of doing business..Driving to work and home from a salaried job or hourly wage job would not qualify..any more than deducting the cost of riding the bus or subway to an office or factory..

    " the "profit" of their labor. "

    If you are paid salary or wage by the hour, you don't make a profit.. Profits come selling or producing a good or service that incurs added value of some sort above the cost to product it. Wages and salaries are not part of profit but costs of the product or service.

    You are comparing apples and bicycles in your "principle" suggestion.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 1:47pm

  172. Why aren't we doing such things? [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 2:06pm

  173. Not cost effective for the consumer use...yet.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 2:19pm

  174. Bruno, yes, there are many what ifs in that monumental conflict. for Hitler to let the Brits get away at Dunkirk is pretty inexplicable. the french campaign's shortness surprised everyone including the Gröfaz, the greatest leader of all time, Hitler. what does remain though is that there were no plans what to do once the Panzers reached the channel. not dissimilar to the rush toward Baghdad. the invasion of Britain too is a study of ineptitude and wishful thinking. I have a very informative book on operation Sea Lion. As the battle of Britain progressed, the german pilots looking down, realized that preparations for the invasion had stalled, and actually were reversed, while they were throwing away their lives for nothing. that too is similar to our adventure in Iraq. I think it has dawned on the troops and their generals, that their sacrifice is for a lie.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/22/2006 @ 2:27pm

  175. Profits come selling or producing a good or service that incurs added value of some sort above the cost to product it. Wages and salaries are not part of profit but costs of the product or service.

    You are comparing apples and bicycles in your "principle" suggestion.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/22/2006 @ 1:47pm

    I am a wage worker and I have both sold and produced the products whose sales dollars my employer calls profits. My investment to do my job is no less important then his.

    but only he gets the tax break.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 4:05pm

  176. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/22/2006 @ 1:47pm: If you are paid salary or wage by the hour, you don't make a profit.. Profits come selling or producing a good or service that incurs added value of some sort above the cost to product it.

    That is one definition of "profit". A more general definition would be net income or the excess of revenues over outlays. Workers have costs associated with earning their salaries, just like business owners. For whatever reason, our society has decided that most of the costs incurred by the business owner should be deductible, while most of the costs incurred by the worker should not.

    In any event, this is all moot. LoveHut has bragged that he writes off the gas costs of his SUV. Even if he is doing this on the up-and-up (i.e. all of these costs are directly related to his business), his business does NOT require a gas-guzzling SUV. The extra gas consumed is by choice, not necessity. Both you and the LoveShack have indicated in the past that you oppose welfare. Do you really believe that LoveHut's cruising around in an SUV is more worthy of government subsidies than someone trying to get enough food for their children?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/22/2006 @ 4:17pm

  177. Excerpt from John Kerry's speech,"Kerry: A Right and Responsibility to Speak Out", given today at Boston's Faneuil Hall:

    Truth is the American bottom line. Truth above all is fundamental to who we are. It is no accident that among the first words of the first declaration of our national existence it is proclaimed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident…".

    This hall and this Commonwealth have always been at the forefront of seeking out and living out the truth in the conduct of public life. Here Massachusetts defined human rights by adopting our own Bill of Rights; here we took a stand against slavery, for women's suffrage and civil rights for all Americans. The bedrock of America's greatest advances--the foundation of what we know today are defining values--was formed not by cheering on things as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change.

    And here and now we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country demand untrammeled debate and open dissent. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception. For what is at stake here is nothing less than life itself. As the statesman Edmund Burke once said: "A conscientious man should be cautious how he dealt in blood."

    Think about that now--in a new era that has brought old temptations and tested abiding principles.

    Patriotism is truth, today as in Vietnam [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 4:47pm

  178. "These people need to stay the hell out of the voting booth."

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/20/2006 @ 6:58pm

    Frank,

    So are you indicating that liberals have determined that only liberals may express opinions and only liberals can vote? I seemed to have missed that breaking news when the totalitarian socialist regime was announced. I find it ironic that the left is constantly portraying the right as totalitarians, yet there are numerous such commentaries each month on this site from the left.

    Maybe that's why you fear totalitarianism when it is so near and dear to the left.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2006 @ 9:03pm

    All those gas fumes from filling up your SUV must have destroyed your reading comprehension. All Frank said was that they "should" stay out of the voting booth, implying it would be better for the country if they did, not implying the totalitarian conspiracy you portrayed it to be.

    ZERO, Good points but I think it's high time that we cut the cord with Israel. We can survive quite nicely without them but they really can't without us.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/20/2006 @ 7:00pm

    Frank,

    You are on a roll tonight. First you want to eliminate conservatives as citizens in this country, then you want to destroy the Jews.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2006 @ 9:07pm

    Destroy the Jews? Ridiculous. All he said was cut the cord. Are you claiming Israel cannot take care of themselves, and must have the US $ aid to survive? Sounds like your god is a weakling...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/22/2006 @ 6:22pm

  179. JOHANNES, I think you are a bit too biased in your portrayal of WWII history - biased against the USofA. Don't forget that the Red Army marched west, all the way to Berlin, in US boots (7 million pairs, if my memory serves, via lend-lease), or rode west in US trucks. (The ol' "Deuce and a half").

    The Normandy invasion was ppd mainly due to Brittish foot-dragging, and once it went off it didn't divert that much of the German war machine away from the Eastern front, mainly just 2 panzer divisions. In any event, the Russians had already achieved strategic initiative by 1943 anyway, and entered backchannel peace negotiations with the Germans up until just before the German Kursk offensive in '43. (Talk about backstabbing the alliance!)

    Also, in North Africa the Allies captured 300,000 veteran German troops when they sealed the coast. And don't forget America was fighting in two theaters, carrying the lion's share of the burden in the Pacific. Stalin could have helped out by launching an attack on the Japanese in Manchuria, as the one problem he did not face was shortage of manpower. But you never pointed out that, did you?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/22/2006 @ 6:42pm

  180. yes, Physics it might seem that way to you, and everything you say is true. but you might look at it another way. the Africa invasions were to preserve the British colonies, read Egypt. it did little to relieve the russians. also the invasion of Sicily and the italian campaign did little to affect the strategic balance. why not go to France from the start? to get across France is far easier than to slog your way up the boot of Italy. while Stalin was paranoid he has some reason to be so. the americans did not want him in the japanese theatre. I am not saying one side is wrong and the other right, but rather attempt at some balance in very american centric interpretation of history.

    they marched a hell of a lot further west than Berlin. remember I grew up much closer to the red army, the Fulda gap were my stomping grounds. to me the americans always were the good guys and the russians the bad. some study of history has brought me around to a more balanced views.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/22/2006 @ 8:10pm

  181. Let us also not forget that the level of casualties on the part of the Russians made the casualties taken by the rest of the allies look like peanuts.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/22/2006 @ 8:28pm

  182. JR,

    The invasion of Europe, via France and before 1944, was impossible for two primary reasons:

    1. Insufficient logistics to support the effort

    2. Not enough trained, Allied troops to invade France when Germany was at its zenith in power.

    Regarding the fight in North Africa, saving Britain's colonial holdings may have been part of the reason for selecting N. Africa. Too, I'm fairly certain that Rommel and his bunch were not in N. Africa only to free the colonies from British rule -- perhaps the need for oil and their own colonization agenda were part of their reasons for being there.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 8:33pm

  183. The accident of geography and poor judgment by Stalin were the primary reasons for Russia's high casualties.

    Geography is self-explanatory, but we all should remember how Stalin tried to work a diplomatic/military pact with Hitler and H. screwed Stalin. Plus, Stalin killed off many key military and political leaders in one of his infamous purges.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 8:37pm

  184. JR,

    Have been reading the ww2 posts with great interest..a question for you or anybody..

    Did the German High Command, with or with out Hitlers knowledge, offer to fight the Russians and surrender to us, or maybe join forces with US at the end to fight the Russians? The only reference I can remember was from my german relatives and a line in the Patton movie. I do not know what the true history is, or was..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 8:43pm

  185. Also, why was France unable to fight at all? Seems they were never in the fight until after the heavy lifting was done. It always amazed me that all the history news reel films show the French, and Italians, to some degree, cheering the American Soilders in the streets after the battles and the crowd was full of men.

    Since I have had family killed on both sides of that war,both killed in fact in France, it has always made me wonder...inspite of all the French surrender and learning German jokes...underneath is a real question..and inside most humour lies truth to a degree.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 8:48pm

  186. Seldom do the films show black Americans fighting in WWII--perhaps there is some underlying reason why few to none of the allies or black Americans were shown in American films.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 8:55pm

  187. C-Span will broadcast Kerry's Faneuil Hall speech on this Sunday at 10am EDT.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 8:57pm

  188. "C-Span will broadcast Kerry's Faneuil Hall speech on this Sunday at 10am EDT."

    I can already hear the crickets.

    Come on guys, he is a loser.. for you and every America. It is Hillary..everyone knows this.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 9:01pm

  189. JOHN MAASCH:

    To answer your question regarding the Nazis and fighting the USSR, Hitler himself believed that the west would broker a separate peace with them in order to essentially use Nazi Germany as a bulwark against communism. That was one of the reasons for Rudolf Hess's now infamous flight to England.

    As to France and their seeming inability to fight, it's rather a simple issue, for a few of primary reasons. First, France was still, from a military standpoint, in a defensive mindset. Meaning, they were under numerous illusions (as was practically every military high command, save the Nazis) that the next Great War would be a defensive struggle, much like WWI. Hence, the Maginot Line.

    With the advent of what has become known as Blitzkrieg, which was actually more accurately described as continuous combined arms warfare (as as much as 80% of Nazi artillery and supply lines was still horsedrawn), essentially the Nazis basically blew past the French established defensive lines. The Nazis basically ignored static defenses, and instead focused on penetration to the interior, using basic troops to secure static fortifications after the primary command nodes and supply lines were overrun.

    Another issue was the fact that German artillery was vastly superior to EVERYONE'S artillery at the beginning of the war. That includes the use of divebombers, which was essentially used just like traditional artillery, at least in the beginning stages of the French invasion.

    Also, keep in mind that the French (as well as practically everyone else besides the Nazis) believed that they would have ample time to mobilize their forces, rather than the mere 6 weeks from beginning of hostilities to capitulation.

    What I am saying is, it is unfair to say that the French couldn't fight, as I hear many in this country try to claim. The French have ALWAYS been extremely capable at field warfare, hence Napoleon. Keep in mind, that it was simply a matter of the Nazis outplanning the invasion, compared to the French. At that point, had ANY nation, including the US, been adjacent to the Nazis and had been the first strategic target, they would have been overrun, for precisely the reasons I have listed.

    In conclusion, it was a matter of technology making an offensive style of warfare viable.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/22/2006 @ 9:03pm

  190. JM

    I like Jorcheim's points, I'd just like to add some. First, as he pointed out, the French were completely out-thought and out-doctrined. They simply didn't envision the schwerpunkt (never thought I'd get to use that word conversationally) coming through the Ardennes (and indeed, didn't think in terms of an armored schwerpunkt at all) and pinning their best forces against the Channel. Interestingly enough, that wasn't even the Germans' first plan--they were originally going to do another Schlieffen but those plans actually fell into Allied hands.

    So you have the shock at Dunkirk and the French having to fight without the best part of their army. I think some individual areas fought well but the Germans didn't give them enough time to recover materially or psychologically. There was also the aftereffect of the swift conquest of Poland--no one expected them to go down so quicklyand I suspect the Western Allies were starting to think of the Germans as invincible on land.

    NACL and I got into an argument about this, I will admit that his reference to right-wing sympathizers in France being a factor was not totally off-target. I think he grossly underestimated French patriotism and overestimated the right-wing factor but I can imagine some Action Francaise types would probably have felt that they could acclimate themselves to German domination.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/22/2006 @ 9:23pm

  191. BRUNOWE:

    You mentioned morale briefly. People in this country I think discount the importance of good morale, due to the fact that a) they have never been in combat and b) the numbers on people in the US military who don't return fire against hostiles has been deemed statistically negligible. This has only occured in the last 20 years.

    After witnessing the complete collapse (or rather, ineffectiveness of) of the Maginot Line (for reasons explained above) this created a massive morale collapse. Daunting in every sense, again, to anyone living through it.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/22/2006 @ 10:03pm

  192. Jorcheim,

    Your point about morale is an important one. Morale is difficult to maintain among trained, disciplined soldiers; it would be damn near impossible to keep morale among civilians.

    Surviving would be the paramount issue for civilians.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/22/2006 @ 10:22pm

  193. How to identify a hamster conservative...

    he truly believes the french won't fight

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

    Military Deaths

    French: 212,000

    USA: 407,300

    92,000 of the french military death occured in the six weeks prior to dunkirk

    Defending their country.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 11:16pm

  194. Jor,Brunowe, and Or,

    Thank you for the responses..consider this story from my German and American family branch...where to a great degree is the same story and I will try to be succint...My american family member who went through Italy campaign and invasion of Europe D-Day and all....it goes like this...when ever the fight became close, as in block by block and house by house, in Italy and France, where a house or block was damaged or destroyed, the people of the house,(men) moved out and down the road. When they hit inside Gewrmany, soon after a similar battle, the German guy, instead of moving down the road, stayed back and was trying to rebuild his house or whatever. I don't know if it is true, but I heard the same story from my German family coming off the Russian front.

    The reason I even site this, is that why couldn't and didn't the French man, living in his own country at least try to resist (I am not eliminating the French underground),and I am talking about a huge population..not just a few thosand, but millions did nothing. This is n ot a dump on the French,which admittedly they make it easy to do, but rather I am trying to extrapolate this to Iraq to some degree. I would fight for my land, country family, way of life, whatever like a wild MFer... I don't think in activity can be written off as low morale.

    The people on flight 93 didn't act that way and I pity the poor foolish bastards that ever try to land invade the US. With the amount of guns in our hands and attitude of Americans..they would slaughter the invader brutaly. And daily. History has huge gaps and since we are all human should exhibit 90%+ same reactions in similar situations...

    BTW, schwerpunkt..great word,..are you German?

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 11:16pm

  195. How to identify a hamster conservative...

    he truly believes the french won't fight

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 11:17pm

  196. Will,

    That is an amazing web site.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

    wow, a lot to digest..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 11:30pm

  197. No... it's not amazing

    It's just stuff you need to know before you open your mouth.

    But it does sum up nicely a good portion of the knowledge that I picked up along the way while learning how to be an effective soldier.

    Of course I brain dumped most of the details after getting out. But as far as France is concerned, when you lose 90000+ soldiers in a six week campaign defending your country from an invader using a new type of warfare...

    I personally believe that demonstrates a willingness to fight.

    Apparently you fellas have a different standard.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 11:40pm

  198. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/22/2006 @ 11:30pm: That is an amazing web site.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

    wow, a lot to digest..

