As the debate over Iran's involvement in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq heats up, remember what Bush himself said about Iraq in 2002:

"Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

For the details and video, see:
"Fool Me Once: Bush and Iran."

It's not an argument that the United States, as a matter of general policy, should eschew the use of preventive war against a regime that it feels threatened by.

Kevin, I don't understand your point here. Both liberals like yourself and conservatives like myself and Bush don't believe we should always declare war on other countries. Yet we also believe preemptive wars like the War in Iraq (and a possible one in Iran) are not a option we should take off the table. So what's your problem with this? I think we share more similarities on this belief than differences.

I also believe that Bush, as Commander in Chief, holds more classified information on Iran than any of us ordinary Joes do so we should trust his judment on if and when we should declare war on Iran. I don't know if you agree with me but I hope you do.

If attacking Iran is something that everyone agrees is a terrible idea, why does that option need to remain on the table?

If we had sane leaders it wouldn't really matter because they wouldn't be interested in terrible ideas.

But with Bush and Cheney the most terrible idea on the table is the one they are most interested in.

So let's take it off the table, for chrisakes.

The standard formulation when it comes to Iran is that "no option is off the table.

It's one thing to repeat the "standard formulation" while you remain calm and quiet and take no aggressive action, it's an issue that can be addressed calmly and quietly. If you insist on the standard formulation while you move naval, air, and ground forces into the region, it becomes a confirmation of malign intent.

Of course no option should be off the table, if say Iran attacked us! Since they are years away from having a bomb we shouldn't even think about airstrikes in Iran. The Bush Doctrine is dangerous for the United States and the world as we have seen clearly for the past six years.

It's pretty dangerous to take the military option off of the table when talking about a country whose leader has advocated wiping Israel off of the map.

It's equally dangerous to start a preemptive war against such a country, especially when you have a history of exaggerating specious evidence.

Bottom line: we may have to go to war with Iran at some point, but Dubya's current strategy reeks of itchy-trigger-finger syndrome.

Germany and Japan no longer use the 'military option.' They learned the hard way it does not work to solve political, social and economic problems. America has a great opportunity to learn this lesson the right way, but its warrior culture will dominate any debate about projecting its power wherever its political elites decide it is in their best interests. This false belief in military power to solve problems will sooner or later be the downfall of America's world leadership and way of life. If it can happen without mass bloodshed it will be a blessing, but that is not how Germany and Japan reached that conclusion and I doubt it will be how the American people will come to that realizaion.

none of these analysts actually recommends taking military action irreversibly off the table

But c'mon, Kevin...no one, not even Matt, is suggesting that should be the position. I don't even think it's possible (short of physically dismantling the US military) to "irreversibly" take it off the table. Even if you could, no US leader could morally forswear military action against anyone "irreversibly." Let's not be stupid. We're talking about making it clear that military action is unwise and not being seriously contemplated. And I think Matt correctly ascribes that position to those experts.

Threatening force always strengthens the hardliners on the threatened side.
But threatening force has always been the American way. And no presidential contender can afford to be called un-American.

> It's not an argument that the United States,
> as a matter of general policy, should eschew the
> use of preventive war against a regime that it
> feels threatened by.

Per Abraham Lincoln's question, exactly which regime in the world today (or for the next 20 years) threatens to take a drink from the Ohio?

And before you say "mushroom cloud", which US Presidency has actually presided over the total destruction of an American city?

Cranky

Glenn: If the only thing under discussion is whether military action against Iran is unwise, then there's no discussion. No one, not even Baer, is arguing otherwise.

Kevin, what on earth do you mean here by the "Bush doctrine of preventive war"?

Simply the formulation "all options are on the table" might be taken to mean that, in extremis, one would be willing to back up threats of war with actual war, should certain conditions not be met.

Would uttering "all options are on the table", if meant sincerely, imply the "Bush doctrine of preventive war"? If that were so, I think that we'd have to say that every President since WWII, all Democrats included, have advocated a "Bush doctrine of preventive war".

Obviously, if the "Bush doctrine of preventive war" has any real meaning beyond the trivial one above, it must mean that the bar for engaging in such a war is lowered far below where it has been in the past. And THAT is where it gets into precisely the sort of risky, irrational behavior that we see exemplified in the Iraq war.

I will simply note again that keeping "all options on the table", with a sincere threat of war in extremis, is extraordinarily effective in achieving sought for effects WITHOUT any need to fire a single shot.

Indeed, that is exactly what the prelude to the Iraq war itself clearly demonstrated: Saddam allowed us everything me might reasonably have wanted, including, most importantly, unfettered inspections, without the need for any kind of military action. If Bush were a man worth of being President, instead of what he is, he would have stopped right there, with a great foreign policy coup in his back pocket.

Instead, he adhered to his own crazy notion of a Bush doctrine, and invaded anyway, engendering nothing but death, destruction, and, ultimately, even his own disgrace -- the only thing about which he seems capable of caring.

Kevin: Well, I said "unwise and not being seriously contemplated" -- meaning, of course, that it should not be seriously contemplated. I realize we're dancing a bit on the head of a pin, because "taking the option off the table" has no precise meaning. But I think it means something like what I said, although I am open to other definitions. I certainly do not think it means what you think it means, i.e., that it means "irreversibly" forswearing military action against Iran, for the reasons already stated.

A more interesting formulation, also voiced by the major Democratic candidates, is that "a nuclear Iran is unacceptable".

Yet neither the MSM nor the top bloggers have pressed the question "Why?" Or "What is it about a country that makes it ineligible to have nuclear weapons?"

