We are a peaceful, democracy loving people, and if we have to deliberately kill millions of people to prove it, we will do so reluctantly. Because we kick ass, dude.

As near as I can tell, the Bush administration is doing everything it can to look like it's endorsing diplomacy while simultaneously ensuring that nothing with an actual chance of working is ever put on the table.

I cannot possibly think what this reminds me of....

While the differences between Washington and Tehran are threatening and growing, there are eerie similarities between presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad and their respective fundamentalist followers. For each, the strikingly analogous views regarding religious prophecy, second comings and the end of times may be pushing the United States and Iran inexorably towards war.

For the disturbing comparison, see:
"Iran, Bush and the Second Coming."

As near as I can tell, the Bush administration is doing everything it can to look like it's endorsing diplomacy while simultaneously ensuring that nothing with an actual chance of working is ever put on the table.

For good reason. Iran is right now working with Al-Qaeda in attacking American troops.

Link

"Al-Qaeda is sending training and planning experts to help to set up the force and infiltrate members into Iraq with the assistance of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the sources said."

Liberals claimed after 9/11 they agreed we should use military force to destroy Al-Qaeda and yet liberals like Kevin Drum are now saying we shouldn't do that even though Iran and Al-Qaeda are allies. Once again liberals have shown they are not serious about destroying Al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies like Iran.

The Rovians don't want to lose Iran as an issue before November.

Gulf of Tonkin - The Sequel

Al nails it! We have always been at war with Iran -- we were just off by one stinkin' letter!

Support the President! C'mon -- you know how GOOOOOD it makes you feel as a Christian American White to bomb the shit outta the rag-heads!

What has to happen for this guy to be stopped?

We can only hope that aWol's bitch (pun intended) of all Wag-the-Dogs (Iran) gets the turgid American populace out in the streets.

It's part of a considered, and wrongheaded, view of America's foreign policy which holds that reaching diplomatic agreements with "evil" regimes is always a bad thing.

Wow. Where was he during our dictatorship dalliances during the Cold War? Does that mean the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam isn't going to be showing up on liberal websites any more?

Seriously, the reason that negotiations with true evil regimes is often less than useful is that they don't keep their bargains. You see, it's kind of part of that "evil" thing.

It is blindingly evident that the only function negotiations have for Iran, among other nations with similar ambitions, is to buy time while they continue on their current path.

Liberals should be prepared to engage in a sophisticated and nuanced discussion of options for coping the Iran . . . the day after the President tells the "bombs away!" crew to buzz off. Until then, folks need to decide whether they want to collaborate, wittingly or unwittingly, with the people pushing us toward war or whether they want to fight them.

Cute. Why wait? Let's have some discussion right now on options for coping with Iran. Or maybe he doesn't want to make it obvious that the Left has absolutely nothing useful to put on the table.

A couple questions to start with:

--How's the U.N., the preferred liberal method of dealing with international problems, doing?

--The new conventional wisdom is that Iran is ten years away from a nuclear weapons. Nine years and six months from now, what will you do then?

***

shortstop:

What has to happen for this guy to be stopped?

The really sad thing here is that I'm almost sure she is referring to Bush.

It's only a sad thing in your garage, Tom.

"Al-Qaeda is sending training and planning experts to help to set up the force and infiltrate members into Iraq with the assistance of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the sources said."

Ah, well, if "the sources" said it then it must be true! After all, they were right about Iraq having WMD....

shortstop made tbrosz sad.

better sing him a lullaby lady.

why would I want to do that, lib?

Seriously, the reason that negotiations with true evil regimes is often less than useful is that they don't keep their bargains. You see, it's kind of part of that "evil" thing.

That's true -- look at how many agreements Bush has broken.

MANUFACTURING A WAR....
Sure don't mean Plame, the CIA WMD, and Iraq?

i think the most disturbing aspect of this is the corporate media's casual embrace of using nukes on iran. check the transcripts from the initial reports of the iranian program, and you'll find blitzer, chris matthews, et al -- the usual cheerleaders -- assuming this is a legitimate option. they were instrumental in pushing the rhetoric to this level and breaking that barrier.

Just looking at who is in this adm and who they keep bringing into positions should tell you all you need to know.

Putting Bolton at the UN as the face of the US...?

Need I say any more?

But it's quite a show, watching the neos semi- seperate themselves from Bush, while minipulating the press to focus the heat on him instead of them, and yet still managing to pull the strings, throw red herrings like Darfu that they could care less about to scatter the public's attention, and bleat about how poorly the Iraq war was handled as they agitate for more war and chaos with Iran.

But now that they have moved into the dem camp we can look forward to having the neos around a long time..unless someone has a few spare silver bullets and wooden stakes they want to put to good use.

Seriously, the reason that negotiations with true evil regimes is often less than useful is that they don't keep their bargains. You see, it's kind of part of that "evil" thing.

And yet we signed agreement upon agreement with the Soviet Union, and continue to sign agreements with Communist China today, both of them "evil regimes" according to Republican definitions of the term. We simply make sure to, as Reagan said, "trust but verify."

The fact is, we negotiate and sign agreements with "evil" regimes all the time, because the ultimate alternative to talking is fighting. As Churchill said, "jaw jaw is better than war war."

It is blindingly evident that the only function negotiations have for Iran, among other nations with similar ambitions, is to buy time while they continue on their current path.

Replace "Iran" with "America" and the above sentence is actually correct.

Tom -

How does this fit into your worldview?

If Iran is as determined to arrive at conflict as the U.S. (supposedly) is, then whats the point of this article. We are stuck in the middle, with IRAN refusing to capitulate to the international community and only the United States being prepared to meet the threat.

I love Kevins language here…

And the rest of us? Stuck in the middle as usual.

