But Kennedy had to pretend that he had stared them down. The American public didn't know for quite some time that a deal was made involving American concessions.

Actually, Kruschev didn't mean every word of "we will bury you." That quote is now generally considered to be a poor translation of a statement that is better translated as "We will outlast you."

See http://www.answers.com/topic/we-will-bury-you

The American public didn't know for quite some time that a deal was made involving American concessions.

True. And we've also already made concessions toward UBL and his jihadi pals; bin Laden wanted no American military presence in the land of the two holiest cities in Islam, and he pretty much got it.

Oh, yeah, that and we didn't kill him either.

But Kennedy had to pretend that he had stared them down.

Ah, if only we currently had a President who did the intelligent thing in private and only pretended to be an incompetent boob in public.

With a track record this bad, why should we pay attention to the same old hysterical siren song this time?

fear sells. and the simpering ninnies of the right (just like those who will soon fill up these comments) wallow in fear. they crave it. they will invent an enemy, if they have to. but they have to have an enemy to fear.

And now that I think about it, our excessive paranoia in that regard may hold a lesson for this Iranian situation too. Saddam claimed that he had WMD out of egotism and a possibly rational desire to intimidate his neighbors. Given what we know of Ahmedenijad's populist, nationalist public personality, he might be experiencing some of the same pressure. Everything we now read about the Iranian nuclear program suggests that they aren't making fast progress (granted, most everything we read about Saddam's program before the war was wrong, and this may be too, in the opposite direction), and yet Ahmedenijad keeps drawing as much attention to it as he can.

In 1980, we thought Reagan stared down the Iranians to get the hostages back.

Most of all, whatever our tactical blunders or even our moral ones, we had a strategy for dealing with the communists: it was called containment, and it worked.

What is our strategy in this struggle?

Sullivan is distancing himself from the Iraq fiasco, but at the same time falling into the very same alarmist pattern that led him to support the Iraq fiasco in the first place.

So ask yourself: With a track record this bad, why should we pay attention to the same old hysterical siren song this time?

Given that there's really nothing we can do to stop it, I'm going to invest heavily in Halliburton. I'll donate the profits to Democratic election campaigns. Happy?

Thank you Mr. Drum, Prof. Chomsky would probably agree with you. Senator Leiberman will not nor will the DLC. They want Jay's vote.

they will invent an enemy, if they have to. but they have to have an enemy to fear.
Posted by: cleek on September 6, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

This is because deep down inside, they know they cannot compete on an intellectual or competence level. It all has to be about power and control, and using force to get their way, and repress anyone who might represent a threat, and lying to get others to go along with them.

Since when did the Soviet Union encourage its followers to kill themselves - and others - to achieve salvation? Isn't the ideology of martyrdom at least A LITTLE different from the shoe-banging at the UN?

Just because Iraq has been a fiasco doesn't give you license to throw up your hands and consign every scenario to the Iraq template or accuse every conservative of over-reacting when they point out that some of the more, shall we say, energetic, commentary issuing from the Middle East.

Excellent Kevin to make absolutely clear that Sully is still a fool. Ignore the fact that I was wrong on Iraq - Iran is the great Satan! And the same idiots who brought us disaster in Iraq are now going to be able to handle a far bigger mess in Iran! Yeah!

What a F***ing idiot.

Seriously, we Americans forget how hard it was to do the right thing after WW II - resist the Soviets without blowing up the World. Truman in retrospect was a hero. Funded the rebuilding of Europe. Set up alliances to contain the Soviets. Fought Korea to stop the invasion. And fired idiot generals who advocated using nukes again.

It wasn't at all easy, Kevin, you are absolutely right - many Americans want to go back to being isolationists. But some far-sighted Americans knew better. And the right wing twits weren't the ones.

Poor Sully...It's gotta be hard to recognize reality and still appease his conservative readership...When he finally pulls a David Brock, he's gonna feel so good...

Drum:

Shouldn't we have learned our lesson by now?

You'd think, but with around 38% of Americans still thinking Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, I'm not suprised that some of us haven't.

I've always felt that, post-Reagan era, Iran was ripe for greater inclusion into the international community. Apparently Russia and China feel similarly.

yet Ahmedenijad keeps drawing as much attention to it as he can.

I think you mean the American media oligarchy keeps drawing as much attention to Ahmadinejad and Iran's phantom nuclear weapons as it can.

This is because deep down inside, they know they cannot compete on an intellectual or competence level.

Damn, the truth hurts. I winced at that one and I'm on the other side.

I guess that's why so many people voted for a guy primarily because he was the kind of guy you could have a beer with.

He was the avatar of their mediocrity.

And now that I think about it, our excessive paranoia in that regard may hold a lesson for this Iranian situation too. ... and yet Ahmedenijad keeps drawing as much attention to it as he can.

Look at those who might threaten Iran:
US (presense in Persian Gulf) - Judeo/Christian - nuclear arms
Isreal (putting subs out) - Jewish - nuclear arms
Pakistan (bordering state) - Sunni - nuclear arms

Hell yes, the Shiite state in Iran wants some deterence - the US and Isreal, at least, have made it clear in the past that no excuse is too small to justify an attack if they so choose.

Maybe some diplomacy and restraint might work better than bullying, if we want to stop the spread of nuclear arms.