Is it lack of a democratic government? Islam? Proximnity to Israel? What is it that all those wise people in government silently agree on but will not tell us?

Kevin says it's the "Bush Doctrine" to have a preventive war against Iran. But, Bush and his press secretary have said over and over that their doctrine with respect to Iran is negotiation. There is no quote or cite anywhere showing Bush calling for or favoring a preventive war with Iran. Many liberals agree with Kevin that Bush intends to make war on Iran. This is a situation where liberals listen only to each other, regardless of the actual evidence.

One advantage of working to prevent something that was never going to happen is that the campaign will surely succeed. When Bush continues to negotiate, as he has said all along that he would, liberals will tell each other what a wonderful job they did of deterring his non-existent war plans.

I'm a bit confused by all the sophistry here.

One can say that "all options are on the table" and still:

a) repudiate the Bush Doctrine
b) not rattle sabers
c) insist that intl law be followed, and
d) insist that diplomacy be allowed to work

It's all about emphasis.

Did you mean Pre-emptive War?

Look--we don't trust Bush. He and his cronies enveighled us into one clusterfuck with cherry-picked "evidence"--why should we let them do it again?

And "oh, but he's the President, we have to trust him" doesn't cut it.

And ex-liberal, Bush's having ships etc. move into the area while saying "oh no, I'm not planning anything" doesn't look like he's not planning anything. What he looks like is trying to sneak US military into place. If I were the Iranians, that's how I'd interpret it.

ex-lib, for months before the Iraq invasion Bush insisted he had no invasion plans "on his desk" -- but kept sending military forces to the region. That's exactly what he's doing now. So the evidence would seem to suggest that there will be another war.

A more interesting formulation, also voiced by the major Democratic candidates, is that "a nuclear Iran is unacceptable". Yet neither the MSM nor the top bloggers have pressed the question "Why?" Or "What is it about a country that makes it ineligible to have nuclear weapons?" Is it lack of a democratic government? Islam? Proximnity to Israel? What is it that all those wise people in government silently agree on but will not tell us?

It has mostly to do with the Zionist sympathies of the biggest Dem donor networks.

Yet we also believe preemptive wars like the War in Iraq

The war in Iraq was not a preemptive war, but a form of war of aggression called “preventive war”, in which the supposed provocation is—unlike the specific, immediate attack-in-execution preempted in preemptive war—a distant, vague, nonspecific, speculative, potential future threat.

It should be fairly obvious to all that the state in which Bush has put our current military basically takes any reasonable military options off the table. Unless we want to institute the draft now in preparation...

It has mostly to do with the Zionist sympathies of the biggest Dem donor networks.

OK -- but my point was that bloggers and journalists should be pressing politicians to say so -- or they are complicit in whatever is going on.

I really don't think it preventative war that's the problem. That's being conflated with "not going to war with Iran ever under any circumstance possible."

Which is of course idiotic because no one holds that view except for minuscule minority.

The war in Iraq was not a preemptive war, but a form of war of aggression called “preventive war”, in which the supposed provocation is—unlike the specific, immediate attack-in-execution preempted in preemptive war—a distant, vague, nonspecific, speculative, potential future threat.

And, allow me to add, illegal under intl law without a UN Security Council resolution.

From JS: A more interesting formulation, also voiced by the major Democratic candidates, is that "a nuclear Iran is unacceptable".

Yet neither the MSM nor the top bloggers have pressed the question "Why?" Or "What is it about a country that makes it ineligible to have nuclear weapons?"

A good point. I would answer that it is undesirable since Iran's leaders have made the implicit threat of using these weapons against someone, not for defense, but just because they want to.

Also, as you point out, a lot of people, including Democratic candidates, say it is "unacceptable", but without really saying what they would do to correct the situation when Iran acquires them.

Sorry, the second paragraph is also from JS.

When was the last time that Iran/Persia attacked another country? As angry as I was at Iran as a result of the hostage crisis, they didn't kill any of the hostages. I simply don't understand why politicians and the media go along with this idea that it is simply a matter of time before the Iranian hordes sweep across the middle east?

JS: ex-lib, for months before the Iraq invasion Bush insisted he had no invasion plans "on his desk" -- but kept sending military forces to the region. That's exactly what he's doing now. So the evidence would seem to suggest that there will be another war.

Before making war on Iraq, Bush got a UN resolution demanding that Iraq comply with the UN inspectors and implicitly threatening war if they didn't. After Saddam ignored this resolution, Bush tried (and failed) to get a UN resolution actually authorizing military action. Eventually he secured from Congress an authorization to use military action to overthrow Saddam. As I recall, this process took almost a year. Bush has done none of these things regarding Iran.

It's true that he has stated without explanation that Iran will not be permitted to develop nukes. He has left war on the table. But, his past action in Iraq shows that he approached war slowly and involved the world community and the Congress in the decision as much as possible.

grumpy realist, every government policy is supported with cherry picked evidence. That's the nature of political debate. Each side presents its strongest case.

An attack on Iran would be a war of unprovoked aggression, and that "option" should always be off the table.

Furthermore, when Bush says that "no options are off the table" with regard to Iran, he is blatantly lying. The Bush administration has taken the option of negotiating with Iran off the table. That's why the lying-sack-of-shit Condoleeza Rice was once again lying to Congress last week, pretending that she never saw the 2003 Iranian proposal for comprehensive talks with the United States.

The Bush administration has no "doctrine of preventive war" or "preemptive war" or any such thing.

The Bush administration has a doctrine of wars of unprovoked aggression based on lies for corrupt purposes of seizing control of the world's oil reserves for the enrichment of their already ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the US-based multinational oil companies.