    Wow, Will C., you got Mr. Maasch to enter the world of knowledge. Quite a coup, there. Congrats.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/22/2006 @ 11:40pm

  199. Or,

    Please...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 11:43pm

  200. JM

    No, I just know a little military history. My first grown-up book was B.H. Liddle Hart's History of the Second World War, read at age 11. Schwerpunkt, as you know, means "focal point" and was used to refer to the breakthrough point of a blitzkrieg which would then be exploited.

    I can't see I know the total number of French who did nothing (and note, there were probably many forms of resistance that didn't involve violence--rulebook slow-downs at factories, etc.). I honestly don't know enough of France under occupation to say for sure (meaning I'm probably on Amazon.com in the next few days hunting down books on the subject). Part of the equation was that France had been demographically burnt-out by WWI, with there being a huge shortage of military-age men in 1940.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/22/2006 @ 11:47pm

  201. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/22/2006 @ 11:43pm: Or, Please...

    Sorry. I am happy to hear that you have discovered Wikipedia. Enjoy. While you're at it, you might want to check out some other non-partisan reality-based sites. You might discover some more amazing sites.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/22/2006 @ 11:48pm

  202. Wow, Will C., you got Mr. Maasch to enter the world of knowledge. Quite a coup, there. Congrats.

    Posted by ORWELL2005 04/22/2006 @ 11:40pm

    it won't take

    Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2006 @ 11:49pm

  203. JOHN MAASCH:

    I honestly can't speak to the veracity of your familial story. But honestly it wouldn't surprise me. But neither would it surprise me that it was false.

    The bottom line is this. It's impossible to try to understand what was going on culturally in France at the time of WWII. The country had been overrun, and was being occupied. There was a substantial number of Frenchmen who were involved in the underground, fighting against the said occupation.

    But consider a couple of things. First, the Nazis were explicitedly homocidal. Homocide was the punishment for conspiring against their regime, their occupation. While it is quite obvious to most with a brain that our occupation of Iraq is not only illegal, but immoral, and hypocritical, we have not issued EXPLICITEDLY homocidal orders to our troops on the ground.

    Second, the pope didn't stand up and call for a holy war against the Nazis (much to the shame of the pope). It's a religious/cultural issue. When your pope not only doesn't openly stand in defiance of such illegalities, but tacitly supports what is going on, that has a substantial negative effect on people's conceptions of sheer reality.

    A really good question is, why didn't the Jews fight back against the Nazis? Isn't it just as valid a question? Why do we pile on the French all the time, and yet say nothing of Jewish inactivity vis-a-vis their racial/cultural/social destruction?

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/22/2006 @ 11:53pm

  204. BRUNOWE:

    To add to your point about demographics in France, fully 1/3 of their annual national budget was set aside for veterans affairs/benefits. All due to WWI. That says a lot, in my opinion.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/22/2006 @ 11:56pm

  205. Jorcheim

    the numbers on people in the US military who don't return fire against hostiles has been deemed statistically negligible.

    Are you sure that you didn't mean that the numbers who DID return fire was negligible?

    Posted by brunowe at 04/23/2006 @ 12:01am

  206. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

    WWI military casualties

    France: 1,375,800

    USA: 126,000

    Posted by Will C. at 04/23/2006 @ 12:05am

  207. combined military casualties WWI + WWII (my calculation)

    France: 1,587,800

    USA: 533,330

    Posted by Will C. at 04/23/2006 @ 12:10am

  208. How to identify a hamster conservative...

    he truly believes the french won't fight

    Posted by Will C. at 04/23/2006 @ 12:10am

  209. BRUNOWE:

    No, the number of soldiers currently who won't return fire when under fire is considered statistically negligible. In WWII, the percentage was around 1/3 overall. That means in 60 years, the number of people under arms who would fight back has proportionally gone up considerably. In Nam it was approximately 75%, fyi.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/23/2006 @ 12:38am

  210. You know, the thing that always amazes me about conservatives is the points in history they focus on and the stereotypes they create from those select points. What they fail to realize is that history is like life. It is one long, unbroken chain of events with each link helping to create the next link. For research sake, we focus on easily definable actions and in doing so treat them as thought they are separate and distinct as opposed to being the root cause of the next easily definable action.

    The actions before, during and after WWI precipitated WWII. The actions, before during and after WWII precipitated the Cold War. The actions before, during and after the Cold War precipitated Iraq, then 9/11 and then Iraq again. And what we are doing today will precipitate what will happen tomorrow

    The men who boarded the troop transports to go fight in the trenches of Europe never knew that they were link in a chain of events that would bring us here to where we are right now. They thought they were fighting to end war. And as each subsequent link was forged, we carried that hope forward through the next war. But none of us have been fighting to end war. We've been fighting to start war... the next war

    And here we are again at war.

    How mild or horrible will our next war be?

    And will we ever be smart enough or wise enough to know that to end this dance with war, we must break the chain that precipitates war and begin to forge a new chain that precipitates peace.

    When this will happen, I can't answer. But I can guarantee this. One day this chain will be break.

    But when that happens… will any humans be left to know it.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/23/2006 @ 12:55am

  211. correction.. will break

    Posted by Will C. at 04/23/2006 @ 12:56am

  212. Bush meets privately with Think Tank that advocates attacking Iran. [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/23/2006 @ 10:06am

  213. "According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, we cannot foreswear the fool's gold of information secured by torturing prisoners or creating a shadow justice system with no rules and no transparency." John Kerry, Faneuil Hall, 2006 April 22.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/23/2006 @ 11:16am

  214. Bush-Cheney Doctrine:

    And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford.

    Let's call it the Bush-Cheney Doctrine.

    According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, alliances and international institutions are now disposable--and international institutions are dispensable or even despicable.

    According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, we cannot foreswear the fool's gold of information secured by torturing prisoners or creating a shadow justice system with no rules and no transparency.

    According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, unwarranted secrecy and illegal spying are now absolute imperatives of our national security.

    According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, those who question the abuse of power question America itself.

    According to the Bush-Cheney doctrine, an Administration should be willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the Iraq war, but unwilling to spend a few billion dollars to secure the American ports through which nuclear materials could make their way to terrorist cells.

    According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, executive powers trump the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

    According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, smearing administration critics is not only permissible, but necessary--and revealing the identity of a CIA agent is an acceptable means to hide the truth.

    The raw justification for abandoning so many American traditions exposes the real danger of the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. We all understand we are in a long struggle against jihadist extremism. It does represent a threat to our vital security interests and our values. Even the Bush-Cheney Administration acknowledges this is preeminently an ideological war, but that's why the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is so ill-equipped to fight and win it.

    Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law.

    Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends.

    And so there's the crowning irony: the Bush-Cheney Doctrine holds that many of our great traditions cannot be maintained; yet the Bush-Cheney policies, by abandoning those traditions, give Osama bin Laden and his associates exactly what they want and need to reinforce their hate-filled ideology of Islamic solidarity against the western world.

    John Kerry, "Kerry: A Right and Responsibility to Speak Out", Faneuil Hall, 2006 April 22

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/23/2006 @ 12:06pm

  215. Ari Berman questions Howard Dean:

    Ari Berman: Governor, Democrats keep saying that 2006 should be a year of transition in Iraq. But what if it's a year of collapse, like we're seeing now, where things really spiral out of control? John Kerry has a plan that he came out with that basically says, "if the Iraqis don't get a government, we should withdraw immediately. Even if they do get a government, we should withdraw within a year." I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that plan, and two, do you think that Republicans may try or that the military may try to pull some sort of October surprise wherein troops get withdrawn close to the election?

    Dean: Well I don't think the military will. I think the military's there doing what their commander in chief tells them to do, even though the commander in chief doesn't seem very interested in hearing their advice on the subject, nor has for a long time, including before we went there. I think that … first of all, I think that John Kerry's piece was very good. Secondly, there'd be some dispute among Democrats about those dates, but I don't think there's dispute about the general tactic that he was advancing. I don't believe he used the word "withdraw," and this is not about withdrawing troops from the Mideast, well, not all of them. This is about redeploying folks and dealing with this in a different way. What he is advocating really is some variation of Krepinevich, which is put folks on the periphery, don't expose the troops to daily attacks, don't exacerbate the anger Iraqis have toward us about the search-and-seizure methods we have to use in order to rout out any … air attacks we'd have to use in order to get at insurgents, but do have troops in the region that could respond to really serious threats to either regional security or our national security. It makes sense. Again, you'd get some quibbling about the dates, but I don't think there are very many Democrats who agree with the idea, the President's idea, that this is a problem to be solved by the next President.

    The essential problem that the American people realize is that this President got us into this without having any idea how to get us out of it, and now he wants to leave it to the next President. Well, that's really great leadership. And so, I think the kinds of things John Kerry wrote about, and others have written about, are eventually going to be the course that gets pursued. This administration's trying to figure out, I think, how to adopt our plan without making it obvious that that's what they're doing.

    Breakfast with Mr. Dean [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/23/2006 @ 12:15pm

  216. Rummy's "Long Screwdriver".

    Excerpt from Chris Matthews' Hardball show's transcript (emphasis added):

    MATTHEWS: Thank you, David Shuster.

    Former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke wrote an op-ed in Sunday‘s "Washington Post" that supported the calls from retired generals for Rumsfeld to resign.

    He wrote, quote, "In the end, the case for changing the secretary of defense seems to me to be overwhelming. Put simply, the failed strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be fixed as long as Rumsfeld remains at the epicenter of the chain of command. Unless the secretary of defense is replaced, the policy will not and cannot change."

    Richard Holbrooke, welcome.

    RICHARD HOLBROOKE, FMR. U.N. AMBASSADOR: Thanks, Chris.

    MATTHEWS: Richard, let me ask you about this question. You‘re very strong here. Is it fair to hang this war policy on the secretary of defense?

    HOLBROOKE: No of course not, Chris, in the sense that there are many, many goats who can be scaped here, and I‘m not interested in scapegoating people. But, as I point out in the article, there are only two people higher than the secretary of defense in our chain of command, and they were hey leaked, Bush and Cheney.

    And Rumsfeld is at the epicenter of the chain of command, as you know, and I was just in Afghanistan, you can see evidence of his famous long screwdriver all the way to Kabul. He made a series of enormous mistakes. Everybody I have talked to privately in the military believes that he will continue to do so. Some can‘t speak out because they‘re loyal or they‘re in service.

    But if we want to fix the policy and no one think it‘s going right, we have got to change the man who is at the steering wheel.

    MATTHEWS: Can you explain what it is that he did wrong? Let‘s start with Iraq. What did he do wrong in terms of Iraq, carrying out the president‘s policy there?

    HOLBROOKE: Well, the secretary of defense is in charge of the strategic goal and applying it, so while President Bush undoubtedly made the historic decision to go into Iraq--there‘s no denying that--it was Don Rumsfeld who was in charge of running the war. He was our minister of war.

    He made the decision to go in with insufficient numbers of troops. He was responsible for the decision to disband the army. He was responsible because it was explicitly stated at the Pentagon, not the State Department was in charge in 03-04, for many of the famously bad decisions involved.

    But I want to be clear here. Accountability is vitally important, but he has lost the confidence of senior military officials in uniform, many of them will not go public and if they‘re in uniform still, they really can‘t go public, because if they go public, they have to resign. What we‘re talking about here is fixing the problem before it‘s too late.

    And I am concerned. The president is in a hellishly difficult position, Chris. He either sticks with Rumsfeld and the situation can deteriorate or he yields to external pressure. And we all know George W. Bush doesn‘t want to do that, but what‘s at stake here is the lives of American men and women who are being put in difficult, dangerous situations because of a failed strategy with no sign of improvement.

    MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about two situations, Afghanistan and Iraq right now. What are we doing wrong in Afghanistan right now? What are we doing wrong in Iraq right now?

    HOLBROOKE: I just got back from Afghanistan two weeks ago, extensive talks with all the senior people, international, U.S., military, and so on, and it seems to me clear that in Afghanistan, we were right to go in and we cannot leave.

    And I want to be clear on this. I 100 percent support the commitment in Afghanistan. But because if we withdraw al Qaeda and Taliban will come back, and we will be right back where we started. But al Qaeda and the Taliban are hiding in the sanctuaries just inside the Pakistan border. We can‘t go in after them. That would be an unsuccessful military operating if we attempted it and a political explosion.

    So we have to do better on the ground inside Afghanistan. The drug program is a total failure. We have spent last year alone, $900 million, U.S. taxpayer money, and by the U.S. government‘s own public that resulted in a four percent decrease in poppy production. In other words, we wasted $900 million, Chris, when the entire annual budget of Afghanistan is only $800 million.

    Secondly, the Afghan rebels, the Taliban, are getting bolder. Where are they getting their money from? The drug programs. The road program is not working. The progress is slow in every area. Now I need to stress, I support this commitment. I believe we‘re going to be in Afghanistan much longer than Iraq, Chris, but we have to be ready to do this and we have to do it right. The long screwdriver is part of the problem here. There are many others. In Iraq--

    MATTHEWS: Explain that if you can, Richard. What is the long screwdriver metaphor?

    HOLBROOKE: The long screwdriver is an extraordinarily vivid metaphor used in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan for the 9,000-mile length of the micromanagement, this is their words, not mine, of the secretary of defense. You can see this on specific programs like training of the Afghan army, training of the Iraqi army.

    Don Rumsfeld is a very tough man and by the way, he‘s a very smart man. And when he has an opinion, as you well know, you‘ve interviewed him, he sticks to it and he has not allowed the people in the field to get it right, and he needs to move on so that somebody else can rethink the programs from the bottom up. The long screwdriver is the military‘s phrase for the way he operates.

    MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a real tough question, but it‘s a bottom line question. We were not technically defeated in Vietnam. Of course you know our forces withdrew under a policy of Vietnamization, and they were all basically going at the time Saigon fell, but we still think of ourselves as having lost that war. Could we find ourselves saying that about Afghanistan and Iraq under Rumsfeld‘s policies?

    HOLBROOKE: As you know I spent three and a half years in Vietnam and I feel that deeply. In the sense that we did not achieve our stated objectives, we cannot view Vietnam as a success. The debate about what went wrong will go on as long as you and I and our friends are alive to continue arguing it. Can that happen in Iraq? I‘m afraid so.

    Even now, you can see the administration constantly redefining success downward. You don‘t hear talk about democracy anymore, you don‘t hear talk about the road to peace in Israel lies through Baghdad. All of that rhetoric is gone. We are clinging and the situation in Iraq is taking dramatic turns for the worse. Everyone knows it. It‘s a heartbreaking situation with enormously negative consequences for our strategic position.

    MATTHEWS: So which is--you said something very interesting a couple of minutes ago, Richard, that it could well be that we will have troops in Afghanistan longer than we have them in Iraq.

    HOLBROOKE: Not could, Chris, will. I will bet you--we‘ll come on the show together 10 years from today. We‘ll come in on our wheelchairs, wheel in the host Matthews and the guest Holbrooke and we will be talking about Afghanistan. We can‘t leave because we cannot stop the Taliban as long as they have safe sanctuary.

