Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 13, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

ATTACKING IRAN....William Arkin describes the Pentagon's contingency plans for Iran and then suggests we're being too cagey about publicizing them:

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has been conducting theater campaign analysis for a full scale war with Iran since at least May 2003, responding to Pentagon directions to prepare for potential operations in the "near term."

The campaign analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," posits an Iraq-like maneuver war between U.S. and Iranian ground forces and incorporates lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In addition to the TIRANNT effort and the Marine Corps Karona invasion scenario I discussed yesterday, the military has also completed an analysis of Iran's missile force (the "BMD-I" study), the Defense Intelligence Agency has updated "threat data" for Iranian forces, and Air Force planners have modeled attacks against "real world" Iranian air defenses and targets to establish new metrics. What is more, the United States and Britain have been conducting war games and contingency planning under a Caspian Sea scenario that could also pave the way for northern operations against Iran.

....The President of the United States insists that all options are on the table while the Secretary of Defense insists it "isn't useful" to discuss American options.

....I think this sends the wrong message to Tehran....The United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking. It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand this.

As I've said before, I don't think that amping up the saber rattling is a wise idea, but this is a reasonable, if fairly conventional, counterargument. And either way, it's always nice to know the facts. Now you do.

Kevin Drum 1:21 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (131)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Does the phrase "incorporates lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom" mean "don't do it"?

Posted by: Saam Barrager on April 13, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

They are probably doing all this war planning on a Mac to avoid viruses...oops, I mean probably on a Linux platform.

Posted by: ecoboz on April 13, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

> And either way, it's always nice to know the facts. Now you do.

With this administration, how can we believe that this is all? Their track record for candor is pretty bad. Maybe the military are getting the mushroom treatment, too.

Posted by: troglodyte on April 13, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Why don't they just go after Yemen so the spelling is closer to accurate?? TIRANNT, indeed!

Posted by: Scorpio on April 13, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

William Arkin describes the Pentagon's contingency plans for Iran and then suggests we're being too cagey about publicizing them

Why would Bush want to publicize his battle plans for freedom and democracy in Iran? Would FDR have published how and when he would land in Normandy? Of course not. Same thing here. One very plausible reason why Bush is being secretive is because the Iraqi Army (reconstituted under George Bush) is going to help in the invasion of Iran. Iraqis have a lot of Shiites and the Iraqi Shiites wish to free their fellow Shiites in Iran from the tyranny of the Ayatollahs.

Posted by: Al on April 13, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Helicopters from the embassy roof.

Siagon, 1975.

Baghdad, 2006/7.

Can we say how totally batshit crazy this is?? Because Shi'ite Iraq really will go up in flames if we attack Iran. If that happens, we won't be able to stay under any circumstances.

Posted by: RT on April 13, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

"TIRANNT, indeed!" -- Scorpio

I thought they just couldn't spell 'tyrant' which is what GWB's working on becoming.

Speaking of misspellings, seems I couldn't spell 'Saigon' in my previous post.

Posted by: RT on April 13, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Iran cannot have nukes.

They must be bombed. All the arguments that we somehow cannnot get the job done with airstrikes amount to bullshit. It can be done. If necessary we can bomb them back to the Stone Age. Cave men do not build nuclear bombs.

Posted by: cranky on April 13, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

"TIRANNT"?

Well, it's not as bad as "Operation Iraqi Liberation."

How about "Jingoistic Iran-Hating Attack Dossier"?

Posted by: The Confidence Man on April 13, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Iran is what - 5 times the size of Iraq, 5 times as many people? And from everything I've read, those people love their own country and would be far more motivated to fight than the Iraqis were. Of course, we'ed eventually "win" - just like in Iraq, a tactical victory would become an strategic defeat - only this time it would be even bigger.

A few nations went along with Iraq, no one will support us in Iran. And the notion that Iraqis would 'liberate' Iran by killing members of their own religion is one of the most crazy things I've read in some time.

Many people would die, our nation would take another big step towards bankruptcy but the Republican party would be abolished, so it wouldn't be all bad.

Posted by: JohnN on April 13, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Have they really learned the lessons from the Iraq War? That would mean that the first step in the Iran War would be firing Rumsfeld.

Posted by: reino on April 13, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

and incorporates lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Uh huh. I've got stuffed animals at home that learn faster than this administration.

Posted by: craigie on April 13, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK


Iran is what - 5 times the size of Iraq, 5 times as many people?

Iran is a bit less than 4 times the size of Iraq, and well under 3 times its population.


Posted by: jayarbee on April 13, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

What assurances do we have that - when the Iranian expedition goes south, as it will - that those who supported the fiasco - be they Republican warmongers, Democratic cowards, media blowhards, or just the assholes who parade around with yellow ribbons on their SUV's - pay?

Posted by: Thinker on April 13, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Try and get them appointed to high-level cabinet positions by having them donate heavily to the Republicans.

Maybe Clyde Frog and Bendable Bear can turn this thing around after all.

They just may be our only hope.

Posted by: trex on April 13, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush administration and his conservative lemming followers have been clear about one thing:

Rattling one's saber without actually using it is useless.

That was their argument on Iraq.

Will they abandon it and thus admit they were wrong or will they embrace it and thus admit they are arrogant, megalomaniacal fascists?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 13, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Al: "Iraqis have a lot of Shiites and the Iraqi Shiites wish to free their fellow Shiites in Iran from the tyranny of the Ayatollahs."

I understand that the Irish are planning an invasion of Italy to free their fellow Catholics from the tyranny of the Pope and the Cardinals.

Posted by: Don Hosek on April 13, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Iran is a bit less than 4 times the size of Iraq, and well under 3 times its population.

Really? Now I'm psyched! It'll be a cakewalk.

[rolls twenty-sided] Whoohoo, critical hit! Take that evil Ayatollah Dreadmeini and your army of efreets!

Posted by: Doug Feith on April 13, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Iran is a bit less than 4 times the size of Iraq, and well under 3 times its population.

So we can do this with less than 1/3 the number of troops. Right, Rummy?

Posted by: craigie on April 13, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well calling it TIRANNT was better than their first choice: TIRAN-05, but even TIRAN-NT will still be causing Grey Earths of Death (GEODs) until they release TIRAN-XP SP2.

Posted by: jerry on April 13, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Sixteen days is the new 45 minutes.