Great Britain would be a much better comparison than Germany and Japan which were industrial empires who were defeated outright. Britain’s decline as an imperial power occurred because it ran out of money and it ceased to be able to control its vassal states.

“Preventative war” has a nice cozy ring but like all the rest of the cant it is just rubbish.
Bush’s war in the Middle East is an imperial war. The rhetoric and reasoning are indistinguishable from those put forward in 1900 to justify British invasion and management of any number of countries in the far reaches of the world. The great blessing of the British Empire, unlike the empires of the ancient world, was that it was a liberal empire that would pack up and go home after it had taught the benighted and despot-laden societies how to have liberal democracy and free trade.

The problem for the United States, unlike Britain in the high days of empire, is that the state, formerly run by mandarins and quasi-aristocratic families has been taken over by a 20th century right-wing power cult that does not care about national campaigns that are “long, nasty, costly, and unwise”. Indeed they may regard breaking the United States financially as one step in their factional program to reduce the welfare state and regulation.

It is quite striking how the power cult has been unable to reach its goals, nationally or internationally, through consultation and democracy. They have again and again had to rely on propaganda, subterfuge and threat. I guess that is why they should be called a cult. History will not treat them well.

Lying scum ex-liberal spews more lies: "Before making war on Iraq, Bush got a UN resolution demanding that Iraq comply with the UN inspectors and implicitly threatening war if they didn't. After Saddam ignored this resolution, Bush tried (and failed) to get a UN resolution actually authorizing military action."

Saddam did not "ignore the resolution". Saddam admitted the inspectors to Iraq and complied with their demands, to the point of destroying missiles under order of the UN inspectors. The UN inspectors publicly and repeatedly confirmed to the UN Security Council that Iraq was complying with the inspections.

Further, Bush made no attempt to get a UN resolution authorizing UN action, in spite of the fact that he had promised to put it to a vote before the UN Security Council.

That's two blatant, stupid, pathetic lies in one paragraph.

You are a deliberate liar, and every person who reads your comments here knows that you are a deliberate liar. And your lies are always the most pathetic and stupid lies in circulation among the know-nothing, ignorant, weak-minded dittoheads of the right-wing extremist lunatic fringe.

You and your lies are worthless garbage.

The rhetoric is several layers thick at this point, and I think Kevin starts with incorrect assumptions. Iran is not threatening the US. They are not poised to invade, they have no air force or missiles that can reach the East Coast. Iran is not a threat to the US.

The inflamed rhetoric, all of it, is about whether Iran can limit US influence in the Middle East. Today, Iran can do little to nothing to limit US influence. If Iran were to get a few fission bombs, US actions would be slightly limited--essentially the US couldn't threaten air bombardment of Iran. The US military forces in the Gulf would still be Iran's superior and easily be able to destroy any Iranian offensive.

ex-lib, that certainly is the optimistic scenario, and it's good to hear it from you.

Arguments against it:

1. In 2002, we repeatedly heard from people around Bush -- and also from many Democrats, unfortunately -- that war against Iraq should happen even if the UN and other countries did not go along. I assume this opinion applies to Iran as well.

2. It's true that, in the case of Iraq, there were past UN resolutions that could be invoked. With Iran, the rhetoric has changed: Bush has been accusing Iran of going against "the will of the international community" -- whatever the legal force of that is. (There is another new development that has gone largely unchallenged by MSM and bloggers alike, as for as I can see).

Anyway, I hope you are right. But I think Cheney means business.

the United States, unlike Britain in the high days of empire,... has been taken over by a 20th century right-wing power cult

That is why I compare the US of today with the Germany and Japan of the past. Only outright defeat ended their use of the 'military option' as foreign policy. I want my country to end its use of the military as an option for anything except responding to a military invasion. The only way to do that is to destroy the power cult of our militarism that has existed since WW II.

The inflamed rhetoric, all of it, is about whether Iran can limit US influence in the Middle East.

US *and* Israeli influence. The reason why Israel is so scared of a nuclear Iran is because then they would have to think twice before murdering 1500 Lebanese civs in retaliation for the capture of two Israeli soldiers.

Not that it would stop them -- they'd just have to think twice about it.

Should the United States continue to follow the Bush Doctrine of preventive war?

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions (h/t Atrios).

I want my country to end its use of the military as an option for anything except responding to a military invasion.

a-fricking-men

...and stealing oil from other countries.

every government policy is supported with cherry picked evidence. That's the nature of political debate. Each side presents its strongest case. -- ex-liberal

This is just breathtakingly disingenuous. Ex-lib, what about when only one side has the data? And deliberately releases only that data that supports its side, and in fact lies about whether there's other data that doesn't support its position?

Hey, if Bush had just opened up all the intelligence for everyone to see, and said, let's have a debate, I'd have no problem with his focusing on only the data that made his point. But that's not what he did, and you know it. And for god's sake, can we not at least agree that when you're talking about a war, maybe the standards ought to be a little higher than just any "government policy," like whether to build a bridge to nowhere?

Brojo,
I am sure you will agree that no one can, or is interested in, defeating the United States. The actions of the world are quite to the contrary. They keep lending America money so it can keep consuming. The relative economic and military decline of the United States is already obvious and people outside the US talk about it a great deal. A sane US government, looking at the balance sheet and learning from the lessons of Vietnam, would have been very hesitant in initiating a campaign to pacify the Middle East. It runs the risk of showing the structural weakness.

If you are an anti-imperialist George Bush and Dick Cheney are blessings. The waste and fraud of the military-industrial complex is now laid bare for everyone to see. The abuse of republican values and the rule of law are scandalous. They are not extending the empire but bringing it to a close. How long can Americans sustain guns with no butter when their industrial base is declining?

