Must. Kill. Brown. People.

EOS.

PS -- Bob S is entirely right.

Especially odd as Zakaria favored the Iraq invasion. N-Pod is crazier than a shithouse rat. But then aren't all neo-cons?

Would someone please take the time to tell the rest of us just who it is that is responsible for financing people like Podhoretz in the first place?

The Neville Chamber analogy is just plain weird. Hitler invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain did nothing. Saddam invaded Iran and the Iranians kicked him out. He invaded Kuwait and the US-led coalition kicked him out. He massacred the Kurds and the UN installed a no-fly zone and established a de facto independent Kurdistan.

What possible similarity is there between these events?

I'm no fan of Fareed in general, but his recent statements (including his latest Newsweek editorial) about Iran make sense. His arguments are buttressed with something called "facts", which leaves him wide open to attack.

As for Mr. Ponderous: he is engaged in the unfair tactic of having an argument with a dead man. Were Curtiss "bomb 'em back to the stone age" LeMay still around, he could defend his dovish stance.

Unfortunately Podhoretz hasn't learned from our Iraq experience that the game isn't over when the bombs stop falling.

Did these nitwits miss out on WWII or something and now feel they have to find something (anything?) so they too will be able to call themselves the "greatest generation"?
Believe it or not, I long for another Eisenhower to rein in the rabid right-wingers. There's something about a man in uniform (or recently in one) that neocons lust after. Really, are they so far out of it that anyone to the left of Benito Mussolini is tainted by "appeasement"? And just as a side note: Mussolini only entered WWII when he thought all the fighting was over.

I'm not sure what that says about him...

Says he's Jewish. Got them PC stutters from being unable to say anything negative about one of the protected ethnic groups?

"I think he's J..J...J...J...neo...neo.......I'm not sure."

I don't think it adds illumination to call Zakaria "Neville Chamberlain", nor to call Podhoretz "crazy". The main issue here is whether a nuclear Iran would be just another nuclear country like China or would be a disaster, as Nazi Germany was. It's hard to answer this question, because the power of nuclear weapons changes the calculus. A second-rate power with a nuclear arsenal could do unprecedented damage.

I think Podnoretz is correct that although the US and UN have said for years that Iran nust not go nuclear, nobody's stopping them. So, we have optimists like Zakaria who hope for the best and pessimists like Podhoretz, who fear the worst.

One principle both sides ought to agree on is that if Iran believes that an American/Israeli attack is coming, they're more likely to end their nuclear program without warfare. Sanctions haven't worked and won't work. Bribes won't work. As far as I can see, the threat of an attack is the only lever left to persuade Iran to end their nuclear program without bloodshed.

N-Pod reads crazier than he sounds, because that's the trick. The neocons spew stuff than even Limbaugh should have a hard time saying with a straight face, but they know how to say it with measure tones, good diction and sound reasonable. That's why no one the unthinking mainstream press is so easily swayed by these guys.

I saw the exchange between Zakaria and Podhoretz on the news hour. Podhoretz is not operating on an even keel. He needs meds.

However, the more he says on prime time TV that Bush will bomb Iran in the coming months, maybe just maybe the less likely it will happen.

Interesting Zogby poll:

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows....

There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place – if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23% would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29% said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20% were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37%) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15%) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28%).
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1379

The main issue here is whether a nuclear Iran would be just another nuclear country like China or would be a disaster, as Nazi Germany was.

If Hitler on the one hand and the French and British on the other had nuclear weapons in 1939, do you think Hitler would have attempted a nuclear first strike? Permit me to doubt. He would have been as deterable as Stalin and Mao turned out to be . . .

President Bush's disturbingly flip comment about Iran and World War III not only revealed his apparent comfort when discussing global conflagration. Bush's gaffe also showed the common vision between himself, the man most likely to succeed him as head of the Republican Party and those who advise them both. For George Bush, Rudy Giuliani and the likes of Norman Podhoretz, the only dispute about "world war" is whether we're already fighting it and what number we're on.