Just because Iraq has been a fiasco doesn't give you license to throw up your hands and consign every scenario to the Iraq template

where did anyone do that ?

To fight wars that diplomacy will not fix takes manpower. Our all volunteer army (or contracted warriors) must constantly be revitalized.

Here is a story of what just happened in Cleveland,OH....is this the end to the means?

here

New target for recruiters: Elementary school?

Andrew Sullivan is a pompous blowhard. I'll give him a smidgen of credit for recognizing the folly that is Iraq, but he continues to criticize those of us who were against it from the beginning, and refuses to apologize for labeling liberals and Iraq critics as a "fifth column".

I'm amazed that people give a crap what he has to say.

Religious leaders, be they Christian, jew or Muslim, have two things in common. They are all politicians, and they are all practical men. They don't want to give up power. They will never fight to the death. They might ask their followers to die for the cause, but they won't voluntarily die themselves.

We have thousands of hydrogen weapons. I suspect we can deter the mullahs from any mischief.

Shouldn't we send the hawks packing and instead figure out more sensible ways to react to our global problems? Shouldn't we have learned our lesson by now?

Good gracious, what a rhetorical question. Answer: Yes.

And negotiating with theo-fascists is a mug's game. Their God does not negotiate. And they are nothing if not faithful to their God.

This sort of pap from Sullivan is so boring. It’s childish. He still wants to be a strong-no-nonsense–applier-of-denigrating-labels, then dismiss anybody to whom he applies the label.

By all means Andrew, we trust you to create the label (theo- fascists), then apply it to the appropriate people so that we know who is hopelessly dangerous and must be killed or imprisoned.

Our all volunteer army (or contracted warriors) must constantly be revitalized.Posted by: avahome on September 6, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Either that, or the corporations who need security provided in these zones can just go pay the going market rate for guys willing to risk getting shot and blown up. (hint: that rate is many orders of magnatude higher than what we pay GI's - not to mention the fact that the taxpayers are paying, not the corporations).

I guess that's why so many people voted for a guy primarily because he was the kind of guy you could have a beer with.Posted by: trex on September 6, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think I could have a beer with that pathetic fratboi poseur.
He clears his own brush, and does endo's on his mountain bike? So what? The twit can't even complete a sentence in english. And he was a cheerleader in college. And he failed to bring home Osama's head on a pike.

The Iranian regime is no longer genuinely religiously fanatic. They talk the talk because that is what justifies the mullahs lording it over everyone else, but they have long since stopped walking their talk. And the Iranian people know it.
People in much of the Islamic world have the fantasy that life would be better and more meaningful with an Islamist regime, but the Iranians know that an Islamist regime just means that the hypocrites skimming off the cream wear robes instead of suits.
Religious fanaticism is a much greater factor among some of our "allies", such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. (Oh the trouble we could save ourselves if we would offer to fund proper educations for all of Pakistan. Not cheap, but when genuinely suicidal fanatics run a Pakistan with nukes, we will look back at an opportunity missed.)

What was it General Boinksmen had to say about our God vs. theirs?

The General and Mr. Sullivan would make a great couple.

I would like to see a couples match: Gen. Boinksmen and Sullivan vs. Plame and Wilson.

Who's god would win?

Game theory posits rational actors. If one actor is not rational, then it's impossible to determine a rational response to them; ergo any response that presumes that they will do the most radical/insane/dangerous thing is perfectly rational.

To call an opponent insane is too often a prelude to doing something irrational in response. I'm just so weary of it.

Speaking of which, I've heard that game theory models that work nicely for political science and economics don't work so well for martyrdom. Can anybody validate that idea? If Iran could be legitimately categorized as a martyr, then an irrational response is justified - but it's abundantly clear that this is completely, senselessly, wrong.

When he finally pulls a David Brock, he's gonna feel so good...

Now, that's funny and plausible.

I don't think Kevin is either ignorant or a liar. I think he, unlike many Democrats, is trying to come up with some kind of national security policy that makes some kind of sense. He doesn't pooh-pooh the threat from the jihadists. And he is right that Iran is where the rubber meets the road. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback on Iraq, now that we know that Hussein was bluffing about having WMD; Iran is a tougher case because we have to make decisions with imperfect information where the consequences of making the wrong decision can be severe. And I think he understands that a nuclear armed Iran would present a new and different kind of threat than we faced with the Soviet Union. No one thinks that Iran is going to launch missiles at the US for no reason. But it might slip a few nukes to its proxies around the world who might attack the US or US allies in a way that would give Iran plausible deniability. (I trust that the folks here remember that Iranian agents planted bombs in Argentina a while back that killed many people.) Or it might launch missiles at Israel or other US allies in the mid-East or Europe. It might even threaten to fire missiles at the US to deter the US from defending Israel or our other allies.

But I still have no clue what Kevin is proposing. He says we should negotiate with Iran. Negotiate what? Iran has openly defied the UN Security Council's insistence that it suspend efforts to make weapons-grade uranium. Are we supposed to negotiate that? What do we say to them? Does Kevin suggest that we offer to pay Iran to give up uranium enrichment? Offer to help them enrich uranium? Offer assurances that we won't invade Iran, ever, under any circumstances? Give us a clue, Kevin, what the hell you're talking about. Negotiating is more than talking, you have to be willing to give up something to get something. What would you give up to get Iran to give up enriching uranium?