    We can‘t stop al Qaeda as long as they have a safe sanctuary. Yet we cannot afford to leave Afghanistan and we are going to have to get it right and it is a long-term prospect and I think the administration does not want to say that publicly, because it casts an additional shadow on the problem in Iraq.

    But in retrospect it‘s clear that General Franks and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made a historic error when they began to strip the forces out of Afghanistan in 2003 to get ready to attack--excuse me, 2002, when they got ready to attack Iraq before they finished the job in Afghanistan. We discussed this on your program and elsewhere at the time, but the full cost of it is only clear now.

    MATTHEWS: OK. We have to go now. Richard Holbrooke, thank you for joining us. Mr. Holbrooke is calling for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense.

    Rummy's "Long Screwdriver" [msnbc.msn.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/23/2006 @ 12:51pm

  217. But "I[Iraq President Jalal Talabani (America's Kurd puppet)] have expressed my concern over these concentrations[Turkish and Iranian forces concentrate on Iraq's borders] ... Iraq is a sovereign independent nation that won't let other nations interfere in its internal affairs," he said at a press conference with U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in the northern city of Irbil.

    Bush's justification for attacking Iran? [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/23/2006 @ 3:08pm

  218. Although there are growing numbers of people protesting against Bush's inevitable bombing of Iran I think they have failed to understand the visceral mindset and intractible position that once Bush is determined to have his way, nobody can dissuade him. Former Carter national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski stated recently, "American policy should not be swayed by the current contrived atmosphere of urgency ominously reminiscent of what preceded the misguided intervention in Iraq"

    However, Brzezinski and others overlook the fact that Bush couldn't care less about diplomacy or avoiding war since War itself is Bush's elixir. Bush has stated, "I'm the War president," "War is on my mind" and "I get to make the call (going to war with Iraq) not you," he jeered at a reporter prior to his March 2003 preemptive invasion of that country.

    War is what makes this little tyrant tick. Surely Mr. Brzezinski and others can't have seriously analyzed Bush's inherent pugnacious, uncompromising nature and personality.

    One point that should be made by those who oppose bombing Iran in addition to inflaming the Islamic world which has already reached apocalyptic anti-U.S. proportions (thanks to Bush)if Bush bombs Iran, any one of the many stray bunker-buster, nuclear-tipped bombs dropped from stealth B-2 bombers and F-22 Raptor fighter planes could easily crack or destroy one of Iran's nuclear reactors setting off toxic radiation which would quickly spread to other countries (including Israel) killing tens of thousands of people.

    Does Bush give a crap? Not just no, but hell no. He didn't think through the preemptive bombing of a broken country that had virtually no military to speak of nor anticipate the consequences in the aftermath of his undermanned, ill-conceived Iraq invasion, so why should he have any more sanity now?

    Besides, does anyone seriously believe that the oil companies who own America give a crap what happens to Bush's approval numbers? They've gotten what they want and it would make no difference to them if it was Bush or somebody else in the White House, they would treat the figurehead leader the same, whether Republican or Democrat.

    They would just as soon let the lame duck Bush twist in the wind while the chattering masses squeal out with anger over soaring energy costs. Bombing Iran would occupy the headlines and keep the heat off of the syndicate of thieves who have bought our country and are now taking America down the path to ruin.

    Posted by richard38 at 04/23/2006 @ 4:05pm

  219. Jorcheim, You strike me as the kind of guy who has an "itchy" trigger finger. Murder is for morons. And your clinical discussions of warmaking are the domain of fifteen-year-old fantasies. You simply are not, a particularly bright guy; rather a smug fool with too much time on his hands, and an ego to match.

    I'll defer to decency, (for once) So...Kiss my ass.

    Spring will be around for awhile!

    Bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 04/24/2006 @ 12:21am

  220. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3314halliburton_war.html

    Halliburton's War by Jeffrey Steinberg

    The story of the willful sabotage of the opportunity to end an unwarranted and unjust invasion of Iraq, with at least some semblance of stability in the Persian Gulf, has been documented by eyewitnesses with impeccable credentials. Bernard Trainor, a highly respected, retired three-star Marine Corps general, and New York Times military correspondent Michael Gordon have catalogued the role of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, and George Shultz and Henry Kissinger-protégé L. Paul Bremer, in the sabotage of the plan for a successful American withdrawal from Iraq. While Trainor and Gordon's new book, Cobra II: the Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (New York: Pantheon Books, 2006) does not take up the consequences of the sabotage, in ushering in Halliburton, Bechtel, and a legion of smaller PMCs, it does provide a damning indictment of the Cheney-led neo-con insurgency that is critical to comprehending the bigger picture.

    And two senior officials in the first term of the Bush-Cheney Administration, Colonel Wilkerson and National Security Council senior director for Middle East affairs Flynt Leverett, came forward in late March to reveal how Cheney directly blocked a proposal from Tehran for a comprehensive U.S.-Iranian direct dialogue, at the same time that the Iraq situation was being sabotaged almost beyond repair. Wilkerson and Leverett provided their damning account to historian Gareth Porter, who reported it in a March 29 Inter Press Service (IPS) story, "Neocons Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks With Iran."

    The man that Cheney and company chose to kill both initiatives was a longtime George Shultz and Henry Kissinger protégé, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer.

    Bremer made it clear that his appointment as proconsul in Baghdad was a Cheney-Rumsfeld manuever. The two people who called him, to solicit his help in Iraq were: Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Cheney's chief of staff and chief national security aide; and Paul Wolfowitz. Bremer had worked with both men in George Shultz's State Department during the Reagan years.

    For Rumsfeld, one of Bremer's greatest qualifications was that he had never served in Southwest Asia, and had no ties to the "damned Arabists" at the State Department, CIA, and DIA, who considered Rumsfeld and Cheney's approach to the Iraq occupation to be madness.

    For over a year, the Administration had been divided over the drafting of a National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) on Iran, with Administration "realists," led by Powell, arguing for a continuation of the Clinton Administration's policy of diplomatic engagement. The Cheney/Rumsfeld-led neo-cons, centered in the Office of the Vice President and in Feith's Pentagon Office of Special Plans (OSP), penned their own draft NSPD, calling for regime change, and even suggesting a role for the terrorist MEK.

    According to U.S. intelligence community sources who spoke to EIR, it is believed that the OSP draft was prepared by Michael Rubin, a protégé of neo-con Richard Perle, who would spend six months in Iraq on Bremer's CPA staff. What is certain is that by no later than February 2003, a copy of the OSP Policy draft had been delivered to Israeli Embassy officials by OSP Iran desk officer Larry Franklin, who was subsequently indicted and pleaded guilty to passing classified material to Israel and to two officials of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

    When the letter from Iran arrived in Washington, the already simmering battle inside the Bush Administration escalated into an all-out, behind-the-scenes policy brawl. Powell pressed President Bush for approval to have Khalilzad resume the Geneva channel of talks, which had produced positive results on Afghanistan after 9/11. The neo-cons, according to then-NSC Middle East chief Leverett, balked. "They were saying we didn't want to engage with Iran because we didn't want to owe them," he told Porter.

    Although President Bush did approve the Khalilzad Geneva talks with Iran, by the end of May, the whole deal had been scotched. Wilkerson blames the "secret cabal" headed by Cheney: "The secret cabal got what it wanted; no negotiations with Tehran." But he acknowledges, "As with many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no fingerprints." He did not hesitate to offer his own educated guess as to who had shut down the Iran channel: "I would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W. Bush."

    In fact, the Administration stalemate represented a clear victory for Cheney and Rumsfeld. By April 1, the entire Geneva channel had been permanently shut, and, as of October 2003, Franklin would quietly inform the Israelis that all work on a final National Security Policy Directive on Iran had been shut down.

    Just before he left for Baghdad, Bremer had met with a friend, James Dobbins, who had been a State Department trouble-shooter, and who had served in Afghanistan and the Balkans. Now at the RAND Corporation, Dobbins had just presided over a study of the history of nation-building, over the past 60 years, the results of which he shared with Bremer. The essential point of the RAND study was that any effective nation-building mission required a 1:50 ratio of peacekeepers to civilians. That was the size of the various Balkan peacekeeping forces. By that standard, between 450,000 and 500,000 U.S. troops would have been required in Iraq.

    According to Trainor and Gordon, Bremer passed along a copy of the study to Rumsfeld, who promptly threw it in the garbage.

    Posted by plunger at 04/24/2006 @ 08:06am

  221. Iran is flanked on both sides by US forces and we're supposed to believe that the first act of the Newly (installed) President is to call for the destruction of Israel while throwing in his denial of the Holocaust for good measure...and now throwing out the nuclear inspectors? I mean really, this is ridiculous on its face, right?

    Who put the Shah in power? Who put Noriega in Power? Who put Saddam in power?

    Do you REALLY believe this guy's not working for us? Why would you?

    THINK

    Posted by plunger at 04/24/2006 @ 08:07am

  222. The Grand Uniter (aka "The Decider") demonstrates his handiwork again.

    In threatening the Iranian people with nuclear attacks, President Bush illustrates his infamous facility for uniting the world against the American people. [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/24/2006 @ 11:31am

  223. BLOPPY:

    Holy shit... that comment came out of left field. Perhaps if you actually had read some of my posts in the past, you wouldn't make such moronic blanket statements about someone of whom you know nothing.

    You said:

    Jorcheim, You strike me as the kind of guy who has an "itchy" trigger finger. Murder is for morons. And your clinical discussions of warmaking are the domain of fifteen-year-old fantasies. You simply are not, a particularly bright guy; rather a smug fool with too much time on his hands, and an ego to match.

    My response:

    I personally am a pacifist, and have been for quite some time. However, I study history, and by association, warfare, for as Clausewitz once said, "War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means." For as any true student of history will tell you, unless you know your past, you are destined to repeat it.

    It is important to look at history with objective eyes in order to be able to understand it, then add moral judgments later. I take umbrage that you would assume anything about me, other than the fact that I am simply a fellow poster on the Nation. A question was posted regarding WWII, and seeing as it is a subject about which I have a great deal of knowledge, especially the military repercussions of political decisions, it was an appropriate post.

    Do not ever talk to me again, as you have proven that, while considering yourself a progressive, you are, in fact, no better than Alludra/NACL/et al. Your bile deserves to be emptied upon yourself, not on here.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/24/2006 @ 3:42pm

  224. BLOPPY, is there anyone on this blog you haven't insulted yet?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/24/2006 @ 4:41pm

  225. A really good question is, why didn't the Jews fight back against the Nazis? Isn't it just as valid a question? Why do we pile on the French all the time, and yet say nothing of Jewish inactivity vis-a-vis their racial/cultural/social destruction?

    Posted by JORCHEIM 04/22/2006 @ 11:53pm

    They did, actually. In Warsaw in 1944. They had Molotov cocktails and rifles, mostly. You may be able to guess the outcome, considering their lack of advanced weaponry...

    At the time, the Soviets halted their westward offensive, and the Germans had a respite in which to crush the uprising. Historians have debated if Stalin wanted to play it this way or if the Red Army simply had reached their supply limits and the offensive couldn't be continued. It is an interesting question...

    One thing that got left out of the discussion regarding the fall of France in 1940: The French actually had superiority of numbers in tanks! Their tank quality was overall superior as well, although by the end of the war the Germans had developed the best tanks in the world.

    But the French deployed their tanks piecemeal with the infantry, as opposed to organizing indepent panzer divisions like the Germans did. Nothing like 400 tanks supported with mechanized infantry and dive bombers to punch a hole in an infantry line.

    Same story in 1941, when the Germans invaded Russia. They had about 2,800 tanks, versus about 19,000 for the Soviets (no, it isn't a typo). Although most of the Soviet tanks were obsolete, they did have the T-34 in small numbers and it surprised the shit out of the Germans when they first encountered it.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/24/2006 @ 4:51pm

  226. the thing to remember about the french and the british use of tanks, is that they completely misunderstood tank warfare. they spread their tanks around, among their infantry troops, thereby diluting their power, essentially using them as fixed cannon, they also dug them in. the germans used a technique first discussed in the 30s by Liddell Hart, whose history of WW2 I have been recommending, which we now know as the Blitzkrieg. that is using the tanks' speed, keeping them in a tight formation and separating from the infantry, and letting them catch up later.

    I am not the only one holding the view that France should have been invaded right away. In the book" the people's war" Angus Calder describes the US being drawn into Churchill's private mediterranean war.the british lost their empire in North Africa anyway

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/24/2006 @ 6:08pm

  227. on the occasion of Osama's latest tape, it occurs to me that Osama is more powerful today than he was on 9/11. he lays a fart and the whole world is talking about it. Bush actually bases his foreign policy on what Osama has said on his latest tape, shameless, because he did not capture him.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/24/2006 @ 6:13pm

  228. First and foremost, though I know this topic was abandoned a while ago, I fail to understand why the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of troops from Iraq is anything near a good idea. Regardless of what you think about the invasion itself, a withdrawal from Iraq before a sufficient Iraqi military and police force can take the place of the US military would destroy Iraq. The only response that I've ever heard to this is that the US occupation force is inflaming resistance, and there are serious flaws with this argument. For one, if the claims of a current civil war are true, they demonstrate that the Iraqi population is not rallying against us, and therefore casts serious doubt on the claim that we're inflaming resistance. More importantly, though, the consequences of Iraq having no means whatsoever to ensure its internal and external security would be awful; Iraq would be open to massive manipulation and destabilization by other state and nonstate actors in the region, and that would be a real problem for Middle Eastern stability.

    As far as Iran goes, our belief that the current regime possesses or aims to possess nuclear weapons isn't terribly far-fetched, and the existence of such weapons would be a massive threat to international stability. A leader, supported by many of the same forces who helped to drive out the US-backed Shah, who openly supports the destruction of Israel, is probably not someone who should have nuclear weapons. If he doesn't, and isn't trying to obtain them, a war against Iran is clearly unjustified. If he does, though, it's far less clear. The possibility of a nuclear attack on Israel, if legitimate, must be taken under serious consideration.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/24/2006 @ 7:02pm

  229. Thrawn, what you are basically saying is :"stay the course", thank you Mr. Bush

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/24/2006 @ 7:31pm

  230. Well, if staying in Iraq is comparatively better than not staying in Iraq, yes, that is what I'm saying. Simply saying "well, that's what Bush says" isn't a response to the arguments that I gave.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/24/2006 @ 10:21pm

  231. Thrawn,

    Bush's policy for withdrawing U.S. soldiers from Iraq was (paraphrasing) "as Iraqis stand-up, we'll stand down". The Bush Administration says that Iraq has 240 thousand trained troops; so, why haven't most of the U.S. troops been removed from Iraq?

