I read the article in the Atlantic about Israel attacking Iran by Jeffrey Goldberg. It attempted to be a propaganda piece on Israel and their dire predicament in the Middle East. The same Israel that possesses 100 nuclear warheads. They are truly in mortal danger from Iran. By the way, Mr Goldberg, who served in the Israeli Army, wrote an article in 2002 saying that Sadaam Hussein had links to al Qaeda, so we know he never gets his facts mixed up with lies and propaganda. The article actually makes Netenyahu look like a nutjob seeking his 100 year old daddy’s approval. His “reasoning” for going to war with Iran is based on emotional proclamations about the Holocaust. When you don’t have facts to back up your position, fall back on mushroom clouds and the holocaust. That is the Israeli playbook.
Mr. Wright does a fantastic job pointing out that all of the Israeli arguments for attacking Iran are weak, invalid, and based upon false propaganda. The Israelis don’t care. They are on a mission to destroy Iran. They know that Obama is a weak man. They will attack without his approval and force him into conflict with Iran. Obama, being the weak political hack that he is, may actually think an attack will benefit him politically. When your domestic agenda is in tatters, find a foreign bogeyman to distract the masses. The Jewish controlled media in the US supports war with Iran. They blare the propaganda from the loudspeakers 24 hours a day.
News stories are slanted to make the masses think Iran is actually a threat to the US. Recent polls show 60% approval for attacking Iran. It is beyond delusional that a country that spends $2.5 billion per year on their military is a threat to a country that spends $895 billion per year on their military. Our military spends $2.5 billion on toilet seats.
The part of the story that no one addresses are the unintended consequences of attacking Iran. Neo-cons aren’t big on thinking through the consequences of their actions. It gets too messy for their neat little world domination game of Risk. Before I get to the unintended consequences, let’s address the known consequences:
- The US military is already fighting 2 wars and has stretched our soldiers beyond the breaking point. I wonder if the neo-cons are ready to re-institute the draft for more cannon fodder. It is much easier to set up recruiting stations in poor neighborhoods where youth unemployment is 50%. See, there are benefits to a depression.
- We’ve borrowed $1.067 trillion from the Chinese to fight our two current wars of choice. How many more billions will it cost to destroy Iran. Maybe we should ask Donald Rumsfeld. Secretary Rumsfeld estimated the costs of the Iraq War to be in the range of $50 to $60 billion, a portion of which they believed would be financed by other countries. Pretty close for a government bureaucrat.
- The combination of further borrowing with a definite spike in oil prices to over $100 a barrel would be the final nail in the coffin for the US Economy. A deep lasting Depression would ensue and unemployment would soar.
There is no doubt that air strikes by Israel and/or the US would set back the Iranian nuclear program for years. The MSM would declare success and the Neo-cons on Fox News would be doing back flips. Then reality would set in. the Iranian leaders have plenty of options to make life really miserable for the US and Israel. Here are possible unintended consequences:
- Iran would immediately launch a torrent of long range missiles into the Green Zone and other US bases in Iraq where 65,000 troops sit. Thousands of American casualties would result.
- Iranian fighter jets would launch Exocet missiles at every oil tanker within reach in the Strait of Hormuz and possibly block the Strait.
- Iranians would unleash thousands of mines into the Strait of Hormuz, effectively stopping the shipments of oil to the world.
- Iranian fighters would fire their Russian built Sunburn missiles that fly just above the surface of the water and sink a couple of our multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers.
- Insurgents in Iraq would start blowing up everything that moved in Baghdad. Shias and Sunnis would be at war within hours of the attack on Iran.
- Hezbollah would launch thousands of missiles into Israel and the all out war would resume in Lebanon and Gaza.
- Venezuela would declare an oil embargo on the US. Gas prices in the US would go from $2.75 to $5.00 overnight.
- Pro-Iranian factions within Pakistan would topple the American supported President. Nuclear weapons would now be in the hands of Iranian sympathizers. India would immediately mobilize for possible war.
- Pro-Iranian factions within Saudi Arabia and other unstable Middle East countries would unleash their fury on anyone supporting Israel or the US.
- Russia and China would condemn the actions of the US and Israel and offer no support within the United Nations.
- North Korea would use this opportunity to ratchet up tensions with South Korea and possible war.
- If the oil flow from the Middle East is interrupted for longer than a week, the US economy will come to a grinding halt. Gas lines will form. Riots would ensue when food is unable to be transported to grocery stores.
- $200 oil would break the back of the fragile US economic system. Gold prices would soar.
- Muslims in Europe would take to the streets in violent protests.
- Sleeper cells of Muslim terrorists would be activated in the US and bombs would go off on subways and in shopping malls.
Will all of these things happen? No. Will some of them happen? Yes. Are there other possible consequences I haven’t considered? Yes. An attack on Iran would be an extremely stupid thing to do with the world economic situation so fragile and tensions already high. I believe it will happen in the near future. I also believe it will mark the start of the violent portion of the Fourth Turning. Below is a link to a war game conducted by the Brookings Institute earlier this year. Enjoy.
August 17, 2010, 9:00 pm
Why Not to Bomb Iran
By ROBERT WRIGHTThe article wasn’t an argument for bombing, just a report on Israel’s state of mind. So why all the outrage — why, for example, did Glenn Greenwald of Salon title his slashing assessment of the Atlantic article “How Propaganda Works: Exhibit A”?
In part because the author of the article is Jeffrey Goldberg, who has previously been accused of pushing a pro-war agenda via ostensibly reportorial journalism. His 2002 New Yorker piece claiming to have found evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda is remembered on the left as a monument to consequential wrongness. And suspicions of Goldberg’s motivations only grow when he writes about Israel. He served in the Israeli army, and he has more than once been accused of channeling Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
There is certainly a bit of channeling in Goldberg’s Atlantic piece. For example: “Netanyahu’s belief is that Iran is not Israel’s problem alone; it is the world’s problem, and the world, led by the United States, is duty-bound to grapple with it.” Still, the piece is no simple propaganda exercise. Indeed, what’s striking is that, for all the space given to the views of hawkish Israeli officials, they don’t wind up looking very good, and neither does their case for bombing Iran. The overall impression is that, as Paul Pillar, a former C.I.A. official, put it after reading Goldberg’s piece, Israel’s inclination to attack Iran is “more a matter of the amygdala and emotion than of the cortex and thought.”
For starters, Netanyahu comes off in Goldberg’s article as so psychologically enslaved by his uberhawk father as to be incapable of making autonomous policy decisions. (One Israeli politician told Goldberg that there can be no two-state solution until the 100-year-old father dies.) So the elder Netanyahu’s manifest enthusiasm for military action against Iran may be one of the most powerful forces behind it. This shouldn’t inspire American confidence in such a policy — and one thing the Atlantic article drives home is that Israel very much wants America to support air strikes or, better yet, actually conduct them.
The debate becomes about who should bomb Iran, not about whether Iran should be bombed.
When the subject turns from Netanyahu’s psychology to Israel’s psychology, the inclination to bomb Iran still looks none too cerebral. One of the prime movers behind it is that Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly has “near-sanctity, in the public’s mind” because it has “allowed the Jewish state to recover from the wounds of the Holocaust.” This is an understandable reaction to the trauma of the Shoah, and it helps explain the political pressure to bomb Iran, but it’s not a sound strategic reason to do so.
Memory of the Holocaust also, of course, informs Israel’s Iran policy in another way. “The Jews had no power to stop Hitler from annihilating us,” an anonymous Israeli official tells Goldberg. “Today, 6 million Jews live in Israel, and someone is threatening them with annihilation. But now we have the power to stop them. Bibi knows that this is the choice.”
