There are a lot of people who think being Muslim is an overt act of war against the U.S.

Of course, Congress is right now demonstrating that just because a conversation is silly, is is no reason not to have it anyway.

Joe Klein? Silly? Perish the thought.

Hard to imagine a silly conversation in American politics, isn't it?

I thought the question was how hard will the Cheney junta work to manufacture an act of war? And will we swallow it?

But what you're missing, Kevin, is that Bush is trying to push the Iranians into committing an overt act of war, by repeatedly committing what would normally be considered overt acts of war against Iranians (seizing diplomats, licensing troops to kill "Iranian agents" found in Iraqi territory without bothering to check whether said "agents" are working with branches of the Iraqi government, such as SCIRI).

At some point, Iranians will respond to one of these provocations by shooting back, and we'll have a Gulf of Tonkin incident, only even better, because it will be real.

Would you then support a war?

Actually, the whole concept is really simple:

1) War is always an option for any country with a military.
2) Saying "We're not taking military options off the table" is a vieled thread and meant to be taken as one by the country you're referring to.
3) The Bush White House really only seems to have one option, on the table, which is war. And they've gotten away with it.

So what all the bloggers and such are really after is, basically, someone to say "Well yeah, we have an army and aren't afraid to use it when necessary, but seriously we've other solutions we'd really like to try first" and actually mean it.

Everyone is dancing around trying to basically get a repudiation of the Preemptive War doctrine of Bush's. (Which is more like "Pre-preemptive War" -- since you're attacking a country on the grounds that it might, one day, be theoretically capable of attacking you. Which is why we must invade Poland first.)

Ah, Kevin.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but IRAN has considered itself at war with the US since, oh, about 1979. Remember how they walked all over Jimmy "the Sneak" Carter?

Iran has been stepping it up since Bush came into office, egging him on, almost daring him to take action? How can you support such diplomatic impotance in the face of such razzing? They've been making IEDs and selling them to our enemies in Iraq (do you deny this?) They have sent government officials against our say so, so they could only be up to mischef (do you also deny this?) Now they are deliverately provoking us with their manouvres in the Gulf. If you deny all these things, how can you espouse peace?

History is rife with examples of limpwrists like you being left by the weighside.

What's silly is that noone really knows what another person is saying/thinking when they say "all options are on the table". It doesn't tell you with confidence what the heaviest option is, when it would be triggered, how many "strikes" would be allowed, how the options would be carried out, etc.

It means nothing.

Also, it's irrelevant what Klein or Friedman interpret it to mean because they are not in charge. It's just a convenient fantasy for them to choose a particular interpretation as if it means anything.

I, on the other hand, will say with utmost certainty that I do not support bombing, invading or going to war with Iran except in direct self-defense, because I do not support bombing, invading, war, i.e. murder in any situation unless it is in direct self-defense.

Direct self-defense does mean "our interests", vital or otherwise. Of course, I'm not a politician, but I am cognizant and loyal to our treaty obligations as far as the UN, international law, and so on that forbid war in any pretense except for direct self-defense.

I agree Kevin.

Also:

How many years before Iran will be able to produce a nuke, if they intend to?

How many years since Iran has initiated military action against anyone?

Haven't the Iranians been claiming that they have no intention or desire to have nukes, that they want this technology for energy?

Aren't most of the people in the current Iraqi government friendly with the Iranians, had lived in Iran?

egbert is a parody. Not even the most brain-dead neo-brownshirt dittohead mental slave could come up with such garbage as in that 6:34PM comment.

The whole conversation is kind of silly otherwise. Right?

Right, Kevin. That's why the whole conversation is silly.

Let's take the go-to-war-against-Iran option off the table. Can we agree on that now?

egbert: Perhaps you haven't noticed, but IRAN has considered itself at war with the US since, oh, about 1979. Remember how they walked all over Jimmy "the Sneak" Carter?

So if we were at war with them, it was probably a big fuck-up for Ollie North to sell them Stinger missiles, huh?