Drum's version of that event is a fairy tale. He is either ignorant or a liar. In any event he is not to be believed.
Posted by: mhr on September 6, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

I think you're posting on the wrong blog, mhr.

Most of us are here because we believe Kevin. And we're smart enough to check facts. Your brand of putrid spew might be more at home on LGF or NewRepublic. We'd all appreciate it if you'd go post over there. Or start your own blog.
Trying to convince Kevin's readers on Kevin's blog that he's a liar is pretty stupid. Only Kevin can do that, and so far, at least on this topic, he's failed.

This post was excellent on substance.

But don't forget that we didn't find out the truth about the Cuban Missile Crisis until long after the fact. There's something immensely pleasing about narrative in which our enemies are unyielding monsters who can only be defeated by (a) destroying them or (b) "staring them down" as you put it.

The public may have come around on Iraq, but countering the larger narrative will be far more difficult.

Andrew Sullivan, who is now a full-throated...

Clicks back quickly. /Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I am surfing at work.

DBL

What is wrong with listening to Iran? What does it hurt to talk? Are you afraid they might not be the irrational monsters you imagine? If they do turn out to be monsters what have you lost by gaining more knowledge?

Frankly, folks who say we shouldn't talk to our opponents scare me. They sound a lot like people who are willing to irrationally act from ignorance. Heck they sound a lot like George W. Bush.

In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the President
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie that we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is that the Russians love their children too

s/Russian/Iranian/

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/files/jcslongwar_vicedirectorforstratplansandpolicy_j5.ppt

Here is what the Pentagon thinks

DBL: It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback on Iraq, now that we know that Hussein was bluffing about having WMD

So the chickenhawks were wrong about Iraq, hey, this time they're right! Everybody makes mistakes, right? Especially when they willfully ignore and/or suppress information that they don't want people to have.

Oh, and my analysis, before the Iraq invasion, was that the whole Iraq WMD thing was a crock of shit. So when I formulate my Iranian policy, you should take it as gospel. Heck, I've got a better Sunday quarterback record than the current crop of ideological idiots.

Negotiating is more than talking, you have to be willing to give up something to get something.

Or you have to find something that Iran isn't willing to give up.

What are the alternatives ? Invade and occupy Iran ? Bomb a few cities and suddenly Iran will be cooperative ? Maybe if we invade, they will welcome us with flowers..

You better get used to the idea of negotiating with Iran because Dubya blew the military option when he decided to invade Iraq.

This is exactly what I ve been saying from the very beginning. Toppling Saddam Hussein was by far (!) the most stupid thing a US government has ever managed to do - in the whole history of all US governments, as with the removal of anti-islamist Saddam Hussein and his secular moderate regime - the US handed over the ME to the fundamentalistic Iranians - resp. the Islamists.

And the Saudis, together with Jordans and Egypts have already been exposed as US collaborators and traitors by the Iranians resp. due to the Hizbollah victory in Lebanon and the reservated or even negative statements the US-friendly government mentioned states gave. So now most of the people of the ME are behind the old Baath & Syria or Iran - but nobody from the people of the ME is behind the Saudis royals, the Jordan King's regime or Egypt's prime bastard Mubarak's regime.

So by now the stupid US action of removing Saddam Hussein has led to a real shift in the balance of power in the ME. With US & Israel associated arab regimes completely isolated from their populations - and the US & Israeli armies pinned down or even near to defeated and IRan & Russia & China stronger than ever before - and on the other hand in addition the old Baath in Syria & Iraq more anti-American and anti-Israel and more beloved and their positions and actions more appreciated among the arab people in the ME, than ever before.

I am STILL waiting for an apology from that jerk!

Iran is just Iraq writ large.

Shouldn't we send the hawks packing and instead figure out more sensible ways to react to our global problems?

Having the hawks around to play bad-cop is an important part of being able to do effective deplomacy. We just need to make sure that they don't get their hands on the actual levers of power.

I think that any comparisons to 1938 are incredibly misguided because in 1938 there was no country which, if sufficiently provoked, could have simply destroyed every standing structure in Germany while giving the Germans little possibility to retaliate. Regardless of how Iran is (mis)handled, they simply aren't going to be the sort of existential threat that the Nazis were. We will never let them build the kind of military capacity that the Nazis built, and they know it. At best they are looking for regional dominance. Containment can work in Iran because we have the power to make it work--we just need a plan and the interest to do so.

If China invaded Mongolia, or better S. Korea, and we offered nothing but negotiations, that would be much more like 1938. And the fact that it would be easy to imagine a strong case for doing just that ought to make people think twice about branding people as simplistic appeasers.

RB - You still haven't answered my question. You should never enter a negotiation "just to talk." You need to think through what the other side might say and you need to have some idea of what responses you might make. In short you have to have some idea of what concessions you are prepared to make to get the concession you are seeking. If all you do is go and talk, without ever putting anything on the table, well, then I think the other side could rightly accuse you of acting in bad faith.

So what concessions do you think the US should be willing to make to obtain the end of Iran's nuclear arms program?

TWA - If we could be certain that Iran would not provide nukes to its proxies, and that those proxies would never set one off in the US, then the type of containment strategy you are proposing might work.

You can only be sure of one thing, though: if a nuke is ever set off in the US, the liberal left will oppose any nuclear retaliation against any state unless it can be proven to a certainty that that state was the source of the nuke. I doubt if we'll ever know.

