Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's both funny and sad -- okay, mostly funny -- to watch the right-wingers, neocons, and pro-Israel hawks gnashing their teeth and nay-saying about the Iran talks. Fact is, the results of yesterday's meetings were pretty darned good, for seven hours work: the US and Iran sat down for an extended one-on-one, Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to look at the Qom facility that caused all the hubbub, and Iran also acceded to a plan to ship most of its enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it will be turned into fuel rods for a reactor that is used to medical purposes. (That latter step means that Iran is getting rid of most --estimates are, as much as 75 per cent -- of the low-enriched uranium that, according to the hawks, it was storing up to make a bomb.)
Going in, the hawks screeched that talking to Iran is worse than useless. So, now that the talks have actually accomplished something? Umm--they're still useless, or worse.
The Wall Street Journal, in an hysterical editorial entitled "Springtime for Mullahs," writes:
"The evidence is overwhelming that the window to stop the world's leading sponsor of terrorism from acquiring a bomb is closing fast. If we are serious about doing so, the proper model isn't North Korea, but Libya. The Gadhafi regime agreed to disarm after the fall of Saddam Hussein convinced its leaders that their survival was better assured without nuclear weapons. Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iran's mullahs will only concede if they see their future the same way."This supposed fresh start in Geneva only gives them new legitimacy, and new hope that they can have their bomb and enhanced global standing too."
Or take the editorial at National Review:
"The big news out of the talks is that Iran agreed to rapid International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of its just-revealed enrichment facility at Qom and, in principle, to ship some of its existing low-enriched uranium to Russia. Although these items will be enough for the press -- and for Iran's international enablers -- to play up the positive results of the talks, neither of these moves is earth-shattering. The Iranians are masters of making concessions that they take back or water down. ... The game for Iran here is a relatively easy one -- string things along so talks continue and stiffer sanctions are forestalled."
John Bolton, the mustachioed one-man wrecking ball who served as George Bush's anti-ambassador at the UN, said:
""I'm sure the Obama administration will describe the decision to meet again before the end of October as significant. All I can say is that I'm stunned that they would call that significant, just to show that their open-hand policy is working. It's in Iran's interest to have negotiations. It buys them time, legitimacy, and reduces the possibility of sanctions. The Obama administration may say that sweetness and light broke out in Geneva, and that's the problem. It's a fancy."We have been through this pattern repeatedly with Iran. When some information Iran has tried to conceal comes out, it causes another round of negotiations, but no real halt to their nuclear-weapons program. It's just Groundhog Day, over and over again. ... You're never going to chit-chat Iran out of their nuclear-weapons program. Negotiations work in Iran's favor."
Over at the Weekly Standard it's relatively quiet, but Rachel Abrams did manage this snide comment:
"Nice picture of Americans and Iranians sharing a so-far-so-good moment in Geneva. Just wondering: Is Bill Burns thinking of the three young Americans being held hostage by Iranian despots as he sits there gazing across the table at them?"
And Michael Goldfarb, in the same Standard blog, snarked:
"North Korea, Iran, Israel--there has been zero progress on any of these fronts despite all the White House spin to the contrary."
In fact, as Juan Cole pointed out, President Obama made more progress in seven hours than the Bush administration made in eight years. Of course, we can't call what effect the Bush administration did "progress," unless you call the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the installation of 8,000 centrifuges progress.
Perhaps the most judicious and thoughtful neocon specialist on Iran, Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, also ratched up the negativity in an oped called "No Nixon to China Moment Here," in which -- though written before the results of the Geneva meeting were known -- he says that it's undesirable to reach a strategic deal with Iran:
"U.S. friends in the region have reason to be suspicious of the Islamic Republic. Iran wants a greater role in the region than its neighbors want it to have, and revolutionary Iran is using force to achieve that aim, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, or the pursuit of a nuclear program. The United States, as a status quo power, has little interest in helping Iran upset the regional status quo. In short, even if it were possible -- which it is not -- a U.S.-Iran strategic realignment would be undesirable."
Fact is, Iran isn't going anywhere. Will the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime survive six months? A year? Ten years? Or will the opposition manage to topple or infiltrate it or make a deal with Khamenei? We have no idea. So Obama has to negotiate with the Iran that is, not the Iran that he'd like to see, or the one the neocons would like to bring about through "regime change."
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Dreyfuss, your naivete is startling. Iran is holding all the cards. Obama is in over his head.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:17pm
You know if BO pulls this one off, the neocon nutbags are going to claim the credit -
"Without our threats of total obliteration of Iran and crippling sanctions that would starve Iranians, we would have never got Iran to the table. They are afraid, very afraid, thanks to us. All Mr. President had to do was to bring a pen."
Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 1:25pm
gunslinger will set the tone for the Right..."No deals!!!! You can't trust them durn Russkies...er...I mean, Iranians!"
But ask them THEIR solution...and you'll just get "hints".
Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 1:38pm
Dreyfuss, your naivete is startling. Iran is holding all the cards. Obama is in over his head.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:17pm
If we had left Saddam in power it would have saved us a war with Iran since Iran was terrified of crazy ass Saddam. Oh well.
For all you hawks talking about going to war. Where do you expect the resources from that war to come from? Should we abandon Afghanistan and Iraq completely and move in our troops to Iran? This won't be like the war with Saddam. Iran actually has weapons that can hurt our troops. Are we going to raise taxes to pay for the war with Iran? Please enlighten me as to how we are supposed to use our already overstretched military to stop Iran.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:43pm
"Obama's Deal with Iran | So far, so good. It's a promising start."
Yeah,...nothing has happened yet.......
The Persians have thousands of years of experince as merchants,trading, negoitations and haggling..they are pros....
and Obama has experience in nothing...community organising? Please....I deal with Persian, Pakis, and many olther peoples from different parts of the world weekly...you must be aware of their styles...
Obama has never run or negoiated anything...he is seen as weak and able to have his pockets picked..and he will(ours)....
He is in over his head.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 1:54pm
The ultimate irony of this whole charade is that Iran presents the best hope for a fruitful partnership in the Great Game --the hydrocarbon energy game of course.
They are perfectly placed astride the Caspian and the Arabian Seas, they have had a relatively stable history of reasonably good government (when the U.S. has stayed out), they have a good base of well educated and modern citizens, and the one thing they crave most deeply is the respect of the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, our foreign policy runs largely through a small Middle Eastern nation with an outsize and mostly corrupting, self-defeating influence.
Oh well. Better luck next time, America --after the whole thing goes up in smoke and we start from scratch again.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:06pm
He is in over his head.----Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 1:54pm
BTW, yes...in case you don't keep up...this IS the new talking point from Rush (and imitators). Moving beyond "He's a Marxist" now to "He's an incompetent".
Apparently Obama as a "Machiavellian radical" just wasn't selling for 2010...had to move to a poll-tested "Incompetents running our Government!"
Shhhhh...don't tell, Maasch....he likes to pretend "Rush is only confirming what I already believe!"
Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:32pm
As long as there are transparent inspections by the U.N., I have no problem with Iran processing their own fuel rods. I do not like threats as a "diplomatic" tool. Threats produce fear or uncertainty, and increase preparations for future conflicts. They increase the possibility that threatened countries may feel the "need" for nuclear weapons.
Posted by pjcasey at 10/02/2009 @ 2:32pm
The Obamanation triumphing over Iran with diplomacy is as likely as his bringing the Olympics to Chicago! We know how that turned out!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/02/2009 @ 2:47pm
Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 1:38pm
First of all, I'm not from the right.
I've already given my solution to this problem. Maybe you missed it.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:48pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:43pm
Your knowledge of the ME and our interests there are more startling than Dreyfuss's naivete.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:50pm
Shhhhh...don't tell, Maasch....he likes to pretend "Rush is only confirming what I already believe!"
Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:32pm
You are one strange dude at times, Maskie....
I haven't listened to Rush more than 10 times a year...and none recently.
Not all of us on the right agree or listen to Rush that much....
and conservatives have our own opinions...and Rush happens to arrive at the same conclusion as we....and in some cases he re enforces our own opinons and speaks to our view.
although you and others on the hard left believe that is all the conservatives do....is parrot Rush, when in fact he probably parrots many but not all, of our points..
You miss the point, as do most leftys in health care,too.....and that you think we do not want reform, when we do...we just don't want govt running it.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 2:50pm
Maybe President Obama is listening to his expert on foreign policy, Joe Biden, who thinks we should pull out all of our troops and keep just a few Navy Seals there for eyes on the ground and to lob missles from the Gulf every time the bad guys are sighted. Wasn't this Clinton's policy before 9/11?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 2:50pm
"Rush" just the "over-arching term", John.
Since they all say the same thing at the SAME TIME....include Drudge, Beck, Hannity, Fox News "analysts".
And again, just a "weird coincidence" that "all of a sudden" you "figured out that Obama main thing isn't that he's a Marxist radical, but a totally incompetent one"....
just about the same time as those guys and every other right-wing blogger.
Just a co-inky-dink.
Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:48pm
Perhaps I have...care to repeat it in detail?
Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:55pm
"The Persians have thousands of years of experince as merchants,trading, negoitations and haggling..they are pros...."
Someone wrote in a post earlier. Exactly why we should deal with them for the business matters in a business-like way. Not like they are ripe cannon fodder. They don't need chest-thumping bravado from a nation that is itself falling apart (look at our infrastructure). Too afraid to look back or in a mirror..because everything eventually catches up to you.
Posted by TheAfterParty at 10/02/2009 @ 3:08pm
For all you hawks talking about going to war.Where do you expect the resources from that war to come from? Should we abandon Afghanistan and Iraq completely and move in our troops to Iran? This won't be like the war with Saddam. Iran actually has weapons that can hurt our troops. Are we going to raise taxes to pay for the war with Iran? Please enlighten me as to how we are supposed to use our already overstretched military to stop Iran.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:43pm
Would you care to identify who it is calling for a war, as you describe it here, with Iran? Because this reeks of straw man fallacy.