Posted by: KCinDC on April 13, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with most previous posters in rolling my eyes at "TIRANNT", or rather "TIranNT"... a much better name would use the standard acronym convention of just first letters.

"TINT".

Yeah, somehow that seems a lot more appropriate, given our leaderships' approach to the world.

Posted by: S Ra on April 13, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

The saber rattling goes both ways - we are goading this man and he is complying - which makes aunt beatrice think the muslims are going to bomb the local mall....

ALL of this - however - is orchestrated by the same 2% majority that runs our foreign policy.

Until we get our country back from foreign occupation... that means our colleges, universities, media and government -

We will be subject to these kinds of psyops which manipulate the Red State voter to redirect their intrinsic racist ideologies toward an 'acceptable' target.

You duffers don't understand that that nice Jewish boy next door is an enemy of the state - IF ONLY BY OMISSION -- because the worst crime of Jews is ethnocentric crypsis.

That's how someone like Michael Ledeen can manufacture evidence in Italy and not a PEEP from worldwide Jewry about his crimes -

the list is endless....

We are a nation under occupation - not unlike Germany in the 20's and 30's.

They tried and failed to rid themselves of their enemy within.

And thats' where we are headed, if Jews don't quit conspiring for their own.

Posted by: karen on April 13, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

TIRANNT OSOARR-US

Theater Iran Near Term: Operation Subdue Oil Ayatollahs and Re-elect Republicans -- United States

Posted by: trex on April 13, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

I'm stating for the record - there will be no invasion of Iran. This whole Iraq thing was hatched by an alliance of people who had a vendetta against Saddam, and neocons who wanted to test their theory of preemptive attack. The latter has been discredited, and the former got what they wanted. Don't be fooled by the "Bush Doctrine" - that was purely meant to justify Iraq, and nothing more. This was and is a one shot deal, nothing more.

Posted by: Andy on April 13, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

As I've said before, I don't think that amping up the saber rattling is a wise idea, but this is a reasonable, if fairly conventional, counterargument.

Arkin appears to think that Tehran doesn't believe the US is serious about a military option, and that open discussion of war planning would help convince Tehran that the US is serious, and would therefore (beneficially?) influence Tehran's decisions.

That assumes that Tehran also believes that the US is politically willing and able to carry out such plans. Maybe Arkin thinks that if Rumsfeld et. al. started talking about it, it would somehow demonstrate the necessary political will.

That could easily backfire with the country in its present mood ("Iraq redux", "rush to war", etc) and with that precedent, it would likely be extremely difficult or impossible to overcome later. The administration probably knows that. Regardless of how serious the military option, their best bet is to keep the saber-rattling to a minimum.

(sorry for the double post, accidently posted this in the previous thread)

Posted by: has407 on April 13, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

"Wild Speculation (Fantasy Land)" is now #1 on the Top 10 GOP Sound Bites.

Posted by: AvengingAngel on April 13, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush administration is desperately trying to bait the news media into changing the subject by waving around Iranian attack plans. This plays into his political strengths.

George is much more pleased as being seen as the no-nonsense guy who has five other guys holding him back before he kicks in the teeth of the neighborhood gangster (favorable storyline of the Iranian attack plans controversy), rather than the political monarch who sicks his attach-dog-supplicants on his critics instead of his enemies (unfavorable storyline of the Joe Wilson controversy).

Posted by: Jon Karak on April 13, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for exposing your anti-semitism Karen. You fit in nicely with the ayatollah-apologizers on this message board.

At least you're honest about it.

Posted by: cranky on April 13, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

CORRECTION:
...political monarch who corrects his mistakes by shooting the messanger (unfavorable storyline of the Joe Wilson controversy).

SORRY.

Posted by: Jon Karak on April 13, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting article but the ground war speculation is completely useless. There will be no ground war. Besides everything we need to accomplish can be done from the air.

Posted by: peanut on April 13, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Come to think of it, "karen", with your jew-hatred you'd fit in nicely in Teheran as well...

Posted by: cranky on April 13, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

cranky, you and karen can both fuck off. Asshole.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 13, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Because Shi'ite Iraq really will go up in flames if we attack Iran. If that happens, we won't be able to stay under any circumstances.

There you go. That's our Iraq exit strategy. Otherwise known as out of the frying pan into the volcano.

Posted by: cowalker on April 13, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

I don't wqnt to say Kevin might be right, but Kevin might be right. Rice was on TV saying that the failure to follow thtough on a threat would undermine the credibility of the US and the West. These guys want another war because the first one got them elected but didn't keep enough people in line. Iran supposedly has plans for widespread terrorist attacks in response to an attack on them. The Republicans will have the foreign war to use as a club against liberals, and the resulting terrorist attacks will allow them to put all of America under martial law.

They want these things. They are fascists. They are no longer worrying about how to get elected. They are trying to figure out how they can seize control of the country by any means necessary.

Posted by: brewmn on April 13, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Fuck you, too, "alek". Also, brewmn, whining about supposedly 'fascists' here in the us is a bit facile when we're dealing with a real, live fascist regime that wants to finish what the nazis started, no?

Posted by: cranky on April 13, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Posted by: MNPundit on April 13, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

whining about supposedly 'fascists' here in the us is a bit facile when we're dealing with a real, live fascist regime that wants to finish what the nazis started, no?

Ooooo, I'm scared now. Iran's going to kill the rest of the Jews. To do that, I guess they're going to conquer Europe, Russia, and the U.S. What evil powers those devilish Mahometans possess!

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 13, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

CORRECTION:
...rather than the political monarch who corrects his mistakes by shooting the messanger...

SORRY.

Posted by: Jon Karak on April 13, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

jayarbee: "Iran is a bit less than 4 times the size of Iraq, and well under 3 times its population."

That still puts its population at almost 70 million people, who would turn very hostile should we be foolish enough to attack them without any real justification other than our own leadership's ego and paranoia.

But hey, they've also got a few million Kurds living within their borders -- perhaps we could appoint one them president of Iran, just like we did in Iraq.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 13, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Scorpio:

Why don't they just go after Yemen so the spelling is closer to accurate?? TIRANNT, indeed!

Yemen hasn't come to their attention yet. It's too close to the end of the alphabetical list.

MNPundit:

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

A somewhat more complete and complex presentation of Einstein's view can be found here.