Republicans think that pretending to be stupid is one of their strongest points. One of their favorite acts is to put on their blandest face and ask "Whatever do you mean?", as though they had no idea what you could be talking about.

Readers who have raised children may remember this phase, often seen in children between the ages of 6 and 9, and often invoked when the conversation turns to empty cookie jars or mud on the carpet. With a little tweaking it is invoked to suggest that a rule is so far-reaching as to be absurd, or so narrowly stated as not to affect what they are doing.

When they grow up, they become lawyers, and claim their clients "forgot", or that it is the fault of the staff for not supplying the papers they promised you.

At the risk of being firebombed, 2 questions:

1.What is the principle that gives the U.S. the right to utilize "all options" to stop Iraq from obtaining nuclear weapons?

If you answer, "It is because the Iranian President has stated his wish to obliterate Israel", fair enough, I suppose, but then the next question:

2. Does anyone on this list seriously believe that EVEN if Iran developed a nuke that they would be crazy enough to use it on Israel? Iranian history suggest to me that they are more concerned with maintaining autonomy and growing their influence than in pursuing a jihadist course guaranteed to lead to national annihilation.

James M.

Also, there can be no determination through nuclear anti-proliferation protocols that Iran constitutes a direct threat to the world community until Israel comes out of the nuclear closet and joins the NPT, followed by all of the other nuclear countries that are not treaty members.

Anyone who does not sign on to the treaty becomes a direct threat to the United States, international order and other nuclear and non-nuclear parties pledged to the United Nations and international law shared regime, with the appropriate measures and sanctions then put in place, and one can imagine how that could also lead to the determination that such nuclear development constitutes a hostile and intolerable threat to those abiding by these rules and quite possibly lead to urgent reconsideration of the grounds of military action and war beyond direct self-defense.

Only then in my view, when the playing field is not tilted and all are treated with equal respect and dignity, by acknowledging and exposing for all to see our shared responsibilities and threats on this finite Earth, would it possibly not be evil to kill in situations other than direct self-defense against an attack.

This is a moral argument first and foremost. If you sacrifice your morals, you are not who you think or say you are.

Actually Kevin, I have to disagree.

The most discussed subject related to Iran right now isn't its pursuit of nuclear weapons, it's Iran's alleged involvement in the attacks on American troops. When people start talking about whether the "military option" is a good idea and it isn't made explicitly clear that they're referring to a pre-emptive/preventive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, then a lot of people could assume that the afore-mentioned option is in regard to Iran's involvement in Iraq.

To further explain, just look at what the Bush administration is doing. Overall, they've really stopped pushing the Iran's-going-nuclear line and started pushing the Iran's-killing-Americans line. They figure that if they can convince the public that Iran is, in fact, behind the deaths of a number of American soldiers in Iraq, then they can launch air strikes in retaliation, and if a large number of nuclear facilities just happen to be targets also, well that would just be very convenient, wouldn't it?

Any debate over the "military option" should be based on the argument that Bush is most likely to make.

Quiet, DJ.
We're not supposed to remember that...

Oh, and egbert, what's a weighside? That one of those scales for trucks beside the highway? Be a parody moron if you want, but learn to spell.

To further explain, just look at what the Bush administration is doing. Overall, they've really stopped pushing the Iran's-going-nuclear line and started pushing the Iran's-killing-Americans line. They figure that if they can convince the public that Iran is, in fact, behind the deaths of a number of American soldiers in Iraq, then they can launch air strikes in retaliation, and if a large number of nuclear facilities just happen to be targets also, well that would just be very convenient, wouldn't it?

This is a good point. First you have to be able to point to an attack. If Iran is attacking us, it's clear we have the moral right to defend ourselves. If you can prove this, then you examine the pragmatic arguments. You don't examine the pragmatic arguments first unless you think it's alright to murder in the name of "interests", not self-defense.

Kevin: "Joe Klein weighs in ..."

You lost me right there with the oxymoron.