Britain still has not gotten over the thrill of imperial browbeating but they will not be invading India any time soon. It could not have ended in another way. Perhaps, if global warming doesn’t get us, we can have a restoration of some form of national common wealth.

Iran's leaders have made the implicit threat of using [nuclear] weapons against someone, not for defense, but just because they want to.

Not to dispute your ruggedly individualistic intellectual honesty, Yancey, but could you provide a cite, please?

Thanks in advance.

The President Who Cried Wolf.

The President Who Cried Wolf, Part II

Shepherd Boy: acted by G.W. Bush.
The fake Wolf: played by anything nuke, scraps of nukes, wiffs of nukes, pictures of nukes, thoughts of nukes, saying the word nuke.
The real Wolf: Dick Cheney
Angry villagers: portrayed by angry villagers.
Osama played by himself.

Glenn: This is just breathtakingly disingenuous. Ex-lib, what about when only one side has the data?

Members of the intelligence committees of the House and the Senate had access to every bit of intelligence data that Bush did.

SecularAnimist, Saddam complied with some of the UN demands. However, he failed to comply with the key demand that he tell the UN what had happened to the chemical weapons he was known to have had in 1998. The inspectors were supposed to confirm Saddam's report, but he didn't provide a report.

Gregory,

Here is the president of Iran calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. Unless you believe that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons, then the threat to Israel is implied. The Israelis certainly see the threat.

Yancey Ward, although we will probably agree that Iran's president is an idiot, he did clarify that when he said that Israel will be "wiped off" the face of the earth he meant that this would happen the same way as it did for the USSR. In other words, he was saying that Israel's current "regime", as he likes to call it, is not viable. It is a long stretch to read a nuclear threat in that, though I agree that his words were not helpful.

Of course, the US has been making more explicit threats against more countries for some time now. If Ahmedinejad was calling for "regime change" in Israel, we wrote the "regime change" book. And if he wanted the Jews of Israel to be pushed out to the sea, he would have started with the jews of Iran; who, by the way, are doing just fine -- and even have a guaranteed seat in the Iranian parliament.

By the way, many others (including Israelis) have said that the current Israeli regime is not viable.

And finally, a threat against Israel is not a threat against the US. Israel has an army big enough (and plenty of nuclear bombs) to take care if its own security challenges. If, as you seem to be suggesting, the US should bomb Iran on behalf of Israel, then the American people should be told this first -- don't you think?

OK. Say we do nothing about Iran now. The get nukes within the next 18 months and (as they have PROMISED to do) the lob one into Tel Aviv or Jeruselum. Then what?

Yancey Ward, here is how the Jerusalem Post covered it:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA.

He said elections should be held among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Here is the Jerusalem Post link.

ex-liberal continues to spew lies: "... he failed to comply with the key demand that he tell the UN what had happened to the chemical weapons he was known to have had in 1998. The inspectors were supposed to confirm Saddam's report, but he didn't provide a report."

You are a deliberate liar, and that is just one more in the continuing series of blatant, stupid, pathetic lies that you post here. That's all you ever do, is post blatant, stupid, pathetic lies. You must be the stupidest, most pathetic, most dishonest dittohead in existence.

At the time that Bush terminated the UN inspection process by ordering the invasion of Iraq, the government of Iraq was working with the inspectors to verify the disposition of the battlefield chemical munitions that Iraq was known to have had in 1991, not in 1998. This is according to the UN inspectors themselves.

All you ever have to offer is deliberate, blatant, stupid, pathetic lies.

You and your lies are both worthless garbage.

nikkolai wrote: "The get nukes within the next 18 months and (as they have PROMISED to do) the lob one into Tel Aviv or Jeruselum."

There is absolutely no possibility of Iran "getting nukes" within 18 months, and no one in Iran has "promised" to "lob one" into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

You are as stupid and pathetic a liar as ex-liberal, which is quite an accomplishment.

Further, as JS suggested to Yancey Ward, if you believe that the purpose of the US military is not to defend the USA from military threats, but to defend nuclear-armed Israel from military threats, then you should make that argument honestly to the American people.

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA.

Perhaps in Yancey's world, the Soviet Union was destroyed in a rain of nuclear fire.

Here is the president of Iran calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.

That's interesting, Yancey. You provide a link, but don't have the rugged individualism to quote the actual statement that you'd like to imply proves your case.

But, then, maybe we'll chalk this one up to your ignorance rather than your intellectual dishonesty. As JS has already schooled you, "wiped off the map" is a fairly unambigous reference to a political change, not a military one, let alone a nuclear one. (Yancey, you blithering idiot, what's Iran going to do, nuke Jerusalem, Dome of the Rock and all? Fool.)

Unless you believe that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons, then the threat to Israel is implied.

You know what? I take it back...we'll chalk this up to your intellectual dishoensty after all. The president of Iran didn't mention nukes at all. You don't have to "believe" (ahhhhhh, the faith-based loony libertarians strike again!) Iran is developing nuclear weapons or not to know that you're taking his comment way, way out of context to "imply" a nuclear threat by that statement, even if you are unaware of the meaning of the president's remarks.

The Israelis certainly see the threat.

Of course Israel would perceive a nuclear-armed Iran as a counterweight to their own nuclear armed condition. Of course Israel would perceive that a nuclear armed Iran would out Israel under the conditions od containment and deterrence -- and, of course, there's no evidence at all that the conditions that contained and deterred the Soviet Union wouldn't apply to Iran.