How would I stop Iran's nuclear program? Probably wouldn't take more than a dozen or so Tomahawks, JDAMs, and guided "bunker-busting" type bombs to set their nuclear program back 15 years.
Same way the Israelis did it. And it didn't involve troops on the ground.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:16pm
For all you hawks talking about going to war.Where do you expect the resources from that war to come from? Should we abandon Afghanistan and Iraq completely and move in our troops to Iran? This won't be like the war with Saddam. Iran actually has weapons that can hurt our troops. Are we going to raise taxes to pay for the war with Iran? Please enlighten me as to how we are supposed to use our already overstretched military to stop Iran.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:43pm
Would you care to identify who it is calling for a war, as you describe it here, with Iran? Because this reeks of straw man fallacy.
How would I stop Iran's nuclear program? Probably wouldn't take more than a dozen or so Tomahawks, JDAMs, and guided "bunker-busting" type bombs to set their nuclear program back 15 years.
Same way the Israelis did it. And it didn't involve troops on the ground.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:16pm
Your knowledge of the ME and our interests there are more startling than Dreyfuss's naivete.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:50pm
What you mean the oft repeated assertion that fear of Saddam was keeping the region stable? That the only reason that Iran hadn't tried to expand it's reach earlier was fear of what Saddam might do. If you don't know that then it shouldn't be my information you are calling into question. We destabilized the region massively by invading Iraq. Anyone can see that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:20pm
That the only reason that Iran hadn't tried to expand it's reach earlier was fear of what Saddam might do. If you don't know that then it shouldn't be my information you are calling into question.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:20pm
This is an interesting assertion, considering that Saddam himself admitted to his FBI interrogator he had pretended to have WMDs throughout the 1990s in order to keep Iran at bay.
Kicking out inspectors, acting like he had something to hide, yeah...that worked pretty good for awhile. Very convincing. Very believeable.
There wasn't a credible intelligence outfit in the world who said he didn't have them.
Saddam also told his interrogator that he realized it was a terrible mistake on 9/11, because nobody would then believe he didn't have them.
But it was Bush who lied, right?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:28pm
That the only reason that Iran hadn't tried to expand it's reach earlier was fear of what Saddam might do. If you don't know that then it shouldn't be my information you are calling into question.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:20pm
This is an interesting assertion, considering that Saddam himself admitted to his FBI interrogator he had pretended to have WMDs throughout the 1990s in order to keep Iran at bay.
Kicking out inspectors, acting like he had something to hide, yeah...that worked pretty good for awhile. Very convincing. Very believeable.
There wasn't a credible intelligence outfit in the world who said he didn't have them.
Saddam also told his interrogator that he realized it was a terrible mistake on 9/11, because nobody would then believe he didn't have them.
But it was Bush who lied, right?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:28pm
The Obamanation triumphing over Iran with diplomacy is as likely as his bringing the Olympics to Chicago! We know how that turned out!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/02/2009 @ 2:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So, just for future reference then: if ANY given U.S. President does not "get" the Olympics, they're a failure?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/02/2009 @ 3:32pm
For if it is fear of Saddam and what he might do, as you assert, that kept Iran and the region in place for an entire decade, then they certainly cannot have been afraid of his conventional forces.
Those were pretty much wasted. Torn up. Demoralized. In 2003 we overthrew the Baathists in 15 days, with weather holding us up more than the Iraqi troops.
If what you say is true, and fear of Saddam was key to stability, then it was fear of the WMDs everyone thought Saddam had. And that is exactly what Saddam intended.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:32pm
For if it is fear of Saddam and what he might do, as you assert, that kept Iran and the region in place for an entire decade, then they certainly cannot have been afraid of his conventional forces.
Those were pretty much wasted. Torn up. Demoralized. In 2003 we overthrew the Baathists in 15 days, with weather holding us up more than the Iraqi troops.
If what you say is true, and fear of Saddam was key to stability, then it was fear of the WMDs everyone thought Saddam had. And that is exactly what Saddam intended.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:32pm
Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:55pm
Not really. Scroll through the last couple of posts from Dreyfuss. You'll find it there.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:32pm
So, just for future reference then: if ANY given U.S. President does not "get" the Olympics, they're a failure?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/02/2009 @ 3:32pm
Well, let's just say that when Blair and Putin went to make personal pitches for the Olympics...they got theirs.
With Obama, this was another example of his oh so high opinion of himself and his oh so high estimation of how other people feel about him guiding his actions.
Another "Me, me, me, I, I, I" appeal on a world stage that is rapidly starting to cut out paper dolls in the audience while wondering if somebody will go get the big vaudeville stage hook.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:40pm
So, just for future reference then: if ANY given U.S. President does not "get" the Olympics, they're a failure?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/02/2009 @ 3:32pm
Well, let's just say that when Blair and Putin went to make personal pitches for the Olympics...they got theirs.
With Obama, this was another example of his oh so high opinion of himself and his oh so high estimation of how other people feel about him guiding his actions.
Another "Me, me, me, I, I, I" appeal on a world stage that is rapidly starting to cut out paper dolls in the audience while wondering if somebody will go get the big vaudeville stage hook.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:40pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:40pm
Thanks for the call-back, CC.
But I was trying to limit myself here to the relative Olympic-getting effectiveness of US Presidents only.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/02/2009 @ 3:46pm
I can't think of any other U.S. presidents who traveled to the Olympic committee--with their wives--in order that both of them could make impassioned speeches about hosting a series of sporting events.
Especially when America was approaching 10% unemployment and has troops in harm's way.
But maybe my memory is faulty...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:50pm
I can't think of any other U.S. presidents who traveled to the Olympic committee--with their wives--in order that both of them could make impassioned speeches about hosting a series of sporting events.
Especially when America was approaching 10% unemployment and has troops in harm's way.
But maybe my memory is faulty...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:50pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:43pm
Well let's see. The last time we faced a threat like this, a draft was instituted to supply the military with the needed human resources. Modern warfare however doesn't require that kind of drastic measure unless of course Europe, Australia, Israel, Japan and Canada change sides and decide to side with the lunatics in Iran, Libya and Venezuela and elsewhere.
Our success in Iraq gives a base of operations on the Iranian border and a good excuse to keep troops there to maintain the peace that was already fought for. To the south of Iran, is the Gulf where our carriers can roam like a lion stalking it's prey and can strike in seconds. Actually, strategically, we are in pretty good shape there. That of course depends on how Obama handles Afghanistan. If he gives it up to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we're screwed.
The Russians can still supply Iran from the north but if our military can secure northern Iran, we could cut that supply off. Iran is basically surrounded but they are facing what is so far a weak American President who goes around apologizing for GWB's ridding the world of Saddam. He disgraces every troop who lost their life when he does that.
Now he goes to Copenhagen to try and use his rhetoric, along with that of his wife, to pursuade the suits to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago with all their violence and corrupt politcs.
Well, when you run around apologizing for your country, which Obama made a point of doing early on in his Presidency, it comes as no surprise that the world sees him as weak. He visually looks weak and his actions so far support that. Never thought I'd miss GWB.
Barack Obama is being tested. Somehow he'll have to stop walking so softly and carry a bigger stick.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:52pm
Wow.
And I thought I was supercaveatting it.
I stand exceeded.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/02/2009 @ 3:52pm
But ask them THEIR solution...and you'll just get "hints".
Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 1:38pm
Mask exactly -- that captures Reverend Happy Bradgelina very well.
The name "anti" says it all. He's opposed, against, negative, not positive, not for. Forever knocking down his twisted projection straw men post after post - like her, the appeaser straw man.
Progressives fight more fluidly. On Iran, as Dreyfuss explains in his many articles, there are huge complexities and these call for an ability the think and act flexibly, to engage in constructive talks on certain issues AND engage and threaten, with clear-eyed calm how bad we're going to kick ass on other fronts AND use the G-20 to marginalize, sanction AND maybe surgically strike - options, possibilities, creativity.
Things the Baptist, my country or else Palin idiots just can't cognitively handle. But more critically, they can't see what they can't see. So believe they see with clarity - just as a dog doesn't know his owner (with the exception of Palin voters) is smarter than he is.
Posted by winyahn at 10/02/2009 @ 4:05pm
Barack Obama is being tested. Somehow he'll have to stop walking so softly and carry a bigger stick.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:52pm
Your war plan is a funny one. I wonder why GWB didn't just invade if it was so easy. The problem is if we wanted Iran we would have to finish our war in Afghanistan which anyone with half a brain can is going to take quite a while. Which means even if we were to try to invade Iran it would take at the very least another 5-8 years. So if we are going to stop them from getting nukes, good luck.
I am talking about what we would have to do to invade Iran tomorrow which is what many people on the right are asking for.
So how would we invade tomorrow if Obama did what the right has been calling for invaded Iran tomorrow. On top of that what if Iraq doesn't want us to keep our troops in their country? Are we supposed o tell them to go screw themselves. Essentially the reason your plan is flawed is that it requires that Iraq allow us to keep large amounts of our military in their country, which is looking less and less likely and because of that it will make taking their northern border a lot more difficult. Unless you think Turkey or Syria will allow us to move our forces through their country. Doubtful.
Then you talk about moving our carriers into the gulf. You make it sound like we can just sale right in no problems. You forget that Iran IS the major obstacle to getting into the gulf and it is a narrow passage to actually get in. All they have to do is mine the passage. There are the two most major obstacles to US invasion. Carriers are protected from large battle ships but they are more susceptible to attacks from smaller craft.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 4:21pm
All of your strategy is entirely based on presumption of the future of events. Which means your strategy is weak overall and even worse if you are talking about invading tomorrow.