Actually, my own sources tell me that, though many Israelis take seriously this prospect of Iran trying to annihilate them, Israel’s policy elites by and large don’t. They realize that Iranian leaders aren’t suicidal and so wouldn’t launch a nuclear strike against a country with at least 100 nukes. On close reading, as others have noted, the Atlantic piece suggests that this sober view indeed prevails in Israel’s higher echelons. Though Netanyahu warns us about a “messianic apocalyptic cult” possessing nuclear weapons, he doesn’t seem to be seriously imagining the “cult” launching a first strike. Goldberg writes: “The challenges posed by a nuclear Iran are more subtle than a direct attack, Netanyahu told me.”
So what are those challenges? For one thing, “Iran’s militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella.” Whether heading off this prospect would justify bombing Iran is an interesting question, but we don’t need to ask it, because the prospect isn’t real. There’s no way Iran’s having a nuclear weapon would keep Israel from taking out Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon as missiles from them rained down on Tel Aviv. If the Holocaust has left Israelis with an exaggerated fear of Iran’s intentions, it has also left them with an absolute refusal to be cowed.
One “existential” threat that Israel’s policy elites do seem to take seriously is that a nuclear Iran might render Israel such a scary place to live as to induce a brain drain. “The real threat to Zionism is the dilution of quality,” defense minister Ehud Barak tells Goldberg. Here again, I think the threat is overstated. After a year or two, Iran’s possession of nukes would become background noise for the average Israeli, less salient than periodic flurries of missiles from Lebanon or Gaza — flurries that so far have failed to noticeably drain Israel of intellectual capital.
The “brain drain” issue illustrates what weak “propaganda” much of Goldberg’s piece is: America is supposed to support — or even conduct — a military attack designed to keep talented people from immigrating to America? If I were Israel, I’d hire a new propagandist.
So, if this piece, read closely, makes for such an ineffectual pro-bombing pamphlet, why is Goldberg being pilloried as a propagandist?
For starters, there’s the claim that, though he spends a fair number of bullet points on the blowback from an attack on Iran, he still understates it. No mention, for example, of how an American-backed attack (and America would surely stand by Israel in the end) would feed the war-on-Islam narrative that is already starting to fuel home-grown terrorism in America.
But the main charges against Goldberg aren’t about loading the cost-benefit analysis. They’re about framing the future debate. His piece leaves you thinking that Israel will attack Iran very soon unless America does the honors. So the debate becomes about who should bomb Iran, not about whether Iran should be bombed.
And this is the way Israel’s hawks want the debate framed. That way either they get their wish and America does the bombing, or, worst case, they inure Americans to the prospect of a bombing and thus mute the outrage that might otherwise ensue after a surprise Israeli attack draws America into war. No wonder dozens of Israeli officials were willing to share their assessments with Goldberg, and no wonder “a consensus emerged that there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July.”
Yossi Alpher, an Israeli peace activist and a 12-year veteran of the Mossad, has opined that Goldberg was “naïve” in not realizing that these officials were using him as part of a public relations campaign. As accusations against Goldberg go, “naïve” is pretty flattering, and I do think it may be more apt than “cynical.” I’ve long felt that most ulterior motives are subconscious, and Goldberg seems to be a case in point. Back in 2002, when he was vociferously arguing for an invasion of Iraq, he just wanted to believe that his Kurdish sources were giving him solid evidence of Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda — notwithstanding the fact that they, as fellow invasion advocates, had an interest in fabricating evidence. Now Goldberg again seems eager to accept the testimony of people whose testimony is obviously suspect.
In any event, his article shouldn’t distract Americans from the real question: Given that the United States would almost certainly be drawn into war with Iran in the wake of an Israeli strike, and given that America would be blamed for the strike whether or not it had green-lighted it, and given the many ways this would be bad for national security, how can American leaders keep it from happening?
Here, at least, Goldberg has performed a service. His article, read closely, suggests that even from Israel’s point of view, there’s no sound rationale for bombing Iran, especially when you consider the long-term downside: an attack would radically dim what prospects there are for lasting peace in the Middle East; Israel’s downward spiral — in which regional hostility toward it leads to conflicts that only deepen the hostility — would be sustained big time. If appealing to America’s interests isn’t enough to keep Israel from attacking Iran, maybe appealing to Israel’s interests will help.
Postscript: If you want to read a more ringing defense of Goldberg’s journalistic integrity than I am able to mount, here is The Atlantic’s James Fallows on the subject, and here is Time’s Joe Klein.
Attack Iran? Don’t even consider it
THE POINT — An already overextended military and budget means we can’t afford another war.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a conservative champion of free markets and limited government, explained in 2007 how our government’s foreign policy would inevitably get us into war with Iran. Paul, of course, opposes interventionist wars.
As a nation, we can hope the wise physician was wrong. More and more, he looks like a prophet.
Newspapers throughout the country recently carried an Associated Press story about an interview CNN conducted with Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA under president George W. Bush. Hayden said a U.S.-led attack on Iran was low priority during his tenure. Today, said the AP story, Hayden believes war with Iran is “inexorable.”
A spokesperson for Hayden later said the statement was misrepresented; Hayden meant Iran’s completion of a nuclear program, not war with Iran, seems inexorable. Either way, considering U.S. policy regarding the Middle East, an intervention in Iran seems likely. As Paul said in 2007: “I think if our policies don’t change it’s about as inevitable as you can expect because we’re unwilling to talk to them and every week we’re passing more sanctions and rules and intimidations and accusations and provocations…. The American people don’t know how we have been involved since 1953 in interfering with their government and it has hurt us.”
Hayden predicts Iran will build its nuclear program to the point where it’s just below having weapons. That would destabilize the region, he said. Considering the fact U.S. foreign policy is first and foremost obsessed with more stability in the Middle East, not less, it’s hard to imagine President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Department of Defense and our allies will resist the urge to use force. U.S. officials have said as much, assuring the world that military action remains on the table if sanctions continue failing to deter Iran — which they will.
So the writing is on the wall. Iran continues advancing a nuclear program the United States will not tolerate and our foreign policy has become no less interventionist under Obama and Clinton.
Let’s hope our nation’s leaders will let facts stand in their way. Here are the facts:
1. We cannot afford another war because we are far beyond broke, buried under debt;
2. Iran would be a more difficult foe than Afghanistan or Iraq;
3. The wars we’re fighting have crippled our economy and taken the lives of American men and women for little in return;
4. A nation cannot prosper while remaining in a perpetual state of war because death and destruction, while sometimes essential for a nation’s survival, do not produce wealth. The list could go on.
Iran will have nuclear capacity and we must accept that fact. Fortunately, the United States, Israel and other U.S. allies are capable of deterring aggression with threats of retaliation so forceful it’s unthinkable. We cannot afford to impose our agenda on every rogue nation that develops nuclear power. If we do, we will destroy ourselves Soviet style. We will fritter time, energy and wealth on interventionist adventures. Attack Iran preemptively? No way.
