Listen to Kevin, Dems. He's said it over and over again. You think you got punished for your "vote for peace" on the war resolution, wait until you've gone along with this catastrophe.

Kevin, it's casus belli.

i'd prefer a Cassis Bellini

Kevin quotes Zbigniew Brzezinski: "... is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world."

It won't just be a collision between the United States and the so-called "Islamic world."

It will be a collision between the United States and the entire world.

It just boggles my mind how the american people can successfully be bamboozled over and over again. Is there any hope at all that it won't happen again?

Lew- no, there isn't. Sorry.

Jack: Right you are. Thanks.

Shorter Zbigniew Brzezinski: Gulf of Tonkin II, coming soon to a theater of operations near you!

Lew wrote: "It just boggles my mind how the american people can successfully be bamboozled over and over again."

Not all of the American people. But you can fool some of the people all of the time. Besides, Dick Cheney doesn't really what "the American people" think. He's a dictator. The US military is his private army to do with as he pleases.

Lew: "Is there any hope at all that it won't happen again?"

Very little, unless Dick Cheney is impeached immediately.

And this won't be the Iraq war "happening again." It will be much worse.

And it's all so that Dick Cheney and his ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the US-based multinational oil companies can enrich themselves by destroying the Earth's capacity to support life with the CO2 emissions from all that Middle Eastern oil.

Seriously, a military mutiny might be where this is heading. God help us if Hirsch is right about the nukes; I also remember reading about Cheney considering setting of a nuke in Iran and claiming it was a nuclear accident. Dark times ahead...

They always asked how the Germans could let something like the Nazis happen. Did they not see the smokestacks. Well, we've had plenty of smokestacks. Now you know.

It may be inevitable, but it's a question of which side of history you want to be on. If America has to live with this blot on our soul, you want to be one of the guys who did everything within your power to stop it.

The opinion of the general populace is not shaped by blogs and op-eds, but guys like Michael Savage, who is already whipping up listeners into supporting the war against the next Hitler, Ahmedinezad.

I think we have almost reached a point of no return on this. Sad, but true.

I believe the President mentioned Iran as one memeber of the "axis of evil" in the State of the Union in 2002. Since you think this president lies, why bother to deal with this threat?

Don't you think if Bush lied to get us into the war that he would also have given false evidence about the weapons of mass destruction? He lies about the war but isn't lying about attacking Iran? You people have a hate Bush brain cramp.

If the Democrat party doesn't believe that the President will do what he says he is going to do they are stuck on stupid again.

Do they really think Iran is just going to go away if we pull out of Iraq?

Stuck on stupid with the knob ripped off.

Iran is Bush's Cambodia.

The difference, of course, is that Nixon was simply unprincipled, but Bush is unprincipled and driven by psychopathic religious fervor and an unquenchable and sadistic lust for revenge.

Repugnicans support Bush at 80% levels.

And every single one of them should be held accountable for every single American soldier lost, as well as every single allied soldier and innocent civilian caught up in Bush's Folly.

I wonder if people are reluctant to speak out because nobody can really believe that they would actually be that stupid. Sadly, the available evidence indicates that this attitude is wrong -- they really are that stupid.

Nixon was simply unprincipled, but Bush is unprincipled and dumb as a post!

"I believe the President mentioned Iran as one memeber of the "axis of evil" in the State of the Union in 2002."

Yup, he did, and it was an embarrassingly stupid comment. That you bring it up without shame says much about you.

"Since you think this president lies, why bother to deal with this threat?"

And what threat would that be, dear?

"Don't you think if Bush lied to get us into the war that he would also have given false evidence about the weapons of mass destruction?"

I'm sure he would have if he could have, dear, but alas for Bush, twisting and stovepiping the intelligence before the war required intimidating and coercing just a few people. There were simply too many people involved in the search for WMDs for such tactics to work after the war was over, not to mention the inconvenient little fact that someone would have asked to actually see these mythical WMDs.

"He lies about the war but isn't lying about attacking Iran?"

Dear heart, the indications are that he is, in fact, lying about Iran.

"You people have a hate Bush brain cramp."

LOL.... Whatever you say, dear. Do come back and talk to us when you've surgically removed your nose from its current resting place, won't you?

"Do they really think Iran is just going to go away if we pull out of Iraq?"

No, dear, but since there isn't a damn thing we can do about it one way or another, thanks to Bush's stupidity, it doesn't really matter, does it?

"Stuck on stupid with the knob ripped off."

Couldn't have said it better myself, dear, but one day you may actually wake up and rejoin us out here in the real world.

Bush silenced critics with his "no-one could be this stupid" bluff. He even got the Dems to give him a "vote for peace" on the war resolution, so that he had the power to negotiate with Hussein. They want to have the debate once the war begins, when self-preservation dictates we rally around the leader to save us from his ineptitude.

He is this stupid.

Will Bush promise again to go to the UN for an "up or down" vote, then renege, and have this be ignored by the media?

I believe the President

That's your problem, "Orwell."

It looks to me like they are trying to badger the Iranians into attacking "first". I use the quotes because, since the US side is already capturing Iranian diplomats and ordering troops to shoot Iranian "agents", reprisals from the Iranian side would hardly be a surprise, but the noise machine will have people believe that there's been a new Tonkin Gulf incident as soon as things get nasty.

Just as Republicans of conscience intervened in July-August, '74, for which we can be thankful, the same needs to take place now. This is getting truly scary, and this is no time for the Dems to be timid. Iran could easily block the Straits of Hormuz. Bye-bye to 55% of the world's oil production. Bush and Cheney are leaving us little choice but impeachment. As politically unfeasible as that had seemed, that could be changing. As a recently naturalized American citizen friend (and one time Bush supporter) noted, our founding fathers put the impeachment clause in for exactly these kinds of guys. "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." - Dante Alighieri

Cleek
Personally, I'd prefer Monica Bellucci.

