Senate Neocons Provoke Iran

posted by Ari Berman on 09/25/2007 @ 11:05am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (121)

Subscribe Now

Listen up. Can you hear the drums beating for a third war?

The neocons are in a bubbling rage over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University. The pro-surge propagandists at Freedom Watch labeled the Iranian leader a "terrorist" in--of all places--a New York Times ad. Neocon godfather, Giuliani advisor and "World War IV" author Norman Podharetz went to the White House recently to urge President Bush to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

And now Senators Jon Kyl and Joe Lieberman, who's already advocated attacking the country, are introducing a sense of the Senate resolution, possibly up for a vote today, that accuses Iran of fighting "a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq." [SEE UPDATE AT END]

The resolution states that "it is a vital national interest of the United States" to prevent Iran from turning Iraq's Shiite militias into a "Hezbollah-like force" and says that US policy should "combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies." To accomplish this task, Kyl and Lieberman advocate "the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq." Finally, the resolution dubs Iran's largest military branch, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, "a foreign terrorist organization."

It's clear where this resolution is going. The Council for a Livable World, one of the more astute peace groups in Washington, says it "could wind up being another in a long line of blank checks provided to the Executive Branch in the mold of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the authorization to use force in Iraq." The line advocating the "prudent and calibrated" use of US power is "a loophole is big enough to drive an aircraft carrier or a fleet of planes through."

Moreover, the case for the next war is as shaky as the last one. "The Kyl-Lieberman amendment is a resolution based almost entirely on false premises," the Council states. "The resolution only quotes questionable and unsubstantiated assertions provided by the US military about Iranian involvement in Iraq."

The Council warns that actions like these from the US Senate, while still only symbolic, could lead to serious blowback of the worst kind. "Provocative measures such as the Kyl-Lieberman amendment can lead to a tit-for-tat escalation resulting in military confrontation between the US and Iran. There are no good military options for solving our disagreements with Iran. Military action would only result in disastrous and unintended consequences for U.S. and Israeli interests. If we have learned nothing else from Iraq, it is that there are limitations to the use of military force."

The only thing that neocons have learned from Iraq is that Joe Lieberman should be secretary of state.

UPDATE: A revised resolution, which deleted the sections referenced above about combating, containing and rolling back Iran's influence inside Iraq and using all instruments of US power to do so, passed the Senate this afternoon by a vote of 72-22. Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer voted aye. Of the '08 Dems, so did Hillary Clinton. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden voted no. Barack Obama missed the vote.

Comments (121)

FRANK's right....9%?...NINE PERCENT support for any military action against Iran? No Repub is going to risk their chances in 2008 trying to appeal to RIO BRAVO and a couple of his buddies.

Even SLIVER (on another thread) said it isn't happening "unless it's in response to a strike by Iran" (has to maintain SOME belligerance, else sound like a "lefty peacenik"!...heheh)

In addition to scared-s**tless Repubs, Bush has also got to be listening to Business, which knows that a war with Iran will slit the throat of the world economy and make the Carter economy look like the halycon days of Ike.

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 11:22am
FRANKGRITS is correct. The whole Iran war outcry from the neo-Con nutjobs is just noise. The USA lacks the resources to go to war with Iran. Indeed, even "surgical" air strikes really aren't in the cards, since that would result in Iranian counterstrikes (likely from their proxys like Hezbollah). In short, this is just blathering from the far right wing.

Posted by trabaris at 09/25/2007 @ 11:22am
while an invasion of Iran may be unlikely, air strikes are not. Bush is a dangerous, cornered rat.

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/25/2007 @ 11:28am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/25/2007 @ 11:28am

Look, Dr. Smith, if we do air strikes, a ground war becomes inevitable. The Iranians then strike back with missiles and mortars (maybe planes, if we don't take them all out)...then OUR guys have to cross the border to take out the places we're being mortared from....then THEIR guys move in to stop us...

and you've got a slug-fest.

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 11:34am
and you've got a slug-fest.

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 11:34am

But the USA will win a slug-fest! Thats what they were hoping for in Iraq. A technologically inferior army with no chance of victory in a face-to-face fight to be dumb enough to fight them face-to-face. They didn't get what they wanted so they want to invade another country and try again...

Posted by bjkron at 09/25/2007 @ 11:41am
we continually hear about that the "enemy" in Iraq is beheading, gasp, prisoners. what goes unmentioned is how many prisoners and captives have been released.

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/25/2007 @ 11:42am
BERMAN: Provoke Iran?????

Based on very recent history, exactly who did the provoking? Have more Americans or Iranians died from provocations? Who do you suppose, has been supplying support, "unsubstantiated" of course, to the Shiite militias? Where do Al Sadr hides?

The only tough non-military solution is a unified global sanction on Iran....but I don't see the Left doing any `lifting'...any solutions besides `talk'? or IF the Left is prepared to let Iran be a nuclear weapons state, please come out of the closet and make your arguments!

Frankly, I am less bothered by Iran having nuclear weapons than its lengthy post-1979 track record of sponsoring terror and of course, obstructing/destabilizing Iraq! I want solid & pragmatic ideas out of the Left instead of just attacks on the NeoCons!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 11:44am
...you've got a slug-fest.

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 11:34am

As you have repeatedly pointed ut, few wants to war w/Iran...however, if it happens....I tend NOT to believe Iran is prepared to go all-out & suffer hundreds of thousands of casualties in a "slug-fest" knowing that our side will be more than HAPPY to deal w/Iran once and for all (at least good for a couple of decades)! The US (& likely Israel) will not make the same mistake as in 1991 (w/Iraq) and leave the Iranian government intact!

The oil market will adjust, the Strategic Supply spigots worldwide will be opened and the inevitable global recession will be handled much better than 1979. When the dust settles, we could be surprised how the ME will be transformed.....quite possibly for the better.....Iran has few friends, even less than Iraq pre-2003....sure, Hugo would have lost a buddy....tears!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 11:56am
Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 11:44am

HAPP....two points-

1. Most of the attacks on US forces in Iraq have come from SUNNI insurgents.

2. The Sunnis are being supplied by the Saudis.

So...why no mention of THAT provocation by you or the Administration?

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 11:56am
I want solid & pragmatic ideas out of the Left instead of just attacks on the NeoCons!

Posted by HAPPY

The US has to sit and talk with Iran. That's all there is to it. Stop speaking of "regime change" and treat Iran's interests and concerns with the consideration they deserve.

Posted by mtspence05 at 09/25/2007 @ 11:57am
Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 11:56am

You mean "it'll be a cake-walk" and "the oil revenues will pay for the war"?

Hmmm...gosh, that sounds awfully familiar? Where have I heard that before?!??!?

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 11:58am
Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 11:56am

Old news on Sunni insurgents! Read Michael Yon, Michael Totten or Iraq the Model.....

You obviously haven't seen any news on Iranian weapons or agents operating in Iraq.....frankly, I don't blame Iran for wanting to exercise control on Iraq and it is up to us to stop it!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 12:01pm
Wow, Rabbi Lieberman calls for a war against Iran?

What a surprise - once again he wants US to do the job for Israel and get Americans killed instead of his presious Israelis...

... seriously who's voting for this Israelis shill? He's more than obviously a paid agent of a foreign government, sitting in the US Congress, soliciting fake, deceptive information and, of course, war - there should be a way to investigate him...

Posted by szlevi at 09/25/2007 @ 12:04pm
Posted by HAPPY

Like spoiled children. You can't have it all your way. Can't you learn from the mistakes that have already been made?

Posted by mtspence05 at 09/25/2007 @ 12:05pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 12:01pm

If it's "old news" then you have some "old posts" we can reference where you decry the provocation of the Saudis and demands that the neo-cons recognize the threat of them...uh....right?

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 12:06pm
You mean "it'll be a cake-walk" and "the oil revenues will pay for the war"?

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 11:58am

Compared to the 4+ years of Iraq, yeah, it'll be a "cake-walk" (as YOU stated)! I see bomb-and-run, no democracy project in Iran and NO large ground forces by us into Iran....I want to emphasize, before you again, put words on my keyboard, I do NOT want war w/Iran but just speculating....I want to see the next admin. deal w/Iran....Bush has his hands full...besides, me think Iran won't have a bomb for another 2~4 yrs!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 12:06pm
Hmmm...gosh, that sounds awfully familiar? Where have I heard that before?!??!?