Kevin, why would you take this clown seriously? He has no credibility. This was a guy who recently argued with Arianna Huffington -- in very convoluted fashion -- that he was against the war privately even as he was for it publicly, before he went publicly against it recently. Or was it that he was against the public protesting the war in public, even as he was against the war privately but couldn't go public with his private thoughts?

Well, no matter and whatever -- even amongst his fellow bloviating sycophants in D.C. punditry circles, Joe "Primary Colors by Anonymous" Klein stands out as the ultimate walking rectal cavity.

An Iranian attack on the US makes as much frickin' sense as an attack on the US by Kiribati. To even consider it a possibility is frickin' paranoia.

I'm sure though that if Iran doesn't jump out of the way fast enough of one of the American tentacles of empire it will even today be construed by too many Americans as constituting an act of war.

Joe Klein silly? Yes, eminently so.

thersites: "Quiet DJ. We're not supposed to remember that."

Yeah, DJ.

Col. Oliver North is a genuine hero for telling Sen. Inouye, that bleeding heart liberal recipient of the Medal of Honor who lost his right arm in World War II, that he and his congresional colleagues couldn't be entrusted with sensitive state secrets -- such as how Col. North was one of the brainiacs who came up with this policy to arm both sides in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, and then siphon off some of the profits in order to support right-wing death squads operating in Nicaragua in direct contravention to the expressed will of Congess.

(Sigh!) And to think that people like Olle North get paid very good money to act like a cartoon character.

I think Joe Klein should be on the table. The bomb assembly table. (Check for stray voltage!) Strap him to a bomb and launch him to Iran. Joey owes us for his Vietnam draft-dodging anyway.

So if we were at war with them, it was probably a big fuck-up for Ollie North to sell them Stinger missiles, huh?

Just over year after the last arms sales, we were in an outright shooting war with them in support of the ability of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to bankroll Iraq's naked war of aggression against them.

This discussion is just another example of how 'hawks' and 'doves' live in different worlds, and talk past each other. One person says we shouldn't invade Iran, so why hint that we might? Another person says why would you tell the bad guys what you are or aren't willing to do? Just as the first person says we need to get out of Iraq, so lets set a timetable to make it happen, while another person says why would you tell the enemy what you planning to do? I don't think its a divide that can be bridged.

Just as the leftish blogs I read are all abuzz about a possible war with Iran, while the conservative blogs I see make no mention of such a thing, for or against. Different worlds.

Of course, a while ago many lefty blogs were all excited by the prospect of the draft being reinstated, which turned out to be total nonsense. Hopefully a war with Iran will prove to be nonsense, too.

There are a lot of people who think being Muslim is an overt act of war against the U.S.

What does that mean for us gay muslims?

Kevin, Before someone/something TRIGGERS Armageddon-WW III let's focus clearly on what the PHRASE,or "STRATEGIC/POLITICAL/MILITARY" word of art-- "ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE" may or may not mean.
1. President George W. Bush: EVERY time Bush has used this phrase has been in the context of NUCLEAR WAR/DETERRENCE/DETERRENTS/FIRST STRIKE/PREEMPTIVE/PREVENTIVE WAR. In a word, Bush implies his FIRST AMERICAN USE OF NUCLEAR WAR--since Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Bush would thereby overrule/repeal the HISTORIC "FIRE BREAK" between CONVENTIONAL & NUCLEAR WAR. That was/is the meaning of the Bush doctrine of NUCLEAR "PREEMPTION"--or PREEMPTIVE WAR of September 2002.

2. American History: President Bush in June of 2002 & September 2002 reversed/repealed the STATED PURPOSE of ALL prior American Presidents that the US would never be the FIRST NATION to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive FIRST NUCLEAR ATTACK vs The USSR. For all practical purposes a US PREVENTIVE or PREEMPTIVE War "was taken off the table" thanks to the mutual development of SECURE SECOND STRIKE GREAT DETERRENTS like the Soviet & American Submarine-based Deterrents. But the Bush doctrine of 2002, PUT THE PREEMPTIVE/PREVENTIVE WAR DOCTRINE, "back on the table" where Bush has kept it. And that is exactly why many are so scared/so concerned that the Bush Administration makes no real distinction between nuclear & conventional weapons vs Iran--or anybody else who dares look cross-eyed at the C-I-C.
3. Re the "ALL OPTIONS ON TABLE" warnings/testimonials of Senators Obama/Edward/Clinton: Do they mean,within the context of IRAN, that ALL "OPTIONS"--NUCLEAR OR CONVENTIONAL WEARONS will be used against IRAN? Eventhough, Iran is a nation who doesn't have nuclear weapons now & won't have them for years.