Here is the worst potential cost of a strike on Iran: massive third world starvation. Food prices and oil prices are linked. When the price of oil reached up to 147 dollars a barrel in the summer of 2008, many third world countries began to starve. it makes sense given that the green revolution was really a petroleum revolution with mechanized farming, transportation to the market, fossil fuel based fertilizers and pesticides. So in the 1970s when the oil embargo occurred the price of food also jumped. This chart shows the linkage:
&imgrefurl=http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/inflation-rate-peaking&usg=__ToXSj-s53km-QxgRivQ0LK2yFiA=&h=378&w=630&sz=21&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=nSEHFlk_A_bB_M:&tbnh=119&tbnw=199&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfood%2Bprices%2Bchart%2B1970s%2Bto%2Bpresent%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DC7W%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Ds%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D572%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=123&vpy=200&dur=310&hovh=174&hovw=290&tx=180&ty=95&ei=EV5sTLTBLJKisQOA9rWPBw&oei=EV5sTLTBLJKisQOA9rWPBw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0
US$200 barrel oil would be the straw that brakes the camels back in the United States. It would trigger a financial disaster on Wall Street, and another bailout, and plunge the country into a great depression.
I think the Israelis will determine if Iran is attacked. And I think that if Israel believes that Iran is close to developing nukes, there is a high probability it will attack.
I do not believe that Israel is entirely, or even majorly, protected by its nukes. My opinion is that there is a genuine possibility that the minute Iran gets possession of a nuclear weapon, they will use it on Israel. I do not think that Iran follows the normal rules of self preservation. Many of its leaders would see the destruction of Israel as a calling from Allah, consequences be damned. Even if this risk of this is small, say 0 – 10%, would you bet the lives of your citizens on it? I’m not sure Israel will.
Re the list of potential consequences, I suspect there are several that would prove accurate.
LLPOH
Iran would not use the nuclear bomb immediately. That is just Israeli propaganda. They want a bomb so they can deter other countries from attacking them. That is the exact reason that Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea developed nuclear bombs.
But besides a U.S. great depression, a world economic slowdown, potential terror attacks in the U.S. and subsequent martial law, a regional war with thousands of U.S. military and Israeli casualties what could go wrong. Oh yes we forgot the possibility of the war becoming a nuclear war. According to Richard Clarke the U.S. could not win a war with Iran unless it bombed with multiple warheads. http://www.straight.com/article-336907/vancouver/gwynne-dyer-theres-no-way-us-win-nonnuclear-war-iran
We shouldn’t forget that there are currently 20 to 30 thousand Jews residing in Iran peacefully. The idea that Iran would commit national suicide to kill Jews is the most ludicrous and perverted lie. Iran supports Hezbollah against Israel to garner support from the Arabs. This is a strategic and rational decision as immoral as it is. Iran never represented an existential threat to Israel and never will. Israel and the United States want to keep their unilateral military flexibility in a region that has 2/3’s of the world’s oil reserves. In the United States strategic policies and actions always masquerade as a moral struggle against some great evil most often a supposed reincarnation of Hitler—-this is just more of the same pap.
Theo – take a look at Iran’s history. In the Iran/Iraq war Iran sacrificed many tens of thousands of their young (and I mean sacrificed – unarmed teenagers against machine guns and mines). Its leaders come directly from this history.
Many of these people are not rational by western standards (no explaining suicide bombers, for instance). They are driven by things westerners cannot understand.
Do I think Iran is capable of dropping a nuke on Israel? Absolutely, based on its history, and the actions of fanatical Muslims everywhere (what do you think Al Qaida would do with a nuke?). Do I think it is a high probability? No. It, however, doen’t matter what I think, it matters what Israel thinks.
If the U.S. were attacked by a foreign country, our youth would sacrifice themselves on the battlefield. The Iranians did this to protect their mothers and families. But you are saying something quite different. You are saying that Iran would sacrifice their families to kill Israeli families. Your logic is totally flawed. As for suicide bombers political scientists have studied it and can understand it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism
Suicide terrorism takes place in order to protect the homeland against occupiers or potential occupiers. 3000 people were killed in New York in large part because U.S. troops were supposedly occupying the Holy Land or Saudi Arabia. Do you think that we were bombed because they hate our freedom? Why don’t try reading speeches by Bin Laden instead by George Bush? As for what Al Queda which is largely a Wahaabi/Saudi sect of Islam completely opposed to Iran would do with the bomb, it is irrelevant to this conversation. You seem to mouth the media talking points pretty well but it might be useful to do a little research.
Yes we are a nation of six year olds as David Cross said:
I’m sick of this fucking bullshit with Isreal. Do it and get it over with. I’ve been listening to this shit my whole fucking life.
Theo – your understanding of the Iraq/Iran war is limited. Iran threw away tens of thousands of lives AFTER Iraq had abandoned aggression. Iranians cleared minefields with 12 year olds, having them walk and roll across them. The Iraqis didn’t lay the mines as a means of attack. It wasn’t done in defence. It was done out of hatred.
My comment about Al Qaida wasn’t meant to link them to Iran, but to illustrate what fanatical groups are capable of.
If as you say the suicide bombers are sacrifice themselves in defence of thwir homelands, I haven’t heard Iran come out and acknowledge Israels right to exist. Quite the contrary. Israel is seen as occupying Muslim holy lands.
I am pretty well versed in the history of the middle east. I wouldn’t know what the media says about this situation. I think it is you who needs to do a bit of research as you seem lacking in knowledge of some basic recent history.
LLPOH
Please supply me with your source of information about 12 year olds clearing mine fields. That is fascinating and I’d love to learn more.
Theo – I have pointed out my reasons for my beliefs. History clearly shows Iran has a propensity to throw away the lives of its people. They have acted irrationally from a western point of view. Can you remember the dancing in the streets after 9/11? These people have streaks of hatred that no no bounds.
I believe they are capable of almost any insanity. You disagree. So be it. I believe that given Israels history, and Iran’s denial of its right to exist, will weigh heavily on Israel’s position. If you are right there is no problem. If the worst case scenario exists and Iran is rogue, then millions are at risk. Israel knows this. I am not sure they will take the chance.
Admin and LLPOH
I took many political science courses in college, 1962-1966. The only one which didn’t completely bore me to death was the one on comparative governments. Learning about how the Japanese Diet worked, the British Parliament worked, shit like that. Reading long-winded articles and treatises written by “political experts” forced me to put toothpicks on my eyelids so I wouldn’t fall asleep. Henry Kissinger is the most boring human being on Earth.
There was one exception. I can’t remember the exact course, but the professor handed out a fairly detailed assessment written by Admin’s favorite government agency, the CIA. It was an unclassified version of the CIA’s view of short, medium, and long term threats to global peace and security. If I recall correctly, it was written ca 1960.
The assessment listed just one long term threat…………..radical Islam. Holy shit, I thought. Where did this come from? The analysis started with a history of Islam and then went into demographics. Number of Muslims, illiteracy rates in Muslim countries (very high), and even stated that radical Islam was a threat to the Soviet Union, which had put all those Muslim “Stans” into the Soviet orbit (visions of Chechnya, anyone?). I was totally fascinated by this visionary analysis, which I have never forgotten.
Ok, I’m getting boring and long-winded myself, so I’ll end with what LLPOH said above. “It, however, doen’t matter what I think, it matters what Israel thinks.”
Admin – I think you are most likely correct. I do not think it is a dead certainty tho. And therein lies the rub. As crazy as Nth Korea is, I think Iran gives them a run for their money. And when you mix in Israel’s paranoia (it ain’t paranoia if they really are out to get you) you get a pretty unstable concoction. Best to stay the hell away from it all.
LLPOH
Even if the US isn’t involved in an Israeli attack, the Iranians and the Muslim world blame the US.
I have read lately that the sanctions against Iran are finally turning the general population against the Iranian government. I don’t see any positive reasons to side with Israel in bombing Iran, it dosen’t make any sense. Even the biggest bully gets his ass kicked from time to time, the U.S. included. This is not the time for another military engagement.