Posted by MASK

HA! Touche', I must say. :)

Posted by szlevi at 09/25/2007 @ 12:06pm
i agree with johannesrolf on this one. bush and his administration have a record of doing nothing but reckless damage. he could care less about consequences. i am fearful and saddened at the prospect of attacking iran.

Posted by loveloki at 09/25/2007 @ 12:11pm
...you decry the provocation of the Saudis and demands that the neo-cons recognize the threat of them...uh....right?

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 12:06pm

I am very anti-Saudis ever since I first learned about the spread of madrassas & mosques all over the globe it funded! However, I'm practical enough to know that we must maintain friendly ties w/it for the foreseeble future.

IF Iraq turns for the better, I see Iraq taking the place of Saudi Arabia as our `trusted' ME (oil) ally! Similar to what you posted earlier on Saudis funding the Sunni insurgents, I don't believe the Saudis see a democratic, US-allied Iraq to be in its best interest...and it's right! It is time for Arabia to decide if it's WITH US or AGAINST US....

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 12:13pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 12:06pm

So...

1. You don't want war with Iran.

2. But if it happens, it'll be easy as pie, since the Iranians will meekly sit around, letting themselves get bombed from the air, won't mobilize and draft it's HUGE youth population into a ground fighting force, launch hit and run strikes that make the insurgency look like The Jets from "West Side Story", and all good things and no bad things will happen.

oh and 3. Nobody who has business dealings with the Iranians...like the Russians and Chinese, will covertly (maybe overtly) help them.

And we should believe these rouge-tinted spectacles predictions from you and Bush and Joe Lieberman, because of how well things turned out the LAST time we went to war in Iraq?

Is that about it?

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 12:13pm
You obviously haven't seen any news on Iranian weapons or agents operating in Iraq.....frankly, I don't blame Iran for wanting to exercise control on Iraq and it is up to us to stop it!

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 12:01pm

Sure, I tune in to Fox News occasionally to check out the 'opposing viewpoints'.

Despite all the chest-beating this sure seems like bad political timing to start a war for the republicans. Do they want to lose that bad in 08? I doubt it.

Yes, talking to Iran, and/or dealing with a nuclear Iran seem to be two options that are much better than attacking. We've had success in the past via diplomacy, and we've also dealt with nuclear enemies with no casualties. What's the success rate of pre-emptive strikes? I guess that would depend on who is defining 'success' though.

Posted by MATTMAN at 09/25/2007 @ 12:15pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 12:13pm

In that case, let's do "limited air strikes" against the Saudis...they'll fold under pressure and close the madrassahs and any loss in oil will be made up when "the Strategic Supply spigots worldwide will be opened and the inevitable global recession will be handled much better than 1979. When the dust settles, we could be surprised how the ME will be transformed.....quite possibly for the better"????

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 12:16pm
"Similar to what you posted earlier on Saudis funding the Sunni insurgents, I don't believe the Saudis see a democratic, US-allied Iraq to be in its best interest..."

Posted by HAPPY

You're a complete idiot, and you have no idea what you're talking about. The Saudis are funding Sunnis because they fear the spread of the Shia, especially the Iranian sponsored Shia of Iraq. And this pipe dream about a "democratic" Iraq is exactly that. Pull your head out of your ass.

Posted by mtspence05 at 09/25/2007 @ 12:18pm
and it's right! It is time for Arabia to decide if it's WITH US or AGAINST US....

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 12:13pm

So, when we're done with Iraq and Iran, we go ahead and take over Saudi Arabia? Hmmm, yes I'm beginning to see the brilliance in all of this. We just move nation to nation until the entire ME is OURS! But why stop there?

Posted by MATTMAN at 09/25/2007 @ 12:19pm
Look, I don't WANT another war anymore than I WANT another recession! One thing I'll NOT waste my time on, is going into depth with you full-timer bloggers!

But like possible recessions, I may contemplate what may transpire if a war happens! That's it! Don't go jump off a cliff and take my speculations and add your own R&D to them! I/m w/Buchannan mostly, pull all of our troops out of just about everywhere and let the UN be the world's police and we contribute no more than our % share of global GDP or manpower for military or humanitarian purposes!

Oh, and don't pay any heeds when the world comes crying for help...nor volunteer our assistance when massive earthquakes strike Pakistan of tsunamies hit! This approach is one thing I agree w/the Left...the Old Europe approach....business first! Maybe the Dems can get us `there' between 2008 and 2012 (or 2016 which is about the time I retire, hehehe...:-)!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 12:31pm
Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech"

obama - the anti bush

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 12:34pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 12:31pm

Not sure I undrestand, HAPP.

On one hand you say you don't want war with Iran or the inevitable recession...

on the other you lay out this case that we CAN attack Iran, no muss-no fuss, and that the Strategic Reserves will make up any shortfall in oil and cushion us out of a recession?

Which is it?!?!? Which is it?

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 12:35pm
let's do the time warp, again..............................

Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech"

obama - the anti bush

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 12:34pm | ignore this person

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 12:40pm
One thing I'll NOT waste my time on, is going into depth with you full-timer bloggers!

I don't think anyone here ever expects you to "go into depth."

Posted by BlueSpark at 09/25/2007 @ 12:41pm
Oh, and don't pay any heeds when the world comes crying for help...nor volunteer our assistance when massive earthquakes strike Pakistan of tsunamies hit! This approach is one thing I agree w/the Left...the Old Europe approach....business first! Maybe the Dems can get us `there' between 2008 and 2012 (or 2016 which is about the time I retire, hehehe...:-)!

Posted by HAPPY

Why do you think the US is so involved around the globe, moron? It's good for business. Disasters, failed economies, civil wars, regional unrest--it's destabilizing! You can't conduct business in a volitale environment. You just don't get it do you?

Posted by mtspence05 at 09/25/2007 @ 12:41pm
happy, you seem like a nice guy when you don't talk about politics.

however, what you are saying right now is so asinine that you now must prepare yourself for 15 PAGES OF WHY YOU ARE WRONG!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 12:43pm
....on the other you lay out this case that we CAN attack Iran, no muss-no fuss, and that the Strategic Reserves will make up any shortfall in oil and cushion us out of a recession?

Which is it?!?!? Which is it?

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 12:35pm

Last one before I go out and be inefficient with gas consumption! Lunch & Wal-Mart time!

Just about ALL of us will live through the next `war' just as we will the next Recession. Shit happens and deal w/it...Que sera, sera...!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 12:44pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 12:44pm

Only one thing comes to mind....

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks.

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 12:46pm
pull all of our troops out of just about everywhere and let the UN be the world's police and we contribute no more than our % share of global GDP or manpower for military or humanitarian purposes!

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 12:31pm

Well, I'll be damned. There's hope for you yet Happy. Careful though, RIO and LVLIBERTY may be UNHAPPY with your take. Sounds an awful lot like "cut /n run".

Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2007 @ 12:55pm
Just about ALL of us will live through the next `war' just as we will the next Recession. Shit happens and deal w/it...Que sera, sera...!

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 12:44pm

errr . . . or maybe not.

Posted by Hman23 at 09/25/2007 @ 12:56pm
Hey, MASK, I was re-reading Hart's 1927 Great Captains Unveiled last night. Commenting on the Mongol Subotai's concern with sticking with an objective even when other temptations arise, Hart noted this as "an object lesson for modern political stategists who frame their foreign & imperial policies without reference to their military means & limitations". It occured to me that Bush & Rumsfeld obviously never read this,or thought the lessons were only for those in the 1930's.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2007 @ 12:58pm
lets give them crazy oily turrurist and turrurist enablers hell!

lets get the hell out of iraq, use the money and human potential WASTED there to develop alternative energy, devote ourselves to non-stop diplomatic initiatives to ratchet DOWN the bellicose rhetoric, and trust that israel's "secret" stockpile of nukes and spartan-like conventional millitary are sufficient to discourage anti-semitic assholes from doing more than bluster...

and stop wasting ourselves where we dont belong.

and call me anti-semitic if you want, but it bothered me a bit when the anti-ahmadinejad demonstrators were shouting "usa usa" while holding up israeli flags...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 1:01pm
HRC - watered down, acceptable-to-our-demigodly-randian-overmen (like murdoch) "new" female bush...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 1:09pm
agree with johannesrolf on this one. bush and his administration have a record of doing nothing but reckless damage. he could care less about consequences. i am fearful and saddened at the prospect of attacking iran.