But then, the fact that Israel perceives a deterrent effect from Iran diminishing their regional hegemony hardly constitutes a threat to the United States, now does it?

I knew you were a loony libertarian, Yancey. I had no idea you were a neocon as well. Very interesting.

And yet you seem to believe that your comments merit anything other than contemptuous dismissal. Ah, well, loony libertarians also have an unwarranted faith in their own ego...

"ex-liberal" wrote: Members of the intelligence committees of the House and the Senate had access to every bit of intelligence data that Bush did.

Bullshit.

OK. Say we do nothing about Iran now. The get nukes within the next 18 months and (as they have PROMISED to do) the lob one into Tel Aviv or Jeruselum. Then what?

Ignoring that the scenario is not remotely plausible and that Iran has promised no such thing, the result would be that Israel would level every sign of civilization in Iran with its own considerable nuclear arsenal. That's "then what."

And Iran knows it, too, which is why even if they had nuclear weapons, they wouldn't launch a first strike on Israel.

And it knows that if Islamist terrorists got nuclear weapons and detonated them in Israel (especially a group with clear ties to Iran, but even otherwise), as the most convenient target for retaliation, Israel would quite likely nuke Iran anyway, which is one (of many) reasons why if they had nukes, they wouldn't transfer them to terrorists, either.

It's truly, truly amazing that, as much as the conservative crowd loves to crow about Reagan "winning the cold War," they forget that fifty years of containment and deterrence -- including and especially the Cuban Missile Crisis, which ended without a shot fired -- proved to be the policy that prevailed.

And if the Israelis don't peacefully go?

Let me ask all of you: do you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?

Gregory wrote: It's truly, truly amazing that, as much as the conservative crowd loves to crow about Reagan "winning the cold War," they forget that fifty years of containment and deterrence -- including and especially the Cuban Missile Crisis, which ended without a shot fired -- proved to be the policy that prevailed.

It isn't all that amazing, since the "conservative crowd" basically consists of well-financed deliberate liars like Rush Limbaugh, who are paid to preach the fake, phony bullshit myth of Ronald Reagan The Great Conservative Hero Who Single-Handedly Defeated The Evil Soviet Empire In Toe-To-Toe Nukular Combat, and the ignorant, weak-minded, know-nothing dittohead dupes to whom they spoon-feed this crap.

Arguably, the US president who deserves the "credit" for finally bringing down the Soviet Union is Jimmy Carter, since his administration's covert support of the mujahadeen rebels fighting against the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan helped push the Soviets into invading Afghanistan and the disastrous war and occupation of that country, which was much more important than Reagan's arms race in bringing about the collapse of the USSR.

Of course, Ahmadinejad did "clarify" what he meant when he said "wipe off the map" after the initial reaction to his statement. Belief the clarification if you wish- I don't buy it.

And if the Israelis don't peacefully go?

Again, Yancey, what's Iran going to do, nuke Jerusalem, Dome of the rock and all?

Maximum fear-mongering doomcrying from the neocons is so old and busted, Yancey. Is this the best you can do? (Sadly, Yes!)

Let me ask all of you: do you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?

Ah...an appeal to emotion. I stand in awe of your ruggedly individualistic debating technique, Yancey.

Meanwhile, perhaps you'll answer my question -- I'm sure your previous failure was an oversight and not intellectual dishonesty -- oh, no! -- What evidence do you have that Iran would not be subject to the same containment and deterrence as, say, India and Pakistan, to say nothing of the Soviet Freakin' Union?

And while you're at it, once again: Even granting that an Iranian nuke poses a threat, as opposed to a regional strategic counterweight, to a nuclear-armed Israel, how is that a threat to the United States, and why should the US deal with it -- and the consequences of its actions -- as opposed to Israel?

Yancey Ward wrote: Belief the clarification if you wish- I don't buy it.

Big surprise -- paranoia is a well-known attribute of loony libertarians like you. (Very ruggedly individualist of you, Yancey!)

But given your failure to supply any -- dare I say it? -- substantive argument, let alone resonses to the various rebuttals above save the weak "I don't buy it", why should anyone credit your opinion at all?

Let me ask all of you: do you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?

That's easy: No, I'm not. Nor am I "comfortable" with Pakistan and India having nuclear weapons. Or Israel, when you get right down to it. Not that thrilled that China and Russia have them, either.

In fact, I'm not "comfortable" with a lot of things in the world. But we're going to be pretty fucking busy if that's the standard for launching wars, aren't we? And who's going to do all this blood-letting? Ain't gonna be me, I don't think, and I can tell from your posts that it sure as fuck ain't gonna be you, Yancey.

I don't feel comfortable with anyone having nuclear weapons.

By the way, I'd be remiss in pointing out that Yancey's clear implication that Iran is, in fact, developing nuclear weapons is an assertion that is not at all in evidence.

A likely inference, in my opinion, but nevertheless far from established fact.

And if the Israelis don't peacefully go?

Nobody's asking them to go anywhere. Ahmadinejad called for Israel and the territories to become a single state that votes for its own government. That was also the vision of some of the original Zionists. And it has been argued by others more recently -- such as Tony Judt, a Jewish historian and director of the Erich Maria Remarque Institute at New York University. (For this, Judt has of course been accused of anti-semitism).

In any case, there is no evidence of a military threat by Iran. If you can find it, let us know.

Let me ask all of you: do you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?

Quite frankly, I think it's much less likely that Iran would use nuclear weapons offensively than that we would. And you don't go to war to feel more comfortable -- or we would constantly be at war because there are always things others do that make us uncomfortable.