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." - Dante Alighieri

Not to pick nits, but I doubt the source of that quote is right. In the Inferno, the neutral -- neither good nor evil -- were condemned to remain outside the gates of Hell, suffering but neither in Hell nor Heaven.

Gregory - I read that in a quote book many years ago, wrote it down word-for-word, suspect it is not from Inferno per se. But that was the cited source. Hope that helps. Cheers.

Democrats are mostly either playing along as well, or else sitting on their hands hoping that nothing will happen.

Kevin,
I like your post except for that sentence. It’s gratuitous and flip all at once. And so many people are in the habit of making such statements about the Democrats.

And I’m tired of hearing about spineless Democrats. For the most part, the only spines I see in Washington belong to Democrats.

I’m a Democrat and I’m not playing along. I’ve been warning everyone I know that Bush’s actions may result in conflict with Iran, fueled by another batch of lies. I’ve written and emailed my Representative who happens to be a knee-jerk Bush supported. I’ve emailed my Senators. I’ve campaigned door to door in support of Democratic candidates.

Do I really need to list all the example of office-holding Democrats issuing the same types of warning? You yourself have noted how problematic congressional resolutions and/or legislation are as a method of stopping the President from waging war. When your party does not control the Presidency, it is very difficult to stop a President from waging war.

I’d say you (Kevin) have done a lot already, but more needs to be done. You need to suggest additional constructive things Bush opponents can do. At a minimum, I think we need to let all of the elected officials at the federal level know that we intend to hold their feet to fire if they don’t oppose Bush on the war and on attacking Iran.

And it needs to be more that just talk. They need to (metaphorically) slap him around pretty good. They need to (metaphorically, of course) give him a good stiff punch to the solar plexus.

It will take some organized effort. MoveOn is currently organized to stop the escalation, for example. Join that cause. Join any organized effort. Don’t just talk.

How far is Iran from Bin Ladin? Over the river and through the woods...

How thin can Bush spread US troops if he plans to democratize Iran, take them from Iraq and...what was that country Bin be in? Starts with A...?
Isn't the Army saying it doesn't have the manpower for the surge, did anyone ask them about this next war...?
TPM has a bit on the actual troop numbers to Iraq is inching up to 41,000. Is this stabilizing Iraq or setting the stage for a surge into Iran. Exxon-Iran flags in the oil fields.
Impeach the Anti-christ now and save us all. Even Satan's got off Cheney's train.

Our president has already deployed secret operatives inside Iran.

Extensive (Iranian) war plans are sitting in computers at CENTCOM.

(more) Naval vessels have been dispatched to the region recently, complete with aircraft carriers loaded with planes and bombs (of all sorts!).

Iranian operatives are being killed in Iraq by US forces, regardless of how "guilty" they might be.

Israel has no love lost on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

God told Bush to invade Iraq (get Saddam).

Wars are US, why not keep a good thing going?

Orwell wrote: "Don't you think if Bush lied to get us into the war that he would also have given false evidence about the weapons of mass destruction?"

Bush did exactly that.

In interviews after the invasion of Iraq -- and after the USA's own weapons inspectors had already reported that no WMD or WMD programs existed -- Bush said publicly that "Saddam refused to allow the UN inspectors into Iraq" and that "We found the weapons of mass destruction".

Both of these blatant lies shocked the entire world but were barely reported, if at all, in the corporate-owned Bush-bootlicking US media.

Let's agree for the sake of argument that Bush is the Devil. Meanwhile Iran is surely developing nuclear weapons. They are apparantly seeking to dominate the middle east. Aside from criticizing Bush, what do you folks think should be done?

Just so you do not think I am like Orwell, I think Dumbya makes rocks look bright and even the smarter (relative term) people in his administration, have proven their incompetence repeatedly, but it may be that Dumbya having opened Pandora's Box has no choice but to attack Iran. The problem in Iraq is Shia/Sunni violence among Arabs. We could end the civil strife pretty quickly by siding with the Shia militias. There would be an element of genocide involved, but this country has a long if decidely unplesant history in that regard. Dumbya and his cronies have already demonstrated that they have absolutely no respect for human rights and have endorsed torture as an element of intelligence gathering. So why hasn't Dumbya just thrown his lot with the Shias? The conventional answer is because that would make Iraq a puppet of Iran, but that is by no means obvious given that Shia politicians in Iraq want to run the show, not hand their new found power over to Iran particularly because Iranians are Persians not Arabs. I think the only reason for not supporting the Shias in exterminating the Sunnis (apart from moral reasons which Dumbya has demonstrated are not his concern) is that most of the Middle East and most importantly Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Remember a couple of months ago when Cheney ran to his Saudi masters for meetings without notice? It is certainly plausible that deals were made which involve the U.S. attacking Iran in exchange for Saudi Arabia reigning in the Sunnis in Iraq and keeping the oil flowing. My point is not to spout conspiracy theories, but merely to suggest that there is likely more going on here than simply Dumbya's ability to turn everything he touches into crap. Of course the result will be the same.

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks

Nah! Too complicated. Think Persian Gulf. Think flotillas of capital ships and their defenders. Think a relatively small, target rich environment.

Think USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58); Think Iran Air Flight 655. Think August, 1914.

I believe that Bush will choose to assault Iran, for the following reason; the GOP domestic agenda is dead as yesterday's mackerel. There is no chance whatsoever that the administration is going to enjoy success on Social Security, healthcare, the environment, tax policy, or any other domestic issue. Frustration over this predicament is going to lead the White House towards taking the most aggressive approach they can on war. For all practical purposes the reign of Bush II is over, with the exception of foreign policy, where he can still find ways to make mischief.