Posted by LOVELOKI 09/25/2007 @ 12:11pm

Fine work by MASK in skewerering the hapless KRAPPY, a dime-a-dozen Kaptain Keyboard fanatasist who dreams, most banally, of being equal to 50 battalions in the no-holds-barred battle with IslamoFascism.

But I fear that the astute LOVELOKI is on to an uncomfortable truth. When in George W Loser's 60+ years of cheerleading, falling off bar stools, running businesses into the ground during the go-go 80s and evading indepedent FCC investigation, riding poppy's coat tails, signing death warrants with sadistic pleasure, assuming high office on dubious terms (and certainly non-conservative, precedent respecting terms), vacationing through the 6 August 2001 memo, invading bystander nations on patently false pretenses at a cost of tens of thousands of lives violently ended and maimed, spying without warrants, torturing suspects, politicizing the very heart of DoJ ... when through the testimony of his life has George W. Loser ever done anything noble, correct or to even the most minimally recognizable standard of quality?

This just in: George W Loser is a failure and a born loser, a loser's loser who makes Charlie Brown look like Tom Brady. If his name was George Walker, he would probably have already croaked of liver disease, the heinously embarrassing uncle with piss-stained pants alone in the gutter after the wife left his sorry ass. George W Loser, the cheerleader, has set low standards for himself and has always failed to meet them; so too his few remaing followers, the intensity of their rim jobs on George W. Loser matched by the hideously pathetic sub-mediocrity of their meaningless existences.

It is largely inconsequntial that George W. Loser will leave office in disgrace, scorned by the public that came to know and despise this over-privileged cypher who is unfit to run a popsicle stand. But what matters is that office that he will leave will be be vastly diminished for his abuse and desecration of it. In its final spasms of loserdom between Nov 2008 and Janaury 2009, the Bush circle will have many opportunities to vandalize Good Ship America out of sick, petty spite. Recall that they came into power making the sick, no class, and specious accusation toward the Clintonites of petty vandalism. Today, it looks like a harbinger of their own intentions to vandalize America's institutions in an unconsciencible effort to dump the shitmess on their successors to make themselves look better.

The Repugnant Party is for sickies.

Posted by John_Shaft at 09/25/2007 @ 1:18pm
and call me anti-semitic if you want, but it bothered me a bit when the anti-ahmadinejad demonstrators were shouting "usa usa" while holding up israeli flags...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person

salt and lime. perfect to heal broken skin.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 1:20pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/25/2007 @ 12:58pm

I doubt if Bush or even Rumsfeld knew who Sun Tzu was, much less Liddell Hart.

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 1:23pm
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 09/25/2007 @ 1:18pm

Actually SHAFT, HAPPY's own contradictory nature confounded him. On one hand, he still clings to the neo-con agenda of "cakewalk" attacks, Muslim dictatorships that collapse and Jeffersonian democracy emerging, and "easy to clean up messes" that result afterwards, both militarily, politically, and economically.

On the other hand, he has enough brains to know that it wouldn't work out that way and now he's becoming a Buchanan isolationist (though not enough of one to support pulling out of an Iraq, HAPPY STILL thinks "may work out").

Actually the RIO BRAVOs have it a bit better, they're not too bright and still dream of "Patton driving his tanks to Teheran, to personally shoot that Ahmadinejad son-of-a-bitch" and don't even THINK of the consequences, so they aren't as conflicted.

The HAPPYS face a dismal future of intellect clashing with ideology.

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 1:30pm
"a loser's loser who makes Charlie Brown look like Tom Brady."

score a touchdown + two-point conversion for THE SHAFTTOWN STOMPERS

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 1:30pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 1:20pm | ignore this person

sup frosty? hows the jammin going?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 1:33pm
Really

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2007 @ 1:34pm
The HAPPYS face a dismal future of intellect clashing with ideology.

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 1:30pm

Anakin or Luke, for some a tough choice.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 1:34pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 1:34pm

Not really....Anakin got to bed that cute Natalie Portman and knock her up....

Luke got smooched twice by his SISTER!?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 1:36pm
Here is a quick sketch assessment of the Bush cabal's neoClown failures from HARPERS:

A thoroughly moderate, wonky international relations expert I know who spends much of his energy evaluating the efficacy of U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan recently offered this summary of the Bush-Cheney Administration's efforts:

The Bush-Cheney administration has surrendered much of Afghanistan to the Taliban and much of Pakistan to al-Qaida [NOTE FROM SHAFT: For an extended period of time Bush did not even bother filling the ambassador to Pakistan vacany. Think of it. The birthplace and epicenter of alQ and its camps, likely hiding place of OBL, perhaps the most volatile place on Earth for US interests and George W Loser cannot be bothered with staffing an embassy there]. They have turned most of Iraq over to Iran, creating the very danger over which they now threaten another disastrous war; they have strained the U.S. Armed Forces to the point of exhaustion, turned the Defense Department over to private contractors, the Justice Department over to the Republican National Committee, and the national debt over to foreign creditors, while leading a party whose single most basic belief is supposed to be that individuals must take personal responsibility for their actions. And they dare to lecture us on national security?

Posted by John_Shaft at 09/25/2007 @ 1:41pm
sup frosty? hows the jammin going?

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 1:33pm

excellent, thank you muchly

ain't been postin', been sheddin' [klru.org]

have read some threads, though. (great writing, by the way) i only posted today because i think HAPPY is probably really nice in his core, but he just needs some reprogramming. that's why he's here.

i couldn't find any songs i understood in farsi, so i just changed this one. i'm sure THEY'VE got one just like it:

O beautiful for spacious skies,

For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties

Above the fruited plain!

Ira-a-an! Ira-a-an!

God shed His grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 1:51pm
WAIT!

didn't have to change the beautiful song. they've got they're own de facto anthem, "Ey Iran"

Oh Iran, oh bejeweled land

Oh, your soil is the wellspring of the arts

Far from you may the thoughts of evil be

May you remain lasting and eternal

Oh enemy, if you are of stone, I am of iron

May my life be sacrificed for my pure motherland

Your love is my calling

My thoughts are never far from you

In your cause, when do our lives have value?

May the land of our Iran be eternal..............................

The stones of your mountains are jewels and pearls

The soil of your valleys are better than gold

When could I rid my heart of your affection?

Tell me, what will I do without your affection?

As long as the turning of the earth and the cycling of the sky lasts

The light of the Divine will always guide us

Your love is my calling

My thoughts are never far from you

In your cause, when do our lives have value?

May the land of our Iran be eternal.....................

Iran oh my green paradise

Bright is my fate because of you

If fire rains on my body

Other than your love I will not cherish in my heart

Your water, soil and love molded my clay

If your love leaves my heart it will become barren

Your love is my calling

My thoughts are never far from you

In your cause, when do our lives have value?

May the land of our Iran be eternal

told ya'

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 1:54pm
Hey FROSTY, what about...

O Per-si-a! Our home and native land!

True Muslim love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,

The True Mahdi strong and free!

From far and wide, O Per-si-a,

We stand on guard for thee.

Allah keep our land

Glorious and free!

O Per-si-a, we stand on guard for thee;

O Per-si-a, we stand on guard for thee.

heheh?

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 1:55pm
....15 PAGES OF WHY YOU ARE WRONG!

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 12:43pm

How can you be so sure by slamming "YOU ARE WRONG" when I'm speculating on the Future? In fact, quite the opposite....I am SURE there will be other wars and Recessions....but I may be off on a US/Iran war in the near future and what may ensue if it happens, NO?

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 1:56pm
here's the next very of GBA. they should sing this on the senate floor every morning. better than "bombs bursting in air"

America! America!