    The Bush Administration's own words seem to provide strong evidence of another Bush lie.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/24/2006 @ 10:32pm

  232. It's entirely possible that 240,000 troops isn't enough to maintain stability in Iraq. If it is, then we should probably withdraw pretty soon, and if it isn't, we shouldn't. That's all I'm defending.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/24/2006 @ 10:43pm

  233. I re-re-predict, that the W'ussy's poll approval numbers will be in the 20's by this August. Yet another shoe drops, more lies once believed, revealed; another door closes as the window opened. W'ussy's overall tenure in office was and is based on his own inadequacies and fear of their exposure. W'ussy didn't become the worst president in US history--W'ussy 'was' always meant to be the worst president ever-- from the very first day to his very last day; the US citizenry only awakes from the spike only slowly and lately. One silver lining, because of the W'orsification, legiislation, no one less qualified than the W'ussy will ever be allowed to 'take' the office of the executive ever again-- the harsh lesson learned.

    PRESIDENT BUSH ñ Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls See also: Complete trend

    Survey________Dates___________Approve____Disapprove__Unsure__Difference

    CNN__________4/21-23/06_________32_________60________8_______-28

    FOX/Opinion

    Dynamics RV___4/18-19/06_________33_________57_______10_______-24

    Pew__________4/7-16/06__________35_________55_______10_______-20

    Gallup________4/10-13/06_________36_________59________5_______-23

    L.A. Times/

    Bloomberg_____4/8-11/06_________39_________57________4_______-18

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/24/2006 @ 10:53pm

  234. Thrawn,

    The goal for Iraqi troops is 278,000 according to Bush's Defense Department, according to Bush's own words.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/24/2006 @ 11:15pm

  235. We are the deciders

    By Sheila Samples Online Journal Contributing Writer

    Apr 24, 2006, 01:48

    "There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    The administration and the Pentagon's aggressive disinformation pundits want us to believe this issue is political; merely disgruntled generals attempting to stir up a mutiny within the ranks and breed discontent within the populace before an upcoming election. If you believe that, you're not paying attention. The generals being trashed for speaking out are patriots who have committed their entire lives to honorably serving and protecting the Republic and all it stands for, and are no longer able to remain silent when they see it being wantonly destroyed.

    George Bush seems to think [sic] that Rumsfeld is doing a heckuva job. He says he doesn't "appreciate the speculation" about his buddy "Don." He's the decider, Bush says. He reads the front page. Bush hears voices and he listens to them. "But mine is the final decision," he says. "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense."

    But this is not about politics. It's about stopping the madness -- and the giggling madman whose aggressive stupidity and exaggerated sense of himself have brought shame to this once proud nation.

    Henry Kissinger once said, "Of all the despots I've had to deal with, none was more ruthless than Donald Rumsfeld." With Rumsfeld, it's about rendition, brutal torture, sexual humiliation and ghoulishly insane war crimes. It's about a group of immensely brave apolitical patriots being forced to do what the US Congress and the US media steadfastly refuse to do -- tell the American people the truth. The blood dripping from the corpses in Iraq is nothing compared to that literally gushing from those who know what is going on, but choose to remain silent.

    This is not about Rumsfeld "transforming" the Army. It's about the calculated destruction of all the services. It's about privatizing the military -- contracting out US security to war profiteers such as Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater. It's about psychological operations (PsyOps) teams and death squads roaming throughout Iraq murdering innocents in their homes and mosques, gunning down anything that moves in the streets. It's about a secretary of defense not only ordering torture, but getting personally involved in it.

    This is not about whether Rumsfeld should be replaced. It is about whether he should be hanged for not supporting those for whom he is responsible. It is about sending hundreds of thousands of Americans into the mayhem of an insurgent battlefield; many to certain death as a result of improper training, lack of protective armor and lack of proper equipment.

    It is about Rumsfeld "disappearing" the nearly 2,400 dead service members who continue to return in the dead of night without honor. It is about 35 families who will drop to their knees tonight and pray for the safety of their children, not knowing they are already dead. It is about more than 20,000 soldiers and marines evacuated from Rumsfeld's war, many physically and mentally damaged beyond repair -- nearly 12,000 of them suffering from disease. This is about destroying entire populations with Depleted Uranium, including many future generations of Americans.

    Of course Rumsfeld must go. And, ultimately, he will take George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and the rest of the depraved warmongers with him. The American people have finally had enough of aggressive stupidity.

    And we are the deciders.

    http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_727.shtml

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/24/2006 @ 11:26pm

  236. First and foremost, I believe (though I could be wrong) that we have been withdrawing from Iraq, though many of our troops are still there. Also, when you say that 278,000 troops is the goal of the Bush administration, I think you need to clarify what that is the goal for. If it's the goal for near-complete withdrawal, then either the Bush Administration's information is incorrect, or it's inconsistent. However, I think you've going to have to go further than that in order to accuse them of deliberate lying, particular since there isn't any clear incentive for them to do so. Oil companies don't appear to be benefiting from the occupation, and none of the "hidden" motives attributed to the decision to invade can apply here.

    I also find it interesting that the analysis on Iran has yet to be challenged.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/24/2006 @ 11:46pm

  237. What do you think Bush meant by the goal of 278 thousand Iraqi troops?

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/24/2006 @ 11:59pm

  238. Your post on Iran is not an analysis, but it is a regurgitation of the Republican talking points.

    When you post an analysis of Iran; somebody may address it.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 12:01am

  239. I believe I posted before the article came up, so I'll briefly mention it. To put it bluntly...the article is insane. Its author uses a lot of bold words and bolder imagery, and believes that those can somehow take the place of actual argumentation.

    First and foremost, Charles Krauthammer's Friday editorial in the Washington Post deals quite effectively with the generals' recent attacks on Rumsfeld. As he points out, the generals would be flatly incorrect to contend that Rumsfeld didn't listen to advisors or that he systematically disregarded settled military advice (or that, even if he did, that that was important). The only complain that they might have was "he didn't listen to them," which is fine because the civilian leadership directs the military and not the other way around. Finally, the fact that they waited to protest until their pensions will secure also casts doubt on your story; curiously enough, this seems oddly similar to the "Swift Boats" incident in the 2004 election.

    The author seems to believe that Rumsfeld is deliberately trying to undermine the military, that for some unknown reason, he just hates the military and is doing everything he can to wipe it out.

    I'm not entirely sure where the "death squads" and "depleted uranium" claims come from, but it seems as though accusations such as these should probably be supported with evidence. It's not enough to simply say "well, the Administration claims X, but c'mon, you gotta believe that they're lying."

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/25/2006 @ 12:05am

  240. Jorcheim, You made light of my posts a short time ago. I have responded, in kind. Apparently, you have a lot to learn with respect to "knowing one's enemy". But hey, a big, stinking ego will always trump common sense.

    Love,

    Bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 04/25/2006 @ 12:19am

  241. This is a leftwingnut blog, trust me, just that very response you intimate IS simply more than enough to sustain any fantasy here!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/25/2006 @ 12:31am

    There you go again; calling people names like the schoolyard bully. When you can't argue the issues go to name calling. Republican 101 textbook.

    When you're too incompetent to conduct effective diplomacy, then send other peoples' children to die for a lie.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 01:04am

  242. Shortly before I posted my most recent response, someone called into question my argument regarding Iran, dismissing it with the simple label of "Republican talking points." I actually did offer analysis, but if you like, I'd be more than happy to offer more.

    The argument I made before was pretty straightforward:

    (1)If Iran possesses or aims to possess nuclear weapons, the United States would be justified in eliminating that capability in some way. (2) It is very reasonable to believe that Iran possesses or aims to possess nuclear weapons. Therefore... (3) It is reasonable to believe that the United States would be justified in acting (likely in a military fashion) to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat.

    This is a pretty straightforward syllogism; the conclusion (3) follows clearly from the premises ((1) and (2)). If I can provide support for the premises, I've proved the conclusion.

    I think the first premise is pretty easy to defend based on the threat that Iranian nuclear weapons would pose (particularly to nearby Israel). This threat is particularly serious given the questionable rationality of Iran's leader.

    The second premise may be the more difficult one, the claim that Iran possesses or aims to possess nuclear weapons. Fortunately, this one is not all that difficult either. For one thing, it has been clearly established that Iran hid uranium enrichment programs from the IAEA for some time until their existence was finally found out. Their claim that they're only trying to achieve a nuclear power program makes no sense because there are no reactors for the fuel to power; this problem is only compounded by the fact that Iran has neither the reactors for the fuel nor sufficient uranium to fuel nuclear power reactors. They do, on the other hand, have sufficient fuel for numerous bombs. So, to conclude, it seems pretty reasonable to believe (given Iran's record of deception and their excuse's lack of credibility) that they either possess or intend to possess nuclear weapons. My premises have been established, and the conclusion follows pretty clearly from them.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/25/2006 @ 01:09am

  243. Author(s): Sammy Salama, Karen Ruster Related Resources: Iran, Nuclear, Middle East, Research Story Date Created: August 12, 2004 Date Updated: September 9, 2004

    http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

    By invading and occupying Iraq, the United States has inherited its own "South Lebanon" and is now responsible for managing 14 million Iraqi Shi'a. An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has the potential for a scenario similar to the Israeli experience in Lebanon. An initial successful military operation by the United States or Israel, followed by a long and very bloody campaign by Iran to destabilize a fragile post-war Iraq, could in turn develop into a full blown confrontation between U.S. forces and the Iraqi Shi'a who account for more that 60% of Iraq's population. Such a scenario would spell disaster for U.S. interests in Iraq and the Middle East in the long-term, especially given the considerable difficulty and casualties the United States has already endured since the fall of Baghdad fighting Iraqi Sunni insurgents, foreign Salafi fighters, and members of the marginal Mahdi army.

    Conclusion

    An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz, could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term.

    On Monday July 19, 2004, President Bush stated that the United States is investigating any connection between Iran and al-Qa'ida, and whether Iran played any role in the 9/11 attacks on the United States.[60] A day before, acting CIA chief John McLaughlin told Fox News that eight of the 9/11 hijackers traveled through Iran but added, "however, I would stop there and say we have no evidence that there is some sort of official sanction by the Government of Iran for this activity."[61] These reports come on the heels of news articles stating that the administration has examined the possibility of a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. It remains to be seen whether the timing of these revelations is just coincidence, election year politicking, or the inception of a campaign aimed at cultivating domestic support for an attack on Iran. Whether talk of a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is a likely scenario or just bravado and journalistic hype remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain, it would not be just another Osirak.

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/25/2006 @ 01:32am

  244. There are a number of problems with this article's analysis. First, as I just mentioned, the evidence clearly indicates the existence of an illegal Iranian nuclear weapons program.

    Second, the article provides no clear reason to believe that the consequences it postulates will actually occur. In fact, there are at least two solid reasons to believe that it will not occur. For one thing, sealing Iraq's borders (as we should have done to start with) could prevent any meaningful Iranian incursion into Iraq. This is something that the US would almost certainly do given the tenuous stability of the current Iraqi government and the very conderns that the article raises. Second, Iran would have to be insane in order to make any move against Iraq with US forces right next door. Interestingly enough, if you believe that the Iranian President is insane enough to try something like that, all of the threats I mention in my post become that much more credible. That means that even if I concede all of the harms that the article lays out, the danger of a nuclear strike on another Middle Eastern country clearly outweighs those harms based on the immediate implications towards the targeted country, and based on the long-term damage it would impose on Middle Eastern stability.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/25/2006 @ 02:27am

  245. Between all the intelligence experts', generals', and Murtha's, qualified and credible analysis of the situation-- any 'speculative' proof or more 'lies' this mis-administration markets to us and the world to go after another country militarily or otherwise-- must be seen as dubious at best. After all the cherry picking made up BS this BC BS regime evacuated on it's citizenry without hint of guilt via its paid off MSM puppets, one would have to be mentally retarded to buy the porcelain toilet necktie W'ussy's rapping this rapture inducing mayhem with.

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/25/2006 @ 08:20am

  246. thrawn, the stay the course strategy has been tried now for three years, and it is obviously a complete failure. but it's nice for you to throw that puke on our pages.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 09:13am

  247. The main stream media are beginning to understand that, while calling for democratic principles for the rest of the world, Bush and his illiberal illuminati are conducting an 'Inquisition' against Americans. [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 09:17am

  248. Johann

    But it's work. Hard Work.

    Bwah-ha-ha-ha

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/25/2006 @ 09:30am

  249. Speaking of hard work:

    The 'American Inquisition'

    Posted 4/17/2006 8:42 PM ET

    By James Reston Jr.

    In the past few months, Americans have been treated to the extraordinary spectacle of a U.S. president arguing for torture in the lofty staterooms of the U.S. government. Memos float around his Department of Defense, stressing that U.S. interrogators should cease their persecution if their victims come close to "organ failure." The world wants to know what is going on in the star chambers of secret U.S. prisons around the world. The U.S. administration scoffs. The Geneva Conventions are called quaint, and the court in The Hague, Netherlands, cannot touch us. Standards for war crimes and crimes against humanity are for non-Americans.

    Forms of torture

    For the historian, symbolic acts such as torture often define an era, and the American brand of torture has a particularly medieval quality. "Waterboarding," as it is called (as if it were a sport like surfboarding or skateboarding), uses cellophane instead of gauze with water to subject the suspect to near drowning and suffocation. So today this is called an "enhanced" technique of interrogation. But the pitcher and gauze were just as effective in the 15th century. The intent is really no different from that of Torquemada's interrogators: to make the subject talk even though that talk might be drivel.

    It is not surprising that a leader, who believes that his Christian God chose him to be president at this moment in history and that his Almighty speaks directly to him, should preside over this American Inquisition. Bush's messianic bent came to light vividly in June 2003, when he announced that his God had inspired him to go fight those terrorists and to end the tyranny in Iraq. What, one wonders, is his God telling him now about the chaos?

    This supposed pipeline to heaven is, of course, not new for kings and potentates. On his deathbed in 1516, King Ferdinand told his minions that he could not die yet: God had told him that he would move on from the conquest of Granada to lead a great crusade that would recapture Jerusalem. The messianic impulse is commonplace in history.

    Now, we are just a few years into the Iraq era. The situation is getting worse, and there is no end in sight. When this nightmare ends, years of self-examination are sure to follow as happened after the Vietnam disaster. The Iraq syndrome will be lengthy. In the meantime, American Inquisition takes root. It is more hard-edged and mean-spirited than the Vietnam crackdown ... for one reason.

    Though Bush's explanations for his wayward adventure may constantly change, though the enterprise may show itself to be a military and moral catastrophe of historic proportions, this American leader and his circle of illuminati are utterly convinced of their righteousness. Toward their detractors they misappropriate, like inquisitors before them, the verse of John 15:6:

    "If any abide not in me, he should be cast forth as a branch and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he shall burn."

    Bush's Hard Work

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/25/2006 @ 10:01am

  250. The only complain that they might have was "he didn't listen to them," which is fine because the civilian leadership directs the military and not the other way around. Finally, the fact that they waited to protest until their pensions will secure also casts doubt on your story; curiously enough, this seems oddly similar to the "Swift Boats" incident in the 2004 election.

    The complaint isn't just that he didn't listen to them but that because he didn't listen to them, Iraq got screwed up. There were insufficient troops to secure the country and Rumsfeld signed-off on the mass-disbandment (as opposed to selective de-Ba'athification) of the Iraqi army. These things led to the looting, the ability of an insurgency to establish itself and the failure to re-establish services (leading to a big loss in the hearts-and-mind front).