So ask yourself: With a track record this bad, why should we pay attention to the same old hysterical siren song this time? Shouldn't we send the hawks packing and instead figure out more sensible ways to react to our global problems? Shouldn't we have learned our lesson by now?

Answers:

1) We shouldn't
2) Yes
3) Yes

So, what do I win?

So what concessions do you think the US should be willing to make to obtain the end of Iran's nuclear arms program?

You've framed the question backwards. It should be: what concessions would the Iranians be willing to make in order to avoid sanctions/be admitted to the world of nations. We don't have to concede anything.

DBL

Sorry, I have been negotiating with an opponent.

What were you saying, you should never enter a negotiation "just to talk." Of course, you can just talk. Talking is the way you discover what the other guy really wants. It is the way you discover how he thinks. It is the way you learn his strengths and weaknesses. It is the best way to avoid conflict.

Only fools think negotiation is sign of weakness.

You are right. You don't enter into any discussion without thinking your way through to the potential outcomes, but you never know what the other guy will say until the end of the negotiation. Finding out is why you talk.

You don't do much negotiating, do you?

I have no idea what concessions the US should make to the Iranians to keep them from going nuclear, but I am sure professional negotiators can come up with some that might be good for both the Iranians and the US in the long run. Maybe educational concessions. Maybe trade concessions. Maybe agreeing to protect them from their neighbors. Maybe helping them diversify their economy. All kinds of things are possible.

You can only be sure of one thing, though: if a nuke is ever set off in the US, the liberal left will oppose any nuclear retaliation against any state unless it can be proven to a certainty that that state was the source of the nuke. I doubt if we'll ever know.
Posted by: DBL on September 6, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

What would be worse?

Not retaliating?

Or nuking the wrong country?

DBL - nice to know that you already have ascertained exactly what the evil "liberal left" will do. Kevin's point doesn't rely on mind reading - it hangs on a decent assumption - we shouldn't continue to trust people who've lied and botched the job.

You can only be sure of one thing, though: if a nuke is ever set off in the US, the liberal left will oppose any nuclear retaliation against any state unless it can be proven to a certainty that that state was the source of the nuke.

You can also be sure of one other thing: if a nuke is ever set off in the US, the illiberal right will demand nuclear retaliation against their boogeyman-du-jour without regard to any knowledge of the source of the nuke.

You can only be sure of one thing, though: if a nuke is ever set off in the US, the liberal left will oppose any nuclear retaliation against any state unless it can be proven to a certainty that that state was the source of the nuke. I doubt if we'll ever know. DBL

It is that kind of irrational unsupported statement that weakens your ability to negotiate or even advance your cause. In other words only a true koolaid drinker would think that any American wouldn't turn the country that dropped a nuke on the US into a glass parking lot.

There is no foe on Earth so powerful and dangerous that we cannot fall on our knees in front of him.

I believe that if a nuke is set off by terrorists in the US, we should annihilate France. Not that France would have had anything to do with the terrorist attack. But, you know - sweep up everything, related and unrelated, as our SecDef likes to say.

I actually think Iran and Vietnam are very much alike, in many ways. And, as we've seen with Vietnam over the past decade, it's possible for the US to develop a fruitful and cooperative relationship with an authoritarian regime while gradually nudging it towards democracy. Of course, the Israel thing is problematic...as are the material support for terrorists, and the nukes. Those Confucian Vietnamese never really presented problems quite like these.

Or nuking the wrong country?
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 6, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

or even worse. . . nuking the wrong country on purpose.

Bush used 9/11, and fear of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, to justify a hugely profitable (for his business associates) invasion of Iraq.

So what if someone nuked America, and the sitting president (oh, I don't know, let's say Jeb Bush) lied us into nuking the next convenient target because "I don't want to shoot a $10 million nuke up a $10 camel's butt." - ?

Guys like you would happily push the button to launch on France if a bunch of terrorists in Chechnya got their hands on a decomissioned Russian nuke and deployed it on US soil. Then you'd blame Clinton.

There is no imaginary hallucinatory monster so ludicrous that we cannot take out the family shotgun and started blazing away at it, only to find out later we've shot the neighbor's cat. - dnc

GOP 06: we have nothing to offer but fear itself

I love what Arianna Huffington calls the Administration's recent series of speeches-- the "Fall of Fear Tour." I am thinking of selling T-Shirts.

DBL on September 6, 2006 at 3:57 PM:

..if a nuke is ever set off in the US, the liberal left will oppose any nuclear retaliation against any state unless it can be proven to a certainty that that state was the source of the nuke.

And the problem with that is?...

I doubt that any 'state' such as Iran or Russia would seriously consider detonating a nuclear weapon in the US unless provoked by the US...

..Unless by 'state' you mean 'a stateless terrorist organization', which is possible, but would still be a pretty damn dumb thing to do. I can imagine that the last thing a terrorist organization wants to do is build international sympathy for the US.

DBL worries a nuclear armed Iran will give nuclear arms to another US antagonist. DBL thinks this way because a nuclear armed government gave nuclear weapons techonology to Israel, which it uses to threaten the rest of the Middle East.