Posted by: MNPundit on April 13, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: tbrosz on April 13, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Arkin's a paranoid motherfuck.

We've also done training exercises where we invade Azerbaijan, The People's Democratic Republic of New Mexico, and other great hot spots.

This is what the fucking military does! We have Conplans for fucking Canada!

There's plenty of other evidence for getting scared shitless about what's going through Bush's head on Iran... this aint it. Using it just makes ya look like a dumbfuck.

Posted by: bubba on April 13, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

karen: "We are a nation under occupation - not unlike Germany in the 20's and 30's. They tried and failed to rid themselves of their enemy within. And thats' where we are headed, if Jews don't quit conspiring for their own."

Mahalo nui loa, karen, for sharing such enlightened critical thinking with the rest of us.

By the way, your dry cleaners called while you were at the computer furiously typing your screed -- your brownshirt and swastika armband should be ready for pickup this afternoon.

Yikes.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 13, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

All this ignores, of course, that at this point we couldn't invade Iceland, much less Iran.

Posted by: Stefan on April 13, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of trollish lore,

While I read their postings, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gently crapping, crapping out a case for war.

"Tis a neocon," I said, "and nothing more.

A sheeple bleating out for war."


-- al R'haven

Posted by: E.I.E.I. Poe on April 13, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Yikes is right.

Or should I say, vomit inducing.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 13, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hmm, perhaps Theater Around Iran Near Term?

Posted by: KCinDC on April 13, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

To borrow from Dr Strangelove: what is the point of having a doomsday device when you don't let anyone know you have it? This keeping it secret shit is utterly stupid if the goal is to force Iran to cave (they wont). On the other hand, if the intention really is to fully become war criminals and go all out in violating every semblance of international law for which we are a major author, then it makes sense: BushCo doesn't care if Iran knows about the extent of their planning. Hell, they probably don't want them to know about their planning because the true object is to mount a 100% illegal war of aggression without any provocation (ala Hitler) against Iran.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on April 13, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

"we're dealing with a real, live fascist regime that wants to finish what the nazis started, no?"

Wanting to and having the ability to are completely separate things. On the other hand, the Bushies have the ability to do everything I outlined in my post. And having instilled bedwetting fear ot Middel East terrorism into millions of sheep like yourself only makes their job that much easier.

Posted by: brewmn on April 13, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

bubba: "There's plenty of other evidence for getting scared shitless about what's going through Bush's head on Iran... this aint it."

The only thing going through Bush's head is Dick Cheney's puppet strings through his ears.

And unfortunately, those two are now playing chicken with an Iranian president who is apparently just as ignorant, messianic and looney-fucking-tunes as they are.

I'm going to unpack my bong and get stoned. Aloha.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 13, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Geez. What caused the downfall of the last world superpower?

Failure to embrace the new global energy source and overreach.

Overreach.

Posted by: Tripp on April 13, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Dr. Morpheus: "Yikes is right. Or should I say, vomit inducing."

Amazing, isn't it? But let's give karen the benefit of the doubt -- she was probably unable to channel Torquemada during the seance.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 13, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Impeachment him now. If GWB uses nukes in Iran, something that I think he is capable of, we will have made enemies of the rest of the world.

People who are discussing impeachment are discussing it because of things he has done: lying to lead us into war, spying on american citizens, leaking secrets, etc. I say impeach him for what he might very well do in the near future. There is no other way to stop him from doing anything he wanst to do under his unitary theory of executive power. He pays no attention to public polls, congress, or advisors who tell him things he does not want to hear. We have a man in office who recognizes no limits on his power, and there is nothing we can do to persuade him or stop him from doing his worst short of impeachment. And we have to do it before he starts a war in Iraq, not after.

Posted by: patrick on April 13, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans will have the foreign war to use as a club against liberals, and the resulting terrorist attacks will allow them to put all of America under martial law.

And thinking along similar lines, I've already armed up. Just in case.

No, not armed up to respond to terrorists. They are bugs. Gnats. Nothings. The ENEMY is the GOP/neocon/BushCheney dictatorship. THEY are what you need to arm up to deal with, should what you say come to pass.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are nonnegotiable. They have been. They are. They WILL be, one way or another.

The Tree of Liberty needs to be fed now and again with the blood of tyrants, etc.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on April 13, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

I think the most important "lesson learned" of the Iraq War was that May 2003 was way too early to start looking at "lessons learned".

Posted by: thehim on April 13, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK
I think this sends the wrong message to Tehran....The United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking. It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand this.

This analysis would be correct if Tehran had any reason to expect that compliance would reduce the risk of attack. Given the recent behavior of the US, particularly in Iraq, there is no reason for Iran to believe that, and, therefore, any belief by its government that we are serious about attacking, instead of encouraging compliance, encourages only maximum preparation for the eventuality of attack.

The use of the credible threat of force to encourage compliance without needing resort to the use of force relies not only on the belief by your target that failure to comply will lead to attack but that some measure of compliance consistent with their survival will lead to no attack.

This Administration's deliberate invention of lies to support war in Iraq and its using similar outward tactics with regard to Iran as it did with Iraq destroys that essential component of the credible threat.

Ergo, it is not in the interests of the United States for Iran to believe that the US government is serious about war.

That being said, I don't think it matters; I doubt very much that the Iranian regime is failing to take the US threat seriously.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 13, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever logic is behind this, we cannot ignore the fact that it plays into the hands of the Iranian hardliners, who count on this fist-shaking the same way the Bushies do. And the idea, even implied, that air strikes would encourage the country to rise up against the Mullahs shows just how dunderheaded these guys are.

Posted by: Kenji on April 13, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

If necessary we can bomb them back to the Stone Age. Cave men do not build nuclear bombs.
Posted by: cranky

Apparently, cave men write posts.

Posted by: ckelly on April 13, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: your post is correct and this is why having Bush as President puts us in such a quandary. It is truly in our interest to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but Bush works in the opposite direction in every way.

Iran is not currently a threat. How do we send Iran the message that the U.S. is not a threat to Iran? And thereby having some chance of dissuading Iran from developing nuclear weapons? By sending the Republicans a defeat in the coming congressional elections. I cant help it if this sounds partisan. I know of no other way.

The Iranian right-wingers and the Bushies will continue to feed off of each other and lead the rest of us right down the tubes with them. The Democrats are certainly not perfect, but they will check Bush far more reliably than the Republicans.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 13, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently, cave men write posts.
Posted by: ckelly on April 13, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

w00t!