There is no middle because IRAN wont offer one. To blame there interagency on some mythical interagency on the U.S. side, and then turn around and play the “stuck in the middle” victim.
I guess moral equivalence never felt so good!
IRAN may get the bomb, but Kevin gets to feel above ALL parties!
But I suppose that’s the point from the beginning.

As Churchill said, "jaw jaw is better than war war."

Yeah, Churchill's main claim to fame during his administration was his ability to nail down great negotiated agreements with evil regimes.

Kevin - Try to get out of your Bush-hating mode for just a few moments, and ponder the question of what Israel should do.

The madman in charge of Iran says Israel should be "wiped off the map." He boasts about devloping nuclear materials. Potentially he will have the ability to nuke Israel.

Now, I know that you, Kevin, usually see everything through your I-Hate-Bush lens.

But if you can just take Bush out of your mind for a few minutes, ask yourself, what should Israel do?

So, when are the American people going to rise up against this? As my friend asked, "Where is the outcry? Is it that so many people STILL do not know what is going on?

I recently had an exchange with the chair of my local Democratic committee regarding impeachment charges brought against Bush, originating at the state level. He said he is reluctant to make impeachment and censorship issues --- that it might hurt our chances in November. I came to the conclusion that the guy isn't very well informed, so I'm sending articles linked by Kevin, Atrios, Kos, etc -- not only to him, but to every member of our committee. They need to know what we're up against.

Manufacturing a war make sense for an American administration loaded with conflicts of interest, like being in the weapons manufacturing business.

As near as I can tell, the Bush administration is doing everything it can to look like it's endorsing diplomacy while simultaneously ensuring that nothing with an actual chance of working is ever put on the table.

The appearance of diplomacy, unlike Iraq, will likely be a minor character. Something much more significant than a failure of diplomacy would be needed take the country to war without significant debate in Congress and in public--for which the answer would undoubtedly be "no--not yet", given Iraq, and that Iran is not yet an imminent threat.

If Bush is really intent on a shooting war with Iran, then a shooting incident will be the match--which is all too likely (or, if you're cynical, easily arranged), given that everyone in the area is armed to the teeth, the proximity of forces, and the density of various players in the Gulf. On the current trajectory, it's almost inevitable. "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

Yeah, Churchill's main claim to fame during his administration was his ability to nail down great negotiated agreements with evil regimes.

Churchill did not, after Poland was attacked by Nazi Germany, respond by invading Sweden and, when that turned to disaster, try to save the situation by cooking up plans to invade Brazil, all the while letting Hitler remain unchecked.

Does Flanders really want to match his spotty understanding of World War II against mine? After all, that hasn't turned out so well for him in the past....

pol

What we are "up against" is a nuclear armed Iran.

Your lack of seriousness WILL only hurt your party in November.

Bush is engaged in a conspiracy with Ahmadinejad.

The madman in charge of Iran says Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Except Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not "in charge of Iran." He's president, but the real power is held by the ruling council of mullahs. The effective head of the government is the Supreme Religious Leader Khameini, while the president is more like a head of state, a figurehead with ceremonial importance but not much political power -- much like Bush nowadays, come to think of it.

Yeah, Churchill's main claim to fame during his administration was his ability to nail down great negotiated agreements with evil regimes.

Apart from Stefan's acute observations, I'd also point out that Churchill's remark comes in the context of waging all-out war. It's clear that Bush and all who sail in her think of war as the answer to every problem. They like it. The point of Churchill's observation is to say "been there, avoid it if you possibly can."

But tbrosz interprets it as "yee haw! Let's kick ass!"

Well, we already know that the Bushies were willing to paint a plane with UN insignia to get Iraq to shoot it down to provoke an invasion.

Of course they are attempting to provoke a war with Iran. They merely need a flimsy pretext.
.

The pressure on Iran is part of a policy of refusing to get hoodwinked like Clinton was by North Korea. They negotiated and signed agreements they had no intention of honoring. Sort of like the USSR and SALT I, which was ignored by Breshnev.

There is actually discussion in conservative circles that Ahmadinejad, the president but really a sock puppet for Ali Khamenei, is trying provoke us into an attack because they fear a popular uprising. I doubt that any attack will occur unless there is firm evidence they are on the verge of a bomb.

As usual, you guys have no clue. Bush Derangement Syndrome strikes again.

Your lack of seriousness WILL only hurt your party in November.

OOOOOOHHHHH! Scary! I'm all aquiver with fear....

Your lack of seriousness WILL only hurt your party in November.

But your lack of seriousness is hurting your party now. If we are in a battle for survival, why is everything business as usual? Why no taxes to pay for the "war"? Why no draft? Why no evidence of learning from 5 years of this nonsense? Why no punishment of the clearly incapable (Rummy, I'm looking at you)?

"This is a battle for the future of the planet! Everybody go shopping!" is a strange philosophy, and it's hurting your side right now

this is similar to the palestine/israel issue ... terrorists on both sides exploiting fear for their own personal, political, and financial advantage, without a concern for actual workable peaceful solutions.

craigie: "This is a battle for the future of the planet! Everybody go shopping!" is a strange philosophy, and it's hurting your side right now

Not to mention "This is a battle for the future of the planet! Everybody but me should go off and fight! After all, somebody has to stay behind to man the keyboards!"

craigie:

How does this fit into your worldview?

I'm not the one with the worldview problem. The Left is painting--hell, bricking--itself into a corner:

The only crisis with Iran is the crisis with the president's public approval ratings. Period. End of story. The Iranians are years, probably as long as a decade away, and possibly even longer from creating even a limited yield nuclear weapon.

So again, what's going to be the plan nine years from now? "In the long run we'll all be dead" is bad enough in leftist economics, it's kind of ironic when dealing with nuclear foreign policy.