    Secondly, the failure of the generals to comment until they had retired does nothing to diminish their credbility. It is, in fact, illegal for serving officers to openly disparage the President or the SecDef, and it would also go against the deep-rooted idea of military subordination to the civilian branch.

    Finally, it is nothing like swift-boating. That was a dishonest smear on Kerry's record by politically motivated ex-officers.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 10:22am

  251. Democrats Beat Republicans in 2005 Fund-Raising on Wall Street

    April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats outdid Republicans last year in attracting political donations from investment banks, brokerages and fund managers for the first time since 1994, helped by support from hedge funds and companies such as Merrill Lynch & Co.

    "When the party with no power can raise more money than the party with all the power, it means people are pretty disturbed about the country's condition,'' Kramer said.

    Merrill Lynch, the world's largest securities firm, is home to another one of Bush's 2004 Rangers, Chief Executive Stanley O'Neal. Merrill's political action committee, which pools executives' donations, is on track to give more money to Democratic candidates than to Republicans for the 2006 election for the first time in the PAC's quarter-century history, if current trends hold.

    Cliff Asness, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive who is president of the Greenwich, Connecticut-based hedge fund company AQR Capital Management LLC, was a supporter of Bush in 2004, giving the maximum $4,000 to his campaign. For this election, he has given $25,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Asness declined to comment.

    Give ME the Money [bloomberg.com]

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/25/2006 @ 10:28am

  252. "There were insufficient troops to secure the country and Rumsfeld signed-off on the mass-disbandment (as opposed to selective de-Ba'athification) of the Iraqi army. These things led to the looting, the ability of an insurgency to establish itself and the failure to re-establish services (leading to a big loss in the hearts-and-mind front)."

    this is the official line, but I don't believe a word of it. Selective de-baathification? what nonsense. When de-nazification was attempted in germany after the war, it was a farce, with most of the Nazis being given a clean slate. the judiciary, which sanctified Hitler's dirty work, was whitewashed, and continued in their jobs.

    this did not lead to looting. the decade long oppression by Sddam and the decade long sanctions by the americans, and the powervacuum lead to looting.

    and it seems quite clear that the insurgency was the Iraq gov'ts strategy of fighting the war that was thrust upon them, and not some Iraqis disappointed with the pace of american reconstruction.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 10:39am

  253. The second premise may be the more difficult one, the claim that Iran possesses or aims to possess nuclear weapons. Fortunately, this one is not all that difficult either. For one thing, it has been clearly established that Iran hid uranium enrichment programs from the IAEA for some time until their existence was finally found out. Their claim that they're only trying to achieve a nuclear power program makes no sense because there are no reactors for the fuel to power; this problem is only compounded by the fact that Iran has neither the reactors for the fuel nor sufficient uranium to fuel nuclear power reactors. They do, on the other hand, have sufficient fuel for numerous bombs. So, to conclude, it seems pretty reasonable to believe (given Iran's record of deception and their excuse's lack of credibility) that they either possess or intend to possess nuclear weapons. My premises have been established, and the conclusion follows pretty clearly from them.

    First, they don't have any fissile materials for nuclear bombs as there is no evidence that they have the capacity to enrich unranium enough so that it would be weapons-grade. The idea that Iran actually possess nuclear weapons now is simply not credible.

    Second, the Russians are constructing (and are almost done) a nuclear reactor for Iran at Bushehr and look to build more. Your point about there being no reactors overlooks that. Indeed, the idea of Iran expanding her energy base to include nuclear power goes back to the last Shah. Also, where did you get the idea that they don't have enough uranium to fuel those upcoming reactors?

    Ultimately, all that's established is a legitimately heightened level of suspicion based on the fact that the IAEA hasn't yet gotten complete answers on some of its inquiries. That justifies sanctions, but certainly not military action.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 10:48am

  254. In fact, there are at least two solid reasons to believe that it will not occur. For one thing, sealing Iraq's borders (as we should have done to start with) could prevent any meaningful Iranian incursion into Iraq. This is something that the US would almost certainly do given the tenuous stability of the current Iraqi government and the very conderns that the article raises. Second, Iran would have to be insane in order to make any move against Iraq with US forces right next door.

    First, what makes you think we have enough troops to deal with the insurgents and seal the Iraq-Iran border. The latter is very long and mountainous in the central and northern parts. Further, Iran's response wouldn't consist of a convention attack, instead they'd simply supply arms and supplies and slip some "volunteers" over the border in small amounts. There'd be nothing insane about that.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 10:51am

  255. this did not lead to looting. the decade long oppression by Sddam and the decade long sanctions by the americans, and the powervacuum lead to looting.

    and it seems quite clear that the insurgency was the Iraq gov'ts strategy of fighting the war that was thrust upon them, and not some Iraqis disappointed with the pace of american reconstruction.

    JR, I think your point about the insurgency having its origins as a plan by Hussein is a good one, but an insurgency thrives where the people aren't satisfied with the current regime. The inability of the occupation to reestablish services did alienate Iraqis, as did the heavy-handedness of the US occupation. Surely you don't content that incidents such as the use of deadly force by US troops against demonstrators in Falluja, or Bremer's decision to shut down Sadr's paper, didn't boost the ranks of the insurgents? The same with the wholesale disbandment of the Iraqi army, which left trained ex-soldiers with a grievance and no job. One could've done a selective de-Ba'athification consisting of removing only those individuals above a certain level on the Ba'ath hierarchy.

    Further, the power vacuum of which you speak was occasioned by inadequate American troop levels.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 10:56am

  256. But doesn't W'ussy have to 'have' charater for the poll to work? Ok anyway so W'ussy is just barely competent, eh, maybe 50/50... A strong clear decisive leader, eh, not so much... Honest and trustworthy, eh, forget about it, not even--- a majority know the BC BS regime lie. Lie a lot.

    CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. April 21-23, 2006. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn't apply to George W. Bush. How about [see below]?"

    Characteristic_____Date__________Applies__Doesn't Apply__Unsure

    "Competent"_____4/21-23/06_________47_________47________6

    "Is a strong and

    decisive leader"__4/21-23/06_________46_________51________3

    "Is honest and

    trustworthy"____4/21-23/06__________40_________55________5

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/25/2006 @ 11:04am

  257. Brunowe,

    I suspect Thrawn is on this site to ascertain what are the counter-arguments against Bush's policy -- that way the Repubs can develop their responses to the counter-arguments.

    It's kind of like "intelligence", "counter-intelligence", and "counter-counter-intelligence".

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 11:10am

  258. Eh, missing a 'c' in character..., maybe subconsciously symbolic of the missing points on the W'ussy's character measurement scale maybe? Eh, who knew...

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/25/2006 @ 11:12am

  259. 'an insurgency thrives where the people aren't satisfied with the current regime'

    the Iraqis had thirty years of a repressive regime, but never an "insurgency" such as this one.

    of course the occupation contributed to the insurgency, but my point is that this is a part of the war on Iraq, that this is the gov't of Iraq fighting the war, that was started with the Blitzkrieg on Baghdad.

    in response to earlier discussions on the occupation of France, it must be mentioned that the german troops were on their best behavior in france, no looting, no raping. instead the french were forced to accept german currency and so the nazi soldiers could just buy what they wanted. that goes a long way to explain why there wasn't more resistance to the occupation. also troublemakers could just be shifted to the unoccupied part of France, Vichy.

    back to Iraq, the power vacuum was created by the toppling of the Iraq gov't, NOT by inadequate troop levels. I don't believe two or three times the number of soldiers would have altered the picture. don't let the mis-administration and the Tories define the terms of discussion, and not the warmongering dems neither.

    there are enough troops in Iraq to shut down the state, which they have done during the "elections" and the violence abated during this lock down. burt you cannot lock down a country forever.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 11:14am

  260. Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/25/2006

    Well at least there are some Republicans with some connection to intelligence. I'd given up on being able to mention them in the same sentence.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 11:14am

  261. back to Iraq, the power vacuum was created by the toppling of the Iraq gov't, NOT by inadequate troop levels. I don't believe two or three times the number of soldiers would have altered the picture. don't let the mis-administration and the Tories define the terms of discussion, and not the warmongering dems neither.

    I think we're going to remain in disagreement on this one. More troops would've prevented much of the looting. More troops would've clamped down on much of the crime. More troops could've kept arms depots from being looted. Besides, attributing it entirely to Hussein's plans IS the Administration's terms of discussion. As far as they're concerned, there is no dissatisfaction, just "dead-enders" and foreign jihadis.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 11:17am

  262. Thrawn -

    While, by my reading, you really seem to be attempting to have serious debate, the credibility on your entire argument gets blasted out of the water when you claim to know nothing about depleted uranium use in Iraq.

    If you can't find such a simple story by a simple Google search, then how are we to believe that you have bothered to really research all of the other points you make? And why are we expected to explain to you something you could go find on your own?

    We've done our own research, now you go do yours, then come back and we'll debate.

    Google this: Iraq depleted uranium

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/25/2006 @ 11:23am

  263. And Rio Bravo -

    Shut your ignorant hole, asshat.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/25/2006 @ 11:23am

  264. BRUNOWE, JOHANNESROLF,

    I think you're probably both right by a matter of degrees. It very well may be a 60/40 thing, 55/45... What I know for sure is that the BC/BS regime hasn't a clue about governing-- it's all about the winning. Thus one gets the lies, no plans for governing, mayhem, torture, secret death camps and marauding death squads. Why govern when you got that?

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/25/2006 @ 11:27am

  265. Also, Iran is set to imminently open a uranium mine at a place called Saghand (est. reserves of 1.58 million metric tons of ore).

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 11:35am

  266. Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/25/2006

    Well at least there are some Republicans with some connection to intelligence. I'd given up on being able to mention them in the same sentence.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 04/25/2006 @ 11:14am

    LOL

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 11:39am

  267. Thrawn -

    While, by my reading, you really seem to be attempting to have serious debate, the credibility on your entire argument gets blasted out of the water when you claim to know nothing about depleted uranium use in Iraq.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 04/25/2006 @ 11:23am

    NEW DAWN -- It could be that Thrawn suffers from willful ignorance, and Republicans have refined the concept to a fine science.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 11:43am

  268. The possibility of a nuclear attack on Israel, if legitimate, must be taken under serious consideration.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/24/2006 @ 7:02pm

    Ludicrous. There's a far greater possibility of an israeli nuclear attack on Iran simply to impede it's peaceful use of nuclear energy.

    It's notable that you are completely focused on Ahamdinejad's recent, hostile comments toward israel while you completely ignore the incessant threats to attack Iran that have come from numerous israeli government representatives over many years now. The Iranians are merely responding in kind.

    Perhaps you're of the party which demands that the designated victims of the israelis are to always accept humiliation and misery in silence.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 12:08pm

  269. The US reputation around the world will require a lot of R&R when the BC BS regime is booted out. And why is it that people around the world appear to care more about the harm the BC BS regime is doing in our name than the people here in the US? Are we just not reading about major angry protests in the US or is the BC BS regime already filling up all of those hundreds of new secret prisons around the US? Having lots of extra workers will come in handy in that case...

    Clashes in Athens as Rice visits

    TV pictures showed the air thick with teargas.

    Athens police have fired teargas during a clash with anti-war demonstrators protesting against a visit by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

    Some protesters hurled petrol bombs, sticks and stones in return.

    Ms Rice is meeting Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis as part of a five-day trip to Europe that also includes Turkey and Bulgaria.

    Thousands of protesters are said to have gathered in Athens. Some 5,000 riot police have been deployed.

    Television pictures showed protesters throwing petrol bombs and using sticks as riot police advanced, the air thick with tear gas.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4941822.stm

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/25/2006 @ 12:21pm

  270. This is a pretty straightforward syllogism; the conclusion (3) follows clearly from the premises ((1) and (2)). If I can provide support for the premises, I've proved the conclusion.

    I think the first premise is pretty easy to defend based on the threat that Iranian nuclear weapons would pose (particularly to nearby Israel). This threat is particularly serious given the questionable rationality of Iran's leader.

    The second premise may be the more difficult one, the claim that Iran possesses or aims to possess nuclear weapons. Fortunately, this one is not all that difficult either. For one thing, it has been clearly established that Iran hid uranium enrichment programs from the IAEA for some time until their existence was finally found out. Their claim that they're only trying to achieve a nuclear power program makes no sense because there are no reactors for the fuel to power; this problem is only compounded by the fact that Iran has neither the reactors for the fuel nor sufficient uranium to fuel nuclear power reactors. They do, on the other hand, have sufficient fuel for numerous bombs. So, to conclude, it seems pretty reasonable to believe (given Iran's record of deception and their excuse's lack of credibility) that they either possess or intend to possess nuclear weapons. My premises have been established, and the conclusion follows pretty clearly from them.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/25/2006 @ 01:09am

    1. They're building the reactors chuzzlewhit, with Russian help. The US has for years been trying to get the Russians to stop helping them build nuclear reactors. Iran has a right to do so under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which the US is a signatory and a major violator.

    2. Iran does not "have sufficient fuel for numerous bombs". Iran does not have sufficient fuel for any bombs, not even one nor a fraction of one. Iran has never engaged in anything other than low-enrichment, which is sufficient for nuclear energy but far, far from sufficient for nuclear weapons.

    You don't have the slightest clue as to what the hell you're talking about in the first place. Spare me the "syllogism" humor.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 12:25pm

  271. Bruno, I don't think we disagree very much. It's likely that we are both right.

    the thing I most object to is the line of reasoning which is:"if only we'd done...' the war stinks from the very beginning and NOTHING they could have done would sanitize it. It was and is an illegal war of aggression against a country, and this is important, a country, not a very bad dictator, or a very bad regime, a war against a country, which was and is no threat to the US.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 1:21pm

  272. JR

    I agree that it stunk from the beginning. Doing it better wouldn't have legitimized the attack.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 1:24pm

  273. reasons to believe that it will not occur. For one thing, sealing Iraq's borders (as we should have done to start with) could prevent any meaningful Iranian incursion into Iraq. This is something that the US would almost certainly do given the tenuous stability of the current Iraqi government and the very conderns that the article raises. Second, Iran would have to be insane in order to make any move against Iraq with US forces right next door. Interestingly enough, if you believe that the Iranian President is insane enough to try something like that, all of the threats I mention in my post become that much more credible. That means that even if I concede all of the harms that the article lays out, the danger of a nuclear strike on another Middle Eastern country clearly outweighs those harms based on the immediate implications towards the targeted country, and based on the long-term damage it would impose on Middle Eastern stability.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/25/2006 @ 02:27am

    Another Republican know-nothing dispensing Dumsfeld-style devoid-of-basic-understanding, "forward leaning" wisdom.