Posted by: Erik on April 13, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK
Iran is not currently a threat. How do we send Iran the message that the U.S. is not a threat to Iran? And thereby having some chance of dissuading Iran from developing nuclear weapons? By sending the Republicans a defeat in the coming congressional elections. I cant help it if this sounds partisan. I know of no other way.

Of course, one critical limitation of that idea is that it only works if the US doesn't attack Iran before the midterm elections.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 13, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Of course, one critical limitation of that idea..."

Yeah, but do you have to type it out in black and white? Say it out loud? Oh, you're killing me man.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 13, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith of the Royal Air Force was senctenced to eight months imprisonment today for refusing to serve in Iraq. Not enough American soldiers are doing this to prevent Bush from fighting his illegal wars. (Not enough British soldiers are doing it, also.)

Posted by: Hostile on April 13, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Capabilities become intentions. The more the models say the operation would achieve the targets with accpetable casualties,the more likely the scenario will turn into the plan will turn into reality.
You don't run all those models for fun.

Posted by: TJM on April 13, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

we're dealing with a real, live fascist regime that wants to finish what the nazis started, no?

If you are writing about Iran, then NO.

If you are writing about the Bush regime, then YES.

What the Nazis started was the annihilation of all the peoples of the world. After the Jews, the Nazis were going to exterminate the Slavs. After the Slavs, the Nazis were going to exerminate the next ethnic group on the list and then the next and then the next. Bush started with Arabs and now wants to move on to Persians. After the Persians, maybe American liberals and atheists.

Posted by: Hostile on April 13, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

And thinking along similar lines, I've already armed up. Just in case. No, not armed up to respond to terrorists...The ENEMY is the GOP/neocon/BushCheney dictatorship. THEY are what you need to arm up to deal with, should what you say come to pass.

Unfortunately, the ones doing the fighting will not be the neo-cons or their leaders, but the men and women who have joined the military. When the orders are given to assault US civilians and impose martial law, the people in the US military are going to follow orders. Fighting them will be a losing and painful proposition. I recommend disavowing violence and planning on long prison terms. Or moving to Tierra del Fuego.

Posted by: Hostile on April 13, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile, you're an idiot.

Posted by: bobnweave on April 13, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

What about Congo, They have yellow cake, They could be a real threat.Blow thwm bastards off the face of the earth.

Posted by: Rightminded on April 13, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

Iran is not currently a threat. How do we send Iran the message that the U.S. is not a threat to Iran? And thereby having some chance of dissuading Iran from developing nuclear weapons? By sending the Republicans a defeat in the coming congressional elections. I cant help it if this sounds partisan. I know of no other way.

Dictators around the world are wearing their knees down to the bone praying for the Democrats to come back into power. When America's foreign policy stance is the same as Kofi Annan's, it's all smooth sailing for them from there.

Read "The Last Helicopter."

Posted by: tbrosz on April 13, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

I realize that I may be stretching a bit...but I wonder if the US Military has it's roots in the devastation caused by tornadoes.

To see your neighborhood wiped off the face of the earth by a funnel cloud might predispose one to doing the same to others elsewhere on the planet.

Think about it. We're a violent culture. As we headed west (white folks that is) we encountered these killer storms.

When the Civil War hit, Sherman leveled whole stretches of the South (a la tornado effect).

Fast forward to 1945.... Japan.

The US military has always prided itself in total devastation (Shock and Awe was a prime example).

Nuclear bunker busters are no small events.

We have faced the tornadic winds of nature and, for some of us, this has unleashed humanic violence that rivals the destruction that nature can wreak.

It's also interesting to realize that rebuilding after a tornado increases economic gains locally as funds pour in from all over.

So maybe the war profiteers realized that destruction begats windfalls???

So why not level Iran?

We've done it to Iraq, Germany, Japan, Vietnam, etc.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on April 13, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Dictators around the world are wearing their knees down to the bone praying for the Democrats to come back into power.

You are a stupid, ignorant liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 13, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Bush loves to put penises in his mouth so he can bobnweave while polishing the knob.

Posted by: Hostile on April 13, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Dictators around the world are wearing their knees down to the bone praying for the Democrats to come back into power.

Dictators such as the Saudis, Pervez Musharraf, Islam Karimov, and Kim Jong-Il, perhaps? Yeah, they're really quaking in their boots they're so afraid of Bush.

Posted by: Stefan on April 13, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist:

Read the link.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 13, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

You might want to read the link, too. It's much less a matter of any fear of Bush than of wanting an administration they will be able to more easily "deal" with. That is, get their way while giving up nothing. Maybe you missed the Kofi Annan reference?

Posted by: tbrosz on April 13, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Bush has no way of manipulating Iran-one must have credibility to manipulate and Iran, as well as America and everyone on the planet, is fully aware: Bush has no credibility.

Posted by: MRB on April 13, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz will have to do better than to link to an OpinionJournal/WSJ blog by a Chalabi wannabe.

It would be funny if what these guys are after did not entail a catostrophe of enormous proportions for a large number of people. That the people to be affected are brown may make them expendible in the eyes of racists like tbrosz but even then I am flabbergasted by the existence of persons who support this course of action (nuking of Iraq) so seriously.

Posted by: lib on April 13, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

I meant nuking of Iran.

Posted by: lib on April 13, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

lib:

I meant actually read the link. Don't just look at the pictures.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 13, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz

Unfortunately I have this power to tell when someone is peddling BS just from the picture.

Posted by: lib on April 13, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz wrote: It's much less a matter of any fear of Bush than of wanting an administration they will be able to more easily "deal" with. That is, get their way while giving up nothing.

The Russian dictator Putin, George W. Bush's soul brother, has had little difficulty in that regard "dealing with" a Republican administration.

And historically, Republican administrations have been enthusiastic supporters of the worst dictatorships in history, including of course the Reagan and Bush I administrations' financial and military support for Saddam Hussein during the period when he was committing his most large-scale and most heinous crimes against humanity, including "gassing his own people", which led Ronald Reagan to send his personal envoy Donald Rumsfeld to kiss Saddam's ass and assure him that the USA would do absolutely nothing about it.

You are a stupid, ignorant liar. The only thing you care about is your tax cut.

tbrosz wrote: Read the link.