Hey, Ex-Liberal,

Let's agree for the sake of argument that people can disagree with you and Bush and his disastrous policies without thinking he is the devil. Meanwhile, Bush Cultists make up shit about "developing nuclear weapons" without any evidence whatsoever - not even weak-ass Powell Tubes.

What do YOU think should be done?

ex-liberal wrote: "Let's agree for the sake of argument that Bush is the Devil."

I don't agree with that. There is no "devil". Bush is simply a ruthless and greedy human being.

"Meanwhile Iran is surely developing nuclear weapons."

There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is "developing nuclear weapons".

Like Orwell, like American Hawk, like Frequency Kenneth, you are a deliberate liar, and everyone who reads these pages knows that you are a deliberate liar.

Remember, Cheney is the 1% man. If someone's footprint in Iraq matches the shoe of someone in Iran that's all he needs and it's bombs away.

It looks to me like they are trying to badger the Iranians into attacking "first".

If the Iranians are smart, and they seem to be, they'll stall for two years, and Bush will have to make stuff up to start a war. Again.

I don't understand why we can negotiate with North Korea about nukes but not Iran. Oh, maybe it's the oil.

Let's agree for the sake of argument that Bush is the Devil. Meanwhile Iran is surely developing nuclear weapons. They are apparantly seeking to dominate the middle east. Aside from criticizing Bush, what do you folks think should be done?
Posted by: ex-liberal

Iran surely has a nuclear program of some kind, beyond that you're going on supposition. And I don't care what you call or don't call Bush, but your other claims are substantively problematic since they lack both proof and an understanding of how we got here. Iran is using the opening Bush provided them by making the heinous strategic mistake of invading Iraq. His administrtation is not competent to do anything other than leave office.

Having said that, the only sane option is a concerted diplomatic effort that involves Russia and China. We're gonna need Rice to go get some serious advice from Baker on how to get Russia and China to agree to put pressure on Iran.

Our military option really only involves airstrikes and nuclear at this stage. Unless of course we start the draft again. Explain to me how either massive airstrikes or a nuclear bombing of Iran won't have a hugely negative impact for this country. To say nothing of how effective they might really be in the end in stopping Iran's nuclear program.

I do not think we can count on anyone, the Democrats or the soldiers or blogs, to stop W. Bush and his attempt to make more war and bring more death to the peoples of the Middle East.

Or blogs?

an undertaking that the Iranian regime itself seems happy to help along.

I do not know what the limited democracy of Iran is doing to provoke the US to attack it, accept making decisions it considers in its and its peoples best interests. Those decisions have nothing to do with military aggression against the US.

To some Americans, defiance of our authority to bully is worthy of a preemptive strike. Attacking Iran will not be preventative, it will be escalation like this nation has not known for over fifty years. Attacking Iran will mean the end of the American Dream.

Never liberal spouted:

Let's agree for the sake of argument that Bush is the Devil. Meanwhile Iran is surely developing nuclear weapons. They are apparently seeking to dominate the middle east. Aside from criticizing Bush, what do you folks think should be done?

And why not? The US has been trying, somewhat successfully, to dominate the region for 6 decades and all we have done is really fuck it all up.

French President Jacques Chirac had it just about right when he said on Monday,

Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb would not be "very dangerous" and that if it used the weapon on Israel, Tehran would be immediately "razed,"

An that is assuming that the powers that really be in Iran actually view “developing a nuclear weapon� as a terminal outcome. That may not be the case, yet.

On securingamerica.com in the CCN blog, General Discussion, ms in la details the weirdest thing:

I'm driving listening to Air America- the stand-in host for Al Franken is on and he has Larry Johnson call in to discuss Iran. He prefaces the conversation with info about some supposedly top secret Intel docs out of England that will be revealed this week to show Iran is behind everything -- well, you know-- the redux of the Downing Street Memos again- drop the Q add the N.... and does he think this will really fly in light of the Iraq lead-up being so parallel?

Larry starts this most fascinating reply about how some anon Intel blogger has just put out the date set already as February 24, that bush has declared for this attack, the three ships in the Gulf, etc etc... then he starts to discuss the plan (he's heard from insiders-- remember he's from the CIA) the plan to provoke Iran to do something, anything, any little thing-- that we could interpret as causus belli (sp) to justify our attack as retaliation. That way we didn't just attack "unprovoked" or illegally (see today's Series blog for that discussion!)

Well, I'm riveted at this point- it's only a few minutes into the call (I think the guest host was Tom Oliphant, not sure) Larry is going on to explain how he thinks it would be done--- I feel like I'm listening in to this private spook meeting when smack out of the blue---

The show switches over to an entirely different show!!

With an entirely different host and some listener call-ins talking about this funeral of a professor back east-- No warning - no lead up. Just poof!

There was no gap, not even a millisecond of dead air-- it just got flipped to what I'm presuming was a pre-recorded taped show from an earlier date. I continued to listen to see if it will go back to Larry, and Tom Oliphant actually calls in to this one to do a little bit from outside the studio, but NOTHING about Iran or Larry Johnson was ever mentioned...

He was cut off mid-sentence.

The prospect of Iran getting nukes does not justify another "preemptive" invasion. See, e.g., North Korea. When Iran actually attacks the U.S. or one of its allies, then we'll have a reason for war. In the meantime, attack the Mooninites!

What I don't understand is where they expect to get the troops for Iran. They could only scrounge up 20K for the surge, and that leaves things stretched even more thinly.

Orwell: "Don't you think if Bush lied to get us into the war that he would also have given false evidence about the weapons of mass destruction?"

He did.

How did you miss the WMD Winnebagos?

Or for that matter, the exaggerated and misrepresented intelligence given to Congress, the American people, and our allies?