So stand up and run on it. "Iran is not a threat. Iran will never be a threat. The leadership of Iran is being unfairly portrayed as radical nutballs, when obviously America is the one run by crazy people. And why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? Israel does."

Why not? This is the official leftist stand in Iraq: if we had just left Iraq alone, everything would have been just fine. As with the Social Security issue, pretending there's no problem at all is sure a lot easier than actually coming up with a workable solution.

Go with it. I want to see the "Harmless Iran" meme in DNC documents, and in speeches in Congress. Heck, let's put a bill prohibiting military action in Iran into the hopper, and see how that runs.

Lots of fun snarky comments here but what are you guys going to do when the first nuc goes off in Iran? More fun snarky posts?
Enjoy

Yeah, Churchill's main claim to fame during his administration was his ability to nail down great negotiated agreements with evil regimes.

Actually, Churchill's main claim to fame was his ability to rally the nation behind him, enlist useful allies, call for shared sacrifice, and wage war competently, efficiently and successfully.

Bush? Not so much.

Please guys. At least change your script a little bit. What you used last time for the sales job to sell us the fiasco will not work again.

Or at least it should not.

So again, what's going to be the plan nine years from now? "In the long run we'll all be dead" is bad enough in leftist economics, it's kind of ironic when dealing with nuclear foreign policy.

Hmmm...then it's kind of too bad that that's the view that Bush subscribes to. Seems it's a popular philosophy not only in leftist economics but in rightist politics:

Asked by Woodward how history would judge the war, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html

From the CIA factbook:

USA: Military expenditures:
$518.1 billion (2005 est.)

IRAN: Military expenditures:
$4.3 billion (2003 est.)

Do some math:

Our military budget is 12,000% larger.

They spend 8 thousandths as much.

At Iran's current rate it will take them 120 years to spend what we spent just this year.

Conclusion:

Only a nation composed of war criminals and evil bullies would regard Iran as a credible threat.

Should we be bombarding the administration with Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August"? I read somewhere that JFK had just finished reading it when the Cuban missile crisis occurred. He chose diplomacy over military action – and backdoor diplomacy at that.

We later learn that the Russian already had nucs in Cuban and the local Russian general would have used them had we invaded Cuba. Kennedy was being pressure to use the military solution but he chose not to do it because he had just finished Tuchman's book and did not want to start WWIII in some third world country.

Of course, the divine comedy that is our current administration would only pull out the sections of the book that would justify their craving to do something masculine like invade instead of something effeminate like diplomacy.

Request of all young men: If you are not going to serve in combat now while you are young, please don't try to make up for it when you get old.

it's amazing, the silliness that comes out when there's a chance to go to war, and it's beyond amazing how little the usual suspects have learned from out excellent adventure in iraq.

the question of what the israelis should do is up to israel, not up to us. That said, the israelis have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and there is no reason to think that mutual assured destruction will fail to work should iran get a bomb. in fact, the iranian point, sotto voce, is the west allows israel to have a nuclear weapon and the west allows india and pakistan to have nuclear weapons.

as for mike k, actually, mike k, we broke the agreement with north korea and then, because bush thinks international relations is a subset of dog training, we did nothing while the north koreans built some (or more - we don't know for sure) nuclear weapons. so what lesson is bush applying?

as for tbrosz, social security isn't a problem now and if it becomes one, we can deal with it. same holds true for iran: the first step would be to engage with them and see if we can bribe them off, which is how we've kept most countries from getting nuclear weapons.

but fitz is the best: in his world, we are already "up against" a nuclear armed iran. talk about your propaganda-clouded mind!

stefan, craigie: awesome work!

"What has to happen for this guy to be stopped?"

Are you referring to Al or Commander Cuckoo?

Or both?

I fear Iran is a done deal, although I would prefer to delay my own personal lift-off for as long as possible.

Have you boys and girls ever thought about the implications of a war with Iran? First off we would be looking at $5.00 to $6.00 per gallon gasoline. Second we would be looking at fighting off human waves in Southern Iraq. Third, the Republicans would never be elected to anything ever again. Fourth, without a UN mandate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would be looking at being tried for war crimes.

This is a wage the dog that makes no sense at all. Why? Well GWB has lost the respect of the American population. A large percentage of the population believe he is a liar. Another large group believe he and his administration are incompetent.

I don't know what they are smoking over at the white house, but thinking that racheting up tensions with Iran is going to improve Bush's poll numbers is a dog that doesn't hunt. He has to go back to basics to accomplish that. How about competently and professionally ending our involvement in Iraq? How about catching Osma Bin Ladin? How about weathering the upcoming hurricane season with style and competent grace?

Until he changes the view Americans have of him, appealing to foreign boggie men will not do Bush much good. His successor maybe, but not him.

So stand up and run on it. "Iran is not a threat. Iran will never be a threat. The leadership of Iran is being unfairly portrayed as radical nutballs, when obviously America is the one run by crazy people. And why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? Israel does."...Go with it. I want to see the "Harmless Iran" meme in DNC documents, and in speeches in Congress. Heck, let's put a bill prohibiting military action in Iran into the hopper, and see how that runs.

Sure, if Republicans will run on the platform of "War With Iran!" Stand up and run on it. "Iran is a threat. Iran will always be a threat. We have to invade Iran to protect Israel." After all, the current war with Iraq is so popular, isn't it?

Go with it. I want to see the "Attack Iran" meme in RNC documents, and in speeches in Congress. Heck, let's put a bill declaring war on Iran into the hopper, and see how that runs.