Drivel from The Wall Street Journal op-ed page. The same sort of garbage you link to all the time. So what?

tbrosz wrote: Maybe you missed the Kofi Annan reference?.

Somehow you forgot to also "reference" Michael Moore, Dan Rather, Cindy Sheehan, France, and other bugaboos that scripted, programmed, brain-dead right-wing Bush-bootlickers imagine will make liberals run and hide in shame at the very mention of their names.

You have become nothing more than a clown and a self-caricature. The fake "helicalrocket" tbrosz postings have more substance and make more sense than yours.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 13, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

lib wrote: tbrosz will have to do better than to link to an OpinionJournal/WSJ blog by a Chalabi wannabe.

tbrosz is not capable of doing any better than that. Regurgitating bullshit from the Wall Street Journal op-ed page is about the limit of his argumentative ability.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 13, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Dictators around the world are wearing their knees down to the bone praying for the Democrats to come back into power.

Why? Reagan was happy to sell weapons to Iran (something they just couldn't get out of that wimpy Carter). And W has conveniently positioned Americans in harm's way of the Shiites.

Oh, I know, Republicans act tough. Yeah, that'll scare those faint-hearted Iranians.

Posted by: alex on April 13, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

Secular-whatever is a nazi - in the same league as "karen" upthred. fits in well with ahmacrazyass and his friends in teheran

Posted by: DBG on April 13, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Iran
1.6 million sq km About the size of Alaska
68.8 million people
4.3 million cell phones

Iraq
437 thousand sq km twice the size of Idaho
26.7 million people
547 thousand cell phones

France
547 thousand sq km twice the size of Colorado
60.8 million people
44.5 million cell phones.

All info from CIA fact book.

Cell phones was the best thing they had as a marker for development - I was looking for steel production but CIA doesn't have that posted.

In other words, Iran is not only bigger, more people, but also more developed than Iraq. Yes, yes, I know our armed forces can kill more people than anyone else. I have no doubt that we would "win" - just that winning is loosing.

"They create a desert and call it peace."

Posted by: JohnN on April 13, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

The wall street link does exceedingly well in pointing out the stupidity behind ever attacking Iraq in the first place-that there truly is no way of ever winning. Winning was/has been never defined so due to this anyone in Iraq or the mid-east can assume any withdrawal constitutes failure on the part of the invader.

Posted by: MRB on April 13, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Alex and SecularAnimist are exactly right, actually. The repugs could never in a million years be trusted with OUR security because they do not care about OUR security - they just want to protect Israel. Read the Walt and Mearsheimer study if you don't believe me. It's all part of the Israel lobby/PNAC/Neocon agenda.

Go to hell "GBH"!

Posted by: karen on April 13, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Hey I know let's have Tbroz design rockets for Iran,Need I say anymore.

Posted by: Rightminded on April 13, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

seems like a concerted propaganda campaign to me. not for security of USA mind you, but for putting fear in the minds of americans so they don't vote for democrats.

not a new discovery, but needs worth reitertaing.

next tbrosz will ask us to read a John Fund column to understand how much of traitors the Democrats are.

Posted by: lib on April 13, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

Booooo!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rightminded on April 13, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Ann Coulter has a great piece on the Goddless Dems you should all read it, Great work!

Posted by: Tbroz on April 13, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

DBG wrote: Secular-whatever is a nazi - in the same league as "karen" upthred. fits in well with ahmacrazyass and his friends in teheran

I have no idea what your incoherent ravings are supposed to mean.

karen wrote: Alex and SecularAnimist are exactly right, actually. The repugs could never in a million years be trusted with OUR security because they do not care about OUR security - they just want to protect Israel.

I never said any such thing, nor do I believe any such thing. You are a liar and that post constitutes slander and defamation. Which is about all I'd expect from a creepy, loathesome antisemitic bigot like you.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 13, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

From the Asylum site:

People still point to the arguments made by the moonbats regarding Iraq (no WMDs, Saddam was contained, we're in a quagmire now, etc.) and yet they refuse to look at the documents released from the regime that not only justifies our invasion, but has now exonerated the president and his decision for invasion. The same will pan out for Iran. As a matter of fact, after the first election in Iraq, France and Germany both issued statements that we were right for our invasion. So, I fail to see where America's position in the world could be harmed by striking Iran. The Middle Eastern nations over there, according to the Saddam documents, no longer fear, respect, or look to Iran. Their ally is the United States.
(http://sydandvaughn.blogspot.com/2006/04/gauntlet-has-been-thrown-down-iran.html)

How many illogical jumps are there in that? But this is what the right wing still believes. They can't learn anything from Iraq, because they think we won in Iraq and it is only the evil media that is suppressing the facts.

More evidence from the same site:

But I doubt that the troops would see little difference in the enemy in Iran as they did in Iraq, as they did in Afghanistan. These people are cowards, and act as such. But, the crucible we faced in Iraq may have been what was needed to prepare our forces for the inevitable showdown with Iran.

See? If you can't find Iran on a map, and can't find Iraq either, then the two countries are the same. Proof.

Posted by: JohnN on April 13, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: It's much less a matter of any fear of Bush than of wanting an administration they will be able to more easily "deal" with. That is, get their way while giving up nothing.

And an administration that doesn't understand what "negotate" means, who seems to wallow in hyperbole and unilaterally trashes the other side (e.g., "axis of evil"), and blusters (e.g., "bring it on") is better how exactly? That kind of behavior remind you of any other people in the news?

Posted by: has407 on April 13, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist:

You have a good point about Putin. I'm not that happy with the relationship between Bush and Fox, either. Unfortunately, the rest of your post was mostly an expulsion of incoherent gas.

Funny you should mention taxes. Ironically, I get to deduct the donation I made to the Washington Monthly. Go figure.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 13, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: the rest of your post was mostly an expulsion of incoherent gas.

There was nothing "incoherent" about this; it's just something you don't like to hear because it contradicts your absurd cartoon comic book stereotypes about Republicans being heroic supporters of freedom and Democrats being appeasers of dictatorships:

And historically, Republican administrations have been enthusiastic supporters of the worst dictatorships in history, including of course the Reagan and Bush I administrations' financial and military support for Saddam Hussein during the period when he was committing his most large-scale and most heinous crimes against humanity, including "gassing his own people", which led Ronald Reagan to send his personal envoy Donald Rumsfeld to kiss Saddam's ass and assure him that the USA would do absolutely nothing about it.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 13, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

If the Prez had spent as much money on education and research for alternate energy sources as he has on the war in Iraq. We could have cured our oil addiction by now and been in a position to tell the oil sheik's to pound sand. The day we are able to do that is the day we will win this war we are in. This is a war that was inevitable it would have come about no matter who was president, so don't waste time blaming the current administration, start thinking of how we are going to win this thing.