SSS – much of my understanding comes from detailed studies of the history of Israel. Their common pysche has grown out of thousands of years of persecution culminating with the deaths of millions of Jews in WW2
If you had the shit kicked out of you every day for years at school and the school bully says he’s getting a new pair of steel toes tomorrow’ could be you would expect the worst.
I believe radical Islam is a major worry. They don’t assimilate. .
Admin – google basij human wave attack. Or just basij. The fucking Iranians used childre, teenagers and women, unarmed of course, to clear the way for the more experienced army. They died in their tens of thousands.
Admin – I know all western nations will be blamed if Israel goes in. Not a pretty picture. Kinda like when Billy Martin would pick a fight in a bar with several guys just to drag Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford into it. Man, I loved Billy. He could kick up enough dirt to so as to completely hide an ump. A lost art form.
Yes, let’s allow our government to bamboozle us into another war based on outright lies, kill more brown-skinned people thousands of miles away, and spend a bazillion dollars we don’t have. It’s working so well in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. What could possibly go wrong?
Jewish history. Exiled from Egypt ca 1500 BC, Babylonia ca 600 BC, Roman Empire (Judea, meaning land of the Jews; Judea is on Roman maps!!!) 70 AD, followed by exiles from the Diaspora in Europe. France, 14th Century, and Spain, 15th Century. Ultimate “exile,” Nazi Germany controlled territory, 20th Century. Not to mention the Roman Catholic Church’s 1,000 year battle (pogroms) against the Jewish faithful. Well, nothing to see here. Let’s move along.
And Billy Martin didn’t invent the dirt-kicking tactic against umpires, LLPOH. That would be Leo “The Lip” Durocher. You can look it up.
So there you have it. Jews. Iran. Baseball. The connection is so clear, even Quinn can see it.
SSS – didn’t say he invented it! Said he was an arteest! The Lip was one of my heroes, too. Loved the way Bob Gibson threw it high and tight. Another lost art. The military could learn a thing or two about intimidation. Yep. Baseball can be related to most any topic.
Agree with the Bob Gibson comments. You only need to look at his ERA stats.
I disagree with the military and lack of intimidation remark. I’ve served, up close and personal, with the Special Forces (SF), the Marines, the Rangers, and the Seals. Those fuckers scared ME.
I lived for a year with an SF officer in El Salvador. This 6’4″ 230 lb human who routinely bench-pressed 400 pounds kept an arsenal of hand grenades, shotguns, machine pistols, and sidearms in his bedroom and car. As his 5’9″ 150 lb roommate in the house we shared in San Salvador, I was not displeased. Nor was my wife when she came down to visit, and I showed her the hand grenades in his closet. “Bring it on” never had truer meaning.
We’ve got tens of thousands of people who are highly trained to not only intimidate but rip the face off of any enemy we face. They will protect this nation well. We just need to use them wisely.
SSS
You pussy. Do you think Iran should be attacked or not? Are they an imminent threat to the UNITED STATES? Get off the fucking fence and take a position.
Admin
You said, “Iran would not use the nuclear bomb immediately.” Please send your wisdom to the Israeli government. It will be front-page headlines in all of Israel’s newspapers. Netanyahu will propose disbanding the Israeli Defense Forces.
SSS
You have bought the propaganda hook line and sinker. If the Iranian leaders wanted to die in a blaze of glory for Allah, they could do it right this second. They have missiles that can reach Israel today. They could launch them in 2 hours. Why haven’t they? Because they don’t want to die for Allah. All bullshit Israeli propaganda.
SSS – it was a joke! I’ve known a few special forces folks myself. All but one were small wiry types. Definitely not to be fucked with. Also met a British equivalent or two. Ditto re not to be fucked with. Good to have on a pub crawl. Get drunk as you want in absolute safety.
I can just see Netanyoohoo now. He likely has Mossad out checking out Jim as we speak. Moved him right to the top of his most wanted list no doubt, as he would anyone who thinks Imadinnerjacket is in any way sane.
Problem with the military isn’t the military. It is the idiots in chief (idiots in chieves?) who dictate terms of engagement that are the problem.
As an aside, the aforementioned Dinnerjacket trained the basij human wave in his youth. He’s one helluva guy.
I understand our mercenary force from Blackwater are also not to be fucked with. So Fucking what?
Almost 70 years ago, John Flynn made a fatal mistake which doomed his “America First Committee”. In order to battle statism and international trade, Flynn attacked our ‘impending’ involvement overseas. He perceived war as an extension of FDR’s power-grab beyond our borders. His enemy was FDR, and in the process, he discounted or completely disregarded the growing Axis threats.
Indeed Flynn’s committee disbanded in 1941 after the Japanese shut his clam trap at Pearl Harbor. He did mutter along for a few years into the cold war, pushing conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor, but his message was sunk, with little impact or following.
Well, how is America First’s failure relevant today? First, Flynn relied heavily on conspiracy theories and implied schemes. Conspiracy theories have been described as “history for losers…formulated by the politically defeated and taken up by the socially defeated.” Lots of seemingly intelligent people believe in lunacy and fall victim to conspiracies. Aaronovich, in “Voodoo Histories” points out that believing in conspiracies is therapeutic, and explains why they are on the losing side (politically, socially, or economically – “we were robbed, deceived”), salve their hurt (“the people who deceived us are so powerful, so evil, it’s understandable that they appear to be the winners”) and then restore their egos (“we have seen the truth, we are so much cleverer than ordinary people who are happy to be sheep-like in their acceptance of things; we are illuminated, in the know, we are special”). But we can discuss conspiracy and doomsday theories another time. I merely bring it up here to show some history repeating itself with Flynn’s modern day brothers-in-arms.
More germane to our ongoing argument however, is Flynn’s persona as an ideologue, and the isolationist approach to foreign policy in the face of extreme threats. A stance that was unnerving for many Americans, who were uneasy at the growing menace overseas. Flynn’s message of limited government was lost with the war – people threw the baby out with the bathwater. The very real and valid argument against the New Deal was lost in the noise of conspiracies and isolationist lunacy as Nazis marched through Europe.
Yes, the New Deal severely damaged our nation, moving it closer to a statist, socialist enterprise. Ultimately, however, the naïve head-in-the-sand tack on American First foreign policy sunk itself under its on irrelevance and folly. Flynn’s entire story line (including the good parts) was dismissed when Japan and the Nazis proved him wrong.
Today, different threats are forming on the horizon. Muslims know that demographics in on their side. Europe, done. Russia finished (by 2015 < 130m people, by the end of the century < 50m), Japan done. Even China has peaked, its 1 child policy dooming that country. The only thorn in the side of Islamic ascendancy is the arrogant USA with its liberal ideals and export of Pepsi-Cola and breast implants. Oh, and don’t forget that annoying “shitty little country” Israel that has the freest Muslim population on the planet, and exports more innovations then any other nation aside from America. A few plutonium bombs later, and we can break out the Macanudos and the marching death band to welcome the 12th Imam.
Now, you could say we are safe, that a large scale attack is a “neo-con” fantasy. Some people, perhaps even Flynn would have said the same thing December 6th, 1941.
Daniel
Nice copy and paste job out of some article. Please don’t use the David Pierre method of debate. Plus you don’t even have the courtesy to tell us where you copied and pasted from.
Israel should NOT attack Iran. When the long overdue nuclear bombing of Iran occurs, it should be handled properly. WE should do it. And then we should tell the rest of radical Islam, “Want some? Get some.” This would serve notice that we are no longer following the cowardly doctrines of the chickenshit pussies G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Obama. Then, after sending EVERY Iranian to greet their ancestors, we should PRAY that some more of the insolent jihadist nations (ALL of Islam) will jump into the fray. If no more middle eastern countries step up, we should summarily eliminate the few who have deliberately provoked us—North Korea, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. If the Administrator or anyone else misconstrues this as my sitting on the fence, I will be glad to elaborate.