Then, there is also the diversionary tactic of proffering other reasons (equally dubious) for going to war, which would render moot any need to provide evidence of the original reasons for going to war.

You seem to think the only path after lying is to lie some more.

Well Bush did do that, but he also did other things like diversion and extortion ("we can't let those soldiers die in vain" and "if we don't win in Iraq, terrorists will flood America's streets and schools").

Thank you Kevin, for having the guts to get this warning out there, because it is coming. Bush and Cheney are saying the same things and acting exactly the same way they did before they attacked Iraq. The decision has already been made. Read Robert Parry's column today at www.consortiumnews.com. Parry said the only question is whether we fire the first missile or Israel does. Let me say it loud - IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. These men are insane. Watch oil prices go to $100 per barrel.

Democrats only weapon is impeachment - NOW. If Bush can launch a preemptive war, Democrats can launch a preemptive impeachment.

Wesley Clark has been working really hard behind-the-scenes to try to stop a war with Iran. It's why he's been "late" to declare, so that people will understand his words as non-partisan good policy, instead of seeing them through a political prism.

CATHERINED: He was cut off mid-sentence.

Well, you see, hearing about how Bush and his thugs are planning to phony up another war would just embolden the terrorists.
Posted by: jayarbee

The Rudepundit has nice meme-killer for the whole "embolden" bs:

Who Gives a Fuck What the "Enemy" Feels?
Has anyone come up with a compelling, legitimate reason as to why terrorists, insurgents, and vaguely-defined enemies should dictate how the United States acts and reacts in the Iraq War? 'Cause, like, now that the word "embolden" has become such a big goddamn part of the talking point vocabulary of war hawks and Lieber-men, it sure seems like we're all supposed to worry what the "enemy" will feel if we don't act the way they think we should act.

RubenRemus asks: What do YOU think should be done [about Iran]?

RR, I don't know. I think we shouldn't allow Iran to obtain nukes, which implies possibly attaking them as a last resort.

I think many of the Irani people would be well-disposed to getting rid of the Mullahs and having a western-style democracy. If we could find some way of overturning the theocratic rule, Iran could conceivably be our ally. But, I don't know how to accomplish that. I doubt that today's CIA has the wherewithall to foment an effective revolution.

I doubt that Russia or China would be helpful to us. We ahve been trying to enlist their help via a strong UN resolution. So far, they haven't been helpful.

The final option is to let Iran get nukes and hope for the best. That strikes me as the most likely scenario. It scares me.

I doubt that Russia or China would be helpful to us. We ahve been trying to enlist their help via a strong UN resolution. So far, they haven't been helpful.

I'm sorry ex-lib but where is the proof that we've been trying at all? Have we sent the President to talk to Putin? Who have we sent? Until we pull out all the stops on the diplomatic front and make a genuine effort (which this admin won't want to do), we haven't tried. And we all see the proof if the administration really tries.

Glenn Beck said last night Bush was going to start war with Iran because Bush knows the next occupant of the WH will not have the courage to do it. Beck also said this was all part of the plan since day one of Bush's presidency. He then turned to his Heritage Foundation guest to back him up. I had to turn away at that point.

I do not give Beck a lot of credibility, but what is so galling is that CNN provides a soap box for this crazy man to shout his hate from. He has been doing it for quite a while, but the elevation of rhetoric to blatantly call for a strike against Iran scares me very much.

What is even scarier is the complacency of regular people to either dismiss or accept new war as something that is out of their control. The dismissives just want to be bourgeois consumers who cannot be bothered with politics and the acceptors cannot overcome their obedience to an authority they consider to be all-knowing and protective of American interests. Both are going down if we attack Iran. Going down to a much lower living standard. Going down to the graveyard to see their children buried. Going down without a fight. I feel like a drowning man going down for the third time.

"Israel is not the only country that can be wiped off the map." -
Shimon Peres

I still can't believe Bush would actually attack Iran. We obviously don't have the troops available for an invasion so it will have to be air strikes on nuclear sites (probably as many as we know about). Is Congress going to be informed or will everyone just wake up one morning to hear the news?

I've been following the situation in Iraq through Juan Cole's daily blogging. He has such excellent knowledge of all the different sects and groups, break-away militias, etc., etc. (Sunni/Shia is a gross simplification of where things stand now). Anyway, he points out today that almost all American soldiers are killed in areas controlled by the Sunni. Meanwhile the US has reneged on its promise to make public evidence that shows Iran playing a destabilizing role in Iraq or contributing to the American death toll.

In another thread a few days ago the view that many Democrats in Congress were likely to support a war against Iran was labeled as coming from a concern troll.

I suppose this post makes Kevin Drum a concern troll as well?

Bush and the GOP are desperate to change the subject of Iraq. It's a huge albatross and deflecting attention to Iran is their last gasp. Why the Democrats would enable that is beyond me (and would be too stupid to contemplate).

I suppose this post makes Kevin Drum a concern troll as well?
Posted by: JS

Of course it does. Let's try out your logic in some other situations:

My dog has four legs.
My cat has four legs.
Therefor my cat is a dog.

Someone has to say 'You don't get a new war until you finish with the old one'.

It works with kids, and their toys. It's worth a shot.

cyntax, you analogy does not work. It was the expression of concern about Democrats on Iran that brought the accusation of "concern troll". It is not the fact that an animal has four lags that makes it a dog. In the former case, the attribute was defining -- in the second, it is incidental. Try again.

And, is your position that all Democrats in Congress can be relied on to oppose war against Iran?

... don't know. I think we shouldn't allow Iran to obtain nukes... ex-lax at 6:35 PM

I still can't believe Bush would actually attack Iran.... nepeta at 6:54 PM

According to a recent poll (forgot which one, probably wasn't Rassputin).