Posted by: Mike Davis on April 13, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

And historically, Republican administrations have been enthusiastic supporters of the worst dictatorships in history

I'm beginning to suspect "history" for a lot of people only goes back about fifteen years.

Look up what happened to Eastern Europe after WWII, and the Truman Doctrine. And more recently, check out what JFK did in Central and South America. The Cold War support for "our thugs" over Soviet-backed communists goes back a long way.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 13, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Get it right. Not "thugs", but "assholes". Specifically, as said by a Very Important Persone once-upon-a-time, "they may be assholes, but they're our assholes".

Posted by: has407 on April 13, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

The Cold War support for "our thugs" over Soviet-backed communists goes back a long way.

Funny thing is you never admit culpability for Republican administrations when this topic -- or any other -- comes up.

Huh.

Weird.

By the way, at this moment CNN's running that great documentary that nails the administration to the wall for making a case for war by using rhetoric not remotely backed up by facts and intel they helped gin up that they were clearly warned was bogus -- in case anybody's interested.

Posted by: trex on April 13, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

I'm beginning to suspect "history" for a lot of people only goes back about fifteen years.

What an idiotic statement to make.

support for Pinochet, pre-Mandela South African government, saddam, king saud, pakistani dictators, ...

You either don't know history or cannot do simple arithmetic.

Or may be you are just an idiot.

Posted by: lib on April 14, 2006 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINK

And Nixon's support of Ceausescu

But I am sure that if they were a Republican president instead of Clinton, Milosovici would have been overthrown and sent to the Hague on war crimes ... Oh, wait a minute

Posted by: Botecelli on April 14, 2006 at 5:58 AM | PERMALINK

They must be bombed. All the arguments that we somehow cannnot get the job done with airstrikes amount to bullshit. It can be done. If necessary we can bomb them back to the Stone Age. Cave men do not build nuclear bombs.

I guess it's alright for another country to bomb us back to the Stone Age, I guess. Last time I checked, we had quite a few "nuclear bombs."

Lots and lots of them. And we've used them before, too.

Posted by: chuck on April 14, 2006 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

I don't know. It's worked quite well for the Swiss and the Swedes.

Of course, the difference is that their militaries actually have a defensive posture (i.e. - they take the word "defense" literally).

We might try that out sometime.

Posted by: chuck on April 14, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

Dictators around the world are wearing their knees down to the bone praying for the Democrats to come back into power. When America's foreign policy stance is the same as Kofi Annan's, it's all smooth sailing for them from there.

You know tbrosz (and the Republican Party he represents) has nothing - absolutely NOTHING - left when they're obliged to make silly arguments like this one. It used to be "You Dems will never be in power again!"

Remember those heady days, tbrosz? That egg on your face? Leave it there. You're fucking pathetic.

Posted by: chuck on April 14, 2006 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:Dictators around the world are wearing their knees down to the bone praying for the Democrats to come back into power. When America's foreign policy stance is the same as Kofi Annan's, it's all smooth sailing for them from there.

Read "The Last Helicopter."

Wow... I thought this was a fake tbrosz post at first, so transparently stupid is it.

Yeah, that Slobodan Milosevich did so well when a Democrat was in the White House, eh? And Reagan was tough on all sorts of dictators, sending them money, military hardware. And I see Bush has taken firm action against Mugabe.

And of course, any Democratic president would be the same as any other. No personality differences at all. And all Democratic leaders are just like Kofi Annan, who runs an organization which by its nature has to include dictators.

What a jaw-droppingly dumb comment, on so many different levels.

The article you link to is about as factual as Mark Helprin's doomsday scenario in the prior post, which is to say that it makes all sorts of claims which are dubious at best and outright false at worst, but which have "truthiness", allowing those predisposed to believe them to do so.

Posted by: S Ra on April 14, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Juan Cole has a great column at www.truthout.org about how this is a case of Iranian hardliners with an approval rating of 12% trying to act tough against an American president with an approval rating in the low thirties. Both are despised by large numbers of their own people and are using this mock "nuclear crisis", to whip up support that they lack from any legitimate political base.

Every Democrat and Independent needs to call or write their Senator and Congressperson and tell them to reassert their Constitutional authority to declare war and warn the Bush Administration in the harshest possible terms, that any unilateral military action will be grounds for impeachment. DO IT NOW!!!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on April 14, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

S Ra: "The article you link to is about as factual as Mark Helprin's doomsday scenario in the prior post, which is to say that it makes all sorts of claims which are dubious at best and outright false at worst"

The most laughable part was his ominous warnings about Turkey lurching towards an Islamist state. The writer either does not know who is the real power underpinning the secular Turkish nation state, which I doubt, or he is simply addressing overexitable Americans who don't know anything about politics outside the US in order to push his political agenda

Posted by: Botecelli on April 14, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Steven Kriz - So if President Bush asks Congress for authorization to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities, as he did with Iraq, you would urge Democratic - and Republican- Senators and Congressmen to vote no, is that right?

I guess the the Democratic campaign slogan for the next 10 or 15 years is going to be "We can live with a nuclear Iran." When you had the chance to do something about it, you chose to do nothing. OK, we'll see how it plays out. But some of us won't forget that you and many other Democrats urged acquiesence at at time when we could still do something.

Posted by: DBL on April 14, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

DBL wrote: So if President Bush asks Congress for authorization to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities, as he did with Iraq, you would urge Democratic - and Republican- Senators and Congressmen to vote no, is that right?

Pardon me for butting in on the question you posed to Mr. Kriz, but I would and will certainly urge my Senators and Representative to vote "no" on any such request for "authorization".

Completely apart from the merit or lack of merit of attacking Iran, if President Bush wishes to do such a thing, then under the US Constitution he must ask Congress for a declaration of war against Iraq.

Congress has the sole Constitutional authority to declare war; it has no ability under the Constitution to delegate this authority to the President; there is no such thing in the Constitution as "authorizing" the President to decide whether to take the country to war.