Final thought: If the US can convince the UN to mandate a set of rules about who can have nuclear weapons and explain why, I would support that. But trashing the UN for a short-term expediency will hurt us in more serious ways in the long term, when countries like China and India may be more powerful than we are. Some of us like the idea of international law because it's in our long term self-interest, believe it or not.

Yancey Ward: "Let me ask all of you: do you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?"

Of course not. I do not feel "comfortable" while a single nuclear weapon exists anywhere on Earth.

But I am no more and no less "uncomfortable" about Iran having nuclear weapons than I am about the USA, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan, India or North Korea having nuclear weapons.

I am probably most "uncomfortable" about the USA and Russia having nuclear weapons, since both countries have thousands of them, many of which are much larger and more destructive (hydrogen bombs) than any nuclear weapons that Iran will ever have, and many of them are still, today, at this very minute, locked and loaded in the warheads of ICBMs targeted at each other's cities, on hair-trigger "use it or lose it" alert, while Russia's nuclear alert and command-and-control systems are deteriorating, and global thermonuclear war between the two countries has nearly been triggered on more than one past occasion by accident or mistake.

That is a far bigger threat to humanity than the possibility that Iran might, in ten years' time, manage to build one or two nuclear weapons a fraction of the size of the ones that the USA dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As I mentioned earlier, Bush is lying about leaving "all options on the table". He has taken off the table the only option that has any hope of success, by rejecting comprehensive negotiations between Iran and the USA over all the key issues that concern both countries. That's why the Busha administration rejected Iran's 2003 offer for such negotiations, and that's why Condoleeza Rice is at this very moment lying to Congress when she claimed last week that she had not been aware of that 2003 proposal.

Bush is not interested in resolving concerns about Iran's nuclear enrichment program. Bush is interested in concocting a pretext for another war of unprovoked aggression, in order to use the US military to seize control of the Middle East's vast oil reserves for Dick Cheney's ultra-rich cronies in the US-based multinational oil companies.

You can be a dupe of these ruthless, vicious, greedy liars, or not. It's up to you.

Good point, Glenn. But again, regarding Yancey's appeal to emotion, whether anyone is "comfortable" with Iran having nukes, so what?

Whether one is "comfortable" or not with Iran having nuclear weapons -- which, again, is far from established fact in any case -- is a far cry from establishing an Iranian nuke as a threat to the United States.

Although I have to say, Yancey, that your justifying your implicit defense of the neocon ambitions for attacking Iran on the grounds of your fucking comfort is not very ruggedly individualistic.

Gregory,

I don't buy the clarification because Iran's president has never really, personally, backed down from the assertion that Israel will be wiped off the map in a military way, not through free elections as more than one of you has tried to fob off as the real meaning of his words.

Indeed, 6 months later, he reiterated his statement and again explicitly implied it would be a violent removal.

Cmdicely,

While I think you are correct what Israel's response would be, I am not so sure that would deter all who may control such weapons in the middle east of the future. This situation will be more unstable than the standoff between the nuclear powers of today.

LOL, the above should have read "explicitly said".

Obviously, that's a lie.

The administration and the Pentagon have already put our troops in harm's way without proper training and equipment, throughout the Iraq War.

When did the U.S. military become so riddled with lying bureaucratic a-holes?

As the House debated the Democratic resolution for a second day Wednesday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said protective gear for troops in Iraq was not a problem. "Obviously, we are not going to put any force into theater that isn't properly trained and equipped," Schoomaker said.

Oops.

The quote didn't make it into the previous post.

Proving my incompetence once again.

Let me ask all of you: do you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?

I don't feel comfortable with lost of things: George W. Bush running a country, Pakistan having nukes, the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the right-wing tilt of the Supreme Court, the focus on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008, etc. Iran having nuclear weapons is neither the most nor the least of those things.

I don't buy the clarification because Iran's president has never really, personally, backed down from the assertion that Israel will be wiped off the map in a military way

Yancey, you have not established that Iran's president asserted that Israel will be wiped off the map in a military way.

Gregory,

I am not advocating an attack on Iran, nor am I defending any neocons who are advocating an attack on Iran for this reason. I was only answering JS's question about what makes a country an "unacceptable" nuclear power, and I even changed that to "undesirable" for the very reason that I think such nuclear powers are an unavoidable eventuality.

While I think you are correct what Israel's response would be, I am not so sure that would deter all who may control such weapons in the middle east of the future.

Um, so?

Unless you would argue that Israel should be compelled with threat of massive force to destroy its arsenal forthwith, just because the restraint of the present regime to rational defensive use might not extend to all who may control such weapons in the Middle East of the future, I hardly think you can with any consistency make an argument based on the speculative propensity of unidentified future actors for any other present regime to be threatened with military action to prevent its acquisition of nuclear arms.

This situation will be more unstable than the standoff between the nuclear powers of today.

You have provided no reason to suggest that an Iran/Israel nuclear standoff would be any more unstable than "the standoff between the nuclear powers of today" (which includes, among others, the India/Pakistan standoff.)

"The reason is because"?

Gregory,

LMAO. He said that Israel will be wiped off the map in waves of attacks. He has also said that it will be wiped off the map in one attack. Unless this means attacks of free elections, then I must assume he means it will be some violent means.

While I think you are correct what Israel's response would be, I am not so sure that would deter all who may control such weapons in the middle east of the future.

Asked to provide evidence that containment and deterrence wouldn't work, Yancey responds that he is "not so sure" that it would work in the future.

Which is, of course, a possibility -- one that applies to India, Pakistan, Israel and the United States as well, I might add.

But again, Yancey -- the actual basis for your feeling would be...?

This situation will be more unstable than the standoff between the nuclear powers of today.