Or do Senators Obama/Edwards/Clinton simply mean the common sense position that ALL MILITARY OPTIONS, EXCEPT FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS, now applies to IRAN? Clarifications are needed immediately from President Bush & Senators Obama/Edwards/Clinton, about EXACTLY WHICH TYPE WEAPONS "ARE ON THE TABLE",RE IRAN: Bush's ALL-"NUCLEAR/AND/Or CONVENTIONAL" OPTIONS or The "OPTIONS" of Democratic Senators: NUCLEAR & CONVENTIONAL? CONVENTIONAL? or NEITHER? V.R. George E. Lowe, Stuart, FL.

bobinnv >"...while the conservative blogs I see make no mention of such a thing, for or against..."

So you don`t get around much at all eah ? You should broaden your horizons and deal with reality instead of your current "shadows on the cave wall" behavior.

Any group that has done what the Bush Handlers, Inc. crowd has done over the last 6 or so years needs to be committed to a faclity for the mentally unhinged. Those that continue to allow them any credibility need to be examined for signs of clinical psychosis.

How do "We the people..." know they are lying ?

Simple based on the overwhelming evidence of the last 6 plus years, their lips are moving.

Your deliberate cultivated ignorance is part of what fuels their fascist behavior. How does it feel to be part of the worst fascist movement in the last 60 years ?

Be sure & cash those checks as soon as you get them since the days of Bush Handlers, Inc. are numbered.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

Ah, egbert.

Never mind. Sentient beings only need apply.

Marat20: "Saying "We're not taking military options off the table" is a vieled thread..."

Is that anything like a veiled threat? Certainly, some of these threads do get pretty cobwebby;)

This entire discussion is about whether a military strike should be off the table as a way to keep Iran from getting nukes.

Didn't Obama and Clinton say that they would be willing to attack Iran to prevent Iran from getting nukes? Joe Klein seems to be trying to say that Obama and Clinton said something different -- is that what you are asking?

all options are on the table except diplomacy

"On" or "Off" the table is, once again, a metaphor. We should probably try to avoid talking about policies (particularly those involving war and the destruction of entire societies) with loose metaphors and analogies.

Yet a military attack on Iran should 100% be "off the table," as much as anything ever makes sense to be "off the table".

Moving "military action against Iran" to the "off the table" category would not mean to any sane people that suddenly we would become forgetful zombies, unaware of how to fly jet fighter planes or drive tanks or steer naval frigates.

Does anyone really think that even if the president came right out and said "We will not attack Iran. Period." that the Iranians would exclaim "Whoo-hoo!!" and jump in inflatable boats to speed across the Atlantic to invade the USA?

Why is it so controversial to suggest that our President vow not to attack a country?

Will our collective genitals shrivel if our manly manly President takes attacking Iran "off the table"?

This rhetoric has little to do with Iran and everything to do with domestic politics. Iran isn't retarded: the Iranian government know that the U.S. government will do whatever it wants where ever in the world it wants regardless of what promises it makes or what agreements it signs.

But the current U.S. political system is both deranged and developmentally disabled: declaring over and over in standard threatening tones that "all options are on the table" means simply to rev up the standard revanchist militarist sentiment and garner the support of both the stupid right wing hawks and the supposedly sophisticated liberal hawks who always and without fail "come together" to support and cheer which military action is ever, ever commanded.

"This is our last territorial demand."

Well, I think the only option that is not on the table for the Bush Administration is TALKING TO IRAN, FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!