And you shouldn't conflate support for the war with support for the troops I think it's the dumbest thing the right has done and is part of what turned the country against them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 4:22pm
Oh and by the way gunslinger all your swagger is missing one big fact. If China doesn't want us to invade Iraq, we can't. Why? China owns all of our debt and is the only reason we were able to sustain a battle with Iraq and Afghanistan. They were buying almost all of our war bonds because citizens won't because we have yet to be attacked so support is not galvanized. So how do you deal with China and our debt? Do you raise taxes to 60% to pay for an unpopular war? Let's see how long people will stand for it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 4:33pm
See to you gunslinger it's simple. Oh we just invade through Iraq and the gulf and it will be no problem. That's the difference between you and a President. You take into consideration one thing at a time. Any governments leader has to take into account the repurcussions of any action and the effect it will have on our relationships with other countries as well as what favors we will have to call into to make it happen. You see politics on the micro. Presidents have to see it on the macro.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 4:40pm
The problem with Libya was never their suitcase full of rusty parts and amateur diagrams, it was their probable involvement in the Pan Am Lockerbie incident, where they probably blew up that plane. Bush did not so much extract concessions from Libya, as relieve Libya of a suitcase full of rusty parts and pardon them at the same time, so that American oil companies could go in there and get those contracts. Conservatives embrace of that whole deal is coming from their lack of patriotism.
Posted by DPGrassley at 10/02/2009 @ 4:40pm
Irans nuclear reactors - it was American hawks who insisted it was "necessary" to build them for the Shah,.
Posted by DPGrassley at 10/02/2009 @ 4:42pm
For all you hawks talking about going to war. Where do you expect the resources from that war to come from? Should we abandon Afghanistan and Iraq completely and move in our troops to Iran? This won't be like the war with Saddam. Iran actually has weapons that can hurt our troops. Are we going to raise taxes to pay for the war with Iran? Please enlighten me as to how we are supposed to use our already overstretched military to stop Iran.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:43pm
Who is talking about going to war? libs keep saying that but where is the massive conservative call for war? I haven't seen it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:47pm
NRO got it right;
As for agreeing to send low-enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it will be further enriched to a level sufficient for medical research and returned to Iran, this is "confidence-building step," in Obama's words, to nowhere. The Iranians get the uranium back, and it's impossible to know how much of Iran's total uranium stock the portion slated for export represents. As we speak, the Iranians are still enriching at Natanz. Yesterday, Obama appeared to soft-pedal the demand -- backed up by three U.N. resolutions -- that the Iranians suspend enrichment, mentioning it in his remarks only obliquely. He did not utter the word "sanctions."
The game for Iran here is a relatively easy one -- string things along so talks continue and stiffer sanctions are forestalled. For Tehran, any meeting that leads to other meetings without its being forced to decide between its nuclear program and crippling sanctions or other coercive measures is a victory. Obama said yesterday that "our patience is not unlimited." He'll have to prove it.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/02/2009 @ 4:53pm
Back to the comments of Mr Dreyfuss.
This whole feel good sentiment put forth by Dreyfuss and the libs here is simply a case of premature Ejac.
there is no formal agreement. All we have is the usual Iranian double talk. I doubt that Obama shares the enthusiasm on this privately.
<President Obama called on Iran to provide the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency with "unfettered" access to the newly disclosed Qom uranium enrichment site, and Tehran's nuclear negotiator said the country would cooperate with inspectors.
Iran says it plans to cooperate "fully" and "immediately" with the U.N. nuclear agency and will invite representatives of the body to visit its newly revealed uranium enrichment facility "soon," said Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief.>
Iran says, "we're going to do that, no problem". the Western nations say "good". When? "Soon" say the Iranians.
The check's in the mail.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:53pm
Who is talking about going to war? libs keep saying that but where is the massive conservative call for war? I haven't seen it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:47pm
You must have a very short term memory.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 6:16pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:53pm
Weird every article I read said it would be in the next two weeks. Where did you get that article from they seem to be lacking information.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 6:19pm
>> funny -- to watch the right-wingers, neocons, and pro-Israel hawks gnashing their teeth and nay-saying about the Iran talks. Fact is, the results of yesterday's meetings were pretty darned good << Dreyfuss.
Dreyfuss has never had respect for facts or a capacity for the truth. Pro-Israelis and neocons know and admit that the military option is perilous. They desperately want Iran's denuking to be peaceful.
The Dreyfuss types and Nation radicals however, are drolling for an Iranian bomb that will be waved over Israel's and America's heads. They are the ones who hope that these talks fail. They are in no sweat because they know that the Iranians have no intention of being talked out of their ambition. They know that Persians are famously, rug merchants.
The AP, no neocons there, notes, "Tehran and the six world powers are already quibbling over what was agreed on ahead of follow-up talks later this month."
The deal to ship Iranian uranium to Russia isn't really a deal. We learn:
" President Barack Obama noted the deal in comments on the meeting. But Mehdi Saffare, Iran's ambassador to Britain and a member of the Iranian delegation at the talks, told The Associated Press the issue had "not been discussed yet." Asked if Iran had accepted, he replied: "No, no!"
We have the prospect of meeting after meeting to discuss what was discussed or not discussed at the last meeting. And new meetings to discuss future meetings.
Posted by Pirovano at 10/02/2009 @ 7:15pm
Weird every article I read said it would be in the next two weeks. Where did you get that article from they seem to be lacking information.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 6:19pm
CNN
http://tinyurl.com/yeblqwn
Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:28pm
Who is talking about going to war? libs keep saying that but where is the massive conservative call for war? I haven't seen it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:47pm
You must have a very short term memory.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 6:16pm
Than it should be easy to name some
Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:29pm
To all of you ass holes who want a war with iran.if you are such a hot shot then why the hell don,t you go there and fight?why do you expect american soldiers to leave their family,friends and their country and die a horrible death so the zionist land theives can continue their terrorism in the middle east?
Most of those who advocate such a disaster for the USA are zionists.the zionists don,t give a shit about the USA and the people of the country.they just want to build a gruesome,cruel and racist paradise on other people,s stolen land.
there is a simple suggestion for you zionist traitors.set up several battalions of jewish boys and girls and let them fight the war against iran.let,s see wether they will leave their "nazi" BMW,s and mercedes benzes and their expensive schools.
leave the american kids alone.go fight your own fucking wars.
Posted by excalibur999 at 10/02/2009 @ 10:22pm
Posted by excalibur999 at 10/02/2009 @ 10:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Who are you talking to or about? I see no one but leftist talking of war! (must be some strawman)
Posted by BigPasture at 10/02/2009 @ 10:48pm
Who is talking about going to war? libs keep saying that but where is the massive conservative call for war? I haven't seen it. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:47pm You must have a very short term memory. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 6:16pm
I like to think I have a pretty good memory. But, I don't recall a massive conservative call for war.
So, Cccomfo, who are you referring to? Let's name some names.
Posted by twillie at 10/02/2009 @ 10:56pm
Obama has never run or negoiated anything...he is seen as weak and able to have his pockets picked..and he will(ours)....
He is in over his head.
Posted by YourJomamma
Hey, maybe we can get George W. Bush back to deal with the Iranians...
He can impress them by showing them that video of himself picking his nose in public.
Posted by koroviev at 10/03/2009 @ 01:25am
Again we are in a mess helped by bGeorge and his band of merry men. I am not the top U.N. supporter on the block but why do I have to listen to the walking disaster John Bolton? What did he negotiate,how many nails to put in your arm? He was just another example of the lack of thoughtfulness of the Bush administration. Cliff May seems to want war with Iran,there is a name.
Posted by whatozz at 10/03/2009 @ 08:00am
Posted by koroviev at 10/03/2009 @ 01:25am |
Or perhaps Ahmadinejad will be more receptive to Dubya-rub-downs than Angela Merkel!
Posted by snowball777 at 10/03/2009 @ 09:06am
Posted by twillie at 10/02/2009 @ 10:56pm |
You even had a theme song...that you borrowed from the Beach Boys.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/03/2009 @ 09:06am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:29pm |
"Than [sic] it should be easy to name some"
Lee Bollinger from Columbia
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html
Norman Podhoretz
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/ 0907/5964.html
And, of course, Dick Cheney and Ari Fleischer's little propaganda machine, Freedom's Watch
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/ 11/20/freedomswatch-iran-sell/
Posted by snowball777 at 10/03/2009 @ 09:19am
Same way the Israelis did it. And it didn't involve troops on the ground.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:16pm
Just to be clear, this would be nothing like the Israeli strike. If we were to strike with bunker busters, we'd be striking a nuclear facility with a nuclear weapon that is itself 6X more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
The main facility at Natanz is a mere couple hundred miles outside of Tehran. How can we possibly fire off a volley of low grade nuclear weapons and expect to avoid significant harm to the population? More to the point, how will this help our standing among the Iranian population. Iranians already viewed the nuclear program as a redline issue before the Presidential elections.
In a strictly strategic sense, the Israeli strike didn't work. According the IAEA, Iraq started its pursuit of a nuclear weapon in 1982 after the strike on the Osiraq reactor.
Posted by nkurland at 10/03/2009 @ 11:01am
The majority of the people want to live in a war /violence free world. The war mongers are liars, and they get support from some medias. A war, only helps the arm manufacturers. A war never brings peace and security. What security is attained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who benefited from it? Iranians are brave. They resisted 8 years of war with Iraq supported by the Western countries and some Arab rulers.They never attacked any countries.
Posted by Dastu11 at 10/03/2009 @ 11:45am
"The Persians have thousands of years of experince as merchants,trading, negoitations and haggling..they are pros...."
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 1:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
How about Zionists?
'After serving as an advisor to Bill Clinton, in 1998 Emanuel resigned from his position in the Clinton administration and became an investment banker at Wasserstein Perella (now Dresdner Kleinwort), where he worked until 2002.[28] In 1999, he became a managing director at the firm's Chicago office. Emanuel made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-year stint as a banker, according to Congressional disclosures.[28][29] At Wasserstein Perella, he worked on eight deals, including the acquisition by Commonwealth Edison of Peco Energy and the purchase by GTCR Golder Rauner of the SecurityLink home security unit from SBC Communications.[28]
Emanuel was named to the Board of Directors for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") by then President Bill Clinton in 2000. His position earned him at least $320,000, including later stock sales.[30][31] He was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, and the Board met no more than six times per year.[31]
During his time on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities.[31][32] The Obama Administration rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director.[31]
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) later accused the board of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention." Emanuel resigned from the board in 2001 when he ran for Congress.[33]'
Wiki
Posted by OneVote at 10/03/2009 @ 11:52am
Now check out who owns Obama's ear:
'Emanuel is a close friend of fellow Chicagoan David Axelrod, chief strategist for the 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign. Axelrod signed the ketuba, a Jewish marriage contract, at Emanuel's wedding, an honor that goes to a close friend.[17]'
Hmmmmm...................