The 2002 Congressional "authorization" for Bush to launch a war against Iraq if and when he decided to do so was blatantly unconstitutional, and every single Senator and Representative who voted for it blatantly violated his or her oath of office.

If you want the USA to attack Iran, DBL, then you should demand that Bush follow the requirements of the US Constitution and ask Congress to declare war.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 14, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK
Congress has the sole Constitutional authority to declare war; it has no ability under the Constitution to delegate this authority to the President; there is no such thing in the Constitution as "authorizing" the President to decide whether to take the country to war.

Wrong. Congress clearly can make a declaration of war conditional on any external facts it wants, including a Presidential determination.

The 2002 Congressional "authorization" for Bush to launch a war against Iraq if and when he decided to do so was blatantly unconstitutional, and every single Senator and Representative who voted for it blatantly violated his or her oath of office.

No, it wasn't unconstitutional. Congress can certainly make a declaration of war conditional upon a Presidential good-faith determination of certain facts.

Whether the President violated his oath of office by making the required determinations in bad faith, and whether Congress abdicated their responsibility in failing to hold him accountable when that became clear is another question, of course.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely wrote: Congress can certainly make a declaration of war conditional upon a Presidential good-faith determination of certain facts.

Congress did not make any declaration of war, conditional or otherwise. Congress has no ability under the Constitution to delegate its power to declare war to the President by "authorizing" him to initiate a war at some later date if he decides to do so.

The time for a "Presidential good-faith determination of certain facts" is not after a war has already been launched. The time for "Presidential good-faith determination of certain facts" is when the President presents those facts to the Congress as part of his request for a declaration of war, at which time the Congress can and should examine those facts and have an open and thorough debate about whether those facts justify a Congressional declaration of war.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 14, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Tbores, a timid, weak-minded ratlike creature who has never served its country (whatever that might be) spews out more lies it was taught by its masters.

For years, our national defense policy (which Tbores confuses with our foreign policy) was fairly simple- if you attack the US we will do our level best to destroy the motherfucker who did it. We made sure, over the years, that all the various and sundry motherfuckers who might have the will and the ability to do so knew this and were rightfully afraid.

(We have exercised our military power for many other purposes than national defense over the years- this is not a conversation about that).

Until Dubya was President, that is. We were attacked on his watch, facilitated through a combination of incompetence and inattention to national defense. What did Dubya do about that? Proved to the world that some motherfucker can attack us and get away with it- undermining 200 years of our national defense policy- supported by the aforementioned timid ratlike creature, and its ilk.

As to having the same foreign policy as the UN, isn't it Tbores and creatures like it that are constantly bleating that we invaded Iraq to enforce UN resolutions? Its really difficult for wee timorous pathologically lying beasties to keep all their lies straight isn't it?

Posted by: solar on April 14, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK
Congress did not make any declaration of war, conditional or otherwise.

There is no need for magic words for a declaration of war, any more than it must use the word "post road" when exercising its power to do that. Constitutional powers are defined by effects, and Congress clearly and unambiguously effected a conditional declaration of war with the AUMF.

Congress has no ability under the Constitution to delegate its power to declare war to the President by "authorizing" him to initiate a war at some later date if he decides to do so.

Actually, it does. A declaration of war is, after all, nothing more than an authorization for the executive to engage in war, and nothing in the Constitution or the case law suggests that Congress cannot exercise this power conditionally.

The time for a "Presidential good-faith determination of certain facts" is not after a war has already been launched.

The determination required in the AUMF was a prerequisite to launching any action.


The time for "Presidential good-faith determination of certain facts" is when the President presents those facts to the Congress as part of his request for a declaration of war, at which time the Congress can and should examine those facts and have an open and thorough debate about whether those facts justify a Congressional declaration of war.

Except in certain cases where the determination itself is extraordinarily time sensitive and would make delay intolerably costly, I agree as a matter of policy. OTOH, as a matter of constitutional law, whether an issue needs to be demonstrated in advance or whether the facts warrant a conditional declaration of war with the existence of the triggering facts determined by the President is, I would argue, well within the purview of the Congress.

Were you arguing that the AUMF was ill-advised, I would agree. Were you arguing that, even given the AUMF, the President's duplicitous conduct was illegal and unconstitutional, I would agree. But arguing that the AUMF itself was unconstitutional because Congress cannot condition war on a Presidential determination is, I think, misguided.


Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

S Ra:

Reagan was tough on all sorts of dictators, sending them money, military hardware. And I see Bush has taken firm action against Mugabe.

Reagan was tough on the biggest dictatorship. And Mugabe has been in office a lot longer than Bush has, without "firm action" being taken against him.

And of course, any Democratic president would be the same as any other. No personality differences at all.

The ones who would do the job right in foreign policy have been, and are, being drummed out of the party. Doesn't it bother you a bit that the person with the largest cojones on the short list for 2008 is Hillary Clinton?

And all Democratic leaders are just like Kofi Annan, who runs an organization which by its nature has to include dictators.

Kerry certainly was like Annan. And Gore. We'll see in 2008.

"Has to include" is different than "run by." The concept of the U.N. was in trouble from the time Stalin had to be included as a founding member, and it hasn't gotten much better. Most of the U.N.'s time in the realm of "peacekeeping" seems to be devoted to condemning the U.S. and Israel.

***

solar:

Proved to the world that some motherfucker can attack us and get away with it...

9/11 was not the first terrorist attack on United States and its interests. Or even on the World Trade Center. You might want to re-think that point, and clean it up a little.

Read bin Laden's 1996 fatwa.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 14, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

TEHRAN, Iran - The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

ADVERTISEMENT

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"

The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."

"The existence of this (Israeli) regime is a permanent threat" to the Middle East, he added. "Its existence has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."

______________


The President of Iran - We are enriching Uranium. We will accelerate the speed we do so, rapidly. Israel will be annihilated and razed from the map. This will happen soon.

Limp-dicked liberals - lalalalalala we can't hear you. Amacrazyfuck looks like my sweet old uncle. Nothing bad is going to happen, don't worry be happy. Did I mention Booooosh is just like Hitler? The only REAL fascists are the USA.


Posted by: peanut on April 14, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

OK, Theater Iran Near Term -- that needs to be Theaatre: Attack Iran Near Term so it comes out TAINT.