For the details, see:
"Bush and Giuliani on the Next World War."

I find the way Norman Podhoretz and other neocons misrepresent the Munich agreement exasperating. They assume that if Britain had called his bluff, Hitler would have gone slunk home in disgrace and Germany would shortly have become a liberal democracy. In fact, as Ian Kershaw’s exhaustive biography of Hitler documents, Hitler was not bluffing. He wanted to go to war in the worst way and was furious when Chamberlain denied him the opportunity. The Munich agreement was a disaster for Czechoslovakia, but in retrospect it bought Britain another year. Given the British public’s initial skepticism of war, plus the fact that Britain was in the early phase of a rearmament that within the next year would produce the Hurricane and Spitfire fighters and a radar air defense system, it is clear Britain was in a stronger position to confront Germany in 1939. In any case Podhoretz’s arguments are vastly oversimplified and largely ignorant of the historical facts.

Just as Podhoretz assumes Hitler would have folded in 1938, he assumes Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Iran will fold after a few bombs. You would have thought he would have learned from Iraq, you don’t start a war unless you are prepared to carry it through and deal with the consequences.

rea, I don't necessarily disagree that Hitler might have been deterable under your nuclear scenario. But, nukes would create a range of new threats. Try these three ghastly possibilities:

1. A nuclear Iran announces that they have nuclear tipped missiles in secret locations aimed at the US. Then they attack Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia (one at a time), thus dominating the middle east's oil supply. Would the US risk annihilation of American cities in order to defend Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia?

2. Or, in the same situation, Iraq destroys Israel, with nuclear weapons. Would the US retalilate on Israel's behalf, knowing that our retailiation might mean the death of tens of millions of Americans?

3. Iran now supports terrorist groups who vie for power in Lebanon and Israel. Suppose Iran gave nuclear weapons to one of these groups. The terrorists could do Heaven-knows-what with their nuclear weapons. It's a cinch that they wouldn't be deterable.

In short, a nuclear Iran with a leadership that was considered crazy enough to use its nukes would be a threat to world stability unlike any in the past.

I don't know how likely any of these scenarios are, so I don't necessarily favor a preemptive attack on Iran. But, those who do favor such an attack might easily turn out to be right.

Podhoretz is a violent nihilist.

Podhoretz, very indirectly comparing Zakaria to Chamberlain: crazy.

Zakaria, repeatedly and directly comparing Iran to Mao-era china: not crazy.

Please explain.

Ex-liberal - What about "If you nuke anyone, any time, any where, we will wipe you off the face of the earth" do you not understand?

One principle both sides ought to agree on is that if Iran believes that an American/Israeli attack is coming, they're more likely to end their nuclear program without warfare.

Uh, I don't agree with this principle at all. That's not what worked with North Korea. It's not what worked with Libya. It probably won't work with Syria, who are busily trying to get a nuke right now.

Assume for a moment that the US had no nukes (I know, but stick with me). Nuclear-armed China has just busted in and taken over Mexico.

Would the US start hauling ass to get a nuke, or would we sit back and say, "Well, we don't dare make the Chinese mad by doing something to defend ourselves against them. We'd better just sit back and hope they don't invade us, too."

Talking tough with Iran hasn't worked. Not for the seven years of the Bush administration we've had so far. Why on earth do you think that continuing the same strategy that hasn't worked will ever be successful if it hasn't worked in 7 years?

Zakaria, repeatedly and directly comparing Iran to Mao-era china: not crazy.

Please explain.

the analogy is in what follows. Nitwit.

and yes ex-lib, J-Pod is as crazy as the lady occassionally riding my train who engages the doors in heated conversations and should be accorded as much part in any discussion of anything. He has a history of being so wrong about everything that you would have to be very foolish indeed to pay heed to any of his utterances. This no doubt why you feel they should be paid some accord.

Kevin: "Normon Podhoretz actually sounds crazier in this transcript than he does watching the video."

Here I go, spilling some family dirt. Bear with me.