God mend thine ev'ry flaw,

Confirm thy soul in self-control,

Thy liberty in law.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 1:57pm
Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 1:30pm

Yeah, true enough on RIO BRAVO's place most lowly in the universe. And, to repeat, MASK has skillfully spun KRAPPY around in teasing out what doubts the Keyboard Kaptain harbours with regard to what he otherwise defends verbosely and with prolixity.

My closing gesture of the day points to something to check out: In yesterday's salon.com (24 sept), Peter Galbraith discusses the stragetic blows the neoClonws have struck against the US in the ME. While most people sense that Iran has had a form of strategic gift handed its way via the monsterously stupid invasion of Iraq, Galbraith usefully fills in some of the details of this strategic neoClown failure -- a failure that, as we we are now witnessing, is brazenly being abused as an alibi for still more organized violence and human disaster on the ground.

Posted by John_Shaft at 09/25/2007 @ 1:58pm
I am SURE there will be other wars and Recessions....but I may be off on a US/Iran war in the near future and what may ensue if it happens, NO?

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 1:62pm

End this madness, let us. Only kill ourselves, more wars will. Yes, hmmm.

Posted by YODA 09/25/2007 @ 1:56pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 2:03pm
BTW HAPPY,

thanks again for your concern.

back to the axe, we go!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 2:04pm
...The HAPPYS face a dismal future of intellect clashing with ideology.

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 1:30pm

For the unknownth times: I take the world AS IS and `react' accordingly! Somethings can be abandoned and we walk away with little lasting harm done...somethings not so easily! To turn our foreign policy completely around to a non-interventionist stance will take a generation to accomplish (which I am in support of).

BTW, not being overly flippant, my personal future is, ahem, rather bright....it would be even brighter w/a non-interventionist America....means I can go live most anywhere and not be worried about my nationality....hehehe...bit selfish???!!!

Come to think of it, Iran could be an interesting place....they can outlaw anything they don't like and presto, it doesn't exist! We already know they don't have homosexuals and it's just a matter of time before they outlaw Recessions and Wars! LOL!!!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 2:14pm
back to the axe, we go!

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 2:04pm

What kind of guitar are you banging on Frosty?? I play a little guitar myself. I'd be interested in getting a rundown on your gear collection.

Posted by Sliver at 09/25/2007 @ 2:55pm
and call me anti-semitic if you want, but it bothered me a bit when the anti-ahmadinejad demonstrators were shouting "usa usa" while holding up israeli flags...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 1:01pm

and ultimately this kinda liebermanesque crap is going to result in an ugly REAL antisemitic backlash in this country. kudos to the rabbi waskow who was published here recently and kudos to the nation for publishing him and to hell with the liebermans who want to use MY country as a big beating stick against israel's enemies...

and to hell with the neocons, semitic and gentile, who seem to think israel is the 51st state whose national interest is always the same as ours...

guarantee the existance/security of israel AND work to ratchet DOWN tensions. the best interest of the state of israel would ironically enough be best served by a united states that does not automatically rubber stamp everything they do...that actually pulls an eisenhower-in-1956 from time to time and calls them down when they go too far...

or when...gulp...they are wrong....

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 2:59pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 2:14pm

Look, HAPP, you really need to go ahead and...pick one.

Either stick with neo-con'ism, and say an attack on Iran will be easy as Grant taking Richmond, and we can "ride out" the inevitable recession...

or go with your new-found appreciation of isolationism, and join not only the Buchananites, but a good number of libertarians who don't want any more "Iraqs" NOR any endless deployment "peace-keepings".

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 3:09pm
the israeli/palestinian "question" is the crux of all problems in the middle east.

what would tyrants there rail against without it? ring israel with 500,000 un troops for a generation and poor buzillions of $ into rebuilding palestine's economy, and the evil israel bashing would largely end.

actually this is one that, ironically enough, might be best handled by someone other than us...like germany...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 3:11pm
like germany...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 3:11pm

the ultimate ironic reparation...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 3:11pm
Come to think of it, Iran could be an interesting place....they can outlaw anything they don't like and presto, it doesn't exist! We already know they don't have homosexuals and it's just a matter of time before they outlaw Recessions and Wars! LOL!!!

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 2:14pm

iran

- Unified by Cyrus the Great 559 BCE

- Parthian (Arsacid) dynastic empire (first reunification) 248 BCE-224 CE

- Sassanid dynastic empire 224–651 CE

- Safavid dynasty (second reunification) May 1502 - First Constitution 1906

- Islamic Revolution 1979

united states

Independence from Great Britain

- Declared July 4, 1776

- Recognized September 3, 1783

i dunno, wouldn't want to see any fight.

but i'd pick the cowboys over the texans to reach the Stuporbowl, 19 times out of 20, +/- 3%

and before you say, "u.s./england 1776", don't forget where that fight occurred. are you winning in iraq?

"For the unknownth times: I take the world AS IS and `react' accordingly! Somethings can be abandoned and we walk away with little lasting harm done...somethings not so easily! To turn our foreign policy completely around to a non-interventionist stance will take a generation to accomplish (which I am in support of)."

why put off until tomorrow, what you can do today! save your kids a lot of headaches (or worse, god forbid)

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 3:22pm

the ultimate ironic reparation...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 3:11pm

dunno, giving south carolina for an afro-american homeland might top it

nonetheless, brilliant!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 3:24pm

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 3:11pm

Problem with that "500,000 un troops" plan, IBB...most of the UN doesn't want Israel to even exist.

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 3:30pm

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 3:30pm | ignore this

yeah...pipe dream, i know. and israel itself would never allow it either.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 3:34pm

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 3:24pm

dude...i'm a white southern male working on the campaign of a mulatto man in an attempt to defeat a white woman...in the middle of the old south...

lets just not go there...even in jest...even in these enlightened days...(lol).

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 3:37pm

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 3:37pm

well, vote twice--once for yourself and a proxy vote for mr frosty

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 3:40pm

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 3:40pm

a little reposting of something i tapped out here a few months ago i thought you might enjoy...

The Wind: The Voice of God

A few years ago the late Emmett Rufus Eddy, aka "Reverend E.X. Slave", a colorful (no pun intended) local activist, decided one hot summer day, to take matters into his own hands... He had been chased off the state house grounds before, and was under an injunction to remain a certain distance from the capital, especially the Confederate battle flag part... So Reverend Slave puts on a black Santa Claus suit, pockets his Zippo and some lighter fluid, picks up his expandable ladder...and goes down to the state house...

He walks up purposefully and sits down on one of the benches, a black man in a black Santa suit on a humid hundred degree South Carolina afternoon with a ladder...and sits there for some fifteen minutes staring at the flag flapping up there in the hot wind. People pass by and see him, but think nothing strange. "I thought he was one of the grounds crew" says one witness upon later reflection. Which would explain the ladder…but the black Santa suit? Well… So after contemplating his holy mission the good reverend finally heaves himself up and calmly sets his ladder against the flag pole and proceeds to climb. People still think nothing strange, until when reaching the top, the late Reverend E.X. Slave whips out his Zippo and lighter fluid...and flames that pain filled rag up! Glory be, Reverend! Amen!

But alas, the cops finally figured it out and arrived, sweating profusely in the jungle like heat. They recognized the black man in the black Santa suit burning the Confederate battle flag on a hot summer day immediately (thank God we have such fine men protecting us with all these terrorists about). Despite the hellish weather, training took over and the officers prepared to deal with the perp… In all fairness, they tried to talk the Reverend down, and when this did not work, pulled out their super soaker long range pepper spray thingys, and after one last warning, sprayed the hell out of the poor reverend.

Actually they didn't. At the last minute almighty-though-sometimes-otherwise-occupied God looked down from on high, and decided to put in his two cents. The infernal wind changed of a sudden and blew the pepper spray back with great force into the faces of the poor officers, leaving the man of God completely unscathed. The flag was toast at this point, so the Reverend climbed down, made sure the officers were OK, and proceeded to get himself arrested. The officers were treated at a local hospital and God was happy.

Rest in peace, Reverend.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 3:49pm

Here's a part of our answer....those who feel directly threatened and have doubts as to if America will bail the everybody out...