    IGNORE LIST

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 1:49pm

  274. So, almost no real arguments have been made against my defense of staying in Iraq (at least until the Iraqis are capable of maintaining stability in their own country). To those who seem to assume that I support Bush in everything because I disagree with your position, I've made clear that if the Iraqis currently are capable of maintaining stability, the US forces should leave. Since that doesn't currently appear to be the case (ie, Iraq isn't currently stable even with the US forces there), staying seems to be the correct choice, particularly since the existence of limited civil war indicates that our presence isn't escalating the violence (they're fighting each other rather than just unifying against us). I'm willing to accept the idea that the war itself probably wasn't justified, but that by itself doesn't make immediate withdrawal a good policy, particularly since the harms of leaving before the Iraqis can maintain stability have never been contested.

    The second area of clash is the article about the generals that was posted. First of all, it's important (again) to consider what the generals' basis for complaint could be. It's not that Rumsfeld didn't listen to military opinions in general; that's been proven unequivocally false. It's not that he ignored settled military advice; there were a number of different military opinions on the best way to handle Iraq, and Rumsfeld chose between them. The only basis left is "he didn't listen to me," which is a little silly. Though I think we all believe that Rumsfeld's strategy needed significant improvement, that doesn't give those generals a legitimate basis for complaint. Second of all, the fact that the generals decided to wait until their pensions were secure is a little sketchy; though they may not have been able to speak out against Rumsfeld, they certainly could have resigned if they felt that strongly. Honestly, it's not that powerful of an argument, and I think you may be right that the Swift Boat analogy is a bit extreme. However, I think the analogy does hold in terms of the legitimacy of their actual complaints.

    Speaking of extreme analogies, I want to briefly deal with the insane "American Inquisition" article. Though it's correct to say that torture is bad, the attempted analogy to the Inquisition is massively disingenuous. In the Inquisition, people were tortured and put in prison based on beliefs that were seen as heretical. The only time that people are put in these "secret prisons" (which apparently are secret from everyone but a few posters here) is when they are strongly suspected of terrorist action or are captured fighters for al Qaeda. The fact that we don't subject ourselves to an international tribunal (particularly one like the ICC) may be due more to the fact that our government would be acting unconstitutionally in doing than to "not caring about human rights." Have some people been wrongly sent to these prisons? Almost certainly. Is that bad? Yes. Is the existence of people who are legally designated as enemy combatants (a status that is even built into the Geneva Convention) bad? No.

    The next issue I want to look at, and the one that provoked the most controversy, is Iran. A number of responses have been made to my position, and I'll try and address them line-by-line. First, there's the claim that they don't currently have the capacity to enrich uranium. I'm not sure this is actually true, but at the very least we can safely say that Iran is (at the very least) actively seeking this capacity, something we've know n about since 2003. [time.com], and something that Iran has

    The last thing I'll touch on is the depleted uranium issue. I did a little bit of research, and found that the claims made against Rumsfeld about it are fairly questionable. This BBC article [news.bbc.co.uk] evaluates the issue and concludes that there is no clear connection between depleted uranium and the harms that people have claimed. Though it could be argued that it should not be used unless this can be established with considerable confidence, it's certainly not something that justified the removal of Rumsfeld.

    As a sidenote, I apologize for the bolding of the first two sentences of my last paragraph. I haven't been able to figure out why it happened or get rid of it. The only correct hyperlink in that paragraph is "this BBC article."

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/25/2006 @ 2:48pm

  275. Shortly thereafter, neo-conservatives and other hawks led by Vice Pres. Dick Cheney succeeded in cutting off ongoing U.S.-Iranian talks on Afghanistan and Iran and killing an offer by Tehran to engage in a broader negotiation on all outstanding differences.

    What makes the growing confrontation with Iran so remarkable is that the Israel Lobby appears to be the only major organised force here that is actively pushing it toward crisis.

    Mainstream analysts, including arms control hawks who favour strong pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme, have spoken out against military action as far too risky and almost certainly counter-productive. Even analysts at the right-wing Heritage Foundation have voiced doubts. "It just doesn't make any sense from a geopolitical standpoint," said Heritage's James Carifano, noting Iran's capacity to retaliate against the U.S. in Iraq.

    The Iranian exile community, which has generally favoured more pressure on Tehran, similarly appears divided about the consequences of a military attack, with some leaders fearing that it would strengthen the regime, Walt told IPS. He added that "it's hard for me to believe that (U.S.) oil companies would be in favour of a military option (because they) don't like violence or events that create political risk or uncertainty."

    While insisting that military action against Iran's nuclear programme should only be a last resort, the Israel Lobby, on the other hand, appears united in the conviction that an attack will indeed be necessary if diplomatic efforts, economic pressure, and covert action fail.

    "(Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in," Patrick Clawson, deputy director of research of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank established by AIPAC, told New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. "We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates."

    Hersh summarised Clawson's bottom line as "Iran had no choice other than to accede to America's demands or face a military attack."

    That was much the same message delivered by Perle himself and rapturously received by the attendees at AIPAC's 2006 convention here last month. The convention, at which the keynoter, none other than the administration's ultimate hawk, Vice Pres. Cheney, vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran did not freeze its nuclear programme, drew several hundred Democratic and Republican lawmakers in what could only be described as a show of raw political power.

    http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32862

    Negotiations rejected, submission demanded. Think it'll work as good as it did in Iraq?

    If the goal of the Bush administration is simply to preclude the proliferation of nuclear weapons why does it refuse to even talk to the Iranians when they have shown that they are more than willing to do so?

    Iran is not objecting to the same inspections that every other country is subject to. What they are primarily objecting to is the insistence that they be prohibited from the full development of a peaceful nuclear power program.

    The war party is resurrecting and elevating Jim Crow laws to an international level.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 2:59pm

  276. Second of all, the fact that the generals decided to wait until their pensions were secure is a little sketchy; though they may not have been able to speak out against Rumsfeld, they certainly could have resigned if they felt that strongly.

    All you've done is repeat your initial conclusion. The fact that they didn't resign doesn't make their position sketchy, and the disaster that has been a consequence of so many Rumsfeld choices speaks for itself.

    First, there's the claim that they don't currently have the capacity to enrich uranium.

    That's not what I said. I said that they don't have the capacity to enrich uranium to weapons-grade.

    I've made clear that if the Iraqis currently are capable of maintaining stability, the US forces should leave. Since that doesn't currently appear to be the case (ie, Iraq isn't currently stable even with the US forces there), staying seems to be the correct choice, particularly since the existence of limited civil war indicates that our presence isn't escalating the violence (they're fighting each other rather than just unifying against us).

    That last bit is a logical fallacy. Iraqis are more than capable of killing each other and us. Shi'ite death squads kill Sunnis, Sunnis go after Shi'ite and us (because we're seen as supporting the Shi'ite-dominated government. Further, the Shi'ite government is unlikely to make the concessions to Sunnis that may be necessary to end the civil strike as long as we'll back them up. Consequently, US presence there means you'll likely never have the situation that would permit us to leave by your yardstick.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 3:16pm

  277. Most strikingly, Brzezinski wonders whether the Bush administration's current strategy is actually designed to "deliberately encourag[e] greater Iranian intransigence" and undercut chances of reaching a diplomatic solution:

    How else to explain the current U.S. "negotiating" stance: the United States is refusing to participate in the on-going negotiations with Iran but insists on dealing only through proxies. That stands in sharp contrast with the simultaneous negotiations with North Korea, in which the United States is actively engaged.

    At the same time, the United States is allocating funds for the destabilization of the Iranian regime and is reportedly injecting Special Forces teams into Iran to stir up non-Iranian ethnic minorities in order to fragment the Iranian state (in the name of democratization!).

    http://tinyurl.com/fbb85

    Someone else recognizes that the real goal of the war party is a military attack. The high-handed demands are intended to grease the wheels of public acceptance and the US news media can be counted upon to legitimize it through selective information and outright bald falsehoods.

    Jumping on the bandwagon backing the war party's unilateral demands for Iranian submission and surrender of sovereignty is not an adequate response from anyone claiming to represent a strain of thought that differs from the barbarians in the White House.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 4:07pm

  278. good points, Bruno

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/25/2006 @ 4:11pm

  279. Zero -- "creephammer" is classic; you should trademark/patent it.

    It reminds me of Nixon's CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the President); the acronym was very apt.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 4:49pm

  280. FRB: someone is trying to claim that the iranians have material for numerous bombs? golly, wally, i thought the whole big deal with the announcement of the beginning of fuel-grade enrichment initiated THIS MONTH was that some people think that, IN YEARS, such a process hypothetically could be bent towards BEGINNING to create bomb material.

    someone is fabricating some serious bullshit, or, at least, regurgitating fabricated bullshit. in any case, that someone just met my ignore list, the first such poster to have attempted it seems to make serious arguments which unfortunately were based on such ridiculous "sources" and information as to be nothing more than a nuisance.

    Posted by ZERO 04/25/2006 @ 4:15pm

    They live in a different world. That's why I differ about the Bush admin's likelihood of attacking Iran before it leaves office. I don't think they'll pass up the opportunity if it's even barely feasible to get away with it and I think it's more than barely feasible. They can do anything with fear.

    For a look at Bush's different world, check this out:

    http://tinyurl.com/f9rp6

    But, it hasn't seemed to cause Mick Jagger to completely lose contact with reality.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 5:14pm

  281. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/25/2006 @ 3:16pm

    I agree with you on those points, for a change.

    Bush's lackeys letting active duty officers know that their ass could be grass if they speak up:

    Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said yesterday that the behavior and comments from six generals is "inappropriate" for military officers.

    Retired generals who are criticizing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's prewar planning are out of line and need to remember who their boss is, top military and civilian officials -- including a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- said on yesterday's political talk shows.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060417-122459-2531r.htm

    . . . and it isn't completely successful . . .

    Their lack of enthusiasm helped illustrate the loss of credibility – and authority – Rumsfeld and his fellow hawks have suffered with the uniformed military, a trend that was described at length in a Journal article Monday, entitled "Rumsfeld's Control of Military Policy Appears to Weaken." It noted, among other things, that senior officers are growing increasingly inclined to ignore or publicly contradict Rumsfeld's policy preferences, such as limiting military exchanges with China.

    And even as Rumsfeld was insisting last month that Syria was facilitating the training and entry of "foreign fighters" into Iraq, Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid told Congress that Damascus was cooperating with U.S. efforts to stop infiltration across the border. http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8868

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 5:23pm

  282. Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/25/2006 @ 3:36pm

    Golly, look at all of those quotes from a remarkably popular book!

    Allow me to retort with one of my own!

    _____

    You're a mean one, Mr. Bravo. You really are a heel.

    You're as cuddly as a cactus, You're as charming as an eel.

    You're a bad banana With a greasy black peel.

    You're a monster, Mr. Bravo. Your heart's an empty hole.

    Your brain is full of spiders, You've got garlic in your soul.

    I wouldn't touch you, with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.

    You're a vile one, Mr. Bravo. You have termites in your smile.

    You have all the tender sweetness Of a seasick crocodile.

    Given the choice between the two of you I'd take the seasick crocodile.

    You're a foul one, Mr. Bravo. You're a nasty, wasty skunk.

    Your heart is full of unwashed socks Your soul is full of gunk.

    The three words that best describe you, are, and I quote: "Stink. Stank. Stunk."

    You're a rotter, Mr. Bravo. You're the king of sinful sots.

    Your heart's a dead tomato splot With moldy purple spots,

    Your soul is an apalling dump heap overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable,

    Mangled up in tangled up knots.

    You nauseate me, Mr. Bravo. With a nauseaus super-naus.

    You're a crooked jerky jockey And you drive a crooked horse.

    You're a three decker saurkraut and toadstool sandwich

    With arsenic sauce.

    _____

    Toodles, moron.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/25/2006 @ 5:34pm

  283. Bush's sabrerattling against Iran is bidding up oil prices and, recognizing a national emergency when he sees one, is now diverting oil form the strategic petroleum reserve: http://tinyurl.com/rmhgx

    What national emergency? The mid-term elections. The Republicans do what's best for themselves first, last, and always and to hell with America.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/25/2006 @ 5:41pm

  284. Freiheit,

    It is the hypocrisy and corruption of the Repubs that is at play; Bush refused to stop filling the SPR when Dems asked him -- now he'll do it because the Repubs asses are in a political wringer.

    So Bush's derrier.

    All politicians try to do what's best for them, but the Dems feelings about what is best for them usually coincides with the nation's best interest. NOT Bush and the Repubs; else there wouldn't have been a secret energy meeting in Cheney's office. After that meeting, America's foreign policy became more aligned with Big Oil and the war profiteers, and not with the interest of the American people or their beloved soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 6:18pm

  285. Freiheit,

    Words are mine, but I'm open to discussing any legitimate and mainstream, peer reviewed research data that you care to offer.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 6:27pm

  286. So Cheney went to court to keep his meeting records with oil execs secret because he wanted to make them public; right.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 6:28pm

  287. Like before, I'll deal with the Iraq stuff first. Two responses have been made to my position, and the first is that Sunnis are more than capable of killing both us and the Shi'ites. This isn't fully responsive, though. The argument I made wasn't that that the groups won't go after both us and their enemies, it was that they're not unifying against us. Moreover, I pointed out that since there's still significant fighting between those two groups, Iraq isn't currently stable. This is where the second response comes in; Bruno argues that our presence is exacerbating the situation by effectively discouraging the Shi'ites from seeking compromise. However, it's unclear why this is the case. The only way our presence would have that effect is if we joined the fighting on behalf of the Shi'ites and supported them in their efforts, which doesn't seem to be the case. More importantly, though, it's unclear why these two sides are likely to suddenly start compromising with each other once our forces leave, particularly if other actors in the region continue to aggravate tensions.

    Second, the generals. I don't think there's been an adequate response to the fact that these generals, who apparently were vehemently opposed to Rumsfeld's decision, chose to wait until they could attack him from the comfort of their pension plans rather than resign in protest. That doesn't necessarily challenge their arguments per se, but it certainly calls their motives into question. Moreover, to respond to what another poster argued, forbidding soldiers from openly challenging the orders of higher-ranking officers is a necessary policy, otherwise the chain-of-command is in real trouble. In this kind of case, if sitting generals could openly attack the decisions of Rumsfeld, civilian control over the military would be in jeopardy. That, for example, is why Truman's firing of McArthur was fully justified.

    Third, Iran. I don't think anyone has argued that Iran currently possesses nuclear weapons; the only arguments that I've seen contend that they are attempting to do so, though the fact that they have consistently misled the IAEA does create cause for concern. Also, consider that the article I linked to about uranium enrichment was from 2003; Iran had accelerated its nuclear program to the point of enriching uranium almost 3 years ago, and there is reason to believe that they could have nuclear weapons within the next few years. I'm agreeing with many of you that if they don't have them now, a strike sometime soon is almost certainly unjustified, but if they do, it is justified. I've argued that Iraq has incentives to destabilize Iraq, and seems to currently be doing so, which means that the harm of attacking Iran (destabilizing Iraq) isn't a unique harm. Even if it is, though, the danger of a nuclear strike against Israel outweighs it easily for all the uncontested reasons that I've given.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/25/2006 @ 7:10pm

  288. The 1960s Dems were nothing like the Nuke'm Goldwater Republicans.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/25/2006 @ 7:25pm

  289. Bruno argues that our presence is exacerbating the situation by effectively discouraging the Shi'ites from seeking compromise. However, it's unclear why this is the case. The only way our presence would have that effect is if we joined the fighting on behalf of the Shi'ites and supported them in their efforts, which doesn't seem to be the case.