'In January, 2003 he was named to the Financial Services Committee, and sat on the subcommittee that oversaw Freddie Mac. A few months later, Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel was forced out, and the committee and subcommittee commenced hearings lasting for more than a year. Emanuel skipped every hearing allegedly for reasons of avoiding any appearance of favoritism, impropriety, or conflict of interest.[38]
In 2006, Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass reported he had a newsroom confrontation with Emanuel over Kass's continued speculation that Emanuel only won his 2002 election because convicted former Chicago water department boss Don Tomczak sent in his employees to work for Emanuel. He also speculated that Mayor Richard Daley's "underlings" who were sentenced to federal prison for organizing "patronage armies" also helped Emanuel.[32]
A top contributor to Emanuel's campaigns have been Securities and Investments business interests according to Open Secrets's research: [1]'
Hmmmm.............................
Wiki
Now - does anybody really think that Obama doesn't owe Daley a few favors?
Better think again.
Bama's fight is going to be to stay on a "level playing" field with Iran. It is the Zionists in his government that he has to worry about, not "wiley" Persian merchants.
What nonsense Maasch!
Posted by OneVote at 10/03/2009 @ 12:04pm
You even had a theme song...that you borrowed from the Beach Boys. Posted by snowball777 at 10/03/2009 @ 09:06am | ignore this person | warn this person
from our credit where credit is due dept,:
The Regents were a doo-wop vocal group from New York in the late 1950s and early 1960s. They are best known for writing and recording the hit "Barbara Ann" in 1961, which reached #13 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and #2 when later covered by the Beach Boys in 1965 on their album, Beach Boys' Party!, and the Who.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 12:56pm
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html Norman Podhoretz http://www.politico.com/news/stories/ 0907/5964.html And, of course, Dick Cheney and Ari Fleischer's little propaganda machine, Freedom's Watch http://thinkprogress.org/2007/ 11/20/freedomswatch-iran-sell/ Posted by snowball777 at 10/03/2009 @ 09:19am
Of the three links, only Podhoretz favors BOMBING, not outright war. The link you provided for Freedom's Watch? It linked to Mother Jones. Which has since retracted its item about FW.
So, let's review: Lefties accuse conservatives of calling for war. False accusation. What a surprise.
But, thanks for playing, snowball.
Posted by twillie at 10/03/2009 @ 1:05pm
lefties started the goddamn wars. the cons had nothing to do with it, and have always called for a negotiated end to those wars.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 1:24pm
Posted by Dastu11 at 10/03/2009 @ 11:45am | ignore this person | warn this person
right you are. Iranians are the most sophisticated, modern people in the region. they are, in other words, more like Israel than like Saudi.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:29pm |
"Than [sic] it should be easy to name some"
Lee Bollinger from Columbia
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html
Norman Podhoretz
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/ 0907/5964.html
And, of course, Dick Cheney and Ari Fleischer's little propaganda machine, Freedom's Watch
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/ 11/20/freedomswatch-iran-sell/
Posted by snowball777 at 10/03/2009 @ 09:19am
Bolliinger criticizes the human rights violations in Iran and you define that as calling for war?
I grant that Podhoretz calls for bunker buster bombs on Iran nuke facilities. He also speaks against the use of ground forces in the same article.
Your last charge which is false to begin with because Cheney had no involvement was not even a call for war. It was focus groups where they asked what the response would be to a call for war. Fleischer, according to your own link, did not publicly call for war with Iran.
Now let's add to the facts that these took place in 2007, so they aren't even recent.
Sorry, you failed.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 1:34pm
A war never brings peace and security. What security is attained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who benefited from it? Iranians are brave. They resisted 8 years of war with Iraq supported by the Western countries and some Arab rulers.They never attacked any countries.
Posted by Dastu11 at 10/03/2009 @ 11:45am
1. war never brings peace? Ask Europe, Japan, South Korea.
2. What security is obtained from the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan
Saddam Hussein will never threaten or invade another country. Saddam will no longer be able to fund terrorists and their families.
Afghanistan is no longer a training ground and safe haven for global jihad.
3. Iran doesn't attack. Iran has been engaged in war with Israel for 27 years through their creation, training, and funding of Hezbollah and subsequently also now to Hamas.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 1:42pm
In all fairness, folks, it doesn't seem to be genuine conservatives who want war with Iran. As much as I'd love to blame them, I really can't. The zionists, neocons, satanists or whatever you want to call them are the ones doing everything possible to start a war with Iran. And these 'people' have infiltrated the Democrats every bit as much as the GOP. They control both sides by keeping us constantly fighting windmills and pissing into the wind. (And of course, they've been able to play American Christian fundies like kazoos.)
What we're up against is the most sophisticated, sociopath and successful organized crime syndicate the world has ever seen. And they seem to have BO and most of congress by the short ones. Hell, Obama's mom's side of the family were most likely Jews, so this 'Obama is a Muslim' crap, which was started by an ultra-zionist email network and fanned relentlessly by the zionist MSM, is just one more example of powerful hysteria-making.
Iran knows time is on it's side. The zionists don't have any friends left except for some American old testament freaks and most people smarter than turds are onto their game. So buying time is all Iran needs to do. They don't NEED to make U235 or plutonium; the world is already teeming with the stuff, and most of the world is on Iran's side, in spite of the Arab world's penchant for infighting. (Even Israel knows this, but of course it won't stop them from using this issue to demonize Iran for it's own demonic agenda.) So this cooperation by Iran is about as surprising as wet water. That it shows the zionists up as radical racist hysterical war-pigs is equally surprising. I'm with Mr. Dreyfuss; it's almost comical watching the zionist con-lie-machine imploding under the weight of it's own lies.
Posted by DejaVu at 10/03/2009 @ 2:54pm
#
Dreyfuss, your naivete is startling. Iran is holding all the cards. Obama is in over his head.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
really?
how can one argue with that?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2009 @ 3:15pm
Bush actually took action to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran. The right doesn't favor war with Iran, because it would be a devastating catastrophe. The left, mad, actually supports the Mullahs and will be disappointed when they get nukes, because they won't use them to wipe out Israel,
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/03/2009 @ 4:28pm
Maybe President Obama is listening to his expert on foreign policy, Joe Biden, who thinks we should pull out all of our troops and keep just a few Navy Seals there for eyes on the ground and to lob missles from the Gulf every time the bad guys are sighted. Wasn't this Clinton's policy before 9/11?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I agree....we need some lies about some non-existent wmd in order to kill some more American soldiers...how about 6,500 more deaths...sounds like a number that might make you happy? No? No surprise there.
Posted by jarshadow at 10/03/2009 @ 4:35pm
Check out this hysteria driving our foreing policy:
Christian Zionists insist that all of historic Palestine -- including all the land west of the Jordan which was occupied by Israel after the 1967 war -- must be under the control of the Jewish people, for they see that as one of the necessary stages prior to the second coming of Jesus. Among their other basis tenets:
God's covenant with Israel is eternal, exclusive and will not be abrogated, according to Genesis 12:1-7; 15:4-7; 17:1-8; Leviticus 26:44-45; Deuteronomy 7:7-8. The Bible speaks of two distinct and parallel covenants, one between God and Israel, one between God and the church. The latter covenant is superseded by the covenant with Israel. The church is a "mere parenthesis" in God's plan and as such it will be removed from history during an event called the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 5:1-11). At that point, Israel, the nation, will be restored as the primary instrument of God on earth. Genesis 12:3 ("I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you") should be interpreted literally -- which leads to maximum political, economic, moral and spiritual support for the modern state of Israel and for all the Jewish people. Apocalyptic texts like the Book of Daniel, Zechariah 9-12, Ezekiel 37-8, I Thessalonians 4-5 and the Book of Revelation refer to literal and future events.
Posted by OneVote at 10/03/2009 @ 4:40pm
The establishment of the state of Israel, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, the rise of the Antichrist and the buildup of armies poised to attack Israel are among the signs leading to the final eschatological battle and Jesus' return for his thousand-year reign. The movement looks for the escalating power of satanic forces aligned with the antichrist that will do battle with Israel and its allies as the end draws near. Judgment will befall nations and individuals according to how they "bless Israel."
The Evangelical-Jewish Alliance Donald Wagner ChristianZionism.org
And do notice:
'American Christian-Zionists Urge Obama to Stay the Course, Despite Looming Disaster
Wall Street Journal | 13 September 2009 By Lindsey Graham, Joseph I. Lieberman, and John McCain'
These characters will gladly drive America off a cliff to fulfill their Satantic vision.
Fricking Lindsey Graham....the next Larry Craig.....now you know this guy has some serious issues of 'low self esteem' going on that likely fuels his rage and appetite for war. What a walking hypocrite.
What a pack - Graham, McCain and Lieberman - The "Rat" Pack
Posted by OneVote at 10/03/2009 @ 4:49pm
The simple fact is John Bolton is right. This is just buying time from the Iranian point of view. Anyone who believes Iran is going to send "All" of their low level urainium to Russia for enrichment.... given the history of Iran (and NKO), they will continue the process of producing a bomb. Just wait and see... which is, I guess, is what we are going to do.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/03/2009 @ 5:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 1:34pm |
Split them hairs, Pastor, but all the tapdancing you can muster won't change the fact that it was neocons calling (again) for pre-emptive military action against Iran (and Syria...for good measure).
You can't un-own the distractions they posited in order to deflect attention from their collection of quagmires.
You think the AEI has changed its position on any of the actions recommended by various necons above since the Qom facility came to light? Ha!