The only major concession Iran wants from the US is to end its regime change policy. What the US wants from Iran is its oil, without having to provide any of the resulting revenue to the actual people who own it. There is very little room for negotiation because the US is a predatory nation that only knows how to bully the weak.

I suggest Iran offer to end its nuclear program in exchange for the US ending all military aid to Israel.

Good post, Kevin.

The story of 1938 is so deeply engrained in our culture that mere facts will not change it. It must reflect some deep and valid human need to have a story like that.
However, the usual understanding of 1938 - and of WW2 itself - leaves out the most critical part of the story.
In the run-up to what turned out to be WW2, everyone knew that Hitler wanted and was going to get his war. But both the West and the Soviets were trying to manuever the other side into being the ones that took on Hitler.
Appeasement did not mean "let's be friends". It meant "let's you and him fight". Since the Nazis got their start as anti-communist death squads in the aftermath of WW1 and were imprisoning and killing communists even before they attacked the Jews, no one foresaw that Stalin would be able out-appease the Western appeasers by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

if a nuke is ever set off in the US, the liberal left will oppose any nuclear retaliation against any state unless it can be proven to a certainty that that state was the source of the nuke

wait. somebody actually wrote that ?

are you trying to say that the correct way to handle such an event would be to simply nuke the first state that comes to mind ? shouldn't there be more analysis put into killing a million people than there is about deciding which pants to wear in the morning ?

Well, the first thing Mr. Sullivan can award himself is his own "Poseur Award" followed by a number of others of his own invention.

He didn't know what he was talking about before and doesn't now. Just the accusation levelled at others so vehemently by himself.

A number of those right-wingers, who are in a position to admit they were wrong earlier, still can't make the reality shift necessary to draw the lessons to be learned. There vision is too warped. Sullivan is just another of them, his present vehemence presumably fuelled by the disappointment and betrayal of Bush et al proving to be such ignorant, misguided idiots.

Doomed to continue making the same mistakes. Just like morality and processing prisoners of the war on terror, they don't get it -- just repeat the mantras.

"...in the name of God, go!"

You can only be sure of one thing, though: if a nuke is ever set off in the US, the liberal left will oppose any nuclear retaliation against any state unless it can be proven to a certainty that that state was the source of the nuke. I doubt if we'll ever know.

Someone has been watching too much TV.

Iran is going to get the bomb. It will be worse if we fail to talk with them. Just put yourself in their place: Becoming the dominant country in an area weakened by surrounding oil-rich terrorist-producing sheikdoms and needing to counter-pose Israel's bombs, who wouldn't want nuclear technology?

DBL

You are right, we would demand proof positive of the country that dropped the bomb. I sure as hell wouldn't want to let the real perp off the hook.

Of course, actual retailiation might be an alien concept to you. After all you are a Republican and as such punishing the real bad guy isn't as important as advancing the neocon agenda.

The Republican position on Iran is another component of their policy of Endless War. They need war to validate their existence. Without war, they are irrelevant. They need, and will prosecute, Endless War.

DBL wrote: "... if a nuke is ever set off in the US, the liberal left will oppose any nuclear retaliation against any state unless it can be proven to a certainty that that state was the source of the nuke."

So you are saying that if a nuclear device of unknown origin is someday exploded in the USA by persons unknown, that unlike the "liberal left", you would be in favor of a US nuclear attack against some state that had not been shown to have anything to do with it.

Well, tell me please, how many nuclear weapons should the USA drop on this other state that has not been shown to have any connection with the explosion of the nuke in the US? How many of their cities should we incinerate? How many thousands of their innocent civilians should we vaporize? And how many tens of thousands more should we condemn to a hideous lingering death from radiation sickness, starvation, exposure, etc?

Come on, tough guy. Let's hear it.

Drum makes a good point.

Seems like a pretty significant question, though, is: "What criteria does one use to determine whether an enemy can be negotiated with?"

Maybe he'll do a follow-up giving us his take.

I heard COBRA Commander and his 2nd in command Destro have holed up in Iran.

Let's invade with a proxy army of drug warlords then throw up our hands and blame Clinton when he escapes.

Have you not heard? Afhganistan is going 'swimmingly'. Osama Bin Laden is 'irrelevant'.

What is relevant is that the joint chiefs lined up to tell the chimp-in-charge unequivocally NO, they would not support an attack on Iran. Now the messianic drunk and his cronies are looking for ways to force a confrontation.

I'd say I stand in good company when I warn of the possible dangers of this ridiculous overreach.

You can only be sure of one thing, though: if a nuke is ever set off in the US, the liberal left will oppose any nuclear retaliation against any state unless it can be proven to a certainty that that state was the source of the nuke.

Abso-fucking-lutely right DBL! As it should be. I would be dead-set against nuking any state until it could be proven that they were complicit in attacking us. Wouldn't you? Or are you saying you (the Right) would gladly green-light nuking any old country regardless of their innocence or guilt. The Right's track record post 9/11 would seem to suggest they would. Bring's Iraq back to mind doesn't it? What the hell's wrong with you?

Come on, tough guy. Let's hear it.

My guess is that DBL advocates raping all the 14 yo girls first before dropping a nuke on an innocent country.

SA beat me to it...

...How many thousands of their innocent civilians should we vaporize? And how many tens of thousands more should we condemn to a hideous lingering death from radiation sickness, starvation, exposure, etc?