Back in the mid-1970's, my older cousin had a live-in girlfriend, who had a real knack for sounding so eminently reasonable and reassuring when prodding him into undertaking certain, ahem, "activities" that could easily be intepreted by people as extra-legal.

I was all of 14 years old at the time, and boy, it was sure exciting when my obviously p-whipped cousin -- a college baseball star at UCLA whom, at nine years my senior, I simply idolized -- asked me to stand as lookout for him, while he and two buddies broke into an East L.A. warehouse to retrieve some items that he claimed belonged to his girlfriend.

Well, that part went okay, as such things can go, I guess, in that I wasn't shot at or anything, and that was (thankfully!) the end of my tangential criminal career.

However, I won't get into all the sordid legal details, but within three months of that incident, people were chasing people down in cars at high rates of speed, the police would show up at both my cousin's apartment and my aunt's house with search warrants (at least three times that I know of), and at its ugly nadir, a grand jury was convened to review the entire case. My mother soon found herself in a possible legal confrontation with the L.A. County district attorney's office, as she sought to resist the subpoena issued to her 14-year-old son as a possible material witness.

All in all, I must say that it was not the most pleasant of family-oriented outings or experiences. My mother actually handled it quite well, in that she really fought hard on my behalf to see that I came out of the mess legally unscathed, and she didn't come down on me with the wrath of Hera, as I initially had feared. She told me much later that she knew I was a pretty good kid, and that my core problem was just being 14 and foolish -- OK, make that 14, extraordinarily foolish, and trusting to the point of total dumb-assity.

However, I was still grounded for the entire duration of the immediate legal proceedings, which totalled about ten weeks. I had to go straight to Grandma & Grandpa's house every day after school (or afternoon baseball practice, whichever ended last), until my mother left her office and got me on her way home. On weekends, I was allowed to go only to go to my baseball games or to practice, and my mother always made sure her baby boy was both picked up and delivered home promptly afterward -- if not by her, then by my grandparents or older sister.

And my mother was really, really pissed at my cousin and his girlfriend (and my aunt, too -- go figure) for recklessly placing me in potential legal jeopardy, i.e., aiding and abetting in the commission of felony breaking and entering.

The bright side was that I grew up rather quickly because of that experience (the mere threat of juvenile court is the Sword of Damocles to most kids), and I developed an clear aversion to those fast-talking people who always manage to have a simple or snappy answers to problems and issues. I also learned that while life can be hard, it can get a whole lot harder if you're stupid.

And the moral of the story: One does not necessarily have to sound like a blathering idiot to be -- like my cousin, his girlfriend and Norm Podhoretz -- totally batshit bonkers.

Mnemosyne - I actually don't think anything is going to work. I think Iran is going to build nukes, and the world will find out whether it's a disaster or not.

There are varying opinions about what worked in Libya. The negotiation was going on for a long time. Libya finally agreed to give up their nukes shortly after Saddam was captured. I think it's reasonable to suppose that our rapid victory over Saddam made Libya worry that they could be next.

I'm not yet sure anything has worked in NK. They made agreements before but continued their nuclear development. Time will tell if this agreement really works. In any event, NK is so poor, that they might be bribable. Iran has all that oil money, so they're probably not.

Fareed says Bush won't attack Iran.

Bush and Cheney are certainly in a lot of trouble these days, and with Bush asking for more money for Iraq, I would think we all know it's all going for unbid contractors too. The US military is at the breaking point so I would be very suprised if Bush did attack Iran and certainly the UN would greatly object to all and KNOW that Bush and Cheney had lost the collective minds.

NOT even conservative voters would like to see Bush invade Iran. I can't actually say Bush doesn't care what his voters think since he has gone to such great levels to hide what he does from the public but at the same time Bush has shown a chilling indifference to public opinion as well.

AND as Bush is giving HUGE amounts of hard earned taxpayer money to his un-bid contractors like Blackwater while running the US military into the ground. I'm suprised ANY military member or war veteran would support Republicans any more knowing this.

So I do think Fareed is right, an attack on Iran would absolutely be the straw that broke the camels back. AND I doubted that even Norman could even sell himself on all the BS he told PBS Newshour last night.