The majority of Americans believe that Democrats are not doing enough to stop George W Bush.

Count me among that majority.

cyntax, you analogy does not work. It was the expression of concern about Democrats on Iran that brought the accusation of "concern troll". It is not the fact that an animal has four lags that makes it a dog. In the former case, the attribute was defining -- in the second, it is incidental. Try again.
And, is your position that all Democrats in Congress can be relied on to oppose war against Iran?
Posted by: JS

No my example holds because it uses weak inductive reasoning just as you did.

You've carefully oversimplified whatever statements were made on the other thread by removing the context. As such everyone reading what you wrote is left with your incidental comparison of two people saying that the Dems won't stop a war on Iran, followed by your leading question of whether this also makes KD a concern troll.

If you want a more detailed evaluation, then do the honest work of presenting the detail from the arguements on the other thread.

I haven't as yet formed an opinion on what every single Democratic member of the 110th Congress will do concerning Iran.

BushCo operatives, under the cover of Civillian Contractors, with a black-market C-802 antiship missile, from a position near the Shat-al arab.

Will any brave news organizations be taking video to prove it wasn't Iran?

The final option is to let Iran get nukes and hope for the best. That strikes me as the most likely scenario. It scares me.
Posted by: ex-liberal on February 1, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

How about this option?:

Ask Israel to sign the nonproliferation treaty, and open their nuclear program for inspections.

As a condition, insist Iran do the same.

Honestly - this is exactly what Ahmadinijad has asked for. It's not a secret. And frankly, it's only fair, and is very likely to put a stop to this whole sorry mess. The only other thing that has a chance is full-scale war. I know which I'd rather choose.

Let's have a little reality check, re: Iran, shall we? First, the economy is monolithic and one-dimensional.

You all are freaking out about a country that loses a significant portion of it's oil income because it can't manage to get it's refinery act together.

You think a country that can't get it together enough to refine oil, is going to enrich uranium in record time? Nu-uh. Not gonna happen.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, BGRS.

Maybe Iran is starting to get its refinery act together. Until, that is, Bush bombs them.

The other salient point here is - Ahmadinijad could be bluffing. Because he keeps claiming that it's not for weapons. Maybe that's actually the case, and he's purposely being vague, because he KNOWS that US leadership is paranoid about WMD (after watching the Iraq experience). He also knows that, if the US strikes Iran, the rest of the world will be more than a little pissed off at the US over the $200/bbl oil that will result.

entirely ludicrous post, Kevin. You ignore the reality that each is using the other for domestic political gain. The rattling of sabers has value in an of itself for each and does not at all mean escalation is the endgame. You people rally need to grow up.

I don't know how wedded to war the players at the end of the bench are. If somehow the team captains were taken out would the second string hopefully just take their ball and go home?

True, we mustn't give in to having a clumsy and excessive response to Iran, but: they really are a problem to some extent, and we do have to figure out what to do about it.

So what does this Obama quotation say about the Democrats' attitudes toward bombing Iran?

"...launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

Emphasis added. I interpret "to err" to mean that we should bomb even if we are not absolutely sure about Iran's program.

My point is the same as Kevin Drum's point: Democrats should be pressured NOW on their positions on a war against Iran. Too many people seem to be assuming that Democrats would not countenance such a war.

Ask Israel to sign the nonproliferation treaty, and open their nuclear program for inspections.

You want a republican administration to put pressure on Israel? (Yes, I know you do). You want fairness? (I think you do.) Does fairness work? Maybe? Sometimes? (Yes, I think we might agree it does.) Who do you think is most likely to have the spine to put pressure on Israel, thus enhancing our chances of getting Iran to play: A Republican or a Democratic President? (I don't think it's any contest, based on past experience. A Democratic President.)

Don't look for any sudden 'spine' from the US Congress. Congress does what the money tells it to do.

The only force that might stop this juggernaut is millions of people taking to the streets.

The challenge: When the mainstream media is controlled by the same money that wants war, how do you get the message out?

How do you tell people that the greatest danger facing them is located in the White House and not Tehran?

If you folks want to read the exact opposite point of view, go to http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjQxNWVhZGY4YjRkMTlhNjcyOTk2NWEyZWZkZjQ2NWE=

Never has a country strained so hard to avoid a conflict as the United States concerning Iran. They have waged war against us for 28 years, and we are only now beginning to contemplate the possibility of a response....Our heroes deny that there is such information, and it isn’t really convincing information, and even if it is convincing we shouldn’t be mean to the mullahs.

This is the pattern that led us straight to 9/11. For that matter, it got us to Pearl Harbor and to Khobar Towers, and to the Beirut bombings of our embassy and the Marine barracks.

True, we mustn't give in to having a clumsy and excessive response to Iran, but: they really are a problem to some extent, and we do have to figure out what to do about it.

Posted by: Neil B. on February 1, 2007 at 8:46 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Neil, the United States is a problem to many people. Do they have the same rights we presume for ourselves, to "do something" about us?

"If you folks want to read the exact opposite point of view"

Dear heart, why on earth would we care about wholly unsupported tripe, devoid of facts, reason, logic, or evidence, and from someone who has gotten it so badly wrong in so many ways over the past six years? The very paragraphs you cite are so wildly inaccurate that you embarrass yourself by pointing us to that article.

"The final option is to let Iran get nukes and hope for the best. That strikes me as the most likely scenario. It scares me."

Your ignorance and your fear and paranoia are not our problem and are not sufficient reason to send this nation into a war with Iran, particularly when that war would be so costly in so many ways.

It's not just Obama.

Hillary speaks at AIPAC:
...a nuclear-armed Iran would shake the foundation of global security to its very core. Israel would be most immediately and profoundly threatened by this development, but Israel would not be alone. ...So let us be unequivocally clear. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer talks to the Jerusalem Post:
Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position. ...The Maryland Democrat said the view is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran.