And how does this behavior that DBL and the Right seemingly cheer make us any different from the terrorists in this little nuke hypothetical?

Quick, I need a dose of rightwing moral relativism.

I'll point out that the most likely source of loose nukes or nuclear material are the ex-Soviet states where we have underspent and not vigorously pursued the isolation and containment of all possible sources.

The fact that this relatively cheap policy has not been pursued energetically is just one more fact to lay against the seriousness of this administration to keep the country (and world) safe.

DBL's position is entirely consistent with the Republican Policy of Endless War.

'But, you know - sweep up everything, related and unrelated, as our SecDef likes to say.'
--brooksfoe

Oh, isn't that conspeak cute? "SecDef" - how charming. You know that note that Rumsfeld wrote on 9-11, about "Go massive, sweep up everthing, related or not"? Turns out, Rummy wrote it in the men's room while taking a grizzly shit. It was instructions to the custodian, about the crap he took all over the floor, etc. I guess he did "go massive".

BWAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA.....

Joe Bob

"So ask yourself: With a track record this bad, why should we pay attention to the same old hysterical siren song this time?"

The track record for negotiation in the Middle East isn't entirely unmixed either. How long have they been negotating between Israel and the Palestinians?

DBL now you pissed me off.Why, why would you advocate using a plan for talking. Your side used no plan for WOT. Why do you think the left has been asking for a plan.I just wish your side would just admit they have no clue as to what to do and let's start talking.If you can't sit down and talk with the Dems you have NO chance to talk to Iran .What a Bush.

Many commenters have correctly been shocked at the indiscriminate killing advocated by DBL if a rogue nuclear weapon should ever be detonated in the US, Allah forbid. We should never forget that DBL and those like him represent a large portion of our electorate, which is a terribly sad admission to make, but important to realize.

Those of us who desire our country be a good global citizen have a tremendous difficulty convincing the Chauvinists and authoritarians of the proper way to deal with the rest of the world and those who oppose our national interests, let alone what those national intersest ought to be. I myself am not very good at it, finding it much easier to arrive at disagreement rather than to acknowledge the root fears and authoritarianism of my fellow Americans and addressing them. Our major conflict is not with the peoples of the ME, it is with our neighbors and we need to develop an alternate way to convince them that war and militant hegemony are not in the US' best interests, nor the worlds'.

Someone needs to sit Andy down with the Connery/Caine version of "The Man Who Would Be King". As they work their way up the valleys, they get the same litany from each tribe:
"We are civilized, but the people up river are barbarians! They always attack us! They burn our houses! They rape our women! They kill our sheep! They piss in our river!"

Terror begins in an unlikely place. Can it be stopped without addressing it's beginning, cutting off the supply of suicide attackers?

Hell is terror max. The suicider is more terrorized of hell than death itself. http://www.hoax-buster.org will open your eyes to the root cause of terrorism. The cure must be related to the cause one way or the other.

"What would be worse?

Not retaliating?

Or nuking the wrong country?"

All this talk about nuking any country has me worried up in Canada. Your air force keeps bombing and killing Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan as it is. They picked off another this week. Now this talk of a-bombs away anywhere.

Time for a regime change in the US to keep the crazies away from The Button.

DBL would have invaded Argentina in response to Pearl Harbor.

His response reminds me of the tragic story from last week of the guy that killed his next door neighbor because he heard that the police were investigating the neighbor for molesting his kid. Turned out none of it was true, but you know, better safe than sorry.

Other than the cost to the American taxpayer, the fighting in Iraq is mostly about Sunni and Shia. They have the right to shoot each other, we have the right to watch out for IEDs.

The Middle East is better off to have this squabble between themselves than not have it.

I am voting for the Shia, actually. I do not buy the argument that Iranian sponsored militia are equally bad as the Saudi inspired militia.

I do not have a problem with Iran trying to get the bomb as long as we supply Israel with enough cuise missiles before they get it.

So what concessions do you think the US should be willing to make to obtain the end of Iran's nuclear arms program?
Posted by: DBL on September 6, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

That one is easy and it has been staring us in the face for a long time. In fact the Iranians offered us this road in 2003 through the swiss but bone head black and white Bush told them to piss off.
Complete normalisation of relations between the United States and Iran. A non agression treaty possibly even a mututal defense pact.
You want Iran to stop the nuke game as the world's superpower, you have to guarantee them that you will never use force to topple them.

I think if we had more confidence in the example our country has to offer the world we would have taken this path a long long time ago. Time and demographics will change Iran. The Marines never will.

WOLF! WOOOOLLLLFFF! For the love of God, it's a bloodthirsty WOLF! It's got big, pointy teeth, and it's foaming at the mouth! This time I really, really mean it!

Nemesis wrote: "I think if we had more confidence in the example our country has to offer the world we would have taken this path a long long time ago."

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has nothing to offer the world but rapacious greed and malevolent criminality.

The other thing is;

I bet the Bushies are pissed off that they let themselves be suckered by Iran (via the Iranian spy, money launderer, and con man, Ahmed Chalabi) into invading Iraq, which basically set Iran onto the path for complete domination of the Middle East.

Boy, I bet that pisses off the Bushies. Iran conned them into spending $300 Bln. taxpayer dollars (BORROWED!) so they could become a mini-superpower.