1. A nuclear Iran announces that they have nuclear tipped missiles in secret locations aimed at the US. Then they attack Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia (one at a time), thus dominating the middle east's oil supply. Would the US risk annihilation of American cities in order to defend Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia worked hand-in-hand with the Pakistanis to develop their nukes, so they probably have a stash already. I assure you that Iran is perfectly aware of this, even if you are not.

2. Or, in the same situation, Iraq destroys Israel, with nuclear weapons. Would the US retalilate on Israel's behalf, knowing that our retailiation might mean the death of tens of millions of Americans?

It's been an open secret for years that the Israelis have nukes. Again, the fact that you don't know this doesn't mean that Iran is equally ignorant.

So you're trying to argue that nuclear-armed Iran could attack nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia or nuclear-armed Israel without nuclear retaliation from either of those countries. How likely is that?

Again, Iran isn't looking for nukes to defend against their neighbors. They're looking for nukes to defend against the United States, which has developed a nasty habit of invading countries that don't have nukes.

People keep acting as though it's irrational for Iran to be seeking nukes when it's pretty much the most rational thing they could be doing right now. I don't want them to have them, but insisting that we'll invade them isn't helping the situation since that's the reason they're seeking nukes in the first place.

ex-liberal: "1. A nuclear Iran announces that they have nuclear tipped missiles in secret locations aimed at the US. Then they attack Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia (one at a time), thus dominating yadda, yadda, yadda ..."

Thanks. You've just demonstrated why such emotional hypotheticals are highly effective tools of the fear-monger and the bane of the ignorant. They're certainly not much good for anything else.

Speaking on behalf of the reality-based community, most thinking people prefer to deal with actual facts, and not potential plot lines for a TV series like "24". And the reality is this:

Iran (nee Persia) has not attacked anyone since the late 18th century. But, when attacked, history has proven the Persian people quite capable of defending themselves, and the aggressors are eventually driven off.

Iran (nee Persia) has not attacked anyone since the late 18th century.

I guess that's true, if you mean all out war against another country. But, shortly after the Mullahs came to power, they kidnapped a bunch of American diplomats. I assume this kidnaping would constitute an act of war.

And, the current Iranian government has backed terrorist groups that attacked and/or attempted to destabilize several countries in the Middle East.

If (or when) Iran gets a nuclear arsenal, will they give greater backing to terrorist groups in the Middle East? Unforunately, I would imagine so.

N-pod is fucking insane, that's what I'd call him. he never got over getting his little jewish ass kicked every day in NYC by the black kids, and each time it happened, he pushed his hatred and bitterness that much further inside to brew. One day, dammit, he'll get even

Ever notice the most bloodthirsty wingnuts are the ones who never served in the army? The impotent 4 wheels Charles Krackhammer, and Bill Kristol, and N Pod, all think that dropping bombs is the first solution because American ideals are for pussies that get you laughed at.

Pakistan has nukes, dammit! That isn't scary?

And, the current Iranian government has backed terrorist groups that attacked and/or attempted to destabilize several countries in the Middle East.

Ever heard of Saudi Arabia?

All of these comparisons between Iran with Hitler's Germany and our Cold War adversaries are insane.

Iran is a small, middle income-country with a pretty antiquated military and no history of expansionism. The above countries were all large, avidly expansionist, serious military powers.

Not only is Iran a threat that we can deter and contain, it's not much of a threat at all compared to the recent past. The fact that the person taking the 'left'/sane position in this debate was still trumping up the Great Persian Menace to the level of the Cold War is seriously bizarre.

will they give greater backing to terrorist groups in the Middle East? Unforunately, I would imagine so.

I think we have started quite enough wars based on the fevered imaginations of neocons, and should pass this time around.