And hell, go even further. "A vote for Bush is a vote to send your child into street by street combat in Tehran, yeehah!" Call for tax increases to pay for the new war. Start a nationwide GOP campaign to bring back the draft so we have enough men to invade. Have the balls to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Bring 'em on.

Ok- I get it, A bunch of you really hate the Bush Administration/its foreign policy/any sense of moral legitimacy for your country in international affairs.

Never the less…

Iran has restarted its WMD program, its new leader has been engaged in extreme saber rattling, the European, U.N. effort at engagement has not been succesfull.

What should the U.S. be doing?

"Kevin - Try to get out of your Bush-hating mode for just a few moments, and ponder the question of what Israel should do."

I think that's up to the Israelis. But what does it have to do with what the US should do?

Our only hope is that the UN is steadfast in not issuing sanctions while Bush is in the White House. Because violating UN WMD sanctions was Bush's excuse to go to war. If Iran is not violating internationally-imposed sanctions, it's a much tougher sell.

I think this can be a good political issue for the Democrats, and each candidate for Congress has to push on it right away: elect Democrats so Bush cannot go wily-nily into Iran. Get rid of the Republican rubber-stamp that got us into Iraq on false pretenses. Emphasize that the power to go to war lies in Congress, and a Democratic Congress will take that responsibility seriously.

Yeah! What stefan just said.

tbrosz -- Stop with the strawmen already. No one is saying we should just leave Iran alone. The question is the imminence of the threat and what to do about it. Military action at this point is unnecessary and would be reckless.

Military action against Iran would have extremely profound consequences--likely far beyond what we have seen with Iraq. That is not an action that should be undertaken without the informed consent and agreement of the country; nor is it an action that should be allowed to happen accidently. Such action demands at least as much--and I would hope considerably more--consideration than Iraq.

Unfortunately the current sabre rattling (on both sides), coupled with geography and the proximity of forces (not to mention Iraq) increases the probability of a spontaneous conflict. That would be really, really, really unfortunate, not to mention stupid.

I don't know what they are smoking over at the white house, but thinking that racheting up tensions with Iran is going to improve Bush's poll numbers is a dog that doesn't hunt. He has to go back to basics to accomplish that. How about competently and professionally ending our involvement in Iraq? How about catching Osma Bin Ladin? How about weathering the upcoming hurricane season with style and competent grace?

Those are all tasks that require planning, preparation and execution, that need intelligence, dedication and hard work -- all qualities which the Bush regime lacks. It's hard work, and as we all know Bush shrinks from hard work the way a vampire shrinks from garlic. Far easier to conjure up a monster in the closet to terrify the children.

What should the U.S. be doing?

Duh. We need to invade Iceland, pronto. Well, you do. I have a family to raise.

Lots of fun snarky comments here but what are you guys going to do when the first nuc goes off in Iran? More fun snarky posts?

Assuming you mean nuclear test detonation, US response might range anywhere from public grumbling out the side of our mouth to public embracing of Iran as a strong ally. At least, judging by reaction to India and Pakistan joining the nuclear club.

Which is probably why Iranians have no intention of giving up pursuit of the bomb. There's no downside, and plenty of upside. Even if we launch airstrikes, the lesson will be "if we had the bomb by now, they wouldn't have attacked. Build it faster before the next round of strikes come."

See, a large part of our problem is that we don't really believe in halting nuclear proliferation. If, on the other hand, we gave up most (hell, why not all) our nukes, and withheld support from Israel, Pakistan, India, and other countries that have gone nuclear outside the NPT, then maybe we'd be getting somewhere. If not, well, Iran's not the only country pursuing nukes. If we don't start taking non-proliferation seriously, sooner or later more and more countries will have them, someone will get nervous, and....

"So again, what's going to be the plan nine years from now? "In the long run we'll all be dead" is bad enough in leftist economics, it's kind of ironic when dealing with nuclear foreign policy."

MAD worked well with the old USSR. I believe it is working with China (although we are letting them win the economic game.) If the Iranian people are disgruntled with their leaders let's wait it out for a while to see if they will / can act. As we learned again (and again, and again) in Iraq, it doesn't matter what the people think of their leaders if the country is attacked they will put aside their differences and all fight the attacker. So, my nine year plan for Iran? Wait 5 years and see what happens. We can nuke 'em then if they are still a problem.

LM Wanderer

When you guys give me a serious answer about how to deal with Pakistan - a much more serious, much more imminent threat - then I'll take your "look out behind you!" jibberish much more seriously.

It is difficult to tell whether the trolls here are merely retarded- the result of some mad genetic experiment that bred successive generations of Klansmen, Nazis, various drooling idiots, psychopaths, criminals, degenerates, and illiterates of every stripe - or whether they are competing with their Bush masters to see who can be the most transparently dishonest.

So one fuckwit above says we should attack any country that says Israel should be destroyed. That single requirement would cause us to be at war with most of the Middle East and not a few countries in other parts of the world. Nutjobs like the one who opined this nonsense don't read history books.

Then another fuckwit chimes in that Iran already has nuclear weapons. You just can't buy stupidity like this.

Yet another fool bleats that Iran is cleverly trying to trick us into nuking them- to prevent the inevitable popular uprising. This fuckwit knows nothing about Iran, but seems to be operating on the Bush I/Cheney theory that an uprising against the poeple Bush dislikes is always just around the corner. With the ponies.

Finally the most intellectually inept and dishonest of the trolls trots out a host of straw arguments that he once again ascribes to people who aren't making them. Incapable of arguing with what people are actually saying, this fuckwit routinely resorts to making shit up.

Nowhere is the acknowledgment of one simple fact found- lacking any other leg to stand on, the Republican electoral strategy for 2006 (just as it was for 2004) is to simply attack another country.