[regaining his composure]

I have some interesting news. It seems those EFPs or “shaped charges� being offered up by the Bushies as proof of Iranian involvement are bogus. You see, Iran does not manufacture 81 mm mortar shells. Also, the dates on the shells do not conform to the Persian calendar.

In fact, some say there is evidence that the IEDs being used in Iraq are being manufactured by Zapata Engineering, a subsidiary of Zapata Oil, a company started by George H.W. Bush.

from Ezra Klein: Some degree of quiet pressure on Iran to stop their more damaging operations in Iraq could be useful, and the Iranians probably would back down under those circumstances; but the President’s policy risks engaging Iran’s nationalist pride, its strategic interests, and its real fear of the United States."

Why would Iran be more likely to back down if there were NO threat that the US would attack than if there were a threat that the US would attack?

The article is worth reading, and I support his desire for the Congress to prevent Bush from carrying out a pre-emptive attack. However, a risk in passing such a resolution is that it might encourage the Iranians to increase whatever support they are providing to their allies in Iraq, for the very nationalistic and strategic interests that he mentions.

Egbert,

That image is going to change, as hundreds of thousands of liberals like myself will soon take to the streets to shoot to death conservative monsters like yourself.

Yes, the blood will soon run hip deep in the streets.

You fucks can run but you can't hide.

The problem, which is over most of your heads, is regarding the liberal response to the options on the table. Liberals want to take war off the table as an option. They want to hamstring the American capability to respond to threats. That's what taking stuff off the table does.

If you say, "I take the option of war of the table," your essentially limiting your power to manouvre in the future. Not to mention you signal to forign threats to step things up, now that they don't have to fear from force.

Kevin I answered your question in my comment on your "On the Table" post. In short: Yes everyone knows what we're talking about EXCEPT the Pundits and the Candidates. They are the idiots I mentioned in the comment earlier.

Also uh Egbert, if you take something OFF the table, you can always put it back ON again. People know that, right?

Given circumstances as they are now, War is Off the Table.

This president asked for patience for his war plan to avoid "grevious and far-reaching" consequences.
But it is so obvious that he is itching to start something with Iran.
He is worse than a school yard bully, only it is our troops that have to wage his fight.
He huffs and puffs and, of course, "lives in this beautiful White House." Doesn't know much about Iraq. Hasn't been there...that's what he said yesterday.
Yeah, he claimed "the country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq... give it a chance to work." That was in his speech on January 23rd.
Enough is enough. Congress needs to stop the war. Before he starts another one.

EGBERT--why don't you join up? Go join the war you promote so much.
Is it ok for your president to keep sending men and women to fight in a country he says he doesn't know much about?

"Also uh Egbert, if you take something OFF the table, you can always put it back ON again."

Maybe if your a flip-flopper.

Maybe if you're a flip-flopper.

Sorry for previous post--I let egbert push me to the edge. A more constructive and comprehensive read on the subject of all options on the table:
http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/arts2/arts398.html
The author was up front and center when Robert Gates conjured up "intelligence" in the 1980's to justify the Iran-Contra caper. Poppy Bush kept the war mongerers at arm's length; Junior put them in lead positions. Some interesting takes on the nukes problem, on options tabled.

Maybe if your a flip-flopper.

Two words for you egbert, North Korea.

"Also uh Egbert, if you take something OFF the table, you can always put it back ON again."

Maybe if your a flip-flopper.

Apparently flip-flopper = someone who understands words. No wonder Dubya uses it as an epithet.

I agree with Klyde.

The statement "all options are on the table" is a lie.

No real diplomatic options are even being considered. Remember the old joke about the lady and the diplomat? What's the difference? A critical part of that joke says -- if he (she?) says no, he's no diplomat.

This administration has been saying "no" to Iran from the beginning. Worse, they have done their best to ruin any diplomatic efforts by others.

So if we were at war with them, it was probably a big fuck-up for Ollie North to sell them Stinger missiles, huh?