Sarkozy says letting Iran go nuclear could cause war

Reuters - Tuesday, September 25 05:06 pm

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons could destabilize the world and lead to war, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the United Nations on Tuesday.

In his maiden speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Sarkozy said: "There will be no peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of nuclear arms proliferation."

Iran was entitled to nuclear power for civilian purposes, he said, "but if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world".

In a broader warning against the dangers of appeasement, the new French leader said: "Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war."

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the West suspects the Islamic Republic of enriching uranium to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

Underlining French support for tougher sanctions against Tehran, sought by the United States but opposed by Russia and China, Sarkozy said: "We can only resolve this crisis by combining firmness with dialogue."

In an interview with the New York Times published on Monday, Sarkozy said that if the U.N. Security Council was unable to agree on further financial sanctions, the European Union should take its own measures to raise pressure on Iran.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner caused an outcry last week by saying if diplomacy failed to stop Iran's nuclear program, the world should prepare for the worst -- war.

But Sarkozy appeared to deliver the same message in a coded form, without mentioning the possibility of military action to prevent Iran achieving a nuclear capability.

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 3:56pm

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 3:40pm

what do you think dead people are for? (joke - ha ha hee hee)

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 3:57pm

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2007 @ 3:58pm

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 3:56pm

and just how does mr. sarkozy propose we stop them? and then how about the next one we cant allow to get the nukes? and the next?

hey sarkozy! we're awful busy right now...if you are so concerned...

HAVE AT IT AND DO IT YOURSELF!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 4:02pm

Don't forget, FROSTY

Overrun by Alexander 323 BC

Overrun by Arabs 651 AD

Mostly overrun by Karakhanid Turks circa 1000 AD

Crushed by Mongols 1220-1234 AD

Terrorized by Assasins most of 13th century.

Overrun again by Mongols 1256-58

They lose a lot but they're resiliant. Something for General Burnside-OOPS! Sorry I meant General Bush- to remember

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2007 @ 4:07pm

has the good reverend (pbuh) passed?

Eventually, Eddy was arrested, roughed up a little by the embarrassed cops, shackled and hauled off to jail, to taunts and jeers from a crowd of more than 100 (mostly white) onlookers who had gathered at the site. Within the hour, the Statehouse's grounds crew secured another Confederate flag (value: $30) and hoisted the infamous banner once again.

The flag may only cost $30 to replace, but the State of South Carolina is determined to impose a much more severe sanction on Eddy. For this modest act of civil disobedience (which some might call a beautification project), Eddy faces a $5,000 fine and three years in prison

Apparently, the study of physics and Newton's law of gravity are not requirements at the police academy in Columbia and the cops were duly surprised when the pepper spray failed to incapacitate the Reverend Slave and instead blew back into the eyes of the police officers. The officers later filed injury claims.

check out the pics!

to all those ready to attack iran in order to fix the world: maybe south carolina would be a better place to fix first.

BTW ever been to hunting island, near beaufort s.c. (byoo-furt)? heaven usually isn't a long drive away.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 4:07pm

O' course, this freedom,individual liberty thing: They're still workin' on that!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2007 @ 4:09pm

Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/25/2007 @ 4:07pm

well aware of that.

thanks for finding that info.

the u.s, too, would destroy them militarily.

they'd lose ever battle, yet win the war.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 4:10pm

French President Nicolas Sarkozy

ah yes, a leading voice in progressive thought!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 4:11pm

Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/25/2007 @ 3:58pm

ah, a minimalist.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 4:12pm

...new-found appreciation of isolationism,....

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 3:09pm

I don't know how "new-found" you would call...dates back to the end of the Cold War!

What is unfortunate is that we can't change our foreign policies overnight! As much as I'd want a more Buchannan-like approach, it won't and can't happen overnight.....it took 9/11 for pre-emptive wars to take hold....it would take a Dennis K. or Pat B. as POTUS to move to a Non-Intervention mode....HRC is unlikely IT! I do await your reactions as HRC continues the Iraq War with ~100k troops in Iraq!

True to form, you're still trying to put me in one of your neat little holes! Think of me as a HAPPY octopus, some parts of me drapes into each hole while the BIG brain/body is over sized for any MASKy holes.....LOL!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 4:15pm

hey sarkozy! we're awful busy right now...if you are so concerned...

HAVE AT IT AND DO IT YOURSELF!

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 4:02pm

he's just reciting the "lesson" given to him at kennebunkp ort [freerepublic.com]

ERRORS

A WORD OR URL WAS TOO LONG, AND HAS BEEN BROKEN UP.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 4:20pm

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 4:15pm

¡¡EL PULPO FELIZ!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 4:21pm

i finally figured it out a while back: these clowns are trying, with conscious effort, to bring about the Battle of Armageddon. it has been their plan all along...going back to the Reagan days.

my only hope is that Jesus, who I do believe in, does indeed ride in on the clouds with all his saints, angels and prophets, and saves us in the end. i say this from a leftist/apocalyptic point of view, not a crazy, moral majority, fascist one.

otherwise, there's no one who can stop this nightmare, not that we shouldn't try with all our effort.

look out for your own, the community around you, and for those strangers who need ya; build and maintain those foundations; and walk whatever straight and narrow path you're walkin'. always do the best u can.

then hold on for dear life. this ride ain't gonna be an easy one.

peace.

Posted by Scrub at 09/25/2007 @ 4:23pm

Minimalist??!! Minimalist, you say??!! By God, I think I've been insulted!!

You were aware of all that, Frosty?. Damn we should sit down and have a keyboard discussion of the period. Seriously, its difficult to find anybody interested in Central Asia, Mongols, etc (no offense to anyone here. Guess I picked a wierd subject to get into. Oh well.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/25/2007 @ 4:25pm

and just how does mr. sarkozy propose we stop them?

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 4:02pm

At this point, Sarkozy is doing exactly what we tried to do on Iraq....convince the countries that matter to take a UNITED stand!

I'll always believe that had Russia, China and France adopted the U.S. position (and strengthen the UN with its 16 Iraq Resolutions), the current Iraq War would NOT have taken place! Saddam wrongly counted on his bought-and-paid-for French and Russian `connections'!

Now, it is China & Russia that needs to be convinced that only UNITED opposition to Iranian nukes can give peace the greatest chance!

You are right in projecting that by itself, France is powerless....but it's possible that Sarkozy is putting on a European `face' and telegraphing to Israel something it wants to hear!

Let's NOT forget it's Israel that can't risk 2~3 nuclear bombs going off on its tiny country....on that, AhmaDineInYourJeans is absolutely right!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 4:32pm

Kyl and Lieberman are far too hawkish for my taste. Kyl is a Bush brown noser and I will never vote for Kyl. Bush begs the Congress and the American people over and over and over to give him more time in Iraq militarily (he has had 4 years to get this war over with,)yet Cheney/Bush only gave diplomacy with Iran 4 months and gave up. Diplomacy is much cheaper than war in more than one way, yet four months is all they gave it. My suggestion to the Bush administration is you must give diplomacy the same amount of time as you devoted toward war (4 years). The problem is the Bush administration is as bad at diplomacy as it is with waging wars. Thus our dilema. Still, we cannot afford a war and it would be sheer ignorance and insanity to start another war.

Posted by jtwt at 09/25/2007 @ 4:35pm

Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/25/2007 @ 4:25pm

no insult intended.

check out your post at "Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/25/2007 @ 3:58pm". hence the minimalist.

LOL

BTW no, i was not aware of ALL that. i was aware that persia had been invaded many times in its very long history, and my point was the same as yours, that of resilience.

and yes i am interested in central asia, not as much as cheney et. al, but interested nontheless.

'scuse any misunderstanding

fz

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 4:45pm

Wow, sorry I came late to this thread, see what happens when you get distracted from your "full time blogging?" Anyway, I'll just join the dogpile on Happy, because I can't resist making a (very long) point that needs to be made regarding the Iranians.

The thing is, all the accusations and calls for action against the Iranians miss some rather crucial points that I never see brought up, but that should be critical to thinking about any policies toward them. This requires, though, that we put ourselves in the Iranians' shoes (so to speak):

1) The Iranians have been a convenient whipping boy for U.S. politicians since well before 9/11, despite the fact that much of the Iranian populace has not been (except for the spasm of the Iranian Revolution) all that ill-disposed to the west, just to us because of our long-time interventionism in their country and support for their mortal enemies (i.e., the Moussadeq coup, support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war which the Iranians did not instigate, etc.) In particular, the young Iranians that have grown up since the end of the Iran-Iraq war (a large percentage of the population) were even relatively well disposed toward us by every measure we had before BushCo started throwing around terms like "Axis of Evil" and applying it to them. From their perspective, these young people see the U.S. as having unfairly targeted them for things they and their government had nothing to do with. This is not the way to "win hearts and minds" and has signally failed to rally these young people to any position that would be helpful to the U.S. despite the fact that any reasonable analysis has shown they don't like clerical domination and prefer to take their system toward more democracy and freedom. Why would they not feel spurned by the U.S.?

2) The focus on Ahmadinejad is puzzling to most Iranians because they know he has no control over foreign policy and does not command the military, since that is not the position the President occupies in their system (both of those powers reside with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) and even on domestic issues he is the manager subject to Khamenei's oversite authority. He wasn't even elected based on issues beyond Iran's borders, but because of the problems in the Iranian economy for poor and middle-class Iranians, which he (as an economic populist) promised to fix. Indeed, until we made him a symbol of resistance to U.S. intransigence for most Iranians, he would probably have lost the presidency at the next election because he has signally failed to fix the economic woes he was hired to take care of.

3) Then there is the nature of American power and the threat Iran perceives as building against it. What they see when they look out from their country is not a picture that any nation's citizens would view favorably. They see the most technically sophisticated and (until we squandered this in the sands of Iraq) fearsome-by-reputation army in the world invading not only a dangerously unstable nation on one of their borders (Afghanistan) but also the nation with which they share their largest border, commanded by a man who has termed their entire nation as "evil." They can hardly be expected to view such a development without a certain level of fear for what may come next and act as best they may (both as a nation and as individuals) to try and prevent any harm to themselves: to do otherwise would make them different than the entire rest of the human species.

If you're having trouble understanding this point, try this little thought experiment on for size:

Here's the set-up scenario. Imagine that the U.S. is a second rank power (as Iran is) without nukes and with only one real national resource, but a fairly lucrative one if it can be gotten to the world markets. Now, imagine that the most advanced army in the world (we'll use China as a stand-in for the U.S.) that had previously supported an old neighboring enemy (we'll use Canada here) but one that contained a majority of people who were like us (okay, you'd need to imagine the Quebecois in charge of Canada for this to work, but bear with me...) now invades that enemy (whom we defeated the last time we went to war with them, but only at great cost) and plants this sophisticated army directly on our border, while also invading a disorganized and terrorist ridden Mexico, but not with enough force to really clean Mexico up. The leaders of China have already declared us to be part of a threat to their nation that we had nothing to do with, and continue to escalate that rhetoric. That's the scenario of our little thought experiment.

Now here's the test: what would you do as an American? Would you overthrow the American government because you had been dissatisfied with the way they were running things before this all happened, or would you rally around them despite the fact that you'd opposed them before? Would you leave your fellows in Canada (who had never supported the former Canadian government that had attacked your country but had been oppressed by it) alone to deal with this superpower and it's army or would you try to help and arm them as best you might? Would you meet every demand of the superpower (or insist that your government does) or would you want your government to find a way to resist that superpower's demands? Would you not want your nation to seek the same power (including nukes) that the superpower has in order to protect yourselves from it?

Once you've worked through those questions and come to the end of our little thought experiment, you'll begin to see the Iranian perception of their current situation. They are scared as hell and scared people make bad decisions most of the time. This is the real reason that the entire neo-con program doesn't and can't work, because it assumes that other people aren't going to react to what we do like, well, people. It is the real reason that the entire set of BushCo actions toward Iran (whether the loonies like Cheney win out and we attack or not) is doomed to failure. Like us, when pushed, the Iranians are going to push back as hard as they can.

That doesn't mean they're going to attack Israel or U.S. forces directly unless they're attacked directly first, but they certainly will if it comes to that, and it will be neither clean nor easy. They held off for eight years what was then the fourth best military in the world (after the U.S., Russia, and China) with technologically inferior forces and the sheer will to win. Iran is no colonial confabulation like Iraq, it is a real nation with a long and proud history (much longer than ours, by the way) and that kind of nationalism breeds very dedicated soldiers and resistance to attack and occupation. They are a lot more like us than any U.S. politician would dare admit, but we can't formulate proper policy and achieve real strategic goals in the region, until we learn this lesson and change our way of dealing with Iran.

What might that way be? First, get off one of their borders (Iraq) which would greatly reduce tensions and ratchet down the confrontation. It's an easy solution for us, despite the hogwash being sold by BushCo that a withdrawal would "strengthen" Iran: they already have more influence than we do in Iraq beyond the reach of our guns, and that's not going to change since they have been real friends to a fair segment of the population in ways we have not (and to be fair, could not be as an occupying military power.) Afghanistan is not so much a problem: remember that the Iranians actually helped us there quite a bit in the early days of the invasion because they too didn't like either the Taliban or al-Qaeda and were perfectly happy to help us get rid of them and forge a stable Afghanistan at last (which was, admittedly, to their advantage as well as ours, but such is the stuff of which international cooperation is made.)

The second thing we need to do is find a way back from the extreme anti-nuclear position BushCo has taken. This does not mean simply capitulating on an Iranian A-bomb, but on making better distinctions under international laws and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty between their legitimate and illegitimate efforts on the nuclear front. The whole demand that they freeze their enrichment program as a precondition, despite the fact that they are expressly allowed such a program for civilian fuel purposes under the NNPT, has always been seen by the Iranians as a non-starter, since it demands that they give up a legitimate right, which no sovereign nation can or will do diplomatically without some return. The rhetoric and action on all fronts should have been and must return to the demand that they submit to their commitments under the NNPT to IAEA inspection and regulation of their civilian nuclear fuel process from beginning to end, which is a normal part of NNPT enforcement and which Europe and the rest of the world (even China) will back to the hilt. We cannot be seen as opposing Iran's legitimate nation interest in civilian nuclear power (as we are now by many in the world) when they have good reasons for wanting it (the main one being that it would allow them, with a rapidly growing population, to meet their energy needs without sacrificing the oil export revenue that is critical to their economy, that is indeed it's only real support.)

Those two steps alone would have a significant impact on our relations with Iran and would de-fuse the current confrontation. The moderates and reformers would be able to reassert themselves (since they have always favored more moderate measures and better relations with the west) and the economic woes would come back to the political forefront and spell the end of populist radicals like Ahmadinejad and would help to undermine clerical rule. We get a less radical and more international Iran which, while hardly a client or even a friend for a while, would not be an enemy either. Given the way we have already strengthened their hand in the Middle East, that is the best strategic position we can hope for in the near future, and it's also something that we can build on in the future to encourage a free and friendly Iran that gets itself to that point (the only way they're going to get there.) That's where I see us now, where I see the Iranians now and why current policies won't work but more subtle and moderate policies will.

So that's the scoop Happy. We need to stop trying to make friends and influence people by either punching them in the nose or running the other way. We need to get back to what adults do when they don't like someone but need to deal with them: extend a cautious handshake, engage in the give and take of real negotiation, and realize that the other guy just wants to do the best he can, just like we do and stop trying to make everything into a zero-sum game.

Posted by Stwriley at 09/25/2007 @ 4:55pm

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 4:07pm

yeah - he died a few month ago...

usually you canadians infest myrtle beach in march when the water is still way too cold for most of us...

myrtle beach is fine for me for short spurts, but gives me epileptic siezures if i stay too long...chaaaaaaleston is a more balanced destination - history, beach, good food, southern gothic all rolled up into one, and no seizure inducing comercialism.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 5:06pm

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 4:07pm

i once had a good french canadian friend (great sense of humor) who was going to school down here and loved it, but his characterization of myrtle beach has always stuck with me...

"go to myrtle beach, get drunk, get a effed, get arrested...go home. yeah, i had a great time!"

he was especially hilarious when he tried to do the southern accent thing...sounded like a retarded cajun...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 5:12pm

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 4:21pm

the happy octopus?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 5:33pm

Posted by STWRILEY 09/25/2007 @ 4:55pm

Though didn't read full post but I think I get the gist of it....Now imagine you're Israel and surrounded by Iran's buddies with conventional rockets and proven ability to smuggle in all kinds of bombs into Israel proper....do you go after the `root evil' as it gets stronger & deadlier or do you just keep putting out little fires Hamas and Hezbollah starts at will as your options dwindle? Not fun to be in Israel's shoes!

AhmadineInYourJeans may not be `The Man' in Iran but neither is Bush in the US!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2007 @ 6:10pm

Lieberman should be advocating an attack on Saudi Arabia instead of Iran. The Iraqi Shia are merely killing and displacing Iraqi Sunnis. It is the Iraqi Sunnis (funded, equiped and staffed by Wahabis and Salafists infiltrating from Saudi Arabia) that are killing our troops.

My suggestion is absurd on many levels some of which are identical to points made by other commenters here: the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians; the catastrophic reduction of oil supplies and the concommitant increase in oil prices (does $6 a gallon please you?); the civilian response against us (think of how the British civilians responded to the terror bombing of London, they became willing to fight to the last man and ultimately became central to the defeat of Germany).

Posted by ajnpblc at 09/25/2007 @ 6:49pm

a real threat, zero? i'd say it would be all over but the crying.

$576.99 for a happy meal for the kid sound good to anyone? its a recession til you lose your job, then its a depression.

the wheels are already set in motion for a major recession without attacking iran. an idiotic attack on iran would only seal the deal.

Posted by loveloki at 09/25/2007 @ 8:01pm

it took 9/11 for pre-emptive wars to take hold....---Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 4:15pm

It did?

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 8:12pm

take hold, I mean, HAPPY.

Seems given the disaster of Iraq, that theory doesn't have many adherents any more...like 30 down to 9%!

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 8:13pm

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 1:55pm

sorry i missed this one.

super excellent.

would they have to translate it to azeri and kurdish, as well?

what about their cereal boxes?

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 9:54pm

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 9:54pm

No prob. You guys do have a nice anthem though.

Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 9:59pm

Posted by STWRILEY 09/25/2007 @ 4:55pm

good work. next time use mexico. :=]

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 10:00pm

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 5:06pm

myrtle beach sucks. full of people.

have you been to beaufort. filmed "the big chill" there.

check out hunting island state park. rent a cabin. bring some beer. ah. [tinyurl.com]

charleston, great place to fall in love. trust me.

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 5:12pm

ah, les quebecois. what great (generally) people. great beer. and les femmes. ooh, la, la!

the happy octopus?

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 5:33pm

indeed. hey if the shoes fit...................

Think of me as a HAPPY octopus, some parts of me drapes into each hole while the BIG brain/body is over sized for any MASKy holes.....LOL!

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 4:15pm

happy, the cephalopod.

squiduya know!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 10:10pm

$576.99 for a happy meal for the kid sound good to anyone?

Posted by LOVELOKI 09/25/2007 @ 8:01pm

will that be with cuttlefish?

would you like to supersize it and have Architeuthis dux instead of some pre-packaged pseudo food?

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 10:15pm

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 9:59pm

yeah, those olympic dudes done ripped us off!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 10:16pm

No prob. You guys do have a nice anthem though.

Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 9:59pm

hey mask,

a favour:

if you see CHIP THORTON, make sure he reads this:

Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/25/2007 @ 4:25pm

no insult intended.

check out your post at "Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/25/2007 @ 3:58pm". hence the minimalist.

LOL

BTW no, i was not aware of ALL that. i was aware that persia had been invaded many times in its very long history, and my point was the same as yours, that of resilience.

and yes i am interested in central asia, not as much as cheney et. al, but interested nontheless.

'scuse any misunderstanding

fz

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/25/2007 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person

he posted blank, and i thought it was funny.

thanks

FZ

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 10:19pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/25/2007 @ 10:19pm

Who said our Congress can't get anything done? They voted today to tighten sanctions against Iran and to designate his Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group.

Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who serves both the United States and Israel -- and not necessarily in that order, said at the conclusion of the 397-16 vote, "Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick. It is my hope that they will take the carrot. But today, we are putting the stick in place."

Lantos' proposal also was aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. The bill would specifically bar the president from waiving US sanctions.

Er...reckon Cheney knows about this...?

Posted by Sheep at 09/26/2007 @ 01:14am

Yes, Frosty I saw my 3:58. Thats what I refer to, in less elegant terms as a "Screw up" :)

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/26/2007 @ 07:30am

My blood boils. Iraq lies in ruins and here is the "chosen people" (the master race?) dictating that we invade another country using US poor children to do the fighting and dying. Already the talking points are in place and the drums are pounding the same tune as last time as the latest Zionist gameplan is distributed through channels. Meanwhile Israel-Firsters deny involvement, ramp up the speaking points on the latest evil-doer, draw up plans and send out their minions to bad-mouth Iran while denying they support another killing spree.

Do not the oldest scapegoats in the world think there will be blowback for their Nazi gameplan? The WASP oilmen whose agenda converges will never pay the price. Silence is complicity.

Posted by Lil at 09/26/2007 @ 08:33am

GEN. RICARDO SANCHEZ SPEAKS - WON'T NAME NAMES OF POLS (EX., GEORGE W LOSER, DICK I. HAVE-OTHER-PRIORITIES) WHO HAVE FAILED THE US CAUSE

Reported in ARMY TIMES

Former Iraq commander Sanchez calls out pols

By Elizabeth White - The Associated Press Posted : Monday Sep 24, 2007 8:21:00 EDT

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas -- Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said Saturday there is a "crisis in national political leadership" and that partisanship is preventing a strategy that would help the U.S. take on the threat of Islamic extremism.

Sanchez, who spent a tumultuous year as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, made the remarks at a veterans summit sponsored by U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz, a Corpus Christi Democrat.

About 200 veterans and their families attended the event. They gave Sanchez a standing ovation and mobbed him afterward for autographs.

"My assessment is that we have a crisis in national political leadership," Sanchez said. "When will America recognize the danger we face? When will the corrosive partisanship of American politics end and allow for a bipartisan solution to arguably the most dangerous threat our nation has faced in over 60 years?"

After his speech, Sanchez wouldn't name names, but told The Associated Press he was referring to "the most senior leadership in our nation."

[SHAFT: Could Sanchez be referring to ... George W. Loser and Dick I. Have-Other-Priotirities???]

"We have failed as a nation to bring together a grand strategy and that is creating a large part of the difficulty we face in this current war effort," he said.

Sanchez became the senior U.S. commander in Iraq in June 2003, two months after the fall of Baghdad, and held the post until June 2004. He retired in November 2006 after 33 years...

Sanchez said Saturday he is not surprised that the U.S. still has a presence in Iraq, nor is he surprised at current troop levels. But, he said, focusing on troop numbers will not end the conflict.

"We can't focus on the military element of power to solve this war," he said after his speech.

[SHAFT: For example, the recent, horrifying 9-11 anniversary terror plot in Germany: First, invading Iraq did nothing to blunt potential peril for this non-combatant nation, despite endless neoClown blather and stupidity on invading Iraq as a means of heading off terror. And, second, the plot was fioled by intercpeted email and NOT -- listen close, now -- and NOT by Blackwater shooting up Iraq in a costly occupation that has turned into a bllodbath. Everyone get it? Intelligence fioled the plot.]

During his address, Sanchez said "tremendous work" has been done for veterans, but he also pointed out the challenge of post-traumatic stress disorder, which he said service members must think of as an injury and not as a "matter of manhood."

"We must not abandon today's warriors," he said. "This must become a matter of national priority."

[SHAFT: Ponder why it is necessary for Sanchez to say this.

It would not be necessary ... except for the fact that neoClowns like terror-loving, fatwah spewing Ann al-Khoulter visciously spit on veterans (ex., her hate speech toward Max Cleland) and people like George W Loser and Dick I. Have-Other-Priorites have life-long contempt for the working people who do society's dirty work].