Posted by snowball777 at 10/03/2009 @ 6:10pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/03/2009 @ 4:28pm |
Actually, I'm quite glad that the mullahs in Iran are unlikely to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon as a first strike because it would be difficult to do so without making a very large number of martyrs in the nearby occupied territories.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/03/2009 @ 6:15pm
OneVote, DejaVu, and most explicitly excalibur999, you are all crazily antisemitic and pro-jihad.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/03/2009 @ 6:38pm
Mr. Dreyfuss should not be writing about Iranian affairs. He has no knowledge of the tactics Iran has been employing since 2003 in their dealing with 'outsiders' who would interfere with their nuclear plans. Iran promises and then does not keep the promise. It puts off knowing always that 'buying time' and more time until it has what it wants is the name of the game. There are signs that the Obama Administration is not to be fooled by these tactics. But who knows? They might well be just as the Bush Administration despite its harsh pronouncements was fooled. I by the way am not a 'neo- con' . I am someone who is Jewish and lives in Israel and is not ashamed of my Jewishness and filled with hatred for Israel as Mr. Dreyfus seems to be.
Posted by ShalomFreedman at 10/04/2009 @ 03:46am
>>>So Obama has to negotiate with the Iran that is, not the Iran that he'd like to see, or the one the neocons would like to bring about through "regime change."<<<
I'm awfully tired of the nuclear debate being confined to Iran.
One of the most OVERLOOKED stories that came out in the Iran decision to allow IAEA inspectors to look at the new facility is the report that El Baradei, the head of the IAEA, said:
ISRAELI NUKES AND THEIR REFUSAL TO ALLOW INSPECTIONS ARE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO STABILITY IN THE REGION.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/04/content_12181647.htm
http://tinyurl.com/yapzf65
There has to be a REGIONAL APPROACH to nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East, and this INCLUDES Israel. Otherwise, there will ALWAYS be an incentive for other nations in the region to acquire nukes to balance out Israel.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/04/2009 @ 10:30am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/03/2009 @ 6:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
RW - check this one out.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vitriolic attacks on the Jewish world hide an astonishing secret, evidence uncovered by The Daily Telegraph shows.
By Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat Published: 7:30AM BST 03 Oct 2009
Telegraph.co.uk
'Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past'
Posted by OneVote at 10/04/2009 @ 11:17am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/03/2009 @ 6:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
BTW RW - Hitler and Stalin are suspected of having Jewish blood too....lol.......
Posted by OneVote at 10/04/2009 @ 11:33am
I am someone who is Jewish and lives in Israel and is not ashamed of my Jewishness and filled with hatred for Israel as Mr. Dreyfus seems to be.
Posted by ShalomFreedman at 10/04/2009 @ 03:46am | ignore this person | warn this person
Shalom.
Say, when can we inspect Israel's nuclear facilities in Negev?
We are also going to need your agreement with NPT before we give you another nickle of aid.
Give us a date!
Maybe we are going to have to impose sanctions. I am sure you are not opposed to that.
Posted by OneVote at 10/04/2009 @ 11:37am
'Of the three links, only Podhoretz favors BOMBING, not outright war.'
O tempora! O mores!
What times are these, "twillie," in which someone can seriously claim that one can BOMB another country without "outright war"?
It is of course, common practice now for us, the saviors of the rest of the world, to bomb other countries for their own sake. We have little patience or understanding for those who would call these mere bombings acts of war.
But it was not always so. A mere 69 years ago, the practice of dropping bombs out of the sky was called "Blitzkrieg" and nearly universally condemned as barbaric. This moral attitude changed even before the end of the Second World War, as we decided to bomb the Nazis and the Japanese back - but this was still considered war. It was considered war right up until the Vietnam "Conflict," or "Police Action," which the authorities wished us to regard as something other than a war. But even then, quite a lot of people objected to these euphemisms. I suspect it was because we still had a military draft in those days.
Nowadays, with no draft to threaten the sons and daughters of the privileged classes with military conscription, it is much easier to pretend that the bomb-dropping sorties of volunteers are not actually "wars" at all. Indeed, now that the bombing is increasingly done by unpiloted drones, it is even easier to pretend that we are not at war, because nobody is directly to blame for any bomb that goes astray. It is only those poor unfortunates at ground level who still cannot shake the impression that this is indeed what we are waging.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/04/2009 @ 4:11pm
"'Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past'
BTW RW - Hitler and Stalin are suspected of having Jewish blood too....lol....."
Shingo better stop saying that he CAN'T be antisemitic because he is Jewish.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/04/2009 @ 7:15pm
Shingo better stop saying that he CAN'T be antisemitic because he is Jewish.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/04/2009 @ 7:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Shingo is anit-Zionist. There is a difference.
Posted by OneVote at 10/04/2009 @ 7:59pm
Why should anyone care for being called an anti semite?after all the label of anti semitism is used by the most vile of all racists who happen to be the criminal zionists.
In all honesty the problem with most of the jews nowadays is that they have become nothing but a mouthpiece for western imperialism.everytime there is an attack on a small defenceless people(such as iraq and palestinians) by the west and the first line of demonization and villification comes from a mouth of apologist jews who frequent fox,cnn,wall street journal and other sources of journalistic prostitution.
Are we to be called anti semitic because we expose israelis and other jew,s role in the blood baths of guatemala,el salvador,south africa and other devastated places?and how about people of occupied palestine who have endured 64 yrs of death,destruction and torture? if raising my voice to critisize such cruel actions by the zionists is anti semitic then i will be honoured to wear such a badge.
Posted by excalibur999 at 10/04/2009 @ 8:50pm
i will be honoured to wear such a badge.
Posted by excalibur999 at 10/04/2009 @ 8:50pm
You and the rest of your nazi friends
Posted by antisocialist at 10/04/2009 @ 9:05pm
"Jews are responsible for all of the evils in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Posted by excalibur999 @ 8:50 pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/04/2009 @ 9:06pm
Actually, there is no difference in principle between being anti-Zionist and anti-semitic. Why shouldn't the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, especially since millions of Jews died needlessly during the Holocaust because the Jews had no nation that would offer them sanctuary? I would also say that I think the Kurdish people deserve their own state, but supporters of such an idea are deemed imperial land-stealing genocidal racists only when they propose a state for the Jews.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/04/2009 @ 9:15pm
"What times are these, "twillie," in which someone can seriously claim that one can BOMB another country without "outright war"? But it was not always so. A mere 69 years ago, the practice of dropping bombs out of the sky was called "Blitzkrieg" and nearly universally condemned as barbaric. This moral attitude changed even before the end of the Second World War, as we decided to bomb the Nazis and the Japanese back - but this was still considered war. It was considered war right up until the Vietnam "Conflict," or "Police Action," which the authorities wished us to regard as something other than a war. But even then, quite a lot of people objected to these euphemisms. I suspect it was because we still had a military draft in those days. Nowadays, with no draft to threaten the sons and daughters of the privileged classes with military conscription, it is much easier to pretend that the bomb-dropping sorties of volunteers are not actually "wars" at all. Indeed, now that the bombing is increasingly done by unpiloted drones, it is even easier to pretend that we are not at war, because nobody is directly to blame for any bomb that goes astray. It is only those poor unfortunates at ground level who still cannot shake the impression that this is indeed what we are waging." Posted by JakobFabian at 10/04/2009 @ 4:11pm
I think most people would disagree with you. If bombing is war, then it seems pretty clear Clinton went to war without authorization in Yugoslavia. Didn't hear much of a cry from Democrats for that violation of federal law.
You're wrong about "blitzkrieg". That is rapid, mechanized warfare favored by the Germans. Ground movements.
I suspect people on the ground don't spend too much time differentiating between "war", and "bombing". Cont'd
Posted by twillie at 10/04/2009 @ 9:33pm
But, there is a difference, whether you acknowledge it or not.
I know how contemptuous you are of the "privileged classes", but I assure you their sons and daughters are serving in significant numbers. The volunteer force is not so much a function of rich or poor. It's about how strongly you feel about your obligations as a citizen of the US.
But, if you ever spent any time in the service, you would know this.
So, JF, do you think Clinton waged outright war on Yugoslavia?
Posted by twillie at 10/04/2009 @ 9:42pm
excali333, you make barry25 the bastion of clarity.Have you ever read a history book? Good God man get ahold of yourself.
Posted by whatozz at 10/04/2009 @ 9:43pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:32pm
Gunny, I find it interesting that you could only write a few lines, telling me to "go look it up"...when I asked you YOUR solution to the Iran...
but are able to write paragraphs upon paragraphs on how Obama is doing it wrong?!????!!?
How about this thread or the next...you answer my question, so we can see your solution, instead of just hear you doing EXACTLY what I said you guys would do....complain, but offer only "hints" as to your "answer"????
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 07:43am
Actually, there is no difference in principle between being anti-Zionist and anti-semitic. Why shouldn't the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, especially since millions of Jews died needlessly during the Holocaust because the Jews had no nation that would offer them sanctuary? I would also say that I think the Kurdish people deserve their own state, but supporters of such an idea are deemed imperial land-stealing genocidal racists only when they propose a state for the Jews.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/04/2009 @ 9:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Self-determination that infringes on the right of others to self-determination is the difference.
This difference is recognized and debated in Israel.
To label those who are willing to acknowledge the right of others to self-determination as anti-semite is sophistry.
The voices of moderation can not all be anti-semite.
Posted by OneVote at 10/05/2009 @ 08:51am
Posted by OneVote at 10/05/2009 @ 08:51am
True, but there are enough "excaliburs" out there that are actual anti-Semites to give them fodder for a blanket charge.
Unfair?...yes.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 09:48am
Unfair?...yes.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 09:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
One who refuses to differentiate between the voice of moderation and the voice of extremism is perhaps the key.
Another, is refusal to join hands with a person who voices common cause with you.
Both sides of the extreme are master propagandists.
And, "moderates," are very good at hiding a more extreme agenda as well.