I don't recall where I saw the comment, but it went something like this:

Iran sees Iraq, with no nukes, getting pillaged and destroyed. And it sees North Korea, with nukes, getting the kid gloves. When pressed as to whether to complete the nuke, which way would you go?

Hear! Hear!

The Bush administration represents the desires of a large portion of the American electorate. That is what is so scary and sad.

When I was young a Christian group used to run an animated advertisement about a hanging judge. "Hang 'em. That'll teach them a lesson," was his repetitive tag line. Then of course he died and at his judgement God said, "Forgive him. That'll teach him a lesson." Americans have not learned this lesson.

Isn't it about time we just told the truth? Torturing people. Proclaiming that people whose skin is not white are the out to get us--whether they are Mexican or Muslim or Macaca, doesn't matter. They are all unamerican, all the enemy. Going to war to puff up patriotism and expand empire. Staying in power by frightening people when intense flag-waving doesn't work. Painting the opposition party as the enemy.

What's preventing us from saying it now that the Republicans themselves have brought out the World War II card, talked about Hitler, Nazis, appeasers.

But they got it wrong. Bush is a Hitler wannabe. And right-wing Republican racists are Nazis.

Anybody who tries to say different is an appeaser. Like Chamberlain.

And if you think that it's not so bad, it's only a matter of degree, remember. It's not yet 1938. It's only 1934.

Bush is a Hitler wannabe. And right-wing Republican racists are Nazis.

don't be an ass

The funny thing about all those conservatives who tell us this is 1939 is that back in the 30's most American conservatives were either apathetic about Nazism or downright supportive.

"Don't be an ass."

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

2 things:

1) Since it has been objectively established that Andrew Sullivan is a goddamned moron, why are we bothering to discuss his views?

2) Andrew Sullivan is against whatever Bush is doing because Andrew Sullivan finally figured out that Bush doesn't much care for gay people and is happy to throw them under the bus. This does not make Andrew Sullivan a sensible person. This makes him a selfish asshole who doesn't see reality until it punches him in the wallet.

The funny thing about all those conservatives who tell us this is 1939 is that back in the 30's most American conservatives were either apathetic about Nazism or downright supportive.

Ironic, isn't it?

Everytime conservatives 'learn their lessons' about something, a week later they're back voting for the same stupid thing insisting that it's all different.

If Bush were running for election this November there's an excellent chance that nearly all the Republicans who voted for him last time would vote for him again.

Great Post!

This one should be linked from every Blog.

Good going.

cld on September 6, 2006 at 6:53 PM:

Everytime conservatives 'learn their lessons' about something, a week later they're back voting for the same stupid thing insisting that it's all different.

Ah...the 'Arlen Specter Syndrome'...

Or ASS, for short.

"But guess what? JFK proved them wrong. We now know that he didn't stare down the lunatic Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He negotiated a deal with them, and it worked" - Kevin

JFK didn't negotitate anything, remember the Bay of Pigs? After that debacle and the continued refusal of the Soviets to back down, JFK threatened them with military (amd if needed nuclear weaponry) and meant it.

Monday, October 22, 1962, President Kennedy:

"But it is difficult to settle or even discuss these problems in an atmosphere of intimidation. That is why this latest Soviet threat--or any other threat which is made independently or in response to our actions this week--must and will be met with determination. Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed--including in particular the brave people of West Berlin--will be met by whatever action is needed.

Finally, I want to say a few words to the captive people of Cuba, to whom this speech is being directly carried by special radio facilities. I speak to you as a friend, as one who knows of your deep attachment to your fatherland, as one who shares your aspirations for liberty and justice for all. And I have watched and the American people have watched with deep sorrow how your nationalist revolution was betrayed-- and how your fatherland fell under foreign domination. Now your leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban ideals. They are puppets and agents of an international conspiracy which has turned Cuba against your friends and neighbors in the Americas--and turned it into the first Latin American country to become a target for nuclear war--the first Latin American country to have these weapons on its soil.

These new weapons are not in your interest. They contribute nothing to your peace and well-being. They can only undermine it. But this country has no wish to cause you to suffer or to impose any system upon you. We know that your lives and land are being used as pawns by those who deny your freedom."

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/jfk-cuban.htm

"In the 1980s, neocons were aghast that Reagan thought he could negotiate with the Soviets. He proved them wrong." - Kevin

Very little progress ever came out of the meetings in Reykjavik between Reagan and Gorbachev. The Soviets were financially overwhelmed by our military build up and SDI, and could not keep up as their economy was in terrible shape to begin with. Reagan dictated the direction of that relationship.

After reading the text of JFK's speech re: Cuba, I couldn't even imagine any leader from the current Democratic party giving that same speech today in terms of this current struggle.

Hostile:

"Those of us who desire our country be a good global citizen have a tremendous difficulty convincing the Chauvinists and authoritarians of the proper way to deal with the rest of the world and those who oppose our national interests, let alone what those national intersest ought to be. I myself am not very good at it, finding it much easier to arrive at disagreement rather than to acknowledge the root fears and authoritarianism of my fellow Americans and addressing them. Our major conflict is not with the peoples of the ME, it is with our neighbors and we need to develop an alternate way to convince them that war and militant hegemony are not in the US' best interests, nor the worlds'."

I basically agree with what you said, with this caveat:

For some of our fellow Americans, "acknowledg[ing] the root fears and authoritarianism" would probably work.

However, I believe that a good many of the diehard Bush supporters are actually clinically paranoid. I can't prove this, but over my 60 years I have observed that certain political figures (mostly Republican in recent years) are, frankly, batshit crazy, and they still enjoy support of around 20-25% of the population regardless of what they do. IMHO, these folks are paranoid.

I have a friend who struggles with paranoid ideation. When she takes her meds, she is able to deal with her paranoia, but because the meds have their own sometimes quite noxious side effects, from time to time she goes off her meds. Pretty soon she is in fullblown paranoia.

She always returns to the same issues over and over again. They aren't the various bugaboos the far rightwing obsesses about. But they seem to not be capable of changing. I, and other friends and her family have tried to show from a logical perspective how her fears don't make sense, but she is impervious to logic when in her paranoid mode.

My mother and a co-worker were also paranoid, and this was equally true of them, though all three ladies had different issues. All impervious to logic. And no amount of therapy helped either my mother or my friend with the paranoia. My co-worker never sought therapy because she didn't perceive that she needed it, which is all too common with paranoiacs.

With these people, their brain chemistry causes them to feel a lot of free-floating anxiety, regardless of life circumstances. So they look around for something to blame. They also read malevolent intent against them in interactions where no such intent exists.

I believe that this is also true for the far right.

By all means, let's try to assuage some of the fears and buy into some of the authoritarianism. But there will be a % of the population for which there is no reasonable way to assuage their fears. We have to work harder to not let these people into positions of power, and we can continue to use the "bully pulpit" of the Net and whatever other influence we can find. Let's get as many Dems elected as we can in November, and hold their feet to the fire.

Jay, you are really, really stupid. Extremely stupid.

The only thing more appalling than your shocking stupidity is your grotesque ignorance.

And the only thing more appalling than your shocking stupidity and your grotesque ignorance is your utterly conscienceless dishonesty.

Stupid, ignorant and sociopathic -- that's the classic profile of the fascist brownshirt.

I couldn't even imagine ...

someone alert me when the limits of Jay's imagination mean anything.

Perhaps Jay needs to be forceably medicated, for his own good. He's clearly a danger to himself and others in his current state.

I can't even imagine George W. Bush wiping his own ass. Then again, he probably can't.

blah blah blah blah............that's the classic profile of the fascist brownshirt" - secular something

I actually have a black shirt on today.

here's a tip sec; try using references and facts to back up your drivel, rather than just pulling vitriolic shit out of your ass.

Let me guess though, you're a Dale Carnegie product, right?

First of all, it WAS possible to negotiate with Hitler. It just wasn't possible to negotiate in 1938. When Hitler first re-militarized the Ruhr Valley, if the Allies had protested then negotiations probably would have worked.

I think the key is that you need to negotiate from a position of strength. We were stronger than the Soviet Union, Iraq, Iran, and Germany prior to about 1935(?).

You can't negotiate from a position of weakness such as Germany in 1938/39

"Our major conflict is not with the peoples of the ME, it is with our neighbors and we need to develop an alternate way to convince them that war and militant hegemony are not in the US' best interests, nor the worlds'." - hostile

The basic premise here being that America is the root of all evil.

Run on that in '08, it will serve you well. Oh, I forgot, you already are. Nevermind.

The basic premise here being that America is the root of all evil.
Posted by: Jay on September 6, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Typical Conservative.

Unable to distinguish between persons and their behavior.

"Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed--including in particular the brave people of West Berlin--will be met by whatever action is needed." - JFK

Can you imagine Harry Reid saying that? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Or Nancy Pelosi? Or even better, how about Howard Dean. Now that's funny.

"Unable to distinguish between persons and their behavior." - osama something

Oh I know, that's why we need to give child molesters lighter sentences and "understand" them. We need to give bigger hugs to Islamo- fascists and serial killers.

And when a drug addict kills for his habit, it's not his fault, it's the behaviour, right?

Jay displays his fashion sense:

I actually have a black shirt on today.

More evidence that Jay is not gainfully employed.

However, I believe that a good many of the diehard Bush supporters are actually clinically paranoid.

Another reason they fight Nationalized Health Care.

Can you imagine if these guys got ahold of decent mental health treatment, antipsychotic meds?

Republicans would never win another election.

Sorry Jay, America is not the root of all evil, you and people like you are, regardless if they are gung ho nuke 'em first and ask questions later Americans or fundamentalist religious beleivers who hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings to kill infidels. You all are part of the same unbroken circle of hate and retribution that represents the worst of mankind's history.

And when a drug addict kills for his habit, it's not his fault, it's the behaviour, right?
Posted by: Jay on September 6, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

That's the point, asshole.

It's the behavior we want to discourage.

Conservatives just want to punish people, not behaviors.

Which is why, when you criticize America's foreign policy, to a conservative, they can't distinguish that from criticising America - even if only a minority, or a slim majority really support that policy.

"Jay, you are really, really stupid. Extremely stupid.

The only thing more appalling than your shocking stupidity is your grotesque ignorance.

And the only thing more appalling than your shocking stupidity and your grotesque ignorance is your utterly conscienceless dishonesty.

Stupid, ignorant and sociopathic -- that's the classic profile of the fascist brownshirt." - secular something

Well OK then, how would you classify secularanimist then?

Yee haw, let's go nuke 'em!