Posted by: fafner1 on October 30, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

It's a relief to find someone who actually has done some investigating on this. One of the problems with the whole Chamberlain thing -- besides the fact that it's used literally every time any discussion about whether we should go to war comes up -- is that the British had no real choice in the matter, anyway. Had there been no Munich agreement, what would have happened? Hitler would have done what he wanted to do, and Britain would have been forced into war years earlier -- and even further behind in preparedness. Yet it's trotted out, again and again, really until everyone who hears it ought to wretch at the mere word "appeasement."

Since Chamberlain and appeasement are such powerful images in our society, it seems to me that a discussion about the whole thing ought to be undertaken. It's one way to defang a very poisonous snake, one that has bitten rational discussion over and again -- although I will say that someone as discredited as Podhoretz is becoming, throwing the word at Zakariah, who seems to have some cache with the media, is another way of doing it.

Don't kid yourselves - We are going to bomb Iran to preserve Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Iran is about as big of a threat to the U.S. as the Congo is. What are they gonna do, row kayaks across the Pacific Ocean and attack us?

This is all about Israel. Period. Full stop.

Look, Israel has been saying Iran would have a nuke within 5 years since 1996. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

rufustfyrfly, exactly, although not all their military is antiquated.

I was listening to it last night, no video, and Podhoretz sounded like an old, out of touch lunatic. But the whole "conversation" was very poorly guided, I thought.

By any measure, the US invasion of Iraq has caused more casualties that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While we are trying to eliminate the 1% probability that someone might try to use a nuclear weapon against us or an ally, we are, with 100% certainty, causing devastation on a scale similar to that of a nuclear weapon.

So aren't we crazier -- and more dangerous -- than any of these imagined enemies?

"ex-liberal" is a hysterical tool.

Iran DOES NOT HAVE a nuclear weapon. They are MANY YEARS from having even the INGREDIENTS of a nuclear weapon. To throw around all sorts of imaginary, worst-case, FUTURE scenarios, and then argue for PRESENT action based on them, is stupid at best and deliberately dishonest at worst.

As a remarkably patient Zakaria pointed out in the exchange with the plainly unhinged Podhoretz, there are other, much more rational, much more effective, much less destructive, much less destablizing, much less STUPID ways to deal with a POSSIBLE future problem.

Why are people like Podhoretz and "ex-liberal" so excited about starting war, with all its attendant horror?

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

Iran is a small, middle income-country with a pretty antiquated military and no history of expansionism. The above countries were all large, avidly expansionist, serious military powers.
Posted by: rufustfyrfly

As I wrote in an earlier thread last week, countries like Iran want nuclear weapons to intimidate their neighbors and to assure that the U.S. would think twice about invading. I mean, you couldn't actually use one unless the wind was just right or you'd end up spreading fallout over at least a portion of your own country. The region isn't that big. Look what happened at Chernobyl, and it didn't go fully critical.

In retrospect, it's a shame Iraq hadn't developed the bomb. If they had, in all likelihood we never would have invaded.

In retrospect, it's a shame Iraq hadn't developed the bomb. If they had, in all likelihood we never would have invaded.

Hell, I'm encouraging my Canadian girlfriend to lobby her government to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves against the US. Considering they have all the oil and freshwater, they're starting to look quite valuable, and I don't think Canadians can keep counting on America's innate folksy friendliness.....

Hell, I'm encouraging my Canadian girlfriend . . . Posted by: Stefan

Canadian chicks are hot, aren't they?

I guess that's true, if you mean all out war against another country. But, shortly after the Mullahs came to power, they kidnapped a bunch of American diplomats. I assume this kidnaping would constitute an act of war.

You might assume it. The Reagan Administration did not.

Really, do you have any clue at all about the recent history of the Middle East? Look up Kermit Roosevelt Jr. if you have no idea why the Iranian people have hated us for 50 years, long before the 1979 hostage crisis.

Podhoretz talks nonsense because he can get away with it, because the media lie to the American public, who are ridiculously ignorant of the world around them and thus blink with dim incomprehension when people falsify world history in front of their eyes.

Note that, while ex-liberal is a certifiable psychopath, his polls (which I suspect are quite accurate) show that the American people support psychopathic attitudes and the mass murder of millions of people because someone told them it might be a neat idea.