Daniel
You forgot the Mushroom cloud picture. To equate Iran to Germany & Japan in the 1930s shows your complete and utter lack of historical knowledge. Your copy and paste job from one of your Neo-con gods is beyond drivel. It is pure and simple racist propaganda. You would think a Jewish person wouldn’t stoop to the same racism against Muslims that has been practiced against Jews for centuries, but I guess that is your tact.
[img
[/img]
Jim, I’m hurt. Must I endure all types of insults when I take the time to write on this blog? I typed that out myself the minute you started ranting about your coming big-bad Iran article and I was tired of your old Flynn tripe. You article was itself just a cut-n-paste job. You are throwing stones. Your grasp of the Middle East is weak. Reply to the content if you want.
Jim, I’m hurt. Must I endure all types of insults when I took the time to write that up? I typed that out myself the minute you started ranting about your coming big bad Iran article and I was tired of your old Flynn tripe. You article was itself just a cut-n-paste job. You are throwing stones. Your grasp of the Middle East is weak but you are not alone. We have problems coming our way, and Jim, liberal, Europeans want to ignore it. The problem with Iran is that the war is coming to us, not the other way around (unless we choose to act). Reply to the content if you want.
Daniel
Your content had nothing to do with the facts at hand. You spend 6 paragraphs talking about WWII. What about today?
Do you favor the US attacking Iran?
Do you believe any of the consequences that I listed will occur?
Do you believe the consequences of attacking a sovereign country that has not attacked any other country are worth it?
Do you REALLY put Iran on par with Germany and Japan in the 1930s? REALLY?
Daniel
You must have been so busy with your response, you didn’t have time to answer my questions from yesterday. Please answer my questions.
Does Russia deserve a Republic?
Does North Korea deserve a Republic?
Does Singapore deserve a Republic?
Does Cuba deserve a Republic
Does Venezuela deserve a Republic?
Does Somalia deserve a Republic?
Does Zimbabwe deserve a Republic?
Does Sudan deserve a Republic?
Does Saudi Arabia deserve a Republic?
Does Libya deserve a Republic?
I personally think all of these countries run by evil dictators deserve to be republics. When should we attack?
The threat from Islam has nothing to do with race. Go to Albania. Or better yet, look up Fritz Gelowicz. The race card attack is so stupid, you’d have to work at an Ivy institution to believe it. This is a cultural and religious war.
Leave my personal faith, background, or identity out of this discussion. Its none of anybody’s business. Just reply to the content. Use something aside from your tired mushroom cloud. How are you not John Flynn?
1. Do you think Iran will get nukes?
2. Do you think this concerns America?
3. Do you think they will use them?
4. Do you think Islamic fundementalism is not a threat at all?
1. Do you think Iran will get nukes? Yes
2. Do you think this concerns America? No
3. Do you think they will use them? No
4. Do you think Islamic fundementalism is not a threat at all? No
Note to Administrator: S-300 Sunburn is actually Chinese made, but it’s probably a Chinese improved copy of Russian SAM’s. An war with Iran would open a Pandora’s Box of possibilities. The thing our leaders have forgotten is that once you go to war nothing is certain. Not the outcome, not your life, nothing. I have found some articles that talk a different kind of U.S. war we might see in the future. How do I post articles?
Wow, my avatar looks like a crackhead. Lol.
Christ Jim! I spent the time illustrating John Flynn because I wanted to spell it out for you – that in his crusade against FDR he completely missed a coming disaster and in the process lost the battle against big gov’t.
You like to talk about Israeli propaganda – it was the Israelis that privately told our government that they were attacking the wrong country. That Iran was the center of exporting terror (to this day). Who created Imad Mughniyeh? Their model of Islamic revolution exported to Lebanon, Egypt, Syria. Next stop – Brussels, London, Paris. Why do you think these Sunnis are scared shitless of Iran? With European birth rates in a death spiral, who is moving into the vacuum?
In short – I just don’t know what we should do. At this point, we’ve waited so long, and been so apathetic, that our choices are few and all bad. Sorry, I can’t nail it down anywhere.
However, I think we should be much more serious about addressing and potentially attacking Iran. I think we should do more to make this a priority with the Russians and Chinese. I don’t know all the facts (who does right?), but I certainly think that poo-pooing the threat is a sure-fire way to invite trouble. We ignored Islamic fundamentalism and Iran’s belligerence for decades, even aiding them against the Russians or appeasing them, or even aligning with them (Saudi Arabia). Aside from our debt, what other existential threat do we face?
Do I think all those things will happen if we bomb? No. I personally believe they are a paper tiger (like the comment on Iran using their fighter jets – that’s a joke: F4s from the 1970s) whose entire military could be virtually neutralized in a few hundred sorties (nobody is talking nation building here). Yes, there would be massive economic fallout. They have learned to act like the neighborhood bully, and even Superpowers back off. But that is irrelevant. All those things could happen and it is still better then a nuke-armed Iran.
Now, is Iran a Nazi Germany? Well, in the 1930s the world did not take Hitler seriously. His talk about Jews, his ranting about a greater Germany. He was seen as a little looney, but something that could be appeased (remember when those Columbia students laughed when Ahmadinejad said, “Homosexuals in Iran? We don’t have any”. [insert: aside from the ones they put on the end of a rope] Well, he was dead serious). Do I see parallels with today’s Iran? Certainly. Spend some time listening to what your enemies are actually saying. Don’t take my word for it. I’ll quote Mark Steyn, “The famous United Nations statistic from a 2002 report – more books are translated into Spanish in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand – suggests at the very minimum an extraordinarily closed world. What books are among the few they do translate? Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, both of which are prominently displayed bestsellers in even moderate Muslim countries.” So what do we do about the coming dark ages?
Daniel
PS. Do those nations “deserve” a Republic? Of course they do – as Jefferson wrote, rights are “god given”. That’s not just America. Is it our duty to spread liberty? I times it works wonders. Now, many see this as the failed “neocon” vision to bring Islamic nations out of the stone ages, because there was no other way to deal with a growing threat. It can’t be ignored, and we can only wage war for so long. We have to pick our battles, and unfortunately, we are tapped out. The issue, is that we have a fast growing Muslim population. Islamic world view is antithetical to our Western liberal, democratic way of life.
The crusade being waged today is by the Right Wing neo-cons to attack sovereign countries for what they might do in the future. You twist the logic and are too blinded by your ideology and your guru Mark Stein, who you and Freesmith worship. Hitler could have been stopped if Europe had stood up to his ACTUAL ACTS OF AGGRESSION when he occupied areas that were forebidden by the Treaty of Versailles. You Neo-cons love to twist history to meet your demands. HAS IRAN INVADED ANY COUNTRY? WAS IRAN INVOLVED IN 9/11? DOES IRAN SEE THEMSELVES AS SURROUNDED BY THE US in Iraq and Afghanistan?
“At this point, we’ve waited so long, and been so apathetic, that our choices are few and all bad.”
Are you kidding? We’ve declared war (not officially like the Constitution requires) on two Muslim countries in the last 10 years. We were friends with Iran until we were enemies. We supported bin Laden until we became his enemy. We provided Sadaam with the gas he used to kill the Kurds and then declared he had weapons of mass destruction and invaded his country. The hatred and fear is not a one way street Daniel. Your simplistic neo-con world works in theory until it meets the messy reality of consequences.