    We are, the Shi'ite are the majority force in the government and Shi'ite militia have joined the police wholesale. Maliki, the incoming PM, talks about folding the Shi'ite militias into the police as well. That's going to be a recipe for further Shi'ite death squad activity under color of authority. Further, the government backed off on its pre-election promise to support amending the Constitution to bar the Shi'ite provinces from forming their own super-province, again something they feel free to do as long as they know we'll prop up the government.

    I don't think there's been an adequate response to the fact that these generals, who apparently were vehemently opposed to Rumsfeld's decision, chose to wait until they could attack him from the comfort of their pension plans rather than resign in protest. That doesn't necessarily challenge their arguments per se, but it certainly calls their motives into question.

    It does nothing of the kind. The fact that they didn't resign doesn't call their motives into question. They weren't listened to but they didn't necessarily want to abandon their commands and their responsibilities to those who served under them. Refusing to committ career suicide hardly undercuts their credibility.

    and there is reason to believe that they could have nuclear weapons within the next few years.

    Actually, the timeline is 5-10 years, if they go ahead. At the moment, there are only unanswered questions and a refusal to ratify the Additional Protocol, no positive proof of a weapons program.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 8:02pm

  290. An interesting article here [atimes.com] in the Asia Times Online on the current political factions in Iran as their relation to the nuclear issue.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/25/2006 @ 8:46pm

  291. .

    PETER ROTHBERG 04/20@2:07pm

    And if Iran ever does launch a premeptive attack on Israel, I promise you that The Nation will oppose it. (Emphasis added.)

    I can just see them over in Israel saying, relax everybody, if they nuke us, The Nation promises to oppose it. Rothberg might even sit shiveh. What a relief.

    There are the Nobel and Boltzmann prizes, the Wolf and Lasker awards. Those recognize heights of human brilliance. Missing is a medal recognizing depths of inanity. It might be called the Navasky Medal.

    Peter Rothberg would be a prime candidate this year. A contender too is ZERO 04/20 @ 2:09pm who thinks he is foxily insinuating arguments into the climate of opinion that will tie the administration's shoelaces. He is in a sweat over America's economy. He is warning of an oil stoppage. That will persuade Washington to accept a nuclear Iran.

    But before he gets the prize they should test his urine. He may have been taking stupidity supplements.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 04/26/2006 @ 01:33am

  292. The BC BS regime can't hit the side of a barn, er, face, yep...nose to spite it? Snip.

    Do not attack Iran

    Zbigniew Brzezinski TMSI

    WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006

    If undertaken without formal Congressional declaration, it would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the UN Security Council either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

    It follows that an attack on Iran would be an act of political folly, setting in motion a progressive upheaval in world affairs. With America increasingly the object of widespread hostility, the era of American preponderance could come to a premature end.

    There is unintended but potentially tragic irony in a situation in which the obscene language of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (whose powers are actually much more limited than his title implies) helps to justify threats by administration figures who like to hint of mushroom clouds, which in turn help Ahmadinejad to exploit his intransigence to gain more fervent domestic support for himself as well as for the Iranian nuclear program.

    Iran has the objective preconditions in terms of education, place of women in social affairs and in social aspirations (especially of the youth) to emulate in the foreseeable future the evolution of Turkey. The mullahs are Iran's past, not its future; it is not in our interest to engage in acts that help to reverse that sequence.

    Serious negotiations require not only a patient engagement but also a constructive atmosphere. Artificial deadlines, propounded most often by those who do not wish the United States to negotiate in earnest, are counterproductive. Name-calling and saber-rattling, as well as refusal to even consider the other side's security concerns, can be useful tactics only if the goal is actually to derail the negotiating process.

    The choice is either to be stampeded into a reckless adventure profoundly damaging to long-term U.S. national interests or to become serious about giving negotiations with Iran a genuine chance to be productive. The mullahs were on the skids several years ago but were given a new burst of life by the intensifying confrontation with the United States.

    The U.S. strategic goal, pursued by real negotiations and not by posturing, should be to separate Iranian nationalism from religious fundamentalism. Treating Iran with respect and within a historical perspective would help to advance that objective.

    American policy should not be swayed by a contrived atmosphere of urgency ominously reminiscent of what preceded the intervention in Iraq.

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/26/2006 @ 02:02am

  293. BLOPPY:

    You said:

    Jorcheim, You made light of my posts a short time ago. I have responded, in kind. Apparently, you have a lot to learn with respect to "knowing one's enemy". But hey, a big, stinking ego will always trump common sense.

    BLOPPY:

    It seems to me that you have a major inferiority complex. All you tend to do on this blog is berate and insult people. That does nothing but sully this and any other discussion of which you are a part. You are no better than Rio Bravo, NACL, and the rest of those who would rather insult rather than discuss. It is not I who insulted you. I simply pointed out the obvious. But you, yourself, insult yourself everytime you spew the bile of which you seemingly have an endless supply.

    Congratulations! You are officially the FIRST person added to my ignore list. I expect moronic and insulting posts from the dogmatists on the right. But I refuse to listen to the same kind of tripe coming from my general side of the debate. If I wanted to hear that, I would listen to Randi Rhodes.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/26/2006 @ 09:36am

  294. I don't think there's been an adequate response to the fact that these generals, who apparently were vehemently opposed to Rumsfeld's decision, chose to wait until they could attack him from the comfort of their pension plans rather than resign in protest. That doesn't necessarily challenge their arguments per se, but it certainly calls their motives into question.

    Posted by THRAWN 04/25/2006 @ 7:10pm

    No, it calls into question your understanding of the military mindset. The reason those generals didn't resign is because of their sense of duty and obligation to serve their country and to not abondon their troops at the beginning of a war. It is called "honor" and "sacrifice". You suggest these men were greedy for their pensions. Bollocks! I suggest that perhaps you've never served in the military.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/26/2006 @ 09:45am

  295. Besides Thrawn...as pointed out on Face the Nation by Major Zinni, once Rummy gives the word its against the UCMJ to say "nay"....well, I suppose one could and head to Leavenworth, but hey, you know I hear makin boots ain't that much fun.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/26/2006 @ 10:12am

  296. Is it just me, or does anyone else recognize Iran's push for nuclear capability for what it truly is: a preventative measure against American militarism and unilateralism. Honestly, had Iraq had nukes, we never would have invaded them. Hence our sabre-rattling with regards to N. Korea (and little else). Hence our inability to push around China or the EU. Guess what, had they no nukes, we would try. I say, let Iran have nukes. At least then we know there won't be an illegal American invasion of them, and countless thousands dying, just so some oil/oil services company (or cabal thereof) can pad its bottom line.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/26/2006 @ 2:45pm

  297. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 04/26/2006 @ 09:45am

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/26/2006 @ 10:12am

    Fellows -

    I just listened to Zinni on KGO radio here in the Bay Area a few days ago, and was enormously impressed with the man. No bullshit, no drama, just straight answers even when some callers accused him of exactly what Thrawn is implying.

    Having heard it from the horse's mouth, I would have to listen to Zinni over Thrawn's opinon of Zinni...

    And both LoC and ILP are dead on in their assessments of his motivations, to hear him tell it. He mentioned the exact same things you two did - not by way of apology, but by way of disseminating info we civs might not completely understand.

    I kinda liked the guy.

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/26/2006 @ 5:38pm

  298. NEW DAWN -- It could be that Thrawn suffers from willful ignorance, and Republicans have refined the concept to a fine science.

    Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/25/2006 @ 11:43am

    No, no, no, Orai - they reject science, too!

    LOL

    Posted by New Dawn at 04/26/2006 @ 5:40pm

  299. ND (& all)

    Funny...now when the truth is getting out there, that there is such a wash of scandal and general political partisan BS that the public is numb and not nearly as outraged as they should be.

    And then there is the timely, and even predictable, recordings from OBL and Zarqawi. When the chips are down, beat that drum!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/26/2006 @ 5:42pm

  300. I think a lot of the responses that have been raised about Iran are fair, even if some of the arguments (any unilateral war=illegal) are a little bit low-impact. The point about the generals' motives for waiting until they had pension is somewhat reasonable, though I am pleased that everyone seems to accept the idea of not having active protest by currently-serving generals. However, this response seems seriously problematic:

    Is it just me, or does anyone else recognize Iran's push for nuclear capability for what it truly is: a preventative measure against American militarism and unilateralism. Honestly, had Iraq had nukes, we never would have invaded them. Hence our sabre-rattling with regards to N. Korea (and little else). Hence our inability to push around China or the EU. Guess what, had they no nukes, we would try. I say, let Iran have nukes. At least then we know there won't be an illegal American invasion of them, and countless thousands dying, just so some oil/oil services company (or cabal thereof) can pad its bottom line.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 04/26/2006 @ 2:45pm

    What your argument seems to be is "let Iran have nukes so we can't influence their policy." That's awful; we need to be able to influence policy in the Middle East, for a number of reasons. For one thing, Israel is a major player in the Middle East. They would probably not be terribly happy with Iran's possession of nukes (given the clear danger to them), and would likely take action of their own if we didn't do so. They would be concerned not only about a possible nuclear strike on them from Iran, but also that Iran might hand this technology over to groups like Hamas, who might not see much need for the cease-fire anymore. This would almost certainly end in disaster, even though Israel's attack would also be legal (ie, self-defense). Additionally, there are big issues of terrorism within the Middle East, and it's important that we have the ability to not only promote democracy there, but also to deal directly with terrorism. As one of the articles mentioned before points out, one of the parties in Iran has ties to Hezbollah, and we probably don't want groups like them getting ahold of nuclear weapons. The bottom line is this: the Middle East may be the most strategically significant part of the world to the United States, and making a decision that loses us influence over a significant actor in that region would be a terrible policy.

    Finally, I want to deal briefly with Bruno's responses regarding Iraq. First, it's simply not true that we're exclusively aiding the Shi'ites. In fact, we've been pushing for a government that incorporates Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. Even if the Shi'ites are the current majority, we're not throwing in our support to every single thing that they choose to do. Second, even if we are supporting the Shi'ites exclusively, that doesn't make us a sufficient cause of the conflict. In fact, it's likely that the situation will get significantly worse if we leave. For one thing, it's unlikely that the Shi'ites will suddenly decide to compromise with the Sunnis, particularly since the conflict that's happened between them has been based significantly on religious confrontation. Compounding that, other countries will almost certainly stoke the fires of civil war in Iraq. A major example of this is Iran; without the United States there, there's good reason to believe that they will provide support to the Sunnis there. In short, us leaving Iraq now will likely make the situation much worse than it already is, which would pretty obviously be bad.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/26/2006 @ 6:08pm

  301. THRAWN:

    That is precisely the problem. We have been monkeying around in the middle east so much, and so maladroitly (propping up tyrannical regimes, supporting terrorist organizations, supporting and encouraging illegal acts by Israel) that it's no wonder the place is a shambles. Yes, Iran should have mukes, for precisely the reason that it would give us pause before we started monkeying around in their sovereign domestic politics. We did that about 50 years ago, overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a dictator. That CREATED the fundamentalist movement in Iran.

    We have supported Israel through thick and thin, and you're right, without us, Israel would probably perish. But they would perish not because they are some lone bastion of freedom in the wilderness of Islamic militancy. Much to the contrary, they would perish because, frankly, they have essentially followed a policy of antagonism towards EVERYONE in the region because they knew the US had its back. If they didn't have us upon whom to fall back, I guarantee it would temper their behavior towards the other nations in that region. And THAT is a decidedly GOOD thing.

    And lastly, we shouldn't be dependent on oil, period, much less middle eastern oil. If we were smart, and we as a people actually determined our energy policy, instead of leaving it to oil company execs, we wouldn't HAVE an energy crisis. PERIOD. And to think otherwise? Well, I have a bridge in San Francisco I'd like to sell you.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/26/2006 @ 8:26pm

  302. A major example of this is Iran; without the United States there, there's good reason to believe that they will provide support to the Sunnis there.

    That statement speaks volumes to your knowledge of Iraq. Iran is a Shi'ite country, the Dawa and SCIRI organizations are Iranian in origin. If anything, Iran would be backing them.

    , it's simply not true that we're exclusively aiding the Shi'ites. In fact, we've been pushing for a government that incorporates Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. Even if the Shi'ites are the current majority, we're not throwing in our support to every single thing that they choose to do. Second, even if we are supporting the Shi'ites exclusively, that doesn't make us a sufficient cause of the conflict.

    We pushed to get rid of Jaafari a little late in the day, and Maliki's cut from the same stripe. Secondly, it doesn't matter if we don't support everything they choose to do; we are aligned with the Iraqi government which has Shi'ite vigilantes in their police force.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/26/2006 @ 9:15pm

  303. Jorcheim:

    You're right; much of what we see in the Middle East now is a result of our earlier actions, and much of what we see in the Middle East now is bad. Therefore, preventing the United States from having influence in the region means that it stays bad. Also, we didn't create the fundamentalist movement in Iran; since the people already disliked the idea of a secular government, it could very well have come about on its own had we not backed the Shah. Had they then chosen to support the Soviet Union, that would have been even worse. As a sidenote, you failed to respond to the multiple reasons I gave why it's important to have US influence in the Middle East, based on the huge strategic significance that the Middle East has. Those arguments mean that a loss of influence (which you're saying would result from Iran's possession of nuclear weapons) would be terrible.

    Also, you don't really respond to my arguments about Israel. First of all, if Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons, Israel will see them as a threat (perhaps for good reason) and launch a strike against Iran. Second, I'm pretty sure you just said "Iran will nuke Israel? That's fantastic!", which makes absolutely no strategic sense whatsoever.

    Finally, on to Bruno's arguments. You're right, my knowledge of Iraq is limited, but even with your correction, the argument still stands. Iran still has a powerful motivation for continuing the violence, so Iraq will be extremely unstable if we choose to leave. Having Iran's resource backing the Shia government in place of ours would be a pretty bad state of affairs, because it would effectively place Iran in control of Iraq.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/26/2006 @ 9:46pm

  304. Posted by THRAWN 04/26/2006 @ 9:46pm: You're right; much of what we see in the Middle East now is a result of our earlier actions, and much of what we see in the Middle East now is bad. Therefore, preventing the United States from having influence in the region means that it stays bad.

    There's that Neo-Con Logic for ya. If what we have done in the past has led to bad results, isn't it likely that maintaining the US influence in the region will have additional bad results? That is, if action A has always led to result B in the past, isn't it more reasonable to assume that a future action A will lead to result B then that it will lead to result not B. Hence, a far more logical therefore for your sentence would be "therefore, allowing the United States to maintain influence in the region means that it will get worse".