Also note, incidentally, how ex-liberal wildly shifts from Iraq to Iran in his posts and back again.

ex-liberal: "And, the current Iranian government has backed terrorist groups that attacked and/or attempted to destabilize several countries in the Middle East."

You have absolutely no proof of that, other than the word of a proven liar, George W. Bush, and his discredited coterie of right-wing courtiers.

Don't you ever get tired of sounding like a Saturday morning cartoon?

If Hitler on the one hand and the French and British on the other had nuclear weapons in 1939, do you think Hitler would have attempted a nuclear first strike? Permit me to doubt. He would have been as deterable as Stalin and Mao turned out to be . . .

And as a matter of historical record, Hitler's regime DID possess highly advanced chemical weapons -- including the then recently-developed Tabun and Sarin nerve agents -- which he refused to employ in any first-strike capacity. But then Hitler, having actually been a soldier of the First World War AND a poison gas casualty himself, had compelling instincts against introducing any such devastating "innovations".

Our own "fearless" Chickenhawks and their rabid NeoConNazi supporters generally possess no such personal experience of war that would dissuade from mindlessly "glorifying" carnage on a massive scale, as we're currently witnessing.

Moreover, when do we get REAL here about the modern-day "casting" of Neville Chamberlain? The Fascist zealots of this country, like Pud-horertz, plainly miss NO opportunity to spuriously label their would-be adversaries as supposed "Hitler clones". Yet it's our OWN demented Fuehrer who, quite appropriately, inspires the "appeasement" analogy. Talk about utterly shameless "projection"! There is no hypocrisy REMOTELY approaching that of Amerika's NeoConNazis.

WE will only experience "peace in our time" when this government and the world cease to appease the Bush Regime!
.

Try these three ghastly possibilities: ...

... ALL based strictly on the wildest flights of fantasy and abject fear. No, thanks. Try THIS on for size instead:

No Evidence Iran Building Nuclear Weapons : Mohamed ElBaradei
[Associated Press]

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.

"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." ...
__________

IF my Grandmother had wheels, she COULD be a trolley car.

But she doesn't HAVE wheels -- end of discussion.

(Now change your Depends and go back to sleep, ex-liberal. There IS no "Iranian closet monster". Really!)

In short, a nuclear Iran with a leadership that was considered crazy enough to use its nukes would be a threat to world stability unlike any in the past.

A nuclear ANY COUNTRY with a leadership "crazy enough to use its nukes would be a threat to world stability unlike any in the past."

Our OWN country's psychotic "leadership" is a perfect example!

Iran's is NOT. Iran cannot "use its nukes", for the very simple reason that it doesn't HAVE any nukes!! (Israel, on the other hand is estimated to possess over 200 already!)

So, we have optimists like Zakaria who hope for the best and pessimists like Podhoretz, who fear the worst.

And then there are these "prancing pansy", Pollyanna-type pseudo-"realists", eh?:

Abizaid: World Could Abide Nuclear Iran
[Associated Press]
Monday 17 September 2007

... John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." ...

In 1979, when the Iranians took our diplomatic staff hostage, it had been 26 years since the US had installed the Shah. It is now 28 years later. We've forgotten the earlier act but not the more recent one. The Iranians have forgotten neither. I imagine there are still tens of thousands in Iran whom the Shah, our agent, had tortured.

Anyone want to talk causus belli?

Hell, I'm encouraging my Canadian girlfriend . . . Posted by: Stefan

Canadian chicks are hot, eh?

To use the proper idiom.

Isn't it interesting that a GwB patsy for the Iraq war, Zakaria, still gets to go on TV and look like the sane, informed part of the conversation. Duplicitous opinion writer vs. opinionated duplicitous writer. Tough call.

The part that wasn't emphasized enough by Woodruff(and never will be) is that Podhoretz isn't just any advisor, this is the guy who will be whispering in Rudy's ear, the guy with the finger on our "button."

To paraphrase Norman P, god help us if Rudy gets elected.