Really? Including India and Pakistan? Fascinating.

But, of course, Yancey's reference to the "standoff between the nuclear powers of today" elides the 50-year history of the nuclear powers of the Cold War and the precedent of containment and deterrence it set.

I also note for the record that Yancey has shown not the slightest tinge of chagrin for his appeal to emotion, nor has he made -- yes! - a substantitve argument regarding the criticisms directed at him, except to claim, unconvincingly, that those correcting him are trying to "fob" something off.

But again, even granting a threat to Israel, how is that a threat to the United States?

One could have a substantive debate about whether the US should sacrifice its blood, treasure and natinal security posture in preventatively defending the State of Israel -- indeed, one could make a substantive case that this has in fact already happened -- but the people of the united States deserve to have the neocons' ambition to attack Iran sold to them on that basis, not as countering some phantom threat to the US.

Another one:

In April 2006, Iran's ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad's position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:[19]

BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?

SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.

But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.

And another:

In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:

We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine... We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.

cmdicely,

Iran has already had one revolution in the last 30 years. Any radical change of government can cause a loosening of the control over such weapons a nation possesses. Indeed, Pakistan is a perfect example of such a possibility- there is no reason to believe that govenment will continue indefinitely, and any transition is likely to be chaotic. During the reorganization and partial dissolution of the Soviet Union, there were valid worries about the control of those nuclear weapons. We have covered this ground before- I am a pessimist, I expect nuclear weapons to used as terrorist weapons at some point in the future. It could be Tel Aviv, or it could be London or New York.

JS,

As I wrote, there have been "clarifications" of what the president of Iran said. Indeed, others in the government have issued the clarifications, but the president himself continues to make such statements outside the clarifications. If you have one such nut in the govenment, and the president, it makes me suspect more are lurking in the background. I realize that this may be all bombast on his part, but I cannot just assume it.

Yancey Ward wrote: "... Iran's president has never really, personally, backed down from the assertion that Israel will be wiped off the map in a military way ... He said that Israel will be wiped off the map in waves of attacks. He has also said that it will be wiped off the map in one attack."

Please provide the exact, direct quotes that you are referring to, with citations to the original source. You have been asked repeatedly to provide them and you have failed to do so.

He said that Israel will be wiped off the map in waves of attacks. He has also said that it will be wiped off the map in one attack. Unless this means attacks of free elections, then I must assume he means it will be some violent means.

And he used the word "nuclear" exactly where? Or do you admit that your so-called "implication" that Iran would wipe Israel off the map with nukes was bullshit?

Good Ford, Yancey, since this what happens when one tries to debate you substantively -- appeals to emotion, dishonest and selective interpreatation and the usual loony libertarian paranoia and intellectual dishonesty -- not to mention, I might add, an abject failure to address any substantive argument that you don't realyl have a response to -- it's small wonder you're usually the object of nothing but well-deserved mockery.

Iran has already had one revolution in the last 30 years. Any radical change of government can cause a loosening of the control over such weapons a nation possesses. Indeed, Pakistan is a perfect example of such a possibility

So, again, there's no reason to believe that Iran poses any kind of unique threat even if it develops nuclear weapons -- certainly not one that would justify preventative military action by the US (which, I might add, is hardly a cost-free proposition -- but then, loony libertarians only recongize costs they themselves have to pay).

I have recently latched on to the theme that Germany's and Japan's defeat at the end of WW II was actually beneficial to their citizens and the rest of the world. I have hoped, that the US failure in Iraq will lead to the same benefits, but now bellumregio makes me realize the outcome will be national decline through continued use of the military option until we are unable to finance more war.

Outright defeat, although acutely painful, can lead to a rebirth, so wishing for it was foolishly optimistic. Realizing incremental decline through the continued inappropriate and politically unstoppable use of force will drain our nation of its wealth and influence, is sobering, but probably a more accurate expectation.

Yancey: Let me ask all of you: do you feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?

Do you feel comfortable with Pakistan having US F-16s?

Do you feel comfortable with Pakistan having nuclear weapons?

Do you feel comfortable with Israel, a country that has repeatedly turned its back on the US, taken policy positions and engaged in actions that are disastrous for US foreign policy and American security, and interfered in our domestic politics, having nuclear weapons?

Do you feel comfortable with the US supporting regimes, both in the past and presently, that engage in torture, mass murder, and the production and use of WMDs?

Do you feel comfortable with a hundred-fold or even thousand-fold rise in enemies as the result of our actions in Iraq and with respect to Iran?

Do you feel comfortable with fomenting world war with a military already stretched beyond its capacity and led by immoral fools?

To use NRA logic: bombs don't kill. People do. Why blame the bomb manufacturers?

Gregory,

An appeal to emotion? Exactly what was I appealing you to do? I was simply asking if anyone is bothered by the possibility of nuclear armed Iran. Why should I be chagrined for asking this question? However, I will ask it again in a different way. What would you prefer- an Iran with nuclear weapons, or one without?

As for why the situation of the future will be more unstable- it is an inevitable consequence of more nuclear weapons in the hands of more countries, and in the hands of more countries lacking the political stability of the US, France, Great Britain, etc.

However, I must applaud your efforts at actually engaging in a debate for once, rather than making just an insult and running away.

Yancey Ward wrote: I am not advocating an attack on Iran

By your own standards, you're explicitly implying such advocacy, aren't you?.

He said that Israel will be wiped off the map in waves of attacks.

It's interesting that you still haven't produced, here, the direct quotes to support this assertion.

Let's just say I find your own paraprhases to be, ah, unpersuasive.