Statements such as:
"I want US to step us pressure on Israel by threatening to cut off economic and military aid to Israel, as this is acknowledged carrot and stick approach for the US to exert its leverage on foreign nations"
being met with reponse like
"So, you want to starve and destroy Israel into submission"
reveal much.
Posted by OneVote at 10/05/2009 @ 11:27am
Posted by OneVote at 10/05/2009 @ 11:27am | ignore this person | warn this person
Hope you get a chance to see this, as a continuation of our discussion.
Saying things like "Zionists are warmongers", "Zionists are stealing palestinian land", "Zionists don't want peace" -- it's the same moral and logical error as saying "black people are X", "Communists are Y", "muslims want Z". It quickly becomes an expression of racism and prejudice.
Since for jews (no offense to antisocialist, but I'm limiting this issue to jews), a Jew is a Zionist so long as he/she supports an independent Jewish state of Israel, the members of Peace Now and B'Tsellem are Zionists (and they will be the first to tell you that they are proud Zionists).
An anti-Zionist wants a one-state solution in which Arabs will be the majority group, and secular society will primarily reflect Moslem religious and cultural symbols, holidays and beliefs -- just as american secular society is Christian. (Xmas is not an American holiday, it is the Red Cross and not the Red Moon for a specific reason, the White House will have an Xmas tree and an Easter egg hunt even when/if the President is Jewish.) The Satmer are anti-Zionist for a religious reason. I question whether other categories of anti-Zionists (defined as I have more specifically done) are not in fact tainted, either consciously or unconsciously, by some degree of anti-semitism. Not the kind that is prejudiced against individual assimilated Jews. And not the kind that wants to discriminate against Jews. But the kind of anti-semitism that is disturbed by assertions of non-assimilated identity of Jewish particularity. Not all anti-Zionists are guilty of same. But such anti-Zion makes me wonder with less than a serene state of mind.
Posted by gren at 10/05/2009 @ 1:16pm
"One who refuses to differentiate between the voice of moderation and the voice of extremism is perhaps the key. "----Posted by OneVote at 10/05/2009 @ 11:27am
I assume you were NOT thinkiing I was the moderate, but YOU are, right?....heheh.
And what exactly is the end-game for YOUR strategy if not "starving out the Israelis if they don't give in"?
Seriously...what if we close the coffers on aid, slam down the lid on military hardware....and they still don't give the Palestinians what they want, with nothing substantive in return?
What's Plan B? And before you say "Being cut off from aid and military supplies will be enough to bring them to the bargaining table"....ask yourself-
We had FULL economic sanctions on Saddam Hussein and he didn't knuckle under....and I KNOW you think Netanyahu is "as bad" as Saddam, don't you???
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The other problems with a cut-off of aid are that: 1) while the money is not insignificant, it is not significant to make Israel compromise its security interests; and 2) peace requires the palestinians to compromise their claims for all of East Jerusalem and the unlimited right to return (which would be a demographic time bomb which would create an Arab majority in Israel). Israel cannot and will not compromise on those red lines, and the PA has not shown a willingness to compromise on those issues either (at least in part out of both political and terrorist fear of Hamas).
Posted by gren at 10/05/2009 @ 1:47pm
I assume you were NOT thinkiing I was the moderate, but YOU are, right?....heheh.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Maskie....would I do that? I am hurt.
Don't know if it change Israel's ways, but it would change ours.
CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME.
I'll sleep better at nite.
Posted by OneVote at 10/05/2009 @ 2:19pm
I find it funny that those advocating a surgical strike on Iran cite Israel's bombing of the Osirak reactor as an example where this type of action was effective. Well, as it turns out, the Osirak strike took place in 1981. According to the IAEA, Iraq began its pursuit of a nuclear weapon in 1982.
Posted by nkurland at 10/05/2009 @ 2:56pm
"Don't know if it change Israel's ways, but it would change ours. "---Posted by OneVote at 10/05/2009 @ 2:19pm
I'm sorry, did you just ADMIT that your plan for peace in the Middle East is possibly...unworkable?
and really only meant for domestic politics?????
Seems an odd statement for a progressive. More like one from somebody who is only concerned with detaching ourselves from Israel, than facilitatiing peace over there....like...oh....Pat Buchanan or somebody like that???
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 3:17pm
The bromide you speak about self-determination is nonsense. The Palestinians could have a state as soon as they embrace nonviolence, freedom, secularism, women's liberation, and democracy. They do not DESERVE independance. No one has a "right" to create a murderous repressive totalitarian state, which is what the Palestinians want. Free countries must not always respect this self-determination, unless your view is that they should have "respected" Hitler's election in Germany. Your argument depends on the fallacious premise that the majority in a country is always right and the minority always wrong. You clearly are a collectivist believer in anarchy and mob rule.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 3:39pm
Seems an odd statement for a progressive. More like one from somebody who is only concerned with detaching ourselves from Israel, than facilitatiing peace over there....like...oh....Pat Buchanan or somebody like that???
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"at the very least, it would be bring change at home" - how is that?
And, I need to ask you, if Israel is immune to sanctions, doesn't this imply that there is no need for military and economic support to Israel? Aren't we tit-feeding an adult?
Posted by OneVote at 10/05/2009 @ 3:58pm
You clearly are a collectivist believer in anarchy and mob rule.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You are clearly more comfortable with 1.7% of our population determining the nation's foreign policy?
Posted by OneVote at 10/05/2009 @ 4:01pm
nutcase
the kurdish people live in a land called kurdistan that was deliberatley divided by the west in order to create ethnic chaos in that region.the jews who came to palestine from mostly eastern eauropean countries were land thieving colonialists.not one inch of occupied palestine belongs to the zionist jews.even moshe dayan said so.
also the issue of 2 state solution is nothing but a charade that is mostly promoted by the zionists themselves.it is a calculated charade to legitimize judaization of occupied palestine and give legitmacy to jewish racism and fascism.
the zionist jews want the palestinians to go away and forget about their homeland.that is not going to happen.remeber that when it comes to history 64 yrs is almost like drop a in the ocean.there is no doubt in my mind that the resistance against racist mercenaries of imperialism will continue.
Posted by excalibur999 at 10/05/2009 @ 5:19pm
The Palestinians could have a state as soon as they embrace nonviolence, freedom, secularism, women's liberation, and democracy. They do not DESERVE independance.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 3:39pm
Israel was founded on violence, land theft, ethnic cleansing etc. so I tke it you are opposed to the creation of Israel?
The US was also founded on violence and the back of slave labor. I take it you hate America?
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 5:30pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:16pm
"How would I stop Iran's nuclear program? Probably wouldn't take more than a dozen or so Tomahawks, JDAMs, and guided "bunker-busting" type bombs to set their nuclear program back 15 years."
Tomohawks are no use to you when you don't know what you're supposed to be hitting and bunker busters have no changce of penetrating more than a few feet of granite. Iran's facilities are much deeper underground than that.
"Same way the Israelis did it. And it didn't involve troops on the ground."
Israel's attack on Osirak was actually a monumental failure. It struck a civilian reactor that had no use for producing nukes, but what it achieved was to motivate Saddam to a) get nukes to stave off a further attack and b) drove his nuclear program underground.
That's called an own goal - in fact, 2 own goals.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 5:36pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:52pm
"Our success in Iraq gives a base of operations on the Iranian border and a good excuse to keep troops there to maintain the peace that was already fought for. "
It also means that all those US troops are sitting ducks, when the Shiites in Iraq turn on them.
"To the south of Iran, is the Gulf where our carriers can roam like a lion stalking it's prey and can strike in seconds. "
More like floating coffins. The Strait fo Hormuz is shallow and narrow and makes the carriers sitting ducks for anti ship missiles.
"Actually, strategically, we are in pretty good shape there."
In fact, we're in lousy shape. Iran is a massive country with 60 million people, most in their youth, who would all take up arms and fight against us.
The way Obama handles Afghanistan is the way Bush handled it.
"The Russians can still supply Iran from the north but if our military can secure northern Iran, we could cut that supply off. "
We don't have the resources and that risks bring Russia into the conflict.
"He disgraces every troop who lost their life when he does that."
Most troops voted for Obama.
"Obama made a point of doing early on in his Presidency, it comes as no surprise that the world sees him as weak. "
The world saw Bush as weak and crazy. At least Obama's not crazy.
"Never thought I'd miss GWB."
It's OK, 99% of the world doesn't.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 5:43pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:28pm
"This is an interesting assertion, considering that Saddam himself admitted to his FBI interrogator he had pretended to have WMDs throughout the 1990s in order to keep Iran at bay."
This is an interesting piece of BS, because Iraq handed the UN a 12,000 page document that accounted for the fact that the WMD had been destroyed. The US pulled 8000 pages from it, then said it was false.
"Kicking out inspectors, acting like he had something to hide, yeah...that worked pretty good for awhile. "
That would be interesting if it were true. In 1998, Clinton, not Saddam kicked out the inspector. In 2003, Bush, not Saddam, kicked out the inspectors.
"But it was Bush who lied, right?"
Absolutely.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 5:48pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:32pm
"For if it is fear of Saddam and what he might do, as you assert, that kept Iran and the region in place for an entire decade, then they certainly cannot have been afraid of his conventional forces."
Wrong. Iran had a decade long war with Ian that drained their country, so
"In 2003 we overthrew the Baathists in 15 days, with weather holding us up more than the Iraqi troops."
Just because the Baathists didn't fight the war on our terms doesn't mean we won it in 15 days, in fact, we're still there trying to win it 7 years later.
"If what you say is true, and fear of Saddam was key to stability, then it was fear of the WMDs everyone thought Saddam had. And that is exactly what Saddam intended."
It was the US that promulgated the myth of Iraq's WMD's, not Saddam. UNCOM deduced that by 1994, Iraq was disarmed, but the US refused to allow this to be reported, for it would have meant the lifting of sanctions.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 5:56pm
Well, let's just say that when Blair and Putin went to make personal pitches for the Olympics...they got theirs.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:40pm
Putin had nothing to do with the 1980 Moscow games dufus.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 6:02pm
I can't think of any other U.S. presidents who traveled to the Olympic committee--with their wives--in order that both of them could make impassioned speeches about hosting a series of sporting events.