Y'all know what the TAINT is -- it's what's between the Big D**K and the A$$#013.

Posted by: Scorpio on April 14, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

OK, Theater Iran Near Term -- that needs to be Theatre: Attack Iran Near Term so it comes out TAINT.

Y'all know what the TAINT is -- it's what's between the Big D**K and the A$$#013.

Posted by: Scorpio on April 14, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

I am not going to forget that some Americans have called for war against Iran. I will accuse them of being mass murderers and thieves.

Posted by: Hostile on April 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

"9/11 was not the first terrorist attack on United States and its interests. Or even on the World Trade Center. You might want to re-think that point, and clean it up a little."

9/11 was tantamount to an act of war, as even a chickenhawk numbnuts such as you should be able to parse out (clue for the clueless- it wasn't declared by Iraq). Little nibbles and bites before by one deluded person or another hardly count (although an argument could be made, that Reagan, like Bush, ran from the enemy when attacked). The assets needed to utterly destroy that enemy have been diverted and the worldwide political capital to achieve that destruction has been pissed away (to cheers from the pom-pom waving 101rst Fighting Keyboardists).

Bin-Laden and his organization are only of interest to Bush (and his trained cut-and-paste monkey sycophants) when a US election rolls around. Is there any doubt (caveat- in a sane person's mind)that, had they been President on 9/11, countless other politicians, from both parties, would never have rested or wavered from the task of destroying the miscreants responsible utterly? It takes a buffoon of Bush's caliber to royally fuck up even simple revenge.

Posted by: solar on April 14, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Peanut, there's probably some medication you can take for what ails you. Buy it. Medicaid probably covers it for you.

In the interim, if the US attacked every Middle East nation whose leader advocated/threatened/predicted the destruction of Israel, we would have to attack every nation in the Middle East (including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.) . Israel possesses real nuclear weapons, not speculative ones, and a fine army. Every nation that has attacked them has lost, some quite badly. Doubtless Israel would destroy every major city in Iran should Iran be stupid enough to attack them.

The US is not Israel, and is not primarily responsible for Israel's defense. If you're up for it, you can probably join the IDF.

Posted by: solar on April 14, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Solar - the US defends its allies. That's what makes us who we are. We defeat our enemies and help our friends. Deal with it or get the fuck out.

Posted by: peanut on April 14, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

"I am not going to forget that some Americans have called for war against Iran. I will accuse them of being mass murderers and thieves."

Oh noooo - ho's tile is going to acoose us. Of something or other. Probably on some blog. Shit, guys. The jig is up. Game over. Hostile's on to us.

J'accuse!

Tool.

Posted by: lab on April 14, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

That's what makes us who we are. We defeat our enemies and help our friends. Deal with it or get the fuck out.

George Washington disagrees with your simpleton's guide to foreign policy:

The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest...

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification...

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.. .Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests...

I'm pretty sure the first president just called you a "tool" and a "dupe."

He left out "hysterical fucktard."

You are precisely the example of ganglionic mouth-breather that Washington was warning about, infatuated with other countries you think will protect you from danger and desperately obsessed with destroying countries that scare you.

Apparently they had bed-wetting panty-wastes in colonial times, too.

Congratulations -- you've just been PWN3D by the Father of our Country.

That sentiment and that spirit is actually what makes this country great, not your puerile WWF fantasies about foreign policy cage matches and xenophobic cartoon stereotypes of good vs. evil.

Deal with it or shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 15, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINK

As I am on vacation in Mexico and have limited Internet access, so I cannot respond in real time to buffoons like the gentleman who thinks Congress can "delegate" it's war declaration authority to the president, but sir, you are dead, flat wrong. Take a course in civics.

The Founding Fathers were very clear on where they wanted the war-making authority of the United States to be vested and that was only in the legislative branch. They knew the danger of vesting that awesome power in one man, as it could easily be used and abused for selfish and ill-advised reasons, as we have seen so clearly in the Iraq debacle we now find ourselves in. Unfortunately, the last declared war was WWII and since then, both Democratic and Republican presidents have abused their "delegated" extraConstitutional authority to loose the American war machine on soomething like 120 occasions. We, or our proxies, have surrepitiously overthrown the governments of Argentina, Guatemala, Iraq, Iran, Grenada, Indonesia and many others, to our eternal detriment. The Founders also never wanted a standing, let alone a mercenary army, like we have now. A conscripted army, i.e. the draft, acts as a check on executive abuse of the military, as families whose sons and daughters are yanked into conflicts against their will, are more likely to rise up in protest than those who volunteer for pay, to kill at the chief executive's beck and call.

We have strayed, far, far from this country's origins, and it is well best time to rein in an out-of-control executive branch. The impeachment of both Richard Bruce Cheney and George Walker Bush for this illegal war in Iraq would be the best message we could send to a future president and VP who wanted to misuse the American military for their own purposes!!!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on April 15, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

Windhorseshit - thanks for giving us all a lesson on 1780s international politics. Really interesting. Really applicable to the 21st century, when we actually DO have allies, and ARE obligated to them (even the lame French), no matter what GW might have thought. But nice history flash back, idiot. Thank you.

You shouldn't have. You really shouldn't.

Posted by: clock on April 15, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

Peanut, (obviously a dual reference to both your brain and your genitals- clever, that) I served my country as a combat officer for more than 22 years. I have no intention of leaving because some fuckwit Bushsucker conflates the simple English words "defense" and "offense" or because that same fuckwit confuses playing computer war games with the real thing. Your stupidity, thankfully, has no effect on my citizenship.

As your father frequently says (while threatening to evict you from the family trailer at age 30) "Shut up, stop crying, be a man".

The IDF is waiting for that application. I have friends there- despite your multiple handicaps, I could probably swing you a job emptying wastebaskets or mopping latrines.

Posted by: solar on April 15, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Really? So you're staying then? That's great, you're such an asset to the country. We need more losers like you.

Posted by: peanut on April 15, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Shhhhhh peanut. Solar's a citizen. And has fantasies of exciting times in "combat". (Probably combating an acute case of cranalrectalitis, but why quibble?)

Citizen of Uranus, is more like it.

Posted by: clock on April 15, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

A stopped clock and a plant. Who says the Republicans are nothing more than unemployed closeted self-hating gays living in Mommy's basement?

Posted by: solar on April 15, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly