"Iran Directorate"? - sounds like something right out of the old Soviet Union?

The GWB admin motto should be:

Nothing succeeds like failure.

a pox on the bloodthirsty traitors and all their supporters.

Is there some question that the Mad Mullahs™ aren't in fact mad?

I sure would like to hear the progressive community tell us what they'd do about a regime that is intent on getting nuclear weapons with the stated purpose of wiping out another country. GWB may not have the best idea on handling them, but I haven't heard anything from the Left community that makes sense, either.

Feel free to explain just how you'd handle the situation with Iran.

Ah yes, the Iran Directorate. Staffed by castoffs from our old friend, the Office of Special Plans, which did such a bangup job of misrepresenting Iraqi intelligence at the behest of the Cheney/Rumsfeld team back in 2002. As Laura Rozen reported several months ago, "Among those staffing or advising the Iranian directorate are three veterans of the Office of Special Plans: Abram N. Shulsky, its former director; John Trigilio, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst; and Ladan Archin, an Iran specialist."

Hah? What nonsense. As the senate intelligence committee (chaired by Pat Roberts) report on Iraq pointed out, there is no evidence that the Office of Special Plans was misrepresenting Iraqi intelligence at all. Page 282-283.

Link

"Committee staff contacted a former desk officer in the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Special Plans and NES A who had come to the Committee's attention through press accounts of the desk officer's experiences."

"The desk officer told Committee staff that she never worked the Iraq issue and had no direct knowledge of any attempts to pressure or coerce intelligence analysts."

"When asked whether she had any evidence of the Office of Special Plans attempting to pressure CIA analysts she said that she had heard the Deputy Under Secretary make negative comments about the CIA's analysis but said she could not say that the office pressured CIA."

"She had no direct knowledge to support any claims that intelligence analysts were pressured and much of what she said is contradicted by information from other interviews and intelligence reporting."

I sure would like to hear the progressive community tell us what they'd do about a regime that is intent on getting nuclear weapons with the stated purpose of wiping out another country.

The entire Left laughs at you and your ridiculous assumptions.

Is that response enough for you?

I've been wondering... who d'you think the neocons might put forward for the new Viceroy of Persia job? Maybe our old buddy Chalabi might want it... I mean, he's not really doing anything else right now, and he's been working for Iran this whole time, anyway. Remember?

Is there some question that the Mad Mullahs™ aren't in fact mad?

is there any proof that they are ?

Is there even any EVIDENCE that they are?

Disputo, I guess you're just not serious about the issue. That's okay, we can let the adults handle this. I was hoping you were one of them.

Mahmoud Ahmadniejad has stated publicly, repeatedly, that his nation wants to wipe out Israel. Other past and current public officials in Iran have said same. Their current protestations that they're not building nuclear weapons rings hollow -- why else act the way they have? If it's nuclear power for electricity they want, they already had that right under the NNPT. All they have to do is obey the rules and work with the IAEA, but they won't do that.

Set the snark aside for a moment and try to answer the question: what does the progressive Left think the proper response to the Iran situation should be?

What I'm curious about here is partly the accusations leveled against VOA etc. This seems like largely an excuse to knock a few responsible journalists out of their jobs and replace them with one's old College Republican buddies. After all, the actual impact of VOA broadcasting on Iran (compared to all the broadcasting done by other Iranian emigre sources) is negligible. It's impossible to imagine that any serious person at the Pentagon would think that achieving a more anti-government balance in VOA's radio programming is an important part of our response to Iran's quest for nukes.

It does, however, make sense that GOP nomenklatura inside the Pentagon would think that anti-Iran jingoism is a good way to consolidate their hegemony over various other agencies which are not sufficiently "reliable" in their allegiance to the hard Republican right. I wonder to what extent our entire Iraqi misadventure is really a sideshow, a shibboleth constructed to aid in an authoritarian right-wing purge at every federal agency.

The proper response from the Left?

Why do you ask White steve? Does it matter? I mean your brethren love to repeatedly remind the left that they have no power and constantly lose elections, so why should we have an answer?

Your team is running the show currently and fucking up everything they touch. Eveb if someone did have a solution, you wouldn't listen.

I was hoping you were one of them.

Please check the false concern at the door, you lying piece of shit.

Mahmoud Ahmadniejad has stated publicly, repeatedly, that his nation wants to wipe out Israel.

Only wingnut mouthpieces such as yourself believe this lie.

Their current protestations that they're not building nuclear weapons rings hollow -- why else act the way they have?

It is quite simple, really -- because grotesque neocon idiots such as yourself have a hardon to kill Iranians.

Now go and peddle your infantile fantasies of ME nuclear war somewhere else and let the adults discuss the issues here seriously. Really.

I sure would like to hear the progressive community tell us what they'd do about a regime that is intent on getting nuclear weapons with the stated purpose of wiping out another country.

Uh. Mutually Assured Destruction? Remember that one? Do you seriously think Israel is going to go down without turning the rest of the mideast into a glass parking lot? And you couple MAD with nuclear nonproliferation. Remember that one? You use diplomacy together with economic and military pressure to engaging the international community. Or are you too young to remember that there was foreign policy before the era of preemptive invasion?

You know, you right-wingers need to stop peeing on yourselves and learn to live with a little courage in the face of uncertainty -- like we did during the Cold War. Then you'd be able to avoid advocating so many rash and self-destructive policies. But no, at the first sign of an enemy with some teeth it's all "AAAIIIIEEEE! Scrap the Geneva Conventions! Fuck the rule of law! The Constitution is not a suicide pact!" What a bunch of pussies.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'd be more than happy to let y'all destroy yourselves (or rapture yourselves -- whatever turns you on). The problem is, the rest of us reality-based folks have to suffer for your stupidity, too.

Steve White:

Sanity begins by recognizing that crap about a nuclear first strike on Israel is all bullshit. We should be moving towards establishing diplomatic relations with Iran and signing a mutual non-aggression pact.

I wonder to what extent our entire Iraqi misadventure is really a sideshow, a shibboleth constructed to aid in an authoritarian right-wing purge at every federal agency.

It goes hand-in-hand. However, it should be noted that Reagan achieved the same thing without killing as many USAmericans as GWB has.

Eisenhower lost Iran.

""Iran Directorate"? - sounds like something right out of the old Soviet Union?"

I have the same reaction every time I hear the name "Department of HOMELAND Security."

Creepy. It's so...so Soviet.

If these crazy bastards actually try to do Iran next, all bets are off on this ballot box bullshit. It will be time to invoke the Declaration of Independence clause.

Their current protestations that they're not building nuclear weapons rings hollow -- why else act the way they have?

i'm pretty sure the world has had enough of your long-distance mind reading. go peddle crazy somewhere else.

Steve White --

Why do a majority of Arab Muslims believe the US is waging a war against Islam, the US' only real interest in the Middle East is oil and hegemony, and we don't give a rat's arse for a single Arab life.

Couldn't be the observed actions of this administration over five years, could it?

Drop the suppositions and starting asking yourself questions based on facts.

Steve, they've got nothing for Iran. They've always had nothing. Every now and then Drum puts up a post wondering when they'll have something. Nobody's come up with anything yet.

Note how the responses escalated into hysteria.

Easier to wrap themselves in the cotton-candy delusion that Iran is just a harmless bunch of noisy coots that wouldn't hurt a fly, and that the only real danger in the world is George Bush.

If you pretend the problem doesn't exist, you don't really NEED a solution, do you?

mondo dentro:

Diplomacy isn't working on Iran. Maybe you've missed that.

You know, you right-wingers need to stop peeing on yourselves and learn to live with a little courage in the face of uncertainty -- like we did during the Cold War.

Hey, cobber. It wasn't the right-wingers crapping their nappies through the whole Cold War about nuclear winter and atomic missiles.

"Mahmoud Ahmadniejad has stated publicly, repeatedly, that his nation wants to wipe out Israel. Other past and current public officials in Iran have said same."

Dude, has it ever occurred to you that they're just saying that for public consumption or as posturing with a convenient wedge like Israel? Seriously, it's far likelier for a given person or group of people to practice high stakes gamesmanship than be "insane". Do you seriously think they'd be willing to get wiped off the map if they ever did "nuke Israel"?

Sorry, but that's either delusional or a contrived rationalization by itchy-trigger-finger NeoCon dickheads. I suspect it's the latter.

It wasn't the right-wingers crapping their nappies through the whole Cold War about nuclear winter and atomic missiles

the fuck it wasn't

Steve White:

Seriously? What would I do?

Establish full diplomatic relations with Iran -- the country which is already the most socially progressive in the Muslim Middle East. Instruct our ambassador to engage with Ahmadinejad over some nice meals on the Holocasut, and debate with him until he realizes that yes, Mahmood, it *did* really happen. Tell them we welcome their help to rebuild Iraq, provided they restrain the militias they have influence over and insist that they stop massacring Sunnis. Engage the Sunnis and the Shia in the entire region (Arab states will become immediately jealous of our new Persian buddy) in a competition over our favors, contingent on improvements in human rights and progress on elections.

Trade *vigorously*. Flood the country with consumer goods and American popular culture. Welcome that "dialogue of civilizations" that Khatamei offered -- and give no quarter on the issue of pluralism as a universal human value. In exchange for a security pact (and pledge of no nuclear first strike), insist that they treat their non-Persian minorities with equity. Leverage that as well to get them to stop their enrichment program. If the Iranians feel safe from American aggression, they'll lose their desire to acquire nukes as the only logical deterrent from it.

And freakin' *apologize* for the axis of evil comment.

Subvert the mullahs from within, by serving up giant helpings of American consumer culture. Recognize that the huge baby boom cohort just about to take their places in Iranian society is already on our side and hates the mullahs. Win these young adults over and you will have won over the entire country.

Bob

Diplomacy isn't working on Iran. Maybe you've missed that.

What? Bush has used diplomacy? You're right. I did miss that.

"...a regime that is intent on getting nuclear weapons with the stated purpose of wiping out another country." Steve White

Steve, obviously language is not your forte, and I hesitate to use the word "nuance" with any wingnut for fear of really confusing them, but you're going to have to trust those of us who see a few colours other than black and white.

1) Iran's stated intent, repeated over and over again, by even the maddest of its clerics (the real powers) is that they do not want nuclear weapons, and that nuclear weapons are un-islamic. Now you can choose to call them liars and we can have a whole other discussion, but don't pretend that we "know" what they are really planning to do with their plutonium.
2) Even Ahmadinejad has never said he wants to wipe out Israel militarily. On the contrary, he has said he will NOT attack Israel. His position, and that of sooo many others, is that Israel does not have a moral right to exist on land that does not belong to it, and that was illegally seized. See the difference?

Maybe, just maybe it wan't a good idea for the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and install the Chuckie-doll puppet regime of the Shah of Iran?

Americans forgot that bit of history by 1954, but the Iranians did not. It simmered for years and blew up on November 9, 1979 and Americans rubbed their eyes and said "What brought that on?"

Here's a repost, because it's getting tiresome answering the same dusty old allegations over and over from wingers who can't achieve escape velocity from RedState and Rush:

In context -- you know, context that tool used to clarify information and keep it accurate and in perspective that you never employ here -- in context, Ahmadinejad was talking about a whole host of other oppressive regimes that seemed invincible but had fallen, including that of Saddam Hussein. He went on to say that the Israeli regime that occupies Palestine -- Zionists in his view -- should be "wiped from the pages of time" as these others were.

No map, no bomb, no promise to destroy. What he in fact said is that "regime change" is necessary. A terrible thing when a country wants regime change in another country, isn't it?

And how does he want that accomplished? Here's Ahmadinejad's suggestion:

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

Yes, he actually thinks people should be able to vote on the issue of Palestine and of who governs Israel, just as Khameini before him suggested. As outlandish as that may sound to us, it's not so outlandish when you believed your land has been unfairly taken from you.

Just ask the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement. They haven't attacked anybody either; should we bomb their infrastructure next?

Posted by: Windhorse on September 20, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

monkeybone:

I have a reply for you on the other thread.

Go fetch :)

Bob

It wasn't the right-wingers crapping their nappies through the whole Cold War about nuclear winter and atomic missiles.

What a fucking idiot. Do I really need to repeat myself...again...and educate on the missile issue? I don't think it does any good. The progressives paid attention the first time I told the score, and the nutters are uneducable.

Steve White: "Mahmoud Ahmadniejad has stated publicly, repeatedly, that his nation wants to wipe out Israel. Other past and current public officials in Iran have said same. Their current protestations that they're not building nuclear weapons rings hollow -- why else act the way they have? If it's nuclear power for electricity they want, they already had that right under the NNPT. All they have to do is obey the rules and work with the IAEA, but they won't do that."

Uh, what do you think would happen to Iran if it tried to 'nuke' Israel? Is Iran a 'suicide' nation? I think not. Israel's nuclear arsenal is quite large enough to put any notions of Iranian assault to rest.

Iran's compliance with the the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory gives it every right to enrich uranium for reactor fuel. So far the IAEA has found no evidence of any illegal enrichment (i.e., a very high level of purity, about 300 times that needed for nuclear energy purposes). Only a couple weeks ago the IAEA pointed to the US as being guilty of making false charges against Iran and its enrichment activity. I trust El Baradei, not George Bush
and his neocon liars.

Windhorse:

Funny ... I was just thinking about that post :)

Bob

If these worthless conservative war-mongers dupe us into another unnecessary and imperialistic conflict against Iran, the end of the American experiment is clearly at hand.

nepeta:

That's a very important point to remember. The IAEA went ballistic over the false charges against the Iranian nuclar program -- specifically about enriching weapons-grade uranium.

Never keep your eye off this ball. Mistrust *everything* coming out of the Admin on Iran.

Fooled me once and all of that.

Bob

PAKISTAN refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and has un unstable dictatorship, crazy colonels, loose nukes, and a loose bin Laden. PAKISTAN has a history of supporting terrorism. PAKISTAN has a history of invading its neighbors. By any rational reckoning, PAKISTAN is a bigger danger to the world than is IRAN. So shouldn't we bomb and invade PAKISTAN before we bomb and invade IRAN?

Establish full diplomatic relations with Iran

Bob, that approached worked too well with China and Vietnam. There's no chance of it being repeated with Iran. Once you get a few American businesses with major stakes in the relationship, you lose the option to bomb them, or even call them an "axis of evil". And then how do you win the next election?

anonymous:

I'm not by any means advocating bombing Pakistan -- but compared to Iran, I think it's no question the objectively greater threat on all counts, from terrorism to nuke proliferation.

Bob

Our good friend Pakistan? Oh my no. You go to war against terror with the allies you have, not the allies you wish you had.

brooksfoe: Hopefully the neo-con asshats don't have to worry about winning any elections for a good long while...

(A gal can dream, can't she?)

Bob,

Mahmood fully understands that the millions of Jews (as well as many, many others) were killed by the Nazis; his issue -- which the Western press never seems to manage to print while at the same time always printing anytime some hack mistranslator turns "is used as a myth" into "is a myth" -- is that that event has been used by Zionists to further their agenda and that the innocent Palestinians have paid the price, not the guilty Europeans.

Of course that *never* gets discussed in the US, beyond the pages of CounterPunch or the research of Norman Finkelstein.

I guess the Iranians didn't get the memo from DOD about getting bombed back into the Stone Age.

"I sure would like to hear the progressive community tell us what they'd do about a regime that is intent on getting nuclear weapons with the stated purpose of wiping out another country."

What for? No such country exists, except in your imagination.

However, if you would like to discuss how to defuse tensions with Iran, and convince them nukes are unnecessary, that's another matter.

The reason Iran has become very interested in obtaining nukes is because of the Bush Doctrine and Iran's inclusion in Bush's Axis of Evil. They observed that North Korea was not invaded because they had nukes, whereas Iraq was. They observed that Bush does not care about good-faith negotations if he could invade instead. Ergo, it pays to have nukes.

One way to defuse tensions with Iran is for Bush and the rest of the Republicans like you (but mainly Bush) to feel genuine remorse and realize what a terrible thing they did when they violated international law and invaded Iraq. They should repudiate the Bush Doctrine publicly, apologize for the Axis of Evil thing, Bush should resign, and offer to face trial in the Hague as a war criminal, along with his administration. Alternatively, if Bush and his administration didn't do this voluntarily, they could be impeached and shipped off to the Hague, with Congress issuing the apologies, for the same effect.

That would assure the Iranians that the rule of law was strong enough to protect them, and that they don't need to rely on nukes. It would be tough to dissuade them, but it would probably be possible with these steps taken.

It may be that if Bush simply resigned and faced war criminal charges domestically along with his staff that it could reassure the Iranians that we are not a loose cannon nation and be sufficient to convince them that nukes aren't necessary... but probably a trial in the Hague would be best, it would reassure them that a form of checks and balances existed that could prevent another Iraq.

Of course none of this will happen, but you asked.

Our good friend Pakistan? Oh my no....

Besides, now that Musharraf's been in the Daily Show, we're all feeling warm and fuzzy. It's starting to look like John Stewart will get to OBL before the Bush administration does.

OMG! What sacrilege! That's JON Stewart.

Steve White: Were I charged with the care and feeding of Iran I would be lashing my physicists and engineers to produce a nuclear weapons capability. Why? Not to wipe out Israel (which would after all render Palestine a rather less-desirable destination for the right of return), but to deter the United States, which has been sweet reason itself toward North Korea ever since those worthies proclaimed their possession of Da Bomb. Any other course would be the equivalent of geopolitical malpractice.

And you know what? I hope the Iranians have a deployable A-bomb rather sooner than later, 'cause if anyone ever needed deterrence it was this crew.

...Diplomacy isn't working on Iran. Maybe you've missed that....

Posted by: monkeybone on September 26, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

If it was left to Bush there would be no diplomacy. Remember how GW ramped immediately to "stop it or its war" and it was Jack Straw, UK defence minister, who said "war? no fucking way!"

No? I thought not. Diplomacy isn't in the vocabulary of these nutters.

Nor, unsuprisingly, in yours, you mindless puppet.

Bob:

You want me to read something, put up a link. Don't have time to fish around.

It's hilarious on a thread whose main subject is paranoia about war-mongering by Republicans, picking at every phrase and statement, to see liberals cutting slack to Iran's leadership by the kilometer.

"Of course he doesn't mean it. You aren't READING it right. You didn't translate it properly. And hey, he SAYS he's not a warmonger to Time magazine! Right out loud! What more do you need for absolute proof? He's a big old cuddlebunny, the mullahs are nice, friendly old men, and if we just kissed his arse HARD enough, and sat down with a nice cup of tea, for sure he'd come around, and agree that there was a Holocaust after all. Then we can all have a nice, friendly chuckle together. Hey, maybe after that he'll shave."

If nothing else this proves that it wasn't really about the weapons in Iraq for leftists. If Saddam had been sitting there refining uranium openly, the Left would still have been defending him against attack. You'd probably have had human shields around the reactors.

宝贝计划下载 性爱图片 台湾18电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康图片 性教育电影 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线下载 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 美女乳房 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 人体艺术摄影 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情

It's hilarious...to see liberals cutting slack to Iran's leadership by the kilometer.

What's hilarious is your lack of reading comprehension.

rmck1 wrote:

Establish full diplomatic relations with Iran -- the country which is already the most socially progressive in the Muslim Middle East.

Trade *vigorously*. Flood the country with consumer goods and American popular culture.

And freakin' *apologize* for the axis of evil comment.

Subvert the mullahs from within, by serving up giant helpings of American consumer culture.

*snicker* oh, yeah. T H A T' L L work!

Fucking ignorant libs, you don't get down and suck on the Mullahs member, you artfully use the power of persuasion and make it impossible for them to not give in. You line up military power with economic power and convince them that we mean business by putting a few short range missiles up their ass.

Why did you list "American Popular Culture" twice? Are you going to give fundamentalist Shiite clerics porn and Family Guy DVDs and buy them off that way?

*snicker*

You ought to be in charge of the Dumbocrats message this year. It should lose you another chance at taking back Congress.

Disputo:

are you sure that's true? My understanding is that Ahmadinejad has in fact voiced some doubts about the historical veracity, too. But none of this is anywhere near as important as it is portrayed by right wingers. There's a natural tendency, when you're denying your opponents' claims based on their grievances, to deny the existence of the grievances as well; that's how official Israeli history got from "it was a war to the death, we had no choice but to expel them" (a legitimate argument) to "we never expelled them, they left of their own accord" (which was a myth with a curious and horrible symmetry to that of holocaust denial). Ahmadinejad's views on the Holocaust, whatever they are, should definitely not play a role in the decision of whether the United States should launch a war of aggression against his country.

Subvert the mullahs from within, by serving up giant helpings of American consumer culture.

*snicker* oh, yeah. T H A T' L L work!

Uh...yes. It will. Snicker.

Just when we thought his cholesterol had cought up with him...

*snicker* oh, yeah. T H A T' L L work!

Let me see if I've got this straight... This lame attempt at snark is coming from someone who thinks Bush's strategies for handling (a) the economy, (b) the environment, and (c) geopolitics, are all going just perfectly.

Yeah. You've got a LOT of credibility.

if we just kissed his arse HARD enough

See, this is interesting. Why do you read "having an embassy in someone's country" as "kissing their ass"? Are we kissing France's ass? China's? Russia's?

Interesting thread so far. I confess I have no idea of what to do about Iran. Attacking them is obviously wrong. Letting them get nukes is obviously wrong. Negotiating so as to convince them to give up their nuclear program looks impossible.

As Woody Allen said, in a quote that seems to apply to Iran,

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.

Subvert the mullahs from within, by serving up giant helpings of American consumer culture.

Never underestimate the power of a six-dollar toaster. MAD and nonproliferation were huge factors in the downfall of the Soviet Union. But SAC had an able assist from Coca-Cola, pizza hut and McDonalds.

Why do you read "having an embassy in someone's country" as "kissing their ass"?

Well, you see, brooksfoe, these douchebags are all DEEPLY closeted. That's why the homophobia is such a central part of the entire pathology.

ex-liberal:

One possible target would be to ensure that if and when they do achieve nukes, they have no interest in, and verifiably do not, give them to uncontrollable terrorist organizations. I'm really not worried about Iran having nukes. I'm worried about Hezbollah having nukes - or, worse, some crazy-assed Iraqi shiite group we haven't even heard of yet.

I confess I have no idea of what to do about Iran. Attacking them is obviously wrong.

I salute you for your intellectual honesty on this issue, and I enjoyed the Woody Allen bit too.

"Negotiating so as to convince them to give up their nuclear program looks impossible."

Why not? Has there been a meaningful attempt at negotiations yet?

Never underestimate the power of a six-dollar toaster.

I agree. My two-year-old is totally obsessed with the toaster. And he, let me tell you, is no islamofascist.

On the other hand, should he ever go over to the other side, the destruction he could wreak is almost beyond imagining.

I'm worried about Hezbollah having nukes - or, worse, some crazy-assed Iraqi shiite group...

Or, for that matter, some drunk-on-the-apocalypse home-grown Christianist nutjob, you know, just in case they want to help Jesus come back sooner.

I remember when my son was two, but I try to block that year out...When he was a toddler, there was a Manfred Mann album out - Somewhere in Africa I believe was the title (it was never released on CD). there was a song on there - Demolition Man...That was my son's theme song at two years of age. Jesus, I'm exhausted just thinking about that year!

Or, for that matter, some drunk-on-the-apocalypse home-grown Christianist nutjob,

Yeah, but, for all the insanity of the past 5 years, I still don't really think the rapture freaks are going to manage to staff the military so thoroughly with their cronies that they'll be able to undermine the US's controls on nuclear weapons.

Still, now that you mention it...that might be a very good reason to get back on the track of reducing those nuclear stockpiles.

Don't worry, the U.S. tradition is that we don't start a war until somebody attacks a ship. The Maine / The Lusitania / Pearl Harbor / Gulf of Tonkin.

Of course, two of those were fake, so I reckon for Iran there's a 50/50 chance of Iran really firing a missile at our ships, and a 50/50 chance of one of our own agents firing a missile towards one of our ships.

After that, when the firestorm starts, God help our sailors and marines, because the Iranian missiles are much better than Exocet missiles. We're not talking SCUDS here folks, we're talking SunBurn missiles that go right past AEGIS and PHALANX defenses.

Oh and God help the U.S. Coast Guard, too, cause their men and women are in the Iranian blockade force, too, and they don't have AEGIS.

It will be a rougher war than Iraq, but some folks believe that if we hit the mullahs hard enough it will make the Islamic world respect us.

You line up military power with economic power and convince them that we mean business ...Fat Angry Guy at 10:44 PM

the U.S. tradition is that we don't start a war until somebody attacks a ship.

Uh...Iraq here going back to the USS Cole...? Or that ship that got maybe-not-so-accidentally Exoceted in the 80s...? I don't get it. I mean, if you go back far enough, there's always a ship that was attacked somewhere by someone vaguely related to the country you want to invade. Didn't supposed Iranian harassment against a US missile cruiser lead to the shootdown of that airliner back in '87? By current standards that probably qualifies as a casu bellum, for both sides.

brooksfoe:

As per usual, I find your comments quite perspecatious. I think we should cut Ahmadinejad some slack on the "he wants to nuke Israel" business -- which is clearly a canard -- but *in exchange*, we do need to educate him on the Holocaust and explain that while his larger point may well be true, the existence of Israel is a fact of life, and the less threatened they feel, the more justice can be wrested for the Palestinians.

And then we show him that principle at work with the nonaggression pact.

Fat White Turd & monkeyboner:

Your comments are way too rhetorical and stuffed with idiotic straw men for me to offer either of you a serious reply. Obviously, both of you are beyond the point of being educated.

But I *will* say that neither of you know Shi'ite from Shinola as far as the country of Iran is concerned. You get one free hint, though: It's not about the mullahs.

It's about the people.

Bob

convince them that we mean business

If you don't stop doing that thing we think you might be doing, even though you say you're not doing it, then we will SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE KIDNEY! We mean business, goddamnit! Why aren't you taking us seriously???!!!

...Negotiating so as to convince them to give up their nuclear program looks impossible....

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 26, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

The US to this date has not even thought of negotiating in good faith with Iran because little Bush is a jumped up bully who thinks everyone should do his spoiled child bidding.

Funny that other countries (most of them) don't see it his way, and embarrassing to see a grown man like T. Blair succomb.