It's amazing how easily it is to whip up fear amongst lily-livered, tough-talking pussies like tbrosz, Al, Big River,et al. Of course, they all seem more concerned with how another war is going to play politically than whether it is a war we should fight.

From what I understand, there are already American boots on the ground in Iran. If you boys are so sure this war needs to be fought, and fought now, have the courage of your convictions and join the special forces and get your asses over there. I'll respect you for it. Honestly.

Otherwise, I'm led to believe that you engage in warmongering because your think it sells with the American public. And since that's most likely the case, it makes you nothing but wantonly cruel, despicable pieces of subhmuan shit.

So come on, boys, get over there. I'm waiting from your posts from the front lines. But I'm not holding my breath.

I have not found the rhetoric of the United States to be extreme or provocative at this juncture. Obviously we are trying to prod negotiations. Iran’s leader seems to be making the case for international action without our help (lets allow him to continue).

France pretty bluntly hinted at the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, I believe this is a orchestrated joint effort that both liberal/conservative American/European can agree upon.

Why the freak out?

fitz, what you call the "freakout" is twofold: a.) it's quite evident (bolten even told time magazine) that the amping up of the "threat" from iran is a political and not a strategic or diplomatic action, which 4 years after the regime imposed iraq on us the same way is sickening; b.) as tony soprano told phil last night, "let's not make a beef where there isn't one." There are many options about dealing with iran: threatening to use nuclear weapons on them shouldn't be one of them.

When you guys give me a serious answer about how to deal with Pakistan - a much more serious, much more imminent threat - then I'll take your "look out behind you!" jibberish much more seriously.

Iraq: a military dictatorship that has invaded its neighbors, committed genocide against its own people, has no WMD and no ties to Al Qaeda.

The Republican solution? We must invade, there's no time to lose!

Pakistan: a military dictatorship that has invaded its neighbors, committed genocide against its own people, actually has nuclear weapons, supported the Taliban, sponsors terrorism in its neighbor India, has extensive ties to Al Qaeda and shelters bin Laden, has sold nuclear technology to North Korea, and has large parts of its intelligence apparatus that are sympathetic to the fundamentalist cause.

The Republican solution? We're best friends forever!

The only place I'm seeing a lot of talk about invading Iran is blogs, opinion columns, and other running around in circles declaring Bush is about to invade Iran. Probably with atomic weapons.

Forget any actual policies, negotiations in process, or what's really going on. The Real Truth is second-hand rumors brought home from cocktail parties from unnamed sources.

Nowhere is the acknowledgment of one simple fact found- lacking any other leg to stand on, the Republican electoral strategy for 2006 (just as it was for 2004) is to simply attack another country.

Now who's making things up?

Ok- I get it, A bunch of you really hate the Bush Administration/its foreign policy/any sense of moral legitimacy for your country in international affairs.

No! No! No!

What you get is totally false.

Our reluctance to support any attack on Iran is based upon objective empirical data which leads us to conclude that (a) the administration's rationale for the war cannot be taken at its face value and (b) the administration is likely to botch up anything it attempts even if we supported it.

I have an idea Tbrosz. How about finishing up the 'wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan before attacking Iran? How about getting our army rested, refitted, restocked and equipment repaired first. Can't we afford a couple of years before we attack Iran? Or do we need to do it before the 2006 elections? Afterall, if the Democrats take back the house they might have a few questions for GW Bush and friends.

tbrosz wrote: I'm not the one with the worldview problem.

Then why post so many straw man arguments and general bullshit in support of your worldview, tbrosz? Your constant intellectual dishonesty is an admission of what we already know -- that there's no honest way to defend the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence and corruption. That you continue to try, however dishonestly, because Bush dishes out those sweet, sweet tax cuts is conclusive proof of your worldview problem, tbrosz. Shame on you.

Flanders: So again, what's going to be the plan nine years from now? "In the long run we'll all be dead" is bad enough in leftist economics, it's kind of ironic when dealing with nuclear foreign policy.

Washington Post: Asked by Woodward how history would judge the war, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

I wonder if we'll get any comment from Ned about the fact that this country's nuclear foreign policy is in the hands of a man who subscribes to the "leftist economics" view that "we'll all be dead"?

Why is this even an issue.
We are not going to attack much less invade Iraq any time soon.
And why would it help Bush to do so?

Everyone get real.

"It's part of a considered, and wrongheaded, view of America's foreign policy which holds that reaching diplomatic agreements with "evil" regimes is always a bad thing. The preferred method is the use of force and intimidation."

Ummm. Uzebekistan? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Pakistan? Nigeria? Syria? Where on earth would one get teh idea that we are "unwilling" to break bread with "evil" regimes?

No, we are unwilling to work with regimes that won't let us make a fortune off their populaces and natural resources. Saddam would still own Kuwait if he would have offered to let Exxon pump the oil.

fitz, we already invaded iraq, but assuming you meant "iran," it's not clear whether or not "invading" iran is going to help bush.

it is clear that the gop thinks that talking tough about all options on the table and creating a climate in which invading or attacking iran is regarded as a legitimate choice in the near-term is going to help bush.

Fitz:

Everyone get real.

Good luck with that one.

tbrosz: Forget any actual policies, negotiations in process, or what's really going on.

Not forgotten or ignored. Nor is the track record of this administration.

Given that record, preemptive deliberation and a high degree of skepticism is justified and prudent.

...any sense of moral legitimacy for your country in international affairs.

Did you really just write this? Holy Cow!

Iranian intransigence at the IAEA isn't a problem, but an opportunity for war.

This is a part of the new "tough" foreign policy by the Democratic party. "Iranian intransigence at the IAEA isn't a problem." It fits with the Kerry/Harkin belief that the Sandinistas were not a "problem" in Nicaragua.