Especially when America was approaching 10% unemployment and has troops in harm's way.
But maybe my memory is faulty...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:50pm
Very faulty.
Obama was trying to win an event that would have created jobs and infrastructure improvements.
When NO was drowning, Bush was on holiday and congratulated Brownie for a heck of a job.
Not onyl were troops in harm's way at the time, they were in harms way because he put them there.
Hope that helps your faulty memory.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 6:07pm
Shingo apparently knows more about Iraq's WMD programs then Saddam Hussein did.
He also thinks that tens of millions of Iranians would take up arms to kill Americans if we invaded their country. Odd, for the most pro-American Muslim country in the world.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 6:32pm
Shingo apparently knows more about Iraq's WMD programs then Saddam Hussein did.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 6:32pm
Not at all.
Saddam Hussein submitted a 12,000 page document accounting for all his WMD to the UN. The US dismissed it after plucking 8000 pages from it that it didn't want the world to see.
It turns out the report was 100% accurate.
"Odd, for the most pro-American Muslim country in the world."
What's odd is that in the most pro-American Muslim country in the world, the president of Iran is greeted with a red carpet pageant, while the US president has to arrive secretly in the middle of the night,
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 6:53pm
Well, let's just say that when Blair and Putin went to make personal pitches for the Olympics...they got theirs. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/02/2009 @ 3:40pm
Putin had nothing to do with the 1980 Moscow games dufus. Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 6:02pm
Putin got the 2014 Winter games for Sochi, Russia, doofus.
Posted by twillie at 10/05/2009 @ 7:11pm
Saddam admitted that he pretended to possess WMD to the FBI. Your conspiracy theories are irrelevant. Its also been proven that Saddam would have developed nuclear weapons if the sanctions were lifted.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 7:14pm
Putin got the 2014 Winter games for Sochi, Russia, doofus.
Posted by twillie at 10/05/2009 @ 7:11pm
Obama wasn't lobbying for the winter Olympics dufus.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 7:16pm
STOP THE JIIHAD IN PASLESTINE, IRAQ, SUDAN, AFGHANISTAN AND WORLDWIDE!!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 7:18pm
Nor was he lobbying for the 1980 Olympics.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 7:20pm
STOP THE JIIHAD IN PASLESTINE, IRAQ, SUDAN, AFGHANISTAN AND WORLDWIDE!!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 7:18pm
The jihad in Palestine is called the state of Israel.
I thought Iraq was our best friend in the ME. Glad to see you faced reality.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 7:24pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 7:14pm
Saddam admitted that he pretended to possess WMD to the FBI.
Really? Please provide a transcript of the interrogation.
"Your conspiracy theories are irrelevant."
It's not a conspiracy theory but reality.
December 8, 2002 Iraq submits massive weapons file Iraq turned over a 12,000-page dossier on its weapons programs to UN inspectors yesterday in Baghdad but denied having any illicit weapons of mass destruction, opening a new phase in a standoff which has threatened to bring military action from the United States.
http://tinyurl.com/kselda
"At the Bush administration's request, the Security Council's current president, Alfonso Valdivieso of Colombia, decided that the 10 nonpermanent members of the body should receive excised copies of the declaration on the grounds that some material could contain information on building weapons of mass destruction.
As a result, the U.N. inspectors removed almost 8,500 pages of the original 12,000 supplied by Baghdad in the copies turned over to the nonpermanent members, while only the council's five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- received the full copy."
http://tinyurl.com/y9hy2zw
"Its also been proven that Saddam would have developed nuclear weapons if the sanctions were lifted."
You can't prove something that hasn't happened. Until then, it is a conspiracy theory.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 7:31pm
He also thinks that tens of millions of Iranians would take up arms to kill Americans if we invaded their country.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 6:32pm
They did against Iraq, and they will against the US. Even the Shiites in Iraq have pledged to attack American troops stationed there if Iran is attacked.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 7:34pm
The concept of Iran as a threat is being created by the CFR owned media.
For the class structure to function we must have credible enemies.
Duh!
Posted by freiheit1 at 10/05/2009 @ 8:15pm
No need for a transcript. Look it up.
Israel is our best friend in the ME.
Jihad is a bad thing.
Saddam did have plans to construct a nuclear arsenal, as Duelfer uncovered and revealed.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 8:24pm
You are clearly more comfortable with 1.7% of our population determining the nation's foreign policy?
Posted by OneVote at 10/05/2009 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
One Vote,
This 1.7% of our population has quite a legacy in harming our National Interest; some examples:
1. The US will honor its verbal understanding with Israel, which exempts the Israeli nuclear facilities from scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
2. The US rejects the finding of the U.N Gaza Panel (Goldstone) despite the glaring genocide committed by the Israeli Army against defenseless Palestinian women and children.
3. The US has vetoed hundreds of Security Council Resolutions protecting Israel from world condemnation and encouraging the shitty tiny state to defy international law repeatedly.
4. Lyndon Johnson closed the Navy Investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty where 34 American sailors were murdered and 171 wounded.
5. The Bulk of the Uranium used by Israel to build its illicit nuclear arsenal was actually stolen from the Apollo Nuclear Facility in Pennsylvania. The US Government never held the Israelis accountable for that theft.
The above are only few examples of the thousands of instances where the USA violated its own National Security to protect Israel. Thanks to the 1.7% of our population; the king makers Zionists who control our Congress and control our decision-making process. Obama had to bend over to Netanyahu and withdrew his challenge to the Israeli settlements to avoid the wrath of the Israeli Lobby. Washington is an occupied Israeli territory where thugs like Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman have more clout than the President of the United States.
Posted by CripThink at 10/05/2009 @ 8:30pm
As a result, the U.N. inspectors removed almost 8,500 pages of the original 12,000 supplied by Baghdad in the copies turned over to the nonpermanent members, while only the council's five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- received the full copy." http://tinyurl.com/y9hy2zw
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 7:31pm
Huh? You said earlier that THE US, not the UN removed the 8000 pages. So, which is it?
I would say the UN was justified in withholding information that might lead to nuclear proliferation, Don't you?
"Obama wasn't lobbying for the winter Olympics dufus." Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 7:16pm
You might have been better off admitting you were wrong.
Posted by twillie at 10/05/2009 @ 8:33pm
CripThink is a Jew-hating jihadist.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 8:42pm
ISN'T IT OBVIOUS?!?!?!?!?!?
The Taliban is evil and deserves to die a brutal painful death for crimes against humanity.
WHY CAN'T YOU LIBERALS SEE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TALIBAN AND AMERICA?????
Are they criminally insane?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 8:50pm
osted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 8:24pm
"No need for a transcript. Look it up."
You mean you can't back it up? I thought so.
"Israel is our best friend in the ME."
Which is why they spy in us.
"Jihad is a bad thing."
True. So is apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
"Saddam did have plans to construct a nuclear arsenal, as Duelfer uncovered and revealed."
There were no plans to construct a nuclear arsenal. In fact, he never managed to create a single nuke, so there was no chance in hell of him creating an arsenal.
Duelfer never reported anything of the sort.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 8:55pm
Huh? You said earlier that THE US, not the UN removed the 8000 pages. So, which is it?
Posted by twillie at 10/05/2009 @ 8:33pm
Having trouble reading are we?
The US pressured the UN to do it on it's behalf.
"I would say the UN was justified in withholding information that might lead to nuclear proliferation, Don't you?"
Without knowing what was in those 8,500 pages, who's to know? The crucial fact is that the report detailed the destruction of all Saddam's WMD, so arguing that he claimed to have them is illogical.
"You might have been better off admitting you were wrong."
I will when I am. So far that hasn't been the case.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 8:59pm
CripThink is a Jew-hating jihadist.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 8:42pm
In other words, he acknowledges reality and facts.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 9:00pm
WHY CAN'T YOU LIBERALS SEE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TALIBAN AND AMERICA?????
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 8:50pm
Right wingers can't see it either.
Ronald Regan said that the Taliban represented American values.
I guess the republican must be criminally insane.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 9:04pm
The Taliban didn't exist when Reagan was President.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 9:18pm
The Taliban didn't exist when Reagan was President.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 9:18pm
The creators of the Taliban did, and they were worse.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 9:38pm
Shingy have you repudiated Judaism? If not shut up.
Posted by whatozz at 10/05/2009 @ 9:59pm
Shingy have you repudiated Judaism? If not shut up.
Posted by whatozz at 10/05/2009 @ 9:59pm
What's Judaism got to do with Israel?
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 10:48pm
Shingo, why don't you simply OPPOSE the forces of evil in the world? Remember: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
George W. Bush is a fundamentally good and decent man. Saddam Hussein, by contrast, was an evil genocidal butcher on a truly epic scale who killed more than 2 million people and tortured and ruined the lives of millions more.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 10:53pm
He's referring to your blatant anti-semitism, Shingo.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 10:56pm
George W. Bush is a fundamentally good and decent man. Saddam Hussein, by contrast, was an evil genocidal butcher on a truly epic scale who killed more than 2 million people and tortured and ruined the lives of millions more.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 10:53pm
George W. Bush is a war criminal.
Saddam killed 300,000 people over 24 years,
George Bush killed more than that many in 6 years and is responsible for the 1.2 million that were killed as a consequence of his illegal and unnecessary war, that was justified on lies.
If that makes Bush a good a decent man, then Saddam is a saint.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 10:57pm
You just lied at least four times.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 11:01pm
He's referring to your blatant anti-semitism, Shingo.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 10:56pm
Seeing as I'm Jewish, it's impossible for me to be anti-semitic.
You wingnuts love to harp on about stuff that doesn't exist.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 11:02pm
You just lied at least four times.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 11:01pm
No it's all factual.