To show you how stupid your assertion is about the Iranian military threat is compared to Germany and Japan, here are a couple of inconvenient facts. I know you hate those, because Mark Steyn’s theories are so much more comforting.
Germany was committing 15% of their GDP towards military expenditures in 1938.
Japan was committing 22% of their GDP towards military expenditures in 1938.
Iran is committing 2.9% of their GDP towards military expenditures today. An entire $2.5 billion.
Can you see the distinction between countries on a path of military conquest, versus a country trying to protect itself? Iran is no existential threat to the United States. That is complete and utter bullshit. They can’t even turn their own oil into gasoline, but you want us to believe they are a threat to our way of life. It is beyond laughable. As I read your paper tiger remarks, I immediately had visions of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney scoffing at the Iraq threat. You are so predictable, I can probably write your response to this post.
But, it is to be expected from someone who graduated from an Ivy League school.
Their model of Islamic revolution exported to Lebanon, Egypt, Syria. Next stop – Brussels, London, Paris.
Holy Communist domino effect Batman, we better hurry up & invade Vietnam!!! :-O
Cynical30: In 2007, Mohamed was the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels. Remember Paris car burnings last summer? Domino effect or not, it is a reality we better start considering.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=04
Daniel—-
Daniel—–Cynical 30 is a fucking idiot. You may as well be talking to the wall.
Smokey – Noted.
Check out PJTV. I’m a member, so I’m not sure if you can access it w/o paying. However, Bill Whittle’s interviews Sam Cohen, a great American and the father of the Neutron Bomb, one of the members of the Manhatten project. Truly scary and eye opening.
Wow
Some real diverse reporting on PJTV. Way to expand your horizons Daniel.
Everybody here should go to PJTV and watch Bill Whittle’s “Tolerance and Suicide”. On the main page. Anyone can watch. Please do – feedback here welcome.
Admin
I do not support a U.S. attack, or any U.S. involvement in an attack, on Iran. I’ve said so several times on the old TBP.
You are correct. If Israel unilaterally attacks Iran, we will be blamed, one way or another. That will not deter Israel from attacking if they believe their survival is at stake.
Let me know if any of those statements are fuzzy and need further clarification.
SSS
Perfectly clear. Your clarity is refreshing after dealing with Daniel’s neo-con Mark Steyn rubbish.
– They don’t need a large military and the statistic is irrelevant. They’ll have demographics and nukes.
– And if their military spending is so meager, why do you have a whole post on the type of trouble they’ll make for us? On one hand, you say they are weak, no threat to the morally corrupt USA, and on the other, you post articles that predict Armageddon with an attack.
– Iran at this point, pretty much pulls the levers in Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinian Territories. We can flip it on its head – what do they need protection from? They are the ones parading missles with Death to USA on them.
– They are at war with our culture. That was the failed heart of the neo-con argument. How do we bring the Middle East out of the dark ages before they cause us real problems?
– As I recall, did we declare war on Afghanistan, or did 9-11 do that for us?
– I don’t recall ever saying “bomb Iran”. However, I have issue with people like yourself that think it is not our concern, or somebody else’s problem.
– PJTV is great. I enjoy their programming. I also read left DailyKos, HuffPo, and as you see, I’m hanging out here with you nut jobs.
– Yes Jim, I am ashamed of my Ivy education. They have the balls to call me to ask for more money! There are like blood sucking leaches! At least I don’t have to work there!
PS. What’s up with our CIC man-child’s never-ending vacation! While that putz is gallivanting around the world, I’m stuck doing a “stay-cation”. I want the Jim Q beach house.
First you compare Iran to Germany and Japan and when I prove with facts what a real militray threat is versus a false military threat, you dismiss the facts as irrelevant. This is very much like the Neo-con posture leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Dismiss all facts that do not match your preconcevied view of the world. As the combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven, the US military is always prepared to fight the previous war. Iran knows that if they have a nuclear bomb, just like Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea, no one will dare invade. Nuclear bombs have proven to be a deterrent since 1945.
“How do we bring the Middle East out of the dark ages before they cause us real problems?”
Now there is a classic question from someone who supposedly believes in limited government. Why do WE have to bring anyone out of any age? Sovereign countries need to handle their own issues. You want limited government and have the US be policeman to the world. You are a true believer in the American Empire. We sure helped Iraq get out of the Middle ages. They used to have electricity 16 hours a day. Now they have it 5 hours a day. They used to produce 2.8 million barrels of oil per day. Now they produce 2.4 million. They used to be able to go to the market with no fear of being blown to smithereens. Now 50 to 60 get blown up every week. We are sure doing a bang up job.
19 Saudi born terrorists did 9/11. Shouldn’t we have attacked Saudi Arabia?
You shouldn’t have such self loathing regarding your Ivy League education. You have been properly trained to work on Wall Street and rape and pillage the American public.
At least when he is on vacation, he can’t pass legislation.
You have to be smart enough to buy a beach house in 2005 at the absolute peak of the housing bubble. It takes someone of extraordinary foresight.
Gwynne Dyer: U.S. vs. Iran would be nukes or nothing
When Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked recently on NBC’s “Meet The Press” whether the United States has a military plan for an attack on Iran, he replied simply: “We do.”
General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely future contingencies. Right down to the 1930s, for example, the United States maintained and annually updated plans for the invasion of Canada. But what the planning process will have revealed, in this case, is that there is no way for the U.S. to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.
In this Sunday Aug. 1, 2010, photo released by CBS, Adm. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, talks on CBS’s “Face The Nation” in Washington. Mullen said the U.S. military has a plan to attack Iran, although he thinks it’s a bad idea and has often warned that a military strike on Iran would have serious and unpredictable ripple effects around the Middle East. At the same time, he said the risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
The U.S. could “win” by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran’s military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial center (i.e. cities) and killing 5 million to 10 million people, but short of that, nothing works. So says Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.
In the early 1990s, Clarke revealed in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton administration had seriously considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.
“After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the United States,” he said. The Pentagon’s planners have war-gamed Iran several times in the past 15 years, and they just can’t make it come out as a U.S. victory.
There are some 80 million people in Iran, and although many of them don’t like the present regime they are almost all fervent patriots who would resist a foreign invasion. Iran is a mountainous country, and very big: four times the size of Iraq. The Iranian army currently numbers about 450,000 men, slightly smaller than the U.S. Army – but, unlike the U.S. Army, it does not have its troops scattered across literally dozens of countries.
If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran’s south coast, senior U.S. generals would resign in protest. Without the option of a land war, the only lever the United States would have on Iranian policy is the threat of yet more bombs – but if they aren’t nuclear, then they aren’t very persuasive.
Just stopping Iran’s own oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market: Iran accounts for around 7 percent of internationally traded oil. But it could also block another 40 percent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.
Iranian ballistic missiles would strike U.S. bases on the southern (Arab) side of the Gulf, and Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel. The U.S. would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure stop the war would mount by the day as the world’s industries and transport ground to a halt.
The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the United States, and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region.
The morning after the attack on Iran
How will the international community respond the next day?
By Ze’ev Maoz
One of the less discussed aspects of a possible Israeli attack on Iran is the international community’s response. A plausible scenario that should be taken into account is the possibility of massive international pressure on Israel. This would consist of American pressure (assuming the attack is carried out without the United States’ agreement ) for disarming from the nuclear weapons Israel supposedly has, or to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and subject its nuclear facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s supervision.
This scenario becomes less imaginary in view of the decision made by the treaty’s review conference in June regarding Israel, and especially the change in the United States’ position on the global nuclear arms issue. An attack launched by a state believed to possess nuclear weapons outside the NPT on another, even if the latter aspires to obtain nuclear weapons, will be comprehensively and totally condemned.