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 10:42pm

  305. Posted by THRAWN 04/26/2006 @ 9:46pm: Iran still has a powerful motivation for continuing the violence, so Iraq will be extremely unstable if we choose to leave.

    As opposed to the stability that exists now? Do you actually reside on this planet or are you just visiting?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 10:50pm

  306. You're not being responsive to the actual arguments I've made. I said that specific actions we took in the past (ie, supporting the Shah) helped make the Middle East the way it is now. We were right to do it (as the Cold War analysis that you never responded to makes clear). Moreover, it wasn't just the fact that we did something in the Middle East that made it like it is, so it doesn't follow that continuing to have a role in the Middle East will continue to make it worse.

    Also, yes, Iraq isn't entirely stable. That was never my argument; my argument was that Iraq becomes significantly less stable if we just leave immediately. My analysis as to why Iraq becomes less stable has also not been responded to. All of my arguments still stand because you've responded to nothing but strawmen of them.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/26/2006 @ 11:10pm

  307. Posted by THRAWN 04/26/2006 @ 11:10pm: You're not being responsive to the actual arguments I've made.

    Gee and I was trying and everything...

    We were right to do it (as the Cold War analysis that you never responded to makes clear).

    Your "Cold War Analysis" is a hypothetical history of the world that would have been had we not supported the Shah. Forgive me if I am not impressed.

    Moreover, it wasn't just the fact that we did something in the Middle East that made it like it is,

    As someone said "much of what we see in the Middle East now is a result of our earlier actions".

    so it doesn't follow that continuing to have a role in the Middle East will continue to make it worse.

    No, it doesn't follow. But it is certainly the more probable outcome, given our dreadful history of failure whenever we attempt to play chess with the world.

    Also, yes, Iraq isn't entirely stable.

    No not entirely. Not at all. Ever notice how whenever one of the Decider's Boys shows up in Iraq, it is always in a surprise unannounced vist? Ever wonder why?

    Not entirely stable? There's about 100 acres of Green Zone that's almost safe.

    By the way, what brings you our planet, Thraw?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/26/2006 @ 11:56pm

  308. Thrawn

    First, the presence of US forces contributes to instability by providing a recruitment inducement for the insurgents. Your argument that because there is an incipient civil war means that their not attacking us is belied by the current spike in US fatalities this month. Second, as long as the US pledges to stay the course, the Shi'ites are less likely to make constitutional concessions to the Sunnis.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/26/2006 @ 11:58pm

  309. Your "Cold War Analysis" is a hypothetical history of the world that would have been had we not supported the Shah. Forgive me if I am not impressed.

    Your argument at this point seems to be that we supported the Shah just for the heck of it, which doesn't really make any sense. The only reason we ever supported repressive regimes was because we believed (almost always correctly) that the alternative was a Soviet-backed regime, and I think we can probably agree that that would be terrible.

    Moreover, the consequences that we see in Iran are specifically from us supporting the Shah, a repressive government that the population hated. In other words, the effect we see now came from a specific action that we took in the past, not just "well, we were in the Middle East, and that's why it's screwed up." Just out of curiosity, what alternative would you recommend? Leave the Middle East completely to its own devices. Go ahead and defend that if you will, but it seems like an obvious recipe for disaster.

    But [failure] is certainly the more probable outcome, given our dreadful history of failure whenever we attempt to play chess with the world.

    Actually, that's not true at all. Our decision to "play chess with the world" had a substantial role in actually winning the Cold War. The Soviets were certainly "playing chess with the world," especially in our own backyard, and a failure to deal with that would have been catastrophic. How do you think that they got pushed out of Afghanistan? The mujahideen that we funded (that, yes, later became al Qaeda) seriously drained and demoralized their army.

    Not entirely stable? There's about 100 acres of Green Zone that's almost safe.

    If I recall correctly, there's substantially more than that, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether Iraq will actually become more secure from us pulling out immediately. I don't think there's any real reason to believe that it would, and I give a number of reasons why I think it would become either substantially less stable or become a puppet of Iran. I'll go ahead and deal with that as I respond to Bruno's analysis.

    By the way, what brings you our planet, Thraw?

    I'm assuming that you want to know why I've suddenly decided to start posting here. Honestly, I put a lot of value in discourse, and noticed that there aren't a lot of articulated conservative positions here. I wanted to add a voice and have meaningful debate (which I've definitely had).

    First, the presence of US forces contributes to instability by providing a recruitment inducement for the insurgents. Your argument that because there is an incipient civil war means that their not attacking us is belied by the current spike in US fatalities this month.

    This is the only harm to Iraq that I've heard yet from the "stay the course" idea. However, I don't think that our presence actually generates substantial recruitment for the insurgents, because they're primarily focused on fighting each other rather than us. If our presence were sufficiently inflammatory such that it would give them substantial recruitment, they wouldn't be mostly at each other's throats rather than ours.

    More importantly, though, I don't think you really address the harms of your alternative. First of all, I already argued that our leaving won't induce the Shia to make constitutional concessions to the Shia, so that issue isn't unique to staying the course. Second, and perhaps most importantly, with the US out of the picture, the primary (perhaps exclusive) influence in Iraq is Iran, which (as I've pointed out) is a truly awful outcome. We absolutely don't want Iran influencing outcome in Iraq and thus acquiring even more power in the region than it already has.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/27/2006 @ 12:54am

  310. Posted by THRAWN 04/27/2006 @ 12:54am: Your argument at this point seems to be that we supported the Shah just for the heck of it, which doesn't really make any sense.

    I am not sure why that is my argument at this point. I was trying to say that your assertions of what might have happened had we not backed the Shah are simply your predictions. They are in no way based on facts (since the events never happened) and hence can not be used as evidence in any rational debate.

    the alternative was a Soviet-backed regime, and I think we can probably agree that that would be terrible

    You have no idea what would have been. I think we can probably agree that the Shah's US-backed regime was terrible.

    Moreover, the consequences that we see in Iran are specifically from us supporting the Shah, a repressive government that the population hated. In other words, the effect we see now came from a specific action that we took in the past

    Thanks for understanding my point.

    not just "well, we were in the Middle East, and that's why it's screwed up."

    And whose quote is that? Do you suffer Mask's preference for making up quotes?

    Not entirely stable? There's about 100 acres of Green Zone that's almost safe.

    If I recall correctly, there's substantially more than that, but that's not the issue.

    Gee, how much more do you recall? Was it 150 acres?

    The issue is whether Iraq will actually become more secure from us pulling out immediately. I don't think there's any real reason to believe that it would

    Silly you. It would certainly enhance security for the US soldiers that would no longer be there. And, it is entirely likely our exit would reduce the level of violence in the country, if for no other reason than there would be one less violent army.

    By the way, what brings you our planet, Thraw?

    I'm assuming that you want to know why I've suddenly decided to start posting here.

    No. I was wondering what brought you to the planet Earth? Your knowledge is such that I assume you must just be visiting.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/27/2006 @ 10:31am

  311. I was trying to say that your assertions of what might have happened had we not backed the Shah are simply your predictions. They are in no way based on facts (since the events never happened) and hence can not be used as evidence in any rational debate.

    Whenever we make decisions as to what course of action to take, we have to be able to make reasonable predictions as to the consequences of whatever action we take. We can make these kinds of predictions, which is why rational decision-making is possible. The same is true for a nation making foreign policy; it can make reasonable determinations as to what the effects of its choices will be. During the Cold War, the only reason we supported bad governments was because we had solid reason to believe that the country would likely go to the USSR if we didn't, and that would have awful international implications. That's the reason we supported the Shah. If we couldn't predict possible outcomes of our decisions, like you seem to say we couldn't, we could never make coherent national policy. That's absurd.

    I'm glad you've also agreed that the consequences we're seeing aren't just from the fact that we were active in the Middle East, because that means that the concerns you talk about don't apply to this case. Last I checked, we're not supporting a Shah...

    Gee, how much more do you recall? Was it 150 acres?

    Good strawman, but I seem to remember there being significant areas of Iraq that are actually stable (3 provinces, to be precise). The point is that it isn't completely unstable, and our troops are a significant part of the reason why.

    It would certainly enhance security for the US soldiers that would no longer be there. And, it is entirely likely our exit would reduce the level of violence in the country, if for no other reason than there would be one less violent army.

    Yes, if US soldiers weren't in Iraq, they'd be safer. That's true. However, it most certainly wouldn't reduce the violence in the country, because there would be nothing to prevent the outbreak of out-and-out civil war. As I've argued against Bruno, the Shia aren't going to start making concessions just because we leave, so civil war will continue. This effect will be magnified by Iran's significant-increased influence, which, as I've also pointed out, would be really bad.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/27/2006 @ 1:38pm

  312. Posted by JORCHEIM 04/26/2006 @ 8:26pm

    In response to your reasoning on why it would be good for Iran to have nukes (or "mukes", as you called them), I must respectfully disagree. The US cannot afford to let Iran get nukes.

    Why? One word: PAYBACK

    Fifty years of US foreign policy has certainly pissed off a lot of arabs, and I don't want them nuking me as a form of retribution.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/27/2006 @ 5:11pm

  313. or persians either, for that matter.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/27/2006 @ 5:27pm

  314. ILOVEPHYSICS:

    Come on dude... please don't tell me you have sunken so low as to impugn a typing error to try to make a point...

    And don't tell me that you believe that if Iran had a nuke they would be able to even use it against us. It's all about delivery systems. And they don't have em.

    Posted by jorcheim at 04/27/2006 @ 8:01pm

  315. Jorcheim

    They are working on it--developing missiles based on North Korean designs, see the FAS here.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/27/2006 @ 10:51pm

  316. .

    Zbigninski

    This guy owes his entire career to his name. It hits you as such a phonetic freight train, that after the shock of the collision, his remarks, however problematic, sound straight forward and plausible.

    Consider the following:

    There is unintended but potentially tragic irony in a situation in which the obscene language of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (whose powers are actually much more limited than his title implies) helps to justify threats by administration figures who like to hint of mushroom clouds, which in turn help Ahmadinejad to exploit his intransigence to gain more fervent domestic support for himself as well as for the Iranian nuclear program.

    Zbig's first order of business here is to trivialize President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pronouncements. He suggests, raunchy as they are, they count for little since under Iran's system the president doesn't really run the country.

    That is insidious. Sure, the real power in Iran is with the Council of Guardians. But President Ahmadinejad is the regime's most visible figure. He clearly speaks for it. Even if his actual powers are no more than those of a White House press secretary, or a State Dept undersecretary, surely whatever he says has the approval of the big boys. Maybe he could shoot off his mouth on his own tack once, maybe twice, but if he keeps repeating the same line, the same threats and warnings for months (his October 26 speech was the opening shot) that certainly means the leadership wants that message put across.

    Zbig's solution is a used car salesman's trick of rolling back the odometer setting on a clunker. The car isn't really as beat up as it appears, look at the low mileage.

    His next slight of hand is to deplore threats that "hint of mushroom clouds." Yes, the Iranians are already threatening to erase other countries with weapons they imply they will soon have. But Zbig makes it sound as if the US is threateing the Iranians with mushroom clouds. He is accusing the administration of the Iranian's sin. He is brandishing the classic paranoia of the Left: whatever evil looms in the world, the US either conceived it, armed it, financed it, or tricked others into causing it.

    Thus, if the Iranians are being a little wild, its because the bumbling administrtion incited them, scared them, stampeded them into this position.

    Brzinski is much closer to The Nation, than to the nation.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 04/28/2006 @ 06:29am

  317. Posted by NACL 04/28/2006 @ 06:29am: This guy owes his entire career to his name.

    As opposed to you Salty? What do you owe your career to?

    But Zbig makes it sound as if the US is threateing the Iranians with mushroom clouds.

    We ARE threateing the Iranians with nukes. Do you listen to the Decider? All options are on the table. Why do you dismiss the Decider's words? Do you not believe in the Decider? One MUST believe in the Decider. Why are you such an America-hater?

    People who do not believe in the Decider should be shot.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 10:13am

  318. surely whatever he says has the approval of the big boys. Maybe he could shoot off his mouth on his own tack once, maybe twice, but if he keeps repeating the same line, the same threats and warnings for months (his October 26 speech was the opening shot) that certainly means the leadership wants that message put across.

    That's conclusory. There are several factions at play in Iran, Amahdinejad's is strong enough that he can really shoot his mouth off when he wants to. His statements can't be ignored but it's conclusory to infer from that the Khameni's imprimatur.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/28/2006 @ 11:25am

  319. .

    BRUNOWE 04/28 @ 11:25am

    There are several factions at play in Iran, Amahdinejad's is strong enough that he can really shoot his mouth off when he wants to. His statements can't be ignored but it's conclusory to infer from that the Khameni's imprimatur.

    You want it both ways. On the one hand Amahdinejad's ravings aren't to be taken seriously because, as Zbig suggests, the real power in Iran lies with the Council of Guardians. On the other hand he is powerful enough to misrepresent Iran's policies and make Iran into a pariah state, and the Council of Guardians can't stop him.

    Why somersaults for a regime that see a path open to nukes and already, in its excitement, cannot resist talking about the countries it means to incinerate? What sort of creature are you?

    Orwell thinks, the US is the nuclear blackmailer, because she refuses to say how she will defend herself and her allies against explicit and continual Iranian threats to erase entire countries.

    The one ray of light is Rothberg's assurance that should Iran nuke Israel The Nation will without any hesitation denounce her. That posting has abashed the Council of Guardians. A veritable pall has fallen over Tehran. They fiercest Iranian hawks are sitting around dejected and gloomy. The very call of the muezzin from the minarets of Islam have lost their joie de vie.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 04/28/2006 @ 6:59pm

  320. You want it both ways. On the one hand Amahdinejad's ravings aren't to be taken seriously because, as Zbig suggests, the real power in Iran lies with the Council of Guardians. On the other hand he is powerful enough to misrepresent Iran's policies and make Iran into a pariah state, and the Council of Guardians can't stop him.

    It's actually quite simple--he's powerful enough to shoot his mouth off but he's not powerful to have the final word.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/29/2006 @ 12:54am

Peter Rothberg Peter Rothberg

Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Another Helping of FDR Please | Obama should follow the New Deal president's example and make his Thanksgiving Proclamation a call for economic justice.
John Nichols
11 Comments
Posted at 0:24 ET

» Editor's Cut

Filibuster Follies | "The filibuster has become a cancer growing inside the world's greatest deliberative body."
Katrina vanden Heuvel
70 Comments

» The Notion

Bad Black Mothers | For African American women, reproduction has never been an entirely private matter.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell
88 Comments

» Act Now!

Coal Country | Stunning film reveals new dimensions to the cost of America's over-reliance on coal.
Peter Rothberg
104 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

A Kingdom of Bicycles No Longer | China's ambassador for climate change speaks on the eve of the Copenhagen summit meeting.
Robert Dreyfuss
57 Comments