Iranian intransigence at the IAEA is a problem, and nothing short of war is likely to prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons. So if you think it's a good idea to let them have nuclear weapons then say so outright. they have articulated a desire to have nuclear weapons, and they have implemented a program to acquire nuclear weapons, and they are continuing their program to acquire nuclear weapons.

For me, the dog that isn't barking is the fact that no one is looking at what the effects of an international sanction regime AGAINST the US would be on the US. Are American corporations prepared to have all their overseas assets seized and money frozen? Are the prepared to have their overseas markets served by Chinese factories churning out US-company products without any of the profits coming back to the US? Are US citizens prepared to have their overseas travel rights severely curtailed?

This is the logical end of the US using nukes against Iran. Why isn't it being discussed?

there are eerie similarities between presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad and their respective fundamentalist followers.

This is absurd. Ahmedinejad sent hundreds of thousands of poorly trained and poorly armed children to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, and has promised to eliminate the state of Israel entire. Bush has participated in two open contested presidential elections and has permitted millions of people to participate in hundreds of public demonstrations in opposition to his policies. He permits highly spirited debates about his policies in all communications media, whereas Iran bans tv disks and most radio and tv, and monitors other media religiously.

What's eerily similar is the way the far left in the US thinks that every American administration since Grover Cleveland has been as fascist as the Nazis. Bush isn't even as bad as Nixon (price controls, dirty tricks, enemies list, supborning of perjury), though Bush does have a Lincolnian feeling that he has been selected by God for important work in his lifetime.

republicrat: Bush ... has permitted millions of people to participate in hundreds of public demonstrations in opposition to his policies. He permits highly spirited debates about his policies in all communications media

How very generous of him. Should we thank Bush for this, or should we cling to that silly old Constitution thing?

Bush isn't even as bad as Nixon

Such praise.

Bush does have a Lincolnian feeling that he has been selected by God for important work in his lifetime

Obviously Bush has the better claim. After all, 9/11 changed everything and puts that little "Civil War" thing into perspective, doesn't it?

The question is:
Which is more moral?

Making a deal with an evil dictator?

Or killing tens of thousands of innocent civillians and plunging a nation into chaos and disrupting the world's economy, and giving war profiteers a huge lump of cash at the public's expense?

He permits highly spirited debates about his policies in all communications media, whereas Iran bans tv disks and most radio and tv, and monitors other media religiously.

Oh, Bush permits that, does he? And here I thought it was the First Amendment and the rule of law which allowed that.

The choice of phrasing is telling.

Three interests would benefit from a military confrontation with Iran:

1. Oil companies, as it would cause a steep and possibly long term rise in oil prices.

2. Defense contractors, as it would spur further orders from the Pentagon.

3. Republicans and the Bush Administration, on the assumption that a climate of fear about a supposed Iranian threat and related military action would create a rally 'round the flag effect that would be useful to Republicans in the November elections.

tbrosz:
"As with the Social Security issue, pretending there's no problem at all is sure a lot easier than actually coming up with a workable solution."

Um, tbrosz, the GOP's proposed SS reform was revenue neutral, a fact that no one in the Bush administration denied. In fact, the huge cost of initiating a partial privatization would only have led to other budgetary problems.

The plan had absolutely nothing to do with addressing the program's long-term solvency. It was designed as an experiment in Bush's focus-group named "ownership society" - a vision that the American public has firmly rejected.

This might be tangential to the Iran issue, but (a) you brought it up and (b) it helps illustrate the way your ilk thinks.

Ahmedinejad sent hundreds of thousands of poorly trained and poorly armed children to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war

WTF?

But if you can just take Bush out of your mind for a few minutes, ask yourself, what should Israel do?
Posted by: BigRiver on May 1, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, 10 years from now, Iran may or may NOT be able to develop a crude, low-yeild nuclear device - probably NOT as a working payload on any missile they are likely to develop in the next 10 years.

Without above-ground testing, it is also very VERY unlikely that they will ever develop compact warhead designs capable of thermonuclear-equivalent yeilds.

Frankly, I'm not worried about Israel, because they RIGHT NOW have an antiballistic missile defense system that is EASILY capable of intercepting anything Iran can launch.

And if Iran DOES someday try to nuke Israel, well, Israel can just nuke them back.

I don't see why this is any concern of ours, because by the time this becomes a threat, the middle-east's oil reserves will be bone-dry. And then, nobody's going to give a crap who does what in that region.

republicrat: "This is absurd. Ahmedinejad sent hundreds of thousands of poorly trained and poorly armed children to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war..."

Are you perhaps under the impression that Ahmedinejad has been president of Iraq for more than one year and that the president controls the military of Iran and that Iraq did not start the war by Invading Iran?

Perhaps it is you who is absurd.

Another link for you Tom

Tell me that's just paranoia...

republicrat: Iranian intransigence at the IAEA is a problem, and nothing short of war is likely to prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The necessity for war is far from clear at this point. Hussein was coerced into accepting inspections, without all-out war; those inspections worked. Iran is a different story, and it wouldn't be so simple; nevertheless, it's worth serious consideration.

In any case, for those who consider force a viable option, it's also worth noting that limited strikes will delay, but will not stop Iran from obtaining nukes. Or is the plan to invade, force regime change, and stick around to ensure a continued friendly and cooperative regime (nevermind democracy)?

And then what? Before considering the use of force, the administration needs to show a credible plan for dealing with aftermath. The bottom line is that all the options suck; the use of force is no more a "solution" than doing nothing.

republicrat: Iranian intransigence at the IAEA is a problem, and nothing short of war is likely to prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The necessity for war is far from clear at this point. Hussein was coerced into accepting inspections, without all-out war; those inspections worked. Iran is a different story, and it wouldn't be so simple; nevertheless, it's worth serious consideration.