Yancey Ward, the closest I could find to what you claim Ahmadinejad said is in the article you linked: There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world."

This sounds more like a prognostication of what the Palestinians might do than a threat by Iran.

Here is yet another quote by him:

At a later news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad claimed his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[39] "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."

Yancey Ward wrote: I was simply asking if anyone is bothered by the possibility of nuclear armed Iran. Why should I be chagrined for asking this question?

Because, you dolt, whether one is "bothered" by the prospect of a nuclear Iran, or whether one would prefer it not to be, has no bearing whatsoever on whether Iran actually constitutes a threat.

As has been pointed out, by me and otehrs on this thread.

I must applaud your efforts at actually engaging in a debate for once, rather than making just an insult and running away.

Who gives a shit what an intellectually dishonest, self-impressed loony libertarian like you applauds? As I've noted, Yancey, you really aren't worth engaging in debate, as I think this thread proves concretely.

SecularAnimist is correct, Ahmadinejad never talked about "waves of attacks" or even a "map."

Here's a repost of 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

I have a more detailed post about it somewhere here but I can't locate it at the moment. Ahmadinejad was actually quoting Khomeini when he used the phrase "wiped from the pages of time." Khomeini had given a talk in which he made the very non-controversial religious point that God will not allow corrupt regimes to survive, and that seemingly undefeatable powers -- like the Soviet Union -- eventually fall because of God's justice.

Ahmadinejad was applying that same point to the corrupt (in his view) government of Israel.

Yancey: Any radical change of government can cause a loosening of the control over such weapons a nation possesses.

The same is true of the US and Israel, not to mention the hated (at the very least by conservatives and libertarians) French.

So, you are for unilateral nuclear disarmament, eh, Yancey, to keep any regime change in the US from endangering the world?

Gregory and Secular Animist,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/28/iran.reaction/index.html

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/14/D8GVSUC0H.html

They are not my paraphrases. I am a little confused what you want exactly. A video tape of his speeches, a transcript of a speech? There are multiple sources for what he said. I included one in my first reply to Gregory, Secular Animist.

Gregory,

If you were going apply my "standard" to show I support an attack on Iran, then I would have to have made a statement like, "Iran should be wiped off the map." Have I made such a statement? No, I have not. I think your argument is a strawman, which is really ironic, don't you think?

I do feel uncomfortable with my country having nuclear weapons. Having nuclear weapons means one's nation will commit mass suicide - mass murder if it should believe its existence is threatened with defeat. Germany and Japan would have chosen to end life on earth at the end of WW II if they had the nuclear weapons capacity, and the US would do it now.

Nuclear weapons makes nations suicide bombers.

Windhorse,

It is entirely possible that he was misquoted, and taken out of context, by multiple sources that have reported his statements. Since I don't speak his language, I cannot confirm this for myself. I have read many clarifications, but the one you quote from Time is the first I have seen that he has made himself, but it is similar to the one issued from others in the Iranian government that I have seen.

Gregory,

Maybe I am being a dolt on this, but I don't see why my asking if you are bothered by a nuclear-armed Iran is such a contentious issue for you. A nuclear-armed Iran could be a threat, or it may not be. A non-nuclear armed Iran would be much less a threat.

Google This,

Yes, I am bothered by a nuclear-armed Pakistan, I am even bothered by a nuclear-armed India or Israel. Russia and China are potentially unstable, but we have lived with their nuclear weapons for over 40 years. I am fairly unbothered by those of France and Great Britain, but no one knows what the future holds.

Unilateral disarmament is a pipe dream. Nuclear weapons are here to stay. They cannot be uninvented.

Here's the source on the origin of the phrase in Ahmadinejad's speech and the perfidy of its mistranslation removal from context:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

Let's be clear, however: had Ahdadinejad or someone else actually said something to the effect of "Israel needs to be wiped off the map" -- that is neither cause nor justification for war. Kruschev said that he would bury us, and had he meant it in a military sense it still would have not been a reason to go to war with the Soviet Union, although clearly that's not what he meant.

Provactive language is never a justification for war. It's because the dog doesn't want to bite that he barks, leaving the opportunity to figure out the reason for his distress and address it.

Yancey Ward wrote: "... Iran's president has never really, personally, backed down from the assertion that Israel will be wiped off the map in a military way ... He said that Israel will be wiped off the map in waves of attacks. He has also said that it will be wiped off the map in one attack."

Yancey, there is absolutely nothing in any of the three articles you linked to which quotes Iran's president as asserting that "Israel will be wiped off the map in a military way" or threatening an Iranian attack (nuclear or otherwise); his reference to "waves of attacks" clearly refers to Palestinian attacks, which are reprehensible but have nothing to do one way or another with Iran's uranium enrichment program; and his own comments and the followup comments from other Iranian authorities (who have actual power which the president of Iran does not) make it clear that he was calling for the current government of Israel to be removed through elections.

As far as I can tell, you are just parroting the self-serving rhetoric of the petro-imperialists of the Bush administration, who are looking for a pretext for launching another war of unprovoked aggression to seize control of Middle Eastern oil reserves.

If Israel's existence were threatened the way Palesine's existence has been, I do not have any doubts Israel's leaders would choose the Mt. Mosada solution for the entire Middle East.

SecularAnimist,

You have oftened wrote that the war in Iraq is aggression to seize control of Middle Eastern oil reserves. Where is the evidence to back up this theory?

On the issue of Iran's president. I only cited reports of what he said. If he was misquoted or taken out of context, then so be it, I was wrong. However, nothing I have seen from you or others convinces me that he was talking about "free elections" being the mechanism of removal. This clarifying