Unfortunately the US has already signed off on Israeli, Indian and Pakistani nukes, and undermined the NNPT and all nuke arms limitation agreements. Seems like they've given up on N.Korea. No vision down the road with China. This administration has been the height of irresponsibility in all international diplomacy. Wait until Argentina and Brazil re-open their pursuit of nukes. Then who else in S.America?

Then the shit hits the fan!

Oh, yeah! I forgot. It'll all be Clinton's fault.

NOT!

The most useless and dangerous administration ever!

It was those damned Iranians who sunk the Thresher! Man the torpedos and full steam ahead!

...some folks believe that if we hit the mullahs hard enough it will make the Islamic world respect us.

Hmmm... I wonder what kind of person would believe something like that...

"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me "reason" with Mr. Freud."

As with dogs, so with children, wives, laborers, coloreds, and uppity nation-states.

monkeybone;

I'll repost it for you.

monkeybone:

>> Did the mainstream, responsible left (not counting pacifist
>> and fringe groups) oppose the war in Afghanistan? Nope.

>> They opposed the war in Iraq? Why? Because they knew damn well
>> it would do precisely what those lunatic Commie leftists at the
>> CIA just said that it did -- make life much easier for terrorists.

> I must have missed that opposition in the vote in Congress to
> authorize the war. Or maybe we're talking about the "fringe"
> people you rejected in the first paragraph. And please don't
> try the "authorization didn't really mean 'go to war'"
> bullshit. I read the law.

I said the left. I didn't say the Democratic Party. But it just so
happened that both my US senators, my former and current congressmen,
former Senate Intelligence Committee chair Bob Graham, Russ Feingold,
Lincoln Chafee and a host of other congresscritters in both houses
opposed the IRW. It was the solid position of the mainstream left.

Oh, and don't forget Howard Dean, from the
Democratic wing of the Democratic Party :)

>> Al Qaeda used to be a hierarchical organization. Now it's
>> mestastacized into myriad tiny stand-alone cells spread the
>> world over (and linked by the internet) who need only to be
>> inspired by Osama but otherwise are totally independent. It
>> makes terrorism much harder to eradicate at the roots.

> So, you would rather we had left al Qaeda's organized heirarchy
> in place? What version of a successful war on al Qaeda can you
> imagine that would not have resulted in exactly the same thing?
> What does that have to do with Iraq?

According to the NIE, everything. Without Iraq and its attendant
abuses, terrorist recruitment over the internet wouldn't have
been so vigorous. So we could've smashed the international
Qaeda organization as we have substantially done without having it
replaced as much by people inspired by US designs on the Mideast.

>> Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, "Extraordinary rendition" of innocent guys to
>> countries that *really* torture, Fallujah, the rape and immolation
>> of a 14-year-old girl and the cold-blooded murder of her family
>> -- all these things have amounted to a recruitment bonanza.

> Start thinking with your brains instead of your bloody spleens.

It is the height of American patriotism to become infuriated at the
injustices which have besmirched our good name around the world.

> If Saddam still ruled Iraq (apparently the tyranny everyone is
> rending their garments over here is just fine for Iraqis):

Saddam was writing romance novels; his mass-murdering days
over for a decade or more. He would have died, and one of his
idiot incompetent nepotistic sons wouldn't have lasted three
weeks before a military coup. Iraq was bound to change, and
we lost a golden opportunity to influence that change from
the inside, with the full support of the world community.

> Gitmo would still have been there.

That's true; and it would be a factor. But Abu Ghraib wouldn't.

> So would the renditions, the CIA interrogations, the bombed
> villages, and eventually, unfortunately, some versions of
> Abu Ghraib and the abuse of civilians during a war.

Check the size differences in population. Had we occupied
Afghanistan with enough troops and money to do it right,
we migh've had a chance to rebuild that country and make
it into the showpiece of democratic rule that Bush claims
is our larger purpose there. Nation building is *hard work*.

> And somehow I'd wager that people who can work themselves
> up to kill because of bloody cartoons would have had no
> problem getting worked up by the U.S. occupying Afghanistan.

And it takes a pretty cartoonish view of Muslims to hold such a
stereotyped opinion of Muslims. First of all, we would've had
the support of the Muslim Mideast -- only three countries held
diplomatic relations with the Taliban (and one of them is our
ally Pakistan). Secondly, we would've had enough troops to smoke
out Osama and kill him or bring him to justice (the prefferd
outcome). Had he been brought to trial, all could see how many
Muslims he killed in the name of his hateful, nihilist ideology.