Posted by John_Shaft at 09/26/2007 @ 08:50am

Posted by LIL 09/26/2007 @ 08:33am | ignore this person

of course, blame the jews.

it is the US gov't which invaded Iraq, not Israel.

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/26/2007 @ 09:07am

Don't even think to use that old lame canard--you are recklessly crying wolf and the day may come when no one will hear you when it REALLY matters. Address it:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/1114/

I won't be holding my breath waiting for your response.

Posted by Lil at 09/26/2007 @ 09:11am

Posted by LIL 09/26/2007 @ 09:11am | ignore this person

it really matters now. I am well aware what happens when you "blame the jews". I have seen the camps with my own eyes.

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/26/2007 @ 09:21am

Did you read the piece? What do you do when it is Israeli Zionists in concert with the US Neo-Cons calling the shots? Have you seen the bodies lined up in iraq? The homes invaded in the middle of the night--doors broken down? Or, are millions killed and millions displaced simply "terrorists" or vermin? Are you going to ignore that and pull out the Holocaust card as if it was the only and exclusive human suffering worth mention? You are cynically using the anti-semitic charge and the holocaust victimization game for not taking the moral responsibility in speaking out when the crimes are being committed in your name. The moment won't last. Silence is complicity. Live with it.

Posted by Lil at 09/26/2007 @ 09:30am

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/1114/

I won't be holding my breath waiting for your response.

Posted by LIL 09/26/2007 @ 09:11am

the difference between Jews.

and

Israel [mossad.gov.il]

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2007 @ 09:36am

Don't play that game. You are the one creating the strawman when you claim it is about the Jews. It is a shameful deception and I've seen it used many times to deflect the outrage and the truth. I always hear about the majority of American Jews who oppose the invasion of Iraq and presumably Iran, but I don't see Israeli flags at peace demonstrations--only in support of Zionist policies in the US. Why is that when American politicians pander for Jewish votes and money they appeal to the most hardline support of Israel? What is the rest of the world to think when this invisible presence of American Jews is silent. Are we supposed to believe they don't support Likud positions in their unquestioned support of Israel..my country right or wrong? Silence is complicity.

Posted by Lil at 09/26/2007 @ 09:46am

Posted by ZERO 09/26/2007 @ 10:56am

same as the cubans. electoral college.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2007 @ 10:57am

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 11:56am | ignore this person

As you have repeatedly pointed ut, few wants to war w/Iran...however, SOME UNPATRIOTIC, BAD AMERICANS WHO CALL THEMSELVES CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS, DO.

if it happens....I tend NOT to believe Iran is prepared to go all-out & suffer hundreds of thousands of casualties in a "slug-fest" knowing that our side will be more than HAPPY to deal w/Iran once and for all (at least good for a couple of decades)!

A COUPLE OF DECADES? YOU WANT AMERICANS TO OCCUPY IRAN FOR A COUPLE OF DECADES?

The US (& likely Israel) will not make the same mistake as in 1991 (w/Iraq) and leave the Iranian government intact!

THEY AREN'T GOING TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES AS THEY MADE IN 2003?? THE INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ WAS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE OF ALL! EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT, EXCEPT FOR A VERY FEW ILL-INFORMED, WAR-MONGERING UN-PATRIOTIC AMERICANS, WHO BELIEVE WHATEVER BUSH SAYS.

The oil market will adjust,

SOUNDS LIKE A FUCCKING WONDERFULLY GOOD TIME. AN ADJUSTMENT??? HURRAY. MORE GOOD NEWS.

the Strategic Supply spigots worldwide will be opened and the inevitable global recession will be handled much better than 1979.

LO0K, CONSERVATIVE. UNTIL YOU ADMIT IRAQ IS A DISASTER, YOU HAVE NO FUCCKING SAY. YOUR KIND WAS PREDICTING THAT IRAQ WOULD BE WONDERFUL, A CAKEWALK, A JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY, FLOWERS IN THE STREETS, SAFE TO CARRY A SIGN THAT SAYS I LOVE BUSH, AND, IT HASN'T.

When the dust settles, we could be surprised how the ME will be transformed.....quite possibly for the better.....

IRAQ WAS ALREADY SUPPOSED TO TRANSFORM THE MIDDLE EAST FOR THE BETTER AND IT DIDNT, CONSERVATIVE.

Iran has few friends, even less than Iraq pre-2003....sure, Hugo would have lost a buddy....tears!

YOU CONSERVATIVES MEAN TO CHANGE THAT. AMERICA LISTENS TO YOU CONSERVATIVES AND STARTS ANOTHER WAR BASED ON LIES, WE WILL BE LESS POPULAR THAN IRAN.

IRAN HAS ONE FRIEND THAT AMERICA WILL NEVER HAVE: IRAQ.

IRAQ HATES AMERICA. YOU CAN BE PRO-IRAN IN PARTS OF IRAQ AND LIVE. YOU CAN NOT BE PRO-AMERICAN AND LIVE IN IRAQ.

FACE FACTS, CONSERVATIVES.

Posted by HAPPY 09/25/2007 @ 11:56am | ignore this person

Posted by conshame at 09/26/2007 @ 11:34am

IRAN HAS ONE FRIEND THAT AMERICA WILL NEVER HAVE: IRAQ.

Posted by conshame at 09/26/2007 @ 11:36am

ah yes, Michael Lerner.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lerner02142003.html

Why does it have to be "painful"? It pains me not to speak out against Bush and the Clintons equally. It pains me not to speak against the Pope or the Church though I was raised a Catholic. It pains me not to trash Belusconi although I am of Italian descent. What's the problem here? Is this Jewish tribalism too sacred that one can't be a good citizen of the world?

Posted by Lil at 09/26/2007 @ 11:43am

Again, an invasion of Iran would require a draft, higher taxes and gasoline prices of ten bucks a gallon. There will be no invasion of Iran.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/25/2007 @ 11:15am

That is assuming that the people at the helm in our nation aren't completely stupid or ansolutely insane. I am not certain that either is an inaccurate description of the whole lot of them.

"Them" being the people in charge. The Administration, the Republicans in Congress (the House especially), and to some extent even Democrats in the Congress.

The fact that Lieberman is even floating this is patently insane. The Iraq war was and is insane. I predicted almost every single bump that we've hit in Iraq and I'm just some political junkie. You know that officials in intelligence and defense (as well as the State department) were warning against these pitfalls.

And yet blindly they charged in. Stupidly, insanely they charged in. If this administration gets the thinnest premise of "permission" from Congress they will at least bomb Iran.

Why? Because they are insane.

Posted by miliTerry at 09/26/2007 @ 11:50am

It was unthinkable then. Who is to stop them now when almost the entire body politic dances for AIPAC and elbows each other out of the way to present bi-partisan bills expressing a united front in support of Israel while focusing hostility against Iran? What does the mere fact that is insane have to do with it?

Posted by Lil at 09/26/2007 @ 11:56am

Posted by LIL 09/26/2007 @ 09:46am | ignore this person

your antisemitism is clouding your view. neither jews in America nor jews in Israel are as monolithic as you describe. Israel is run by a right wing gov't, as is the US. both countries are deeply divided.

Posted by johannesrolf at 09/26/2007 @ 11:36pm

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

August 2009

July 2009

June 2009

Subscribe to The Nation RSS Feed

Atrios

Arts and Letters Daily

The Caucus

Campus Progress

Crooks and Liars

The Daily Gotham

Daily Kos

Echidne of the Snakes

Ezra Klein

FAIR

Feministe

Feministing

Firedoglake

Glenn Greenwald

Gothamist

In these Times

Hendrik Hertzberg

Huffington Post

Hullabaloo

Matthew Yglesias

Media Matters

Mother Jones

My DD

New York Review of Books

Openleft

Pam's House Blend

Pandagon

Political Wire

The Progressive

RaceWire

Real Clear Politics

Roberto Lovato

Romenesko

Swing State Project

Talking Points Memo

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Tapped

Tech President

Tompaine

The Washington Note

Utne Reader

Wonkette

ZNet

Senate Neocons Provoke Iran

posted by Ari Berman on 09/25/2007 @ 11:05am

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

Senate Neocons Provoke Iran

posted by Ari Berman on 09/25/2007 @ 11:05am

Share this article

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!