Even those few researchers of Israel’s defense policy who think, as I do, that Israel must reach an agreement to disarm the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction deem this scenario undesirable, to put it mildly. If Israel withstands the pressure, it could find itself in isolation, possibly including an embargo on weapons, materiel and equipment for both military and civilian uses. If Israel succumbs to the pressure, it will be forced to give up a strategic bargaining chip that could lead to a regional defense regimen, including a reliable nuclear demilitarization (with regional supervision and monitoring systems with higher credibility standards that IAEA’s ).
Yet again it transpires that Israel’s nuclear policy is fundamentally erroneous. There is no proof this policy has achieved even one of its declared goals. It did not prevent attacks on populated areas in the Gulf War, the Second Lebanon War or from Gaza. A nuclear threat cannot be used to quash an intifada. The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, in which Israel’s nuclear capability played no role, significantly reduced the conventional threat on Israel. And most importantly, every time someone in the Middle East begins developing nuclear weapons, we stop believing in nuclear deterrence and set out to destroy the Arab/Iranian potential.
There is considerable evidence attesting that Israel’s nuclear capability constituted both an incentive and a model for the attempts of several states in the region to develop nuclear weapons, and accelerated the chemical and biological capabilities of Syria, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and even Egypt. If the Israeli offensive fails, or if Israel is “persuaded” to refrain from attacking and Iran obtains a nuclear capability, other states in the region could follow in its footsteps.
The reality of a nuclear Middle East is becoming increasingly likely. The dilemma Israel faces in the longer run is between a nuclear Middle East and a demilitarized one. Either everyone in the region has nuclear weapons or no state has.
The growing likelihood of tomorrow’s scenario also requires a reexamination of nuclear policy. An Israeli initiative for a complete demilitarization of the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction should be considered. Israel could lead a move that would create a defense regimen on its own terms – instead of unilateral disarmament following international pressure. The nuclear horizon is not so distant. It is time to consider what lies beyond it.
Jim, One more thing, like I mentioned earlier – I think the days are numbered for the use of tanks, large conventional forces. I’ve said this before, and it is pertinent here in regards to your statistics. If all conflict become ‘low intensity’ and regional, what is the point of an Abrams tank? What can tanks do against a nuke?
I pray that you are right.
Enjoy:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575338471355710184.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&
Daniel
I think the same applies to our aircraft carrier fleets. They are sitting ducks for missiles fired from hundreds of miles away. Iran has anti-ship missiles that could put some of our ships on the bottom.
Daniel, you remember L.A in flame 2 decades ago?
don’t seek means to justify your crap in Europe.
there’s some facts that are more alarming in your homeland
US is in the same shit with black and Latinos. the daughters of your daughter are likely to be bastadized with tacos, and well before someone talk about charia in Brussel.
It’s just a way to show your hate of Europe.
SSS:
You ever do any work w/ 2nd Ranger Batt? i got stuck w/ a couple of OGA guys installing cool little ceramic plates in Hajjiville that listened in on cell phone calls.
Daniel:
Smokey calling someone a fucking idiot is like David Pierre calling someone a stinking draft dodger.
BTW, I asked this of you on the other thread: Do you think us attacking Iran is worth the risk to our economy that a likeyly disruption in oil would cause? Channeling my inner Rumsfeld, trying to guess what the Iranian gov’t will do if/when they have nuclear capabilities is definitely an unknown/unknown, but we can be almost certain that a strike will effect oil prices. If 30,000 folks practically tore down the house over 500 section 8 vouchers, I can imagine what folks will do when grocery stores run out of food or hyperinflate prices.
Also, though I don’t condone interventionalist policy, don’t you think it would be a wiser strategy to facilitate support to the younger, more westernized section of their population? You know, the 20-30 somethings out twittering from the streets and holding up protest signs in English? I bet dollars to donuts that folks like SSS could come up with a pretty good covert method of doing so (as long as it’s not “hikers” who just happened to Yellowstone Park it in a combat zone. riiiiight)
Smokey:
I do believe the last time you fucked with me I shut you down faster than a girl’s school next to a Taliban community center by saying “your mamma smells like the nutsack of a 60 year old Indian cab driver after the nightshift”. You, my friend, are the French fucking army. Go tie those musty, stained tighty whiteys of yours to a flagpole & type up a concession speech.
Cynical 30—-Every time you post, you show what a fucking idiot you are. We have already spent a fortune supporting dissenting youth groups in Iran, and it hasn’t gotten us a fucking thing. I know more about nuclear physics than you know about geopolitical politics. Go back to feeling up your six year old sister while we adults spend time on this blog. DOUCHEBAG.
buch dich:
What’s your daugher’s number? Arriba!
Really Smokes? A fortune, huh? Awesome! Show me some numbers. Even if you can dig them out somewhere on the interweb I’m sure it’s a fucking pittance compared to the amount of money we’ve spent on Hellfire missile diplomacy elsewhere in the Middle East.
Now shut the fuck up before I bastardize your daughter with a taco you chickenhawk man-bitch.
I hope the US Iran war isn’t as nasty as the Smokey Cynical 30 smackdown.
Administrator—- I feel your pain—– These neocon talking points spring from two places—– Machiavellian war advocates like James Woolsey, John Bolton, Bernard Lewis and the sad dupes of their orientalist propaganda. The line is always based on some essentialist argument about racial and cultural difference—- we will never understand the inscrutable Iranian mind—– they don’t think like us—- they all just want to die for Allah. Daniel, LLPHO, and perhaps others on this cite are either paid Israeli/Neocon flacks or sad dilettantes who read one or two orientalist books and then form their opinion about the suicidal Iranian mind. Was the Iranian government any different than any other dictatorship. Stalin sent out droves of unarmed soldiers to die against the Nazis. The Iranian children primarily came from poor villages in Iran—- they were cannon fodder pure and simple. This doesn’t mean that the Iranian elites want to die or have their families die—— that is just a neocon meme. But unfortunately the shit sells.
The other neocon meme is that Israel will act unilaterally and without the consent of the United States. Oh there is nothing that we can do—- those crazy Israelis. The Israelis are extremely calculating and know that if they bomb, then the U.S. would be dragged into the war. If the U.S. public blames Israel for the inevitable economic aftermath of a preemptive strike Israel’s goose is cooked— it could very well lead to widespread anit-semitism and vilification of AIPAC. Israel wouldn’t be that stupid and thus you have the propaganda campaign to force the hand of the United States—- the neocon line goes— “The U.S. must attack because otherwise Israel will do it and they won’t be able to do it right.” If Israel could attack unilaterally than they would have done so already and they wouldn’t bother with the propaganda campaign, lining up their flunkies like Goldberg and Bolton to spur on the idiots like LLPHO and Daniel—— unfortunately these people are the majority and the propaganda could be successful—–as David Cross has said we are a nation of six year olds.
so nice to read from such a bunch of assholes. I was peaceful when I started reading TBP a year ago. now my point of view has slightly changed. I really hope half of Europe will return to nazi times, and it is in progress. Muslims and Americans are our enemies, and Russians still have to decide. as stated here, nukes have changed rules. if US seek for trouble, they should be erased from the map, like saudi arabia or algeria. against a country that has even not be able to shot more than 1 on 4 supposed airliners during 9/11, it shouldn’t be difficult.
this is what is really useful here: it really shows what kind of old SOB’s you are.
there’s no difference between jews, muslims and old american caucasian farts like you: you are all troublemakers, and one day TSHTF not the way expected.