Actually, if we've been at war with them since 1979, did Ollie North commit treason by providing support to our enemies? And by treason, I mean the no-shit kind, not the rhetorical kind.

Iran has been stepping it up since Bush came into office, egging him on,...eggbutt at 6:43 PM

one day we'll wake up and a nuclear-armed Iran ... F K at 6:47 PM

..."It is because the Iranian President has stated his wish to obliterate Israel", fair enough,... James M at 6:57 PM

...If you say, "I take the option of war of the table," ....eggbutt at 9:26 PM

Maybe if your a flip-flopper.eggbutt at 9:40 PM

Am I missing something here?
You forgot to put Joe Klein on your ignore list.

That is an inaccurate MEMRI translation. The actual statement implied the natural disappearance of an illegitimate Israeli state. No force was implied. There is no indication that Iran would launch such an attack unless attacked.

Wasn't it a classical Persian couplet? I seem to remember reading that a better translation would be:

"...(Israel) will fade from the page of time...".

Of course, quoting classical poetry (in a foreign language, no less!) is obviously a sign of being up to no good.

Actually, if we've been at war with them since 1979, did Ollie North commit treason by providing support to our enemies?

Yes. Because the testimony he gave to Congress tainted his Boland Amendment prosecution, one could safely assume he would have gotten away with treason, too.

The citizens of Arizona hereby declare that senator John McCain has violated the unwritten compact that is the trust of the citizens of Arizona whom he represents. He has done this by shirking his duties as a senator from the great state of Arizona by not enforcing the long held and sacred precept of Habeas Corpus further he has acquiesced in his role as a member of the legislative branch to strongly check the power of the Chief Executive who has for all intents and purposes become a king.

Please, help restore our demcracy recall "bloody John McCain".
telephone: 602-423-6300 email: leonardclark385@hotmail.com

Leonard Clark
Chair of recall John McCain campaign
February 9, 2007

US working on new UN Iran resolution.

The game has started. Now watch how language will be added to this new resolution that can be interpreted any way one wants.

Egfart: "If you say, "I take the option of war of the table," your essentially limiting your power to manouvre in the future. Not to mention you signal to forign threats to step things up, now that they don't have to fear from force."

Wow. Such stunningly original insight. You must be the best debater in the whole darn seventh grade! Excuse me, as you would put it: the hole darned seventh grade. At least your nod a flip-flubber!

Not to mention that there is no such thing as a "table," there is no "table," no one is sitting at a "table", no one has thought about where a "table" would be placed in relation to Iran and the U.S.

But, my God, let's keep saying that "all options are on the table" so that our frightened genitaled warhawks don't feel any shriveling going on.

My guess is that the only way the U.S.A. and Iran openly go to war is if the Iranians actually attack regional U.S. forces with either a small nuke or an extremely effective conventional attack, such as missiles against ships along the Iranian coast.

The bad news is that Ahmadinejad just might do that very thing. He is apparently an apocalyptic thinker. Worse yet, he may calculate that the hate-Bush impulse in America is so very strong that any provocation on Iran's part will work out politically just like the Tet Offensive of 1968. That is, no matter how disastrous it is in the short run for Iran, in the long run it wins politically and the U.S. withdraws.

If you say, "I take the option of war of the table," your essentially limiting your power to manouvre in the future. Not to mention you signal to forign threats to step things up, now that they don't have to fear from force.

That's why we shouldn't take the option of war off the table when negotiating cultural exchange agreements with Canada. We're essentially limiting our power to manoeuvre against them, not to mention signalling to Canada that they can step things up now that they don't have to fear force from us....

Mike CookThe bad news is that Ahmadinejad just might do that very thing (attack regional U.S. forces with a small nuke). He is apparently an apocalyptic thinker. Worse yet, he may calculate that the hate-Bush impulse in America is so very strong that any provocation on Iran's part will work out politically just like the Tet Offensive of 1968.