Biden accused of 'double talk' on Iran:
Wallace asks: "You're saying at this point a nuclear Iran is unacceptable?"
"Correct," Biden replies.

Edwards: 'ALL options on the table':
"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran..." "Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said. "...To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate -- ALL options must remain on the table."

[Tried to post this with links but WM banished the post]

Since war with Iran is obviously not in the best interests of the United States, any guesses who is behind the current war fever. The Israelis? The Saudis? Exxon-Mobil? All of the above? Any other suspects?

JS: I think that's the downside to not having to put up with that horrible Chinese spam that used to choke every thread about 80 comments in or so.

The much bigger picture here is that inadequtely addressed nuclear proliferation will someday lead to nuclear war, it will most likely, nearly inevitably, lead to the near extinction of our species. At this point we're just biding our time. I've thought so as a child ever since I understood nuclear weapons and the arms race.

More and more, I'm starting to toy with the idea that not only would a nuclear-armed Iran (noting that we have no evidence that they are indeed moving in this direction) be acceptable but even a good thing in that it would be a constraint on US actions and a US that is a tottering democracy with an out-of-control military industrial complex and executive branch is much, much more threatening to me than Iran could ever be. Further moves in this direction and... well, you guys truly do have the ability to terrorize the rest of us. It's a crappy choice to have to make but...

I mean, here you've got a nation armed to the teeth, seeing enemies all around and with far too many people who are frankly delusional. How else could you categorise this nonsense produced by never-was-a-liberal-in-any-true-sense-of-the-word?

Never has a country strained so hard to avoid a conflict as the United States concerning Iran. They have waged war against us for 28 years, and we are only now beginning to contemplate the possibility of a response....Our heroes deny that there is such information, and it isn't really convincing information, and even if it is convincing we shouldn't be mean to the mullahs.

You can really see the frothing at the mouth for a war with Iran over at NationalReview.com.
Every other comment on The Corner blog on the NR site comes up with more 'reasons' why we should attack/invade Iran. What a bunch of loons.

Those who are frothing at the mouth, all hot for a war with Iran need to remember the following:

• Iranians have a strong national identity that is founded in common history; unlike Iraq which was cobbled together from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, and occupied by Britain from 1917 to 1958.
  
• Iranian is four times the size of Iraq.
  
• Iran has as many males between 15-64 as Iraq has total population
• The average make Iranian is just under 25 years of age.
• Iran will not fall simply because a figurehead might be deposed. Iran will not fall so long as one Mullah remains alive anywhere in the country.
• Iran has a modern military that has not been decimated by two decades of war and sanctions.

You can really see the frothing at the mouth for a war with Iran over at NationalReview.com.
Every other comment on The Corner blog on the NR site comes up with more 'reasons' why we should attack/invade Iran. What a bunch of loons.

Question: How will the 70% Shiite population of Iraq respond to an unprovoked American attack on 100% Shiite Iran?

How is it possible for one to be so morally corrupt as to believe he can save his "legacy" by stacking bodies of the dead and wounded even higher for no other purpose than a backdrop for badly uttered speeches for picked crowds? They have no shame. This truly summons images of a later Roman empire doomed by its dullard aristocracy.

Question: How will the 70% Shiite population of Iraq respond to an unprovoked American attack on 100% Shiite Iran?

Question Two: Through whose territory do the supply lines to the US bases in Iraq run?

Question Three and Four: How many allies will the US have left following an attack on Iran? What are the likely responses of allies now doing the bulk of the weight-carrying in Afghanistan?

Question Five: Has any President ever managed to lose three wars at once?

How will the 70% Shiite population of Iraq respond to an unprovoked American attack on 100% Shiite Iran?

Now you know what "the surge" is needed for.

If George W. Bush had been president in October 1962 the 35% of Americans now over age 44 might be long dead, and the remaining 65% might never have been born. "Talk to them Rooskies? We don't talk to evil."

Do I exaggerate? Well, maybe. There might have been survivors, but their offspring likely would have had webbed fingers, or six arms, and maybe two heads with a big red eye in the middle of each one. (sorta the way I picture egbert & orwell)

How did we arrive at this point in history where a guy who doesn't know how to pronounce nuclear has access to the launch codes?

Warning: extreme nit-picking

100% Shiite Iran? 95%

Sunni, Zoroastrian and Jewish minorities.

Religion: Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%

Ethnic groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%

Ah, good one rnc. One snide remark to totally eviscerate any and all argument. You must have been a champion at debate.

And your point would be?

I should have said "I'll see your nitpicking and raise you a full-blown pedantic fit."

Go with Blue Girl's stats. Mine were plucked from memory.

I would be delighted for the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Brzenski. I would reread The grand Chessboard before hand if I had any warning. Yes, I would have many questions for him.

For you? Not so much.

Oh and that a fit definitely outranks a pick. :)

Thank you, my friend. The CIA world factbook has been on my homepage for a decade. I have the Iran page saved these days.

It was last updated 23 Jan, btw.

Brzezinski's Iran policies are half the reason we're in this mess in the first place.

How so?

Oh - and an interesting aside - 15 is the age of majority. At 15 an Iranian can vote, make contracts, marry and serve in the military.

That was an interesting social experiment that came about as part of the Revolution of 1979. The data is only now coming in, but it looks interesting so far, just from the snapshots of the demographics.

Please state the specific policies to which you refer, and apply analysis to clarify your assertion that those policies directly result in todays problems with the IRI.