I know how wingnuts can't take reality, but that's your problem, not mine.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 11:03pm
Posted by whatozz at 10/05/2009 @ 9:59pm
How long have you been a fascist whatozz?
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 11:04pm
Hitler and Ahmadinejad are Jewish, so they cannot be anti-semitic either then.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 11:04pm
Hitler and Ahmadinejad are Jewish, so they cannot be anti-semitic either then.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 11:04pm
So was Stalin apparently.
Hitler was Jewish?
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 11:08pm
It is believed.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 11:10pm
It is believed.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 11:10pm
Even according to the Jewish virtual Library, any connection was via his father, but according to Jewish tradition, Judaism is passed on via the mother, so he wasn't.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 11:14pm
So, I take it you don't think Ahmad is anti-semitic?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 11:17pm
So, I take it you don't think Ahmad is anti-semitic?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/05/2009 @ 11:17pm
Sure he is, but he hasn't killed anyone. Whether he is Jewish or not is also doubtful.
Posted by Shingo at 10/05/2009 @ 11:52pm
Since for jews (no offense to antisocialist, but I'm limiting this issue to jews), a Jew is a Zionist so long as he/she supports an independent Jewish state of Israel, the members of Peace Now and B'Tsellem are Zionists (and they will be the first to tell you that they are proud Zionists).
Posted by gren at 10/05/2009 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'Support for Nazism among German population was of significant level in pre-war times and in March 1933 German elections NSDAP received 43.9 % of votes while its political ally and coalition partner the nationalist DNVP gained 8 % of votes, meaning that together they had won the support of over half ot the voting population, that is 51,9 % of votes. Even when Germany lost the war, the Nazi ideology was supported by large portions of German society; in 1947 in a poll made in American German occupation zone 58% of Germans stated that Nazism was a "positive ideology"(similar attitude existed in other zones), while 37% supported genocide of Jewish and Polish nations as "justified" 62 years after the war, in a poll from 2007, 40% of German people expressed a view that Nazi ideology had "good sides".' German collective guilt
'German collective guilt is a term describing the responsibility of German citizens regarding atrocities made by Germany during Second World War'
http://wikibin.org/articles/german-collective-guilt.html
'Hitler's Willing Executioners' revives German angst over Holocaust
A treatise on the guilt of ordinary citizens is proving a bestseller
Imre Karacs........
So Goldhagen's book discusses collective guilt. Not all Germans wore swastikas, but collective guilt should be felt. Did Goldhagen say that 50% of Germans were off the hook?
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 12:18am
Posted by gren at 10/05/2009 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sure, there are Zionists (and Jews) of a different stripe.
But a huge problem in the Jewish community is mobilizing pushback against the Jewish right wing right?
If moderate Jews are largely silent, though they may not support Likud, are they willing partners? Should a collective guilt be felt? What is your opinion of Livini?
'During the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, Livni was criticized by Arab League Chairman Amre Moussa as, "I am greatly surprised by, and I reject, the words of the Israeli foreign minister (Livni), who asks: 'Is there a humanitarian crisis? There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.' "[53]'
Wiki
This is a tough battle. And, I know there are Jews who support an indepedent state of Israel who don't support extermination of Palestinians. But there are "moderates" to just pay lip service and don't do anything - don't dissent.
Maybe this is why Zionism isn't being categorically broken down into various subsets. Is it unfair - well yes and no.
Is there collective guilt? Yes and no.
There are some Muslims such as Ahmadinejad who understand "collective guilt" better than others - not that Ahmadinejad points to Zionist control of US government and doesn't lay collective blame at the feet of Americans. But take a look at anti-American protests by Muslims in general. It doesn't appear that they differentiate too much does it?
And finally, this debate is one that Jews prefer to deal among themselves, but that is really no fair is it? American taxpayers are supporting defense of Israel and her policies. America's reputation abroad is clouded by such support. Terrorism at home is justified by support for Israel. Skin all around.
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 12:43am
OV, I'm going to give you the chance to backpedal with the fury of a video of Lance Armstrong shown in rewind....
"Terrorism at home is justified by support for Israel. Skin all around."----Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 12:43am
Did you just justify terrorism?
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 07:27am
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 12:43am | ignore this person | warn this person
As you know, there is boisterous dissent in Israel from Likud's ideology and policies. Debate in the knesset makes the British Parliament appear as an Emily Post classroom of manners. Haaretz takes a more leftist line than any American newspaper of relatively proportionate circulation. Peace Now, B'Tsellem and many other Israeli NGOs actively work on behalf of Palestinian rights.
The situation in America is admittedly different. Until the recent emergence of JStreet, AIPAC has been an unchallenged voice of the American Jew on Capital Hill. The reaction to JStreet by the American Jewish establishment organizations -- including labeling them a Palestinian front-- reflects the extent that more education and honest discussion is necessary amonst the American Jewish community.
You already know all that. I disagree with your approach on two fundamental grounds. One is an issue of factual accuracy. Overstating the "charges" against Likudniks (including AIPAC to a large extent), and doing so with particularly vitriolic language, morphs into misleading propoganda. Reason and truth ultimately is the only salvation -- there are no shortcuts.
Second, I believe your method is counterproductive relative to your goal (which I assume in part is to wake up the American Jewish community through "shock treatment'). Your posts become surficially indistinquishable from anti-semitic rantings, which repels Jews and encourages actual anti-semites.
Two final quick thoughts.. Perhaps you should consider using the term "Likudniks" instead of "Zionists" in your posts. And free yourself from the imagined burden of collective guilt. You need not overcompensate and somehow do penitence for
Posted by gren at 10/06/2009 @ 08:35am
(cont)
Likudniks in order to redeem your own pride in your Jewish identity and that of the tribe as a whole. Moreover, true teshuvah is always done with love and joy, never with hate and anger.
Shalom. Salaam.
Posted by gren at 10/06/2009 @ 08:37am
Posted by gren at 10/06/2009 @ 08:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
Gren - "collective guilt" is hot topic within the Jewish community. Fact not fiction. Some of this is sincere, some of it only lip service to repair "Israel's Image."
Retrospective remorse is the oldest game in the book. "perhaps we went too far"
Interjecting truth into the discussion is shocking only because of the great wall of deception that exists.
This topic devolves into an emotional struggle even at the highest levels of Jewish intellectualism.
I consider you a moderate because you have voiced support for a two state solution and sanctions (outside pressure). But you are going to have to go further than "Olmert's Plan."
Peace be with you brother.
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 09:14am
But you are going to have to go further than "Olmert's Plan."
Peace be with you brother.
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 09:14am | ignore this person |
What do you envision as the outlines of a peace treaty that both sides should agree to.
Posted by gren at 10/06/2009 @ 09:36am
Did you just justify terrorism?
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 07:27am | ignore this person | warn this person
It is called bringing terrorism home. You are the one justifying terrorism.
'AFP - Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden told Americans in a new message Sunday that their support for Israel had prompted him to launch the September 11, 2001 attacks, a US-based terror monitoring group said.'
Do you believe this? I've noticed that you don't dispute the government account of 9/11.
So, you have no problem with bringing terrorism home because you believe that it should be America's foreign policy goal to support Israel with our blood and treasure?
Who is the terrorist Mask?
This is treasonous as lesser included offense.
Don't confuse patriotism with terrorism.
Support of Israel is written into our foreign policy, and yet you've got a problem with United States telling Israel what to do?
You are a poser sir. You are a Zionist (Likud sympatico for Gren's sake) who sits far right of the center. Don't pretend to be a moderate. You aren't. You want to play the "high level diplomacy" game over and over and over again. You can't even define what you mean by "high level diplomacy."
Mask revealed!
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 09:44am
What do you envision as the outlines of a peace treaty that both sides should agree to.
Posted by gren at 10/06/2009 @ 09:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
1) Israel withdraws to 1967 borders. Any Israeli settlement in occupied territory not withdrawn be given a 50 year lease under Palestinian control - with right of renewal determined by Palestine. Settlers pay rent and submit to Palestinian jurisdiction. Any land swaps be fair. Access corridors under joint control be considered neutral territory and not part of land swap deal.
2) Palestine has right to militarize and self-defense.
3) Hamas not a bargaining chip. Hamas has seat at the table.
4) Access between Gaza and West Bank under joint control of Palestine and Israel.
5) Israel pays reparations for destruction in Gaza.
6) Right of return to reunite "families" in Israel
7) Palestinians get a piece of Jerusalem.
8) Israel truly allows Palestinian self-determination. US and Israel don't determine governing authority of Palestine.
Geneva a basis for a good start.
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 10:31am
This one is for you Gren.
http://www.8fun8.com/video_3dSHl3C9kgY.html
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 11:15am
'I know how contemptuous you are of the "privileged classes", but I assure you their sons and daughters are serving in significant numbers. The volunteer force is not so much a function of rich or poor. It's about how strongly you feel about your obligations as a citizen of the US.'
Prove this with some numbers, please, "twillie," otherwise it's just an empty claim.
'But, if you ever spent any time in the service, you would know this.'
Not at all - not unless I had also been a demographer who had conducted a lot of interviews. Again, there have to be numbers, or one's claim is empty. You don't "know how soldiers feel" just because you're a soldier any more than you "know how US-Americans feel" just because you're a US-American. You have to show some statistics to prove a claim like that.
'So, JF, do you think Clinton waged outright war on Yugoslavia?'
Yes. Like many recent wars, this was not authorized by Congress and should have been. I have lamented a lot in recent writing (in threads like these) about how slow our bicameral and not very representative Congress is, and that this results in executive and judicial overreach.
My real reason in posting, however, was to correct my earlier argument that the "West" originally regarded the military practice of bombing as barbaric. This was true only when the victims of bombing were white, as in Spain in the 1930s and in Britain in the 1940s. Bombing was actually used much earlier by British colonialists in Somalia - in 1920. (I just discovered this today in a NEWSWEEK article by Jeffrey Bartholet, dated October 12, 2009.)
So rather than lament the decline of Western morals, I should have lamented the persistence of Western colonialism.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/07/2009 @ 12:25pm