In other words, a guy who doesn't really have the power to make such decisions within his own country will attack U.S. forces with a weapon that he can't possibly have within this apparent 21 month window where advantage can be taken of a liberal anti-Bush impulse in the States so strong that Americans will do nothing in response to a nuclear attack on their own and anyway he wants everybody to die, die, die. Do I have that right? Uh, yeah, Mike. Uh, yeah... uh...

"All options are on the table" is an unfortunate Bush distortion of what at one time might have suggested prudent policy but now suggests forthcoming military action.

It would be best to retire the phrase and instead insist upon specifics.

I think it regrettable that some Presidential hopefuls have taken up the unfortunate phrase. They do not have to. It buys them nothing. It connects them instead with failed policy, lying and behind-scenes skullduggery.

Good grief! On the table, off the table...

What a debate about nothing! Pizza for lunch is off the table, unless, of course, I decide to have pizza anyway. And exactly what effort was required to make the change? And the pizza option never actually disappeared.

And even if it makes a difference whether or not the US government states that military action is "off the table", nothing will have changed- the Iranians will still consider the US a threat, and vice versa.

Mike Cook,

snicker-snack asked you a very legtimate question - Get down to your local outlet and pick up another bottle of Thunder Bird so you can respond. Yeah, you can brown bag it on PCH while driving home.

Let's get real here.

There will be no Iran invasion, no matter what. Maybe some accidental provocations; but the main reason why Iran is on anybody's radar right now, is because Republicans got their asses kicked in November 2006, and they're desperately grasping for any makeshift club they can use to bash Democrats with. Since the days of McCarthy, the Patriotism club has always worked well.

I think Democrats are idiots to even mention Iran.

They should keep their eye on the ball, which is corrupt contracts and war profiteering in Iraq. Show Americans how their hard-earned (and borrowed) tax money is being mis spent.

Republican Culture of Corruption.

My guess is that the only way the U.S.A. and Iran openly go to war is if the Iranians actually attack regional U.S. forces with either a small nuke or an extremely effective conventional attack, such as missiles against ships along the Iranian coast.

Personally I'm more concerned with Ahmadinejad launching his fleet of Nuclear Powered War Blimps and setting in motion his army of Atomic Supermen - not to mention firing the deadly Disastro Ray from his base on the moon.

But that's just me.

Mmm, how did this happen?

WAPO
“Leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq Injured in Clash, Official Says
Police Also Kill Insurgent's Aide 'Without U.S. Intervention'�

I wonder how Al-Qaeda managed to enter Iraq since we know from the brilliant left wing Democrats that there is no connection between Iraq and Al-Qeada. Maybe they came from Iran. Are we allowed to kill Al-Qeada or do we have to hold talks with them as well?

Oh and for the Alzheimer’s patient who mentioned North Korea finally giving in to the 6 party "talks" - last time that happen we gave them missile technology. Thank you President Clinton.

Kevin, you have got to be joking about the Democrat party still having the military threat "on the table." That only comes on the table after one of our cities has been melted by a nuclear weapon from Iran. Even then the left will be saying "We aren't sure it was them."

The left wing exists to talk and do nothing else. Leave the fighting to those who have a stomach for it.

the best option on the table was at the ballot box in november-2004...

now look at the mess...

we told you so....

Leave the fighting to those who have a stomach for it.

I guess this leaves out the Young Republicans.

Rational people will agree that you "put all options on the table," if only to keep the fanatics thinking and wondering. That's the tactic Ronald Reagan used in the military buildup that countered the Soviet's and which ultimately consigned them to the ash heap of history.
Posted by: mhr on February 16, 2007 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

No - what Ronald Reagan did was the "crazy bluff". Act crazy, and your enemy will fear you. It's as old as Atilla the Hun - probably older. And it's exactly what the Ayatollahs/Ahmadinijad are trying to pull with us.

It works real well with playground bullies.

However, in the real world, there are some pretty dire consequences. (like having to sometimes prove that you're willing to blow up the whole world).

mlh, Reagan paid quite a lot of attention to liberals. He simply followed the isolation policies put in place by Truman and Acheson: carrots and sticks, threats and compromise. In the end, none of it made any difference. Communism fell under its own inefficient weight, aided by Mikhail Gorbachev, a man whose perceptive ability is so much greater than Ronnie that Reagan isn’t fit to lick the man’s boots.