In any case, for those who consider force a viable option, it's also worth noting that limited strikes will delay, but will not stop Iran from obtaining nukes. Or is the plan to invade, force regime change, and stick around to ensure a continued friendly and cooperative regime (nevermind democracy)?

And then what? Before considering the use of force, the administration needs to show a credible plan for dealing with aftermath. The bottom line is that all the options suck; the use of force is no more a "solution" than doing nothing.

oops. sorry for the double post.

Ahmedinejad sent hundreds of thousands of poorly trained and poorly armed children to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war

Wow.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; born October 28, 1956), is the sixth president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. His term began on August 3, 2005.

[...]

The Iran-Iraq War...was a war between the armed forces of Iraq and Iran lasting from September 1980 to August 1988.

So, either Ahmadinejad was superceding the Iranian government and sending people into battle at the tender age of 24,

or

He was issuing orders to the military with the codicil that he would be president in 25 years, so they better get crackin'.

I'd laugh out loud, but the magnitude of stupidity involved here is sobering.

Yes, we must invade the terrorism-sponsoring oil-rich nation which is developing nuclear weapons! There is no alternative - these sorts of things never get worked out over time through negotiation. Military action, and that right soon, is our only option!

What I learned from this foreign minister last night and a room full of extremely smart people is that there are forces escalating America's and Iran's tensions — and a single serious miscalculation could dramatically alter America's position in the world — and yet miscalculations are already abounding.
~~~

Indeed. I was readong this HR on the IRAN FREEDOM SUPPORT ACT, they want to work with this Guy, AL Qadeer.
Yupp iTs true.
http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr282.html
(4) efforts to bring a halt to the nuclear weapons program of Iran, including steps to end the supply of nuclear components or fuel to Iran, should be intensified, with particular attention focused on the cooperation regarding such program--

(A) between the Government of Iran and the Government of the Russian Federation; and

(B) between the Government of Iran and individuals from China, Malaysia, and Pakistan, including the network of Dr. Abdul Qadeer (A. Q.) Khan; and
~~~~~~~~~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
Quadeer, Qadir or Gadeer and his given names are often abbreviated to A.Q.). In January 2004, he confessed to having been involved in a clandestine international network of nuclear weapons technology proliferation from Pakistan to Libya, Iran and North Korea. On February 5, 2004, the President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, announced that he had pardoned Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.
~~~
Anyway This Freedom Support act [Jan 2006] is much like the one Brought against Iraq in 1998.
And Hell I knew about this since Jan 2006.
Where do you MSM'ers get your Info?

Yes Smart people at some Dinner are talking about that what has been in the HR for some time, Yet I don't get invited to these Dinners! ANd Im Pissed!!
=)

Secret Forces!! ESCALATING !!!

BOO!! SCARE! BOO!

Yeh Its 'Al Qadeer',
BF Secret!, Smart People!! DRUNK FOOD!, YAWN.

Jefff/Stranger- no fair! You know there are precious few books available at the special school that houses republirat and, alas, republirat can't read any of them.

ckelly:

Ahmedinejad sent hundreds of thousands of poorly trained and poorly armed children to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war

WTF?

I believe this was a somewhat muddled reference to this article.

S Ra:

Good article on Libya:

Gadhafi's decision to abandon efforts to develop a nuclear weapon came after nine months of private negotiations with British and U.S. diplomats. Analysts agree that Gadhafi's motivation may have been a response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a country thought to have possessed weapons of mass destruction by American officials. Gadhafi may have feared a similar fate.

The whole rest of the article is pretty much a textbook example of how useful "agreements" with people like Gadhafi without lethal force to back them up.

craigie:

Another link for you Tom. Tell me that's just paranoia...

Yes, craigie, that's just paranoia. I'm supposed to take an imagined scenario as a serious indicator?

I'm supposed to take an imagined scenario as a serious indicator?

Is it imagined? So far, it's running true to the program. Remember, that was written in January. Seems pretty up-to-date to me. Joe Klein, for example, is following the "liberal hawk" script precisely.

Posted by Haz407
tbrosz -- Stop with the strawmen already. No one is saying we should just leave Iran alone. The question is the imminence of the threat and what to do about it. Military action at this point is unnecessary and would be reckless.

Are you kidding?! That's EXACTLY what they're saying. Well, that with a little "Iran isn't the problem, the terrorist in the White House is the problem!" thrown in.

Keep up with that crazy rhetoric, libbies! Man, the 2006 mid-terms are going to be fun.

tbrosz: The whole rest of the article is pretty much a textbook example of how useful "agreements" with people like Gadhafi without lethal force to back them up.

Ah, so the latest rationalization for why we invaded Iraq (with a non-existent nuke program) was to get Libya (with a real nuke program) to stop.

I guess some of these political/military strategies are over my head. I would have thought that a better way to do that would have been to attack Libya. Some advantages:

1. It wouldn't have left our troops in the midst of millions of Shiites, bordering on Iran, should action against Iran ever become necessary.

2. Logistically simpler. The Strait of Gibraltar is less treachorous than the Strait of Hormuz. Libya also has more coastline.

3. Tradition. "... to the shores of Tripoli" and all that. Of course Jefferson really did have a legitimate beef.

alex, you and your troublesome "facts" and "logic" - where has that commie tripe ever got us?

Apparently Kevin didn't catch Steve's sotto voce. Think about what Steve is saying when he says "a single serious miscalculation could dramatically alter America's position in the world". We're basically Number One- any dramatic alteration is not going to be an improvement.

Steve was describing a situatin in which the Iranian thinks $10/gallon gas will make us blink- and other brinkmongers don't think it will.