Salafi takfiri ideology is extraordinarily toxic to the Islamic
world because it advocates killing any Muslim who doesn't believe it.
By invading Iraq, Osama has been allowed to fool the Muslim world
into thinking that the US is waging a war on all Muslims, so all
Muslims should unite against us. Had we given Osama less reason
to make that argument, there would be more room for potentially
moderate Muslims to see the al Qaeda snake for exactly what it is.

> The premise is ridiculous on the face of it. Nobody here has
> read this NIE, other than what policitally-motivated leakers
> have run past politically-motivated journalists. I'd wager
> it doesn't say what you think it does.

You know, that's a pretty complicated melody you're whistling.
And we're strolling past a a really dark graveyard :)

> Just one more bit: It's amazing to see how the CIA, in the
> eyes of some people, can swing instantly from being a load
> of wankers to a group of geniuses, depending on what they
> say meeting your agenda. What makes you think they're any more
> right about this than anything else over the past ten years?

Because the institution was humiliated after the WMD fiasco
and has determined that it will not allow itself to be used
to make the same mistake again. Why do you think there
have been so many anti-Bush CIA leakers since that time?

Bob

Uh...yes. It will. Snicker.

But I *will* say that neither of you know Shi'ite from Shinola as far as the country of Iran is concerned. You get one free hint, though: It's not about the mullahs.

*snicker* Stupid libs. The mullahs run the country.

How effective is it to bend over in front of the Persians/Iranians and say, here, do me up the ass and I'll give you toasters and free Britney Speers cds?

Get serious, libs. These people respect power and the people who use it. Soft power works on soft people. The Persians/Iranians are the toughest sonsofbitches in the world and they alread have consumer goods and shit from the Chinese, who've been buying their oil. They already have at least a million bloggers, cellphones and TVs.

The Shiites and Sunnis are at war with each other and Iran is the one ready to kick that ass. If you stupid libs can't figure that out, I seriously doubt whether you'll win anything in Novemnber.

*snicker*

Paul Craig Roberts about Bush's nuclear bomb intentions towards Iran:

It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

I just want to remind everybody that the Ayatollah Khameini, the crazy mullah who actually runs Iran, has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

No matter what Ahmadinejad has in his head, he's just the president, not the Supreme Jurisprudent.

Mondo writes about the Iranian desire to nuke Israel: Mutually Assured Destruction? Remember that one? Do you seriously think Israel is going to go down without turning the rest of the mideast into a glass parking lot?

Various Iranian leaders (e.g., Rafshanjani) have previously noted that Iran would survive a nuclear exchange but Israel, due to its compact size, would not. They've also said that even if it cost ten million dead Muslims it would be worth it.

You and I certainly disagree with them about the relative value of a nuclear exchange, but what's clear is that at least some of the Mad Mullahs are contemplating this, and saying so publicly.

I just want to remind everybody that the Ayatollah Khameini, the crazy mullah who actually runs Iran, has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

Now all the stupid libs on this site are going to argue that Iran will never have the bomb and give them free shit.

*I love it!*

Bob:

I'm sure you're a really nice guy. You're exactly the kind of person I'd want negotiating a trade agreement with Spain. But you're naivete about our enemies is almost cosmic. Bin Laden attacked America because we had a few troops in Saudi Arabia. You honestly think other potential jihadists would overlook our overthrow and occupation of Afghanistan? Remember, we're not talking about the opinion of the government of Egypt, we're talking about jihadists. And contrary to the mass hallucination apparently infecting this board, the Islamist war against America did not start in March of 2003.

I can see how it's a lot less scary to think that the problems of the world are all because of someone you can vote away in a couple of years. The alternative is probably not something you want to face.

The alternative is probably not something you want to face.

The problem is he wants to use his face to blow the Mullahs and get them to *like* him so that they won't build the bomb and nuke Israel.

Naive libs should not be allowed to negotiate anything other than a staircase with only two steps.

*snicker*

rmck1 writes on what to do with Iran: Seriously? What would I do? Establish full diplomatic relations with Iran -- the country which is already the most socially progressive in the Muslim Middle East.

Well I'd disagree on that point -- Morrocco is clearly one of the most progressive Arab countries, and Turkey is more progressive than Iran.

But as to diplomatic relations: I don't have a problem with that per se, but what's the point? We really don't have any issue to discuss where there is a chance of dialogue. Iran has demonstrated to the EU3 that talking is a sham and a dodge, a way to buy time to enrich uranium.

If the point is to have a hotline vis a vis the old USSR, sure, fine, whatever, but let's not kid ourselves: diplomatic relations isn't a solution