I’m eager to see the true shit.
Cynical 30—You unoriginal pussy. “…….before I bastardize your daughter with a taco”. At least most retarded idiots make an attempt to cover their tracks when they plagiarize. You are too fucking stupid to do that. You lifted the entire phrase from buch dich’s post earlier in the thread. What a fucking loser. BTW, I tossed your wife a half pint of throat yogurt last night. She swallowed like the pro she is. Try to use your own words the next time you post.
From the nature of the comments, it seems the general community here agrees that left to its own devices, Iran will attain nuclear weapons. The arguments against seem to focus on the troubles we will have after an attack, and the associated cost and moral issue with attacking a sovereign nation like Iran.
Now, I’ve never come out and said “BOMB IRAN”. I’m only asking those same people to take “do nothing”, “live with it” scenarios with the same sobriety they do preemption. So, let’s assume Iran gets nukes and the US and Israel don’t bomb. Let’s walk through various possibilities. If you think you are immune to the coming storm, please consider:
1. Iran builds nukes. An arms race is kicked off with every 2 bit dictatorship, theocracy, monarchy, and unstable regime getting their arms around The Bomb. Jim, you posted an article where Zev notes to the effect that “its everybody or no one”. This is already underway (Egypt, Saudis, Burma, etc) but could be neutralized if we showed we were deadly serious about stopping it. Once widespread, the risk of a terrorist attack goes up exponentially, as it will be just a matter of money and effort to procure a weapon. Do you think for a second terrorists won’t try to detonate it here (why else buy one)? If they do, what do you think will happen to our beloved constitution, republic, economy, and lively hood when one morning Phili, Cleveland, and Atlanta are decimated? Think it won’t happen? The same naiveté was widespread on September 10th.
2. Iran attacks Israel. Hundreds of thousands die. Israel retaliates killing potentially millions but there is also the option that they don’t retaliate. Either way it is irrelevant because Iran will only need to work about a few warheads from Israeli subs. The “elites” will be safe in their bunkers.. Now, Iran understands that the US is Israel’s only true ally, so it makes sure to keep a few nukes postmarked USA just in case we get cute. Which is another nice problem to consider.
3. Even assuming they can’t detonate here in the US – Oil ceases to flow indefinitely as every oil well in the middle east is now bombed, radioactive, or unmanned. The world economy ceases to exist as we know it. Mass starvation.
4. Iran detonates an EMP over America. Millions die from starvation. America is relegated to the stone ages, and Islamic supremacy ascends.
5. Nobody nukes anybody else and an Islamic vs West cold war begins. With Europe in a demographic death spiral, Islamic law becomes more widespread. Our nation lives under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation as delivery systems and technology improves. I guess this is the best of the various scenarios. And we will look back at wonder why we did NOTHING to prevent it.
With Israel and Europe out of the way (in the next 20 years Europe will have massive or majority Muslim populations) who is left? Who is the one global symbol for freedom and liberty – the western way of life? There is a reason they attacked the World Trade Center and not Big Ben or the Sydney Opera House. The “Blowback” explanation might be a convenient escape from reality, but if you listen to the fundamentalists – they want to defeat our culture not our military.
Jim (and others that posed the question): I’m sorry if this sounds like dodging these questions: Should we bomb? I’m not sure. I think our disagreement comes down to the fact that you believe Iran won’t use them. I believe there is a very real possibility they will, and it is something we should work hard to avoid. A few years ago, a Spanish journalist asked the Supreme Leader of Iran what was the first thing he thought of in the morning. His reply “Tel Aviv in flames”. A leader of state, speaking to a European journalist, and this is the first thing that came to his lips. Without one second of waver. One moment of hesitation. It wasn’t “how to feed my people” or “how to spread Islam”. Perhaps he was just in a foul mood before his coffee?
As a side note – Should we attack Saudi Arabia since many of the terrorists were Saudi? Well, I certainly believe we should be attacking their funding and support of fundamentalism. Like with the Iranians, if there was a will, there would be a way. Instead our CIC bows ceremoniously.
Back to work. I’ll need to sign off for the day. Thanks guys.
Daniel
You agreed previously that Iran is a backwards country that only spends $2.5 billion on its military, but they will somehow detonate an EMP over America which is 7,500 fucking miles from Iran. Iran is no threat to the US and you know it. They are a threat to Israel. That is not our problem.
If you neo-cons are so fucking worried about nuclear bombs exploding in the US why aren’t you calling for a massive spending program on Port security? Why not protect our own borders rather than invading countries for what they might theoretically do.
Neo-cons like to act like we are in a James Bond movie and the old suitcase nuke could go off at any time. The people who push this drivel have no fucking idea how difficult it is to explode a nuclear bomb. You really think that some moron like the Times Square bomber or the idiotic shoe bomber are going to detonate a nuclear bomb in the US. This is beyond laughable.
You constantly provide quotes that prove Iran will attack. Let’s see some quotes from Hugo Chavez:
“We must dismantle, neutralize and make vanish this cynical empire.” Hugo Chavez about US
“Enough of imperialist aggression. We must tell the world, down with the U.S. empire.” Hugo Chavez
“China offers the best option for breaking 100 years of U.S. domination, More and more Chinese non-lethal equipment has been seen in Latin America and military officers from the region have become frequent students of Chinese military training.” Hugo Chavez
In a dramatic speech to the United Nations in September 2006, Mr Chavez famously described George W Bush as the “Devil”.
The Devil is right at home. The Devil, the Devil himself, is right in the house. And the Devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the Devil came here. Right here. [crosses himself] And it smells of sulphur still today. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the Devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.
Mr Bush has long been the focus of Mr Chavez’s tirades. In a nationally televised speech in March 2006, the Venezuelan leader was not short of ways to described the US president:
You are ignoramus, you are a burro, Mr Danger… or to say it to you in my bad English: [switching languages] You are a donkey, Mr Danger. You are a donkey, Mr George W Bush. [Returning to Spanish] You are a coward, a killer, a [perpetrator of] genocide, an alcoholic, a drunk, a liar, an immoral person, Mr Danger. You are the worst, Mr Danger. The worst of this planet… A psychologically sick man, I know it.
Also in 2006, Mr Chavez warned that his country would most likely sever links with Israel in protest at its military offensive in Lebanon.
He said he had “no interest” in maintaining relations with Israel, which he has accused of committing genocide. Israel has gone mad. It’s attacking, doing the same thing to the Palestinian and Lebanese people that it has criticised – and with reason – [in the case of] the Holocaust. But this is a new Holocaust.
At times, Mr Chavez has riled the international community not with his verbal abuse, but with his praise of controversial heads of state.
In 2004, he praised Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe as a “freedom fighter”.
I give you a replica of liberator Simon Bolivar’s sword. For you who, like Bolivar, took up arms to liberate your people. For you who, like Bolivar, are and will always be a true freedom fighter. [Mugabe] continues, alongside his people, to confront the pretensions of new imperialists. Mr Mugabe, who was in Venezuela for a summit of the G-15 group of developing nations, smiled as he unsheathed the sword and swung it about.
Old Hugo sure sounds threatening to me. Plus, Venezuela is only 2,400 miles from America. Shouldn’t we bomb the shit out of Venezuela before he has the capability of attacking us? Kim il Jong threatens the annihilation of South Korea every other day and he has nuclear weapons. Why doesn’t the world do something about it? Is Israel more important than South Korea, or have they bought off more US Congressmen than South Korea?
Every neo-con argument is based upon fear mongering and what-ifs that will never happen. See mushroom cloud in previous post.