It isn't surprising that "ex-liberal" would leap to the defense of neocon loon Podhoretz.

It's even less surprising that he'd do so dishonestly.

Note how "ex-liberal" once again dodges the concept that Iran would be just as subject to cotnainment and deterrence as any other nuclear power, instead repeating a series of assumptions that have anything other than comedy value -- such as the notion that Iran might nuke Israel, and the retaliation be left up up to the US, not Israel, which has a robust second strike capability -- only among neocon tools such as he.

Careful, "ex-liberal" -- with bogus examples such as that, you risk tipping off your real agenda.

Even so, "ex-liberal" has never offered anything but repetitive assertion to the counterargument about deterrence. Of course, "ex-liberal" does not come here to argue in good faith, but the opposite. Still, one wonders when the moderator(s) will find "ex-liberal"'s argument-by-repetition -- hoping, no doubt, like his totalitarian political models, that mere repetition will transform a lie into the truth -- sufficiently annoying.

He's certainly more than sufficiently disgusting. Tool.

The iran debate is being used to divert attention from the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and the situation in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Palestine. We are in no position to attack Iran. However, by stating the case for war, Cheney\Bush has successfully bought more time for their policies in the rest of the area. While we are debating whether Iran is Nazi Germany, conditions in the Gaza ghetto get worse. Wake up.

Canadian chicks are hot, eh? To use the proper idiom.

Not really. "Eh" isn't used in the part of Canada my girlfriend is from -- that's more of an Upper Canadian thing. In her part of the world people say "b'y".

"Try these three ghastly possibilities:"

Dear heart, for us to consider a "ghastly possibility," it has to at least be possible, not something that exists only in your fevered imagination.

In short, a nuclear Iran with a leadership that was considered crazy enough to use its nukes would be a threat to world stability unlike any in the past.

Of course, the fact that people like you said precisely the same thing about the Soviet Union, China, and Pakistan seems to have utterly escaped your notice. And yet, somehow, we are still around and none of those countries has yet launched a nuclear weapon.

I did love the vivid fantasies, though.

PaulB: Of course, the fact that people like you said precisely the same thing about the Soviet Union, China, and Pakistan seems to have utterly escaped your notice. And yet, somehow, we are still around and none of those countries has yet launched a nuclear weapon.

Maybe I am overly worried. When I was in 1st grade, students were trained to hide under our desks in case of nuclear attack. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, a top foreign affairs professor explained to the campus community that a nuclear war was close.

Experiences like those make me feel that the world was fortunate that the Cold War ended without a nuclear conflict. From my POV, the result wasn't predestined. I don't see that success as a guarantee that the next nuclear showdown will end without disaster.

Maybe I am overly worried.

Maybe...more likely, you're a dishonest neocon hack, "ex-liberal," and everyone knows it.

You still haven't presented a scintilla of evidence -- only appeals to emotion -- that Iran is any less likely to be deterred. But of course, you post here in bad faith, and the move obvious, the more you insult your betters. Why Kevin's moderator(s) dont' find your repetition of bogus neocon talking points sufficiently annoying is a mystery.

Shorter Podhoretz: In a black/white world, better to be Hitler than Chamberlain.

Well what do you expect coming from an old turtle that wrote "My Problem, and Yours? My Fear of the Negro Penis!" and "Lionel Trilling, Get off of My Lawn!"

Maybe...more likely, you're a dishonest neocon hack, "ex-liberal," and everyone knows it.

Seconded. The "artless dodger" shoe certainly fits exceedingly well in this case.

Experiences like those make me feel that the world was fortunate that the Cold War ended without a nuclear conflict.

Yet strangely, it doesn't seem to "worry" you in the least that the US itself threatens to provoke EXACTLY such a conflict via this relentless, deranged, and utterly fraudulent saber-rattling. I wonder why.

Or is this just an example of "It's not Fascism when WE do it!"?

ex-lib: Maybe I am overly worried.

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Zogby America telephone poll 10/31/07

breakdown...50% = gop...36% = independants..28% = dems

gop: afraid of everything but borrowing from china