Personally, I would argue that the history of Iran actually predates the Carter administration. Iranians have long memories. They are still a little hot about that whole bit of ugliness in 1953 involving John Foster Dulles, Kim Roosevelt, the CIA, Mohammed Mossadegh and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Blue Girl, you probably know about this, but I only learned about it recently: Iran is the only country that reserves a parliament seat for a representative of its Jewish citizens. The current occupant, a Jew, has outraged Iran critics here because he said that "the life of the Jews in Iran was far better than that of other Iranians and even invited the wealthy Iranian Jewish community to return to Iran." [Wikipedia] And he has said all these things while on visits to the US as well. He is said to be "very close to Khatami", and a supporter of the Palestinian cause "against the Zionists".

NRO considers him a shill and says that "next time Mr. Motamed enters this country, it should be as a refugee fleeing Iran". What do you suppose they are hoping will happen there?

What do you suppose they are hoping will happen there?

Their erections are fading. They. Must. Have. Iran. War. if they are going to finish fucking the country.

My Dad was an adviser to the Shah's navy when they were building the Naval facility at Bandar e' Abbas. I spent a lot of time there as a young teen, and I moved about freely. The Jewish community was thriving. Teenagers are social creatures. We mixed it up freely in the pre-revolution days, doing what teenagers do - we hung out and drank coffee and smoked cigarettes and played soccer, and talked about revolution.

Sorry --

Anybody else get the idea that KD is getting lazier about posting intersting items -- or being on top of his web?

He's always shied away from controversy.

There's a whole lot going on and I note the diminishing posts.

OK. So we can blame the repugnuts for fading away, but we have debates among ourselves.

Be nice to have something to really talk about.

Maybe just me?!

Sorry!

cyntax (whose last response I had missed until now) still considers me a concern troll and invites me to explain why I am not, given the discussion on the other thread. That is too long to reproduce here, but the key points of my main post were:

There seems to exist a silent disagreement among liberals about the reasons why the US should not go to war against Iran.

Some claim it's because Iran is far from producing a nuclear bomb. Others, that it lacks delivery systems that could reach the US. Another position is that Iran would never be irrational enough to try to attack the US with a nuclear weapon. And still others claim that, to the extent that we accept the existence of international law, there is no legal basis for such a war.

I believe that this diversity of opinions will hurt the effectiveness of the liberal position against an Iran War and can be easily be manipulated by the other side to its advantage.

My complaint, made again in this thread as well, is that Democrats in Congress have shown signs that they will support a war on Iran -- by using the code words that a nuclear Iran is "unacceptable". And I think that pressure should be applied on these Democrats now -- rather than when it will be too late. Kevin Drum seems to be making a similar point when he says

Pretty speeches about how you regret voting for the Iraq war are all very fine, but the real test is how you react to the next big marketing campaign for war.

If I have left out important aspects of the context on the other thread, perhaps cyntax will point them out. I *think" cyntax (and others) takes any criticism of Democrats in Congress as coming from the right. Not so in this case.

Blue Girl, Red State --

...Teenagers are social creatures. We mixed it up freely ....
=======
You know what. I am sorry. With your inside view and better understanding, you need to give us a better idea of where Iran is going and where the US would like to push them.

More opinion or insight please!

Sorry friend (indeed best friend), we have to take the keys away. You're not fit to be the driver anymore, maybe the EU can steer until the Chinese or Indians take over. I dunno, whatever. It's a shame too, you were a damn good driver for a long time.

Some of your guys are really scaring me.

Scary Josh Marshall.

"Regarding when the bombs might start falling in Iran, a few different pieces of evidence point to a time frame in early March. More on this later this evening.

Last Update: I don't make a practice of pulling posts. But this one, in its first writing, sounded a lot more definitive than I meant it to. What I'm talking about is an overlap between the naval deployments in the Gulf and the nuclear developments in Iran. I'll provide more details later."

Well, it's later (1:14 EST) and so far no more word on this from Josh.

Btw, I appreciate the many excellent posts by almost all of you on this thread. If our leaders could be half as wise...

If I have left out important aspects of the context on the other thread, perhaps cyntax will point them out. I *think" cyntax (and others) takes any criticism of Democrats in Congress as coming from the right. Not so in this case.
Posted by: JS

Not quite JS. What I was objecting to was the disingenous construction and tone of your arguement. You didn't identify yourself as the poster from the other thread, though that was my assumption, and you tried to ellicit a response without presenting any evidence.

Now that doesn't mean you are a concern troll, but those sorts of argumentative tricks are used often by trolls on these threads. If you are acting in good faith, then argue in good faith.

My complaint, made again in this thread as well, is that Democrats in Congress have shown signs that they will support a war on Iran...

But that isn't what you said. Here's what you said:

In another thread a few days ago the view that many Democrats in Congress were likely to support a war against Iran was labeled as coming from a concern troll.
I suppose this post makes Kevin Drum a concern troll as well?

That has a very churlish if not trollish tone, and is a very weak arguement, so it's not surprising that you've been mistaken for a concern troll on other threads.

JS --

Thank god, or whatever, there have been a number of interventions in the debate about war with Iran.

There are moves to legislate against the US actions militarily against Iran, that the Bush administration cannot move forward. May these come about.

The arguments versus going to war against Iran are multiple. Today, I am sure you'd find the majority of the country against it.

Everybody has become so sick of the B-S they have been fed and the result of same for 4 years. Credibility had crumbled so most believe that war is not an answer.

At the same time, in the UK kids are feeding into fundamental Islam more than 5 years ago. WHY?

And just like any other "fad" there could be a lift off here. Propelled by what?, parents telling kids "No!" WoW! That would be a first.

NOT!

ex-lib quotes:

Never has a country strained so hard to avoid a conflict as the United States concerning Iran. They have waged war against us for 28 years, and we are only now beginning to contemplate the possibility of a response.