How many of your neighbors will be able to pay their mortgage after a month of $10/gallon gas? I'm guessing this could cause the collapse of the housing bubble, with a subsequent collapse of the homebuilding industry, and quite possibly a worldwide economic crisis ending the reign of the dollar.

Good times, good times.

If Bush and his Republican supporters truly believe in fighting the war on terror, then he would seriously consider military options against Iran. If Bush truly believed in eliminating gathering threats, then he would seriously consider military options against Iran. And if he does, I'll actually have more respect for him. As it stands now, it appears Iraq was fought for reasons other than the war on terror, so I totally don't believe that Bush is seriously considering an attack on Iran. Yes, Iran clearly is a bigger threat in terms of terrorism. But clearly, Bush is not interested in truly fighting the war on terror. I call bullsh*t on this.. I completely don't believe Bush will lift a finger militarily on Iran. And it appears the leadership of Iran thinks likewise.. which is why they're not backing down, and willing to call Bush's bluff.

'Mike K' posted:

"The pressure on Iran is part of a policy of refusing to get hoodwinked like Clinton was by North Korea. They negotiated and signed agreements they had no intention of honoring."

President Clinton wasn't "hoodwinked" by North Korea, as it was the Bushies who violated the 1994 agreement, not North Korea.
.

the brits, of course, think that it was their years of diplomatic efforts that took care of the problem of Libya, not the johnny-come-lately invasion of iraq. but you wouldn't know that from tbrosz.

as for republicrat, i can't let it go by: bush, in fact, combines the worst of harding, johnson, and nixon. the idea that he is not as bad as nixon is quite deranged: indeed, at least nixon actually had a policy intelligence as distinct from mr. gut instinct and his shallow gambles.

For an interesting an hetrodox point of view, from the West, at any rate read Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons?

howard:

the brits, of course, think that it was their years of diplomatic efforts that took care of the problem of Libya, not the johnny-come-lately invasion of iraq. but you wouldn't know that from tbrosz.

Talk to S Ra. I just quoted the article he linked. Gaddafi himself is also reported to have mentioned Iraq as a motivation.

Was the outing of Plame part of it?

Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material intro Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson's cover was blown, the administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well.

Mentioned at TPM Muckraker
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000520.php
and Raw story
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.html

Happened on Hardball, rush transcript is included in the Raw Story coverage, but I don't know where they got it... It'll show up here eventually:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

tbrosz, you post the cite, you own what it says. this isn't instanitwit-land where you can claim that it was merely interesting reading. people who know the situation know that the deal was the culmination of a lengthy period of cultivation. you can't say the invasion of iraq had nothing to do with it - we just can't no - but it's impossible to ascribe the primary basis of the deal to the invasion of iraq.

Top reasons for Gaddafi to quit, in no particular order: (1) having your nuclear supplier rolled up and rat you out; (2) being caught red-handed with a shipment of centrifuge parts; (3) Iraq; (4) diplomacy; (5) sanctions.

'tbrosz' posted:

"Gaddafi himself is also reported to have mentioned Iraq as a motivation."

"Reported to have" ? By Berlusconi ?

You can't be THAT gullible.

Qaddafi offered to turn his WMD over to the Clinton administration in 1998. President Clinton agreed, but told him to wait until after he had settled the Pan Am 103 matter first. Of course, the Republicans then drug out the Pan Am matter until after President Clinton left office.
.

We're not stuck in the middle, Kev, but on the edge of a cliff.

Everyone should just start learning Mandarin now, because the American Century is over.

What I want to know is...

...Why should Iran, DPNK, or any other nation bother to comply with the IAEA now anyhow?

We showed that in our dealings that we don't care what the results are.

craigie: Another link for you Tom

Tell me that's just paranoia...

Tom didn't appreciate it, but I do. In between the cryin'.

Actually, the real story is that Valerie Plame might have been about to discover that the Russians selling centrifuge technology to Iran had been secretly given the greenlight by representatives of a US front company, supposedly an oil exploration outfit called NuCasp, but really a parallel intelligence outfit set up by the Office of the Vice President. The goal was to ensure that real centrifuge technology would be in place in Iran to provide a casu belli which would't collapse like the bogus WMD excuse in Iraq, to justify an eventual invasion to unseat the Iranian regime. The attempt to smear Wilson was to some extent a feint to provide an apparent excuse to blow Plame's cover and get her off the Iranian WMD desk before she figured out the NuCasp operation.

Okay, I made that up. But it has truthiness, doesn't it?

I'm guessing this could cause the collapse of the housing bubble,

too late

There are forces outside of Iran and the US that are likely stoking this, behind the scenes, and who will benefit greatly if a conflict breaks out.

"There are forces outside of Iran and the US that are likely stoking this, behind the scenes, and who will benefit greatly if a conflict breaks out."

Unfortunately, those forces don't include the vast majority of humans on planet earth.

Once again liberals have shown they are not serious about destroying Al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies like Iran.
Posted by: Al on May 1, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK
AL AL AL.
900 billion a year is made from arms sales.

CRS-3
LEADING PURCHASERS OF U.S. DEFENSE ARTICLES & SERVICES
TOTAL VALUES OF AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED
(In current U.S. dollars, rounded to nearest 10 million or 10th of a billion)
NEAR EAST
AGREEMENTS
1997-2000
NEAR EAST
AGREEMENTS
2001-2004
NEAR EAST
AGREEMENTS
2004
1 U.A.E. $6.8 billion* 1 Egypt $5.7 billion 1 Saudi Arabia 1.6 billion
2 Egypt $5.5 billion 2 Israel $4.4 billion 2 Egypt $1.4 billion
3 Israel $4.9 billion 3 Saudi Arabia $3.8 billion 3 Israel $600 millio