Had to get that off my chest. In response to Kevin’s post, one option that should be off the table forever is force. Think how it would effect you. Let’s say Uncle Charlie is negotiating with you on using his garage to store your car. Unc C. says do it my way or I might come over to your house and kill you. That would pretty much end any effective interactions with Unc C. now and forever, wouldn’t it? It would also get Unc. C. labeled crazy by the rest of the family, who would want nothing more to do with him. Such is the lot of America right now—pariah in he family of nations.

Maybe we should get Uncle Charlie committed to the home for the criminally insane. Put him in the same ward with Uncle George, Uncle Dick and Uncle Donald.

mlh, Reagan paid quite a lot of attention to liberals. He simply followed the isolation policies put in place by Truman and Acheson: carrots and sticks, threats and compromise. In the end, none of it made any difference. Communism fell under its own inefficient weight, aided by Mikhail Gorbachev, a man whose perceptive ability is so much greater than Ronnie that Reagan isn’t fit to lick the man’s boots.

Had to get that off my chest. In response to Kevin’s post, one option that should be off the table forever is force. Think how it would effect you. Let’s say Uncle Charlie is negotiating with you on using his garage to store your car. Unc C. says do it my way or I might come over to your house and kill you. That would pretty much end any effective interactions with Unc C. now and forever, wouldn’t it? It would also get Unc. C. labeled crazy by the rest of the family, who would want nothing more to do with him. Such is the lot of America right now—pariah in he family of nations.

Maybe we should get Uncle Charlie committed to the home for the criminally insane. Put him in the same ward with Uncle George, Uncle Dick and Uncle Donald.

We are quickly moving towards a world in which economic interests will dictate the end of direct force as a tactic. But those pigswillers in the White House are among the last to get the memo.

But you're right, James, Reagan adhered more to liberal models of containment and engagement than his criminal descendants can comprehend. Think of it: Ronald Reagan too smart for current GOP!

Yes -- and changing the terms of an argument in the middle is a piece of typical right wing argument. So is dragging up Clinton, or telling an absolute lie which stuns the other party.

It's all of a piece.

I wonder how Al-Qaeda managed to enter Iraq since we know from the brilliant left wing Democrats that there is no connection between Iraq and Al-Qeada.

Al-Qaeda didn't enter Iraq.

After the US invasion of Iraq made bin Laden's al-Qaeda more popular in Iraq, an entirely separate Sunni extremist group that was a rival of al-Qaeda but already in Iraq (and not well disposed to the Saddam regime) changed its name to “al-Qaeda in Iraq” and pledged cooperation with and loyalty to bin Laden's international umbrella group.

The existence of al-Qaeda in Iraq is therefore a direct consequence of the US invasion of Iraq.

James of DC: . In response to Kevin’s post, one option that should be off the table forever is force.

UNSC has called for economic sanctions (resolution 1737, iirc), and is considering more stringent sanctions. Without force, who enforces the sanctions?

A country ruled by fanatics who hate the United States and who have threatened to destroy a not-too-distant country, are in the process of developing the atomic bomb. The ayatollahs who rule that country believe in the end-of-days scenario whereby the world ends in a fireball. The US muses publicly about what to do about that country. Rational people will agree that you "put all options on the table," if only to keep the fanatics thinking and wondering. That's the tactic Ronald Reagan used in the military buildup that countered the Soviet's and which ultimately consigned them to the ash heap of history. Liberals did the same then as they are doing now- cower in fear- at the Republican in charge. And attack him. Reagan paid no attention to liberals and he was right. The USSR is dead and buried.

A country ruled by fanatics who hate Iran and who have already destroyed its neighbor is already in possession of nuclear weapons. The Christianists who rule that country believe in the end-of-days scenario whereby the world ends in a fireball. The rest of the world muses publicly about what to do about that country....