What would you call American normalization with Iraqi relations in 1982, and arming Iraq to the teeth against Iran? What about sending American fighters to destroy Iranian ships? Is that what you call "straining to avoid conflict?"

Bush will not attack Iran. It won't happen.

Well, I'm no expert on anything. But here are a couple of things the way i see 'em...

The Islamic Revolution was a means to an end. The Ayatollah was the charismatic leader that is required of any revolutionary movement. It was the perfect combination of opportunity, true-believers, and opportunists.

The Mullahs were really quite brilliant - the enacted a 15-year-old age of majority. This has, ironically, served as a mechanism of control through early empowerment.

The United States needs to realize that when dealing with Iranians, we are not dealing with a purely Islamic culture. Persian culture predates Islam by at least 1500 years, and the Persian people have not been invaded, conquered and occupied in modern times. Hell, not since the Arabs Islamized them seven hundred years ago.

We need to be engaging in diplomacy, even if it takes six months to decide what will be the design and color of the peace table?

Inside Iran, the revolution is over. Birth rates are down from a post-revolution high of over 5 per woman to just under 2. The pig is passing through the snake, but it will be a discernible bulge for the foreseeable future. The average age is around 25, in a population of over 125 million.

When the average citizen is younger than the revolution, the revolution is over. Maybe not officially, but de facto.

We should be engaging the country economically. They have a monolithic, one-dimensional energy economy. The Mullahs control the population by controlling the economy.

If we engage in diplomacy and economic diversification, the Mullahs fade from power in another decade. Start a shooting war, cement their power for 50-100 more years.

There's how I see it. For what it's worth. But there is also the very real possibility that I could be barking mad.

Has anyone been listening to this blow-hard, war-mongering demigogue Glenn Beck on Primetime CNN? How can such an ignorant slimeball be given such a platform?

cyntax, I'm sorry you find my tone "churlish" and my arguments 'weak". You obviously have a mind that is too complex for me and I cannot follow it. You win. Good luck to you.

Thanks for those thoughts BG. If we engage in diplomacy and economic diversification, the Mullahs fade from power in another decade. I agree.

But what do you say to the neocons who say that Iran will have the bomb in less than 10 years? "No they will not" or "it doesn't matter"? That seems to be the $64 question. (My answer: It doesn't matter as long as we are engaged diplomatically and economically, and exerting real pressure on Israel regarding settlements and the overall Palestinian State issue).

I would laugh in their faces because this is a country that is losing substantial revenue due to the fact they can't get it together enough to refine crude.

Enriching U235 to weapons grade is a bitch of a process. It requires a huge physical plant and very sophisticated equipment. Fairy dust and clapping won't yield WG fissibles, no matter how much Republican paranoia they season it with.

Agree with the economic and diplomatic engagement. Even if it takes six months to order lunch.

OK so it's "no they will not" -- with emphasis.

This is starting to get eerie and strangely familiar:

1. You get a party which fails to secure a majority of the popular vote forming a government.

2. You change the language the people speak by twisting words into new meanings. (See the Lingua Tertii Imperii by Victor Klemperer (ISBN-13: 978-0826479174).

3. You create an atmosphere of paranoia by using phantom threats from a semitic group that is undermining everythng that makes your country great. Then under this cover undermine everything that makes your country great.

4. You distort and strong arm the media to ensure that only your version of the story is told. All opposition is of course unpatriotic and suspect.

5. You create bogus attacks and threats from a country which poses no threat but has resources you want. Then invade and take over not once but twice.

6. You create camps, some visible, some not where people are taken without notification or due process and in most cases they just disappear. People in your own country are not encouraged to talk about these camps. The major crime is of course that these people look semitic and therefore cannot be trusted.

7. Whilst the outside world is still trying to digest these changes and offences against common decency, you start creating bogus attacks and threats from a country which poses no threat but has resources you want.

8. When your armed forces become too weak through your reckless indifference you start blaming them for the problems you have caused and continue to plan to make them thinner and weaker.

9. When people start challenging your legal authority, you put your own jurists and legal interpreters in place to ensure your will becomes law.

The Republicans have become the new Nazi Party and Dubya is the new Adolf Hitler. Dick Cheney is the new Martin Bormann and these things just click into place.

Fortunately most Americans are now seeing though this except for the like of Amerikaner Adler, Al(bert Speer) and Egbert (a Goebbels wannabe if ever there was one.)

Has anyone been listening to this blow-hard, war-mongering demigogue Glenn Beck on Primetime CNN? How can such an ignorant slimeball be given such a platform?

Basically, selling war is profitable for the military-industrial-media-complex and right-wing blowhards, whether they're aware of it or not, work for the military-industrial-media-complex.

War is good business. Selling machines of death is lucrative, but keeping the masses distracted from domestic politics is pure gravy.

"Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor tells us how it is about dealing with Iran.
"Any questions?
* * *
"Brzezinski's Iran policies are half the reason we're in this mess in the first place."

You're right, of course--if only the Carter administration had thought to offer the Iranians missiles for those hostages, like the Reagan adminstration did, everything in the Middle East would be hunky-dory today . . .

"Is Joe Lieberman the only serious Democrat left in the party??"

Yes, Bedwetter, in the sense that you are the most serious fool left on this site.

Back on planet earth—the one with the climate crisis—polls show that most Americans view these crooks as a malign influence and could certainly stand (possibly to applaud) to hear Dems say so forcefully and right out loud. But they are acting like playing it safe (with thousands of lives at stake) is a winning strategy.

Sure it pays off after 6 years of the other side's massive fuck-ups (thank you, Bedwetter, for doing more than your share). So at this rate we can expect to see some cojones again in 2012.

No Democratic President will do to Israel what you want. Try President Nader.

Professor Marjorie Cohn

Recently wrote an editorial about illegality of such an action

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/12203/42/