April 10, 2009

"We don't know what to believe about the Iranian program. We've heard many different assessments and claims over a number of years."

Hillary Clinton, on the job as Secretary of State, thinking about Iran.

107 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

It should be obvious to the most obivious, that after years of talking to Iran about its nuclear program by the UN, the EU3 and the UNSC that Iran will never give up its nuclear ambitions. Given that the UN's toothless nuclear watchdog agency can't confirm or deny Iran's bomb ambitions ought to be enough.

Iran wants to talk and talk and talk. It wil go nowhere.

If you have land in Tel Aviv, it's time to sell out.

ricpic said...

The only question now is whether Zero will come to the aid of his muslim brethren and actually order American fighters to intercept and engage Israeli bombers when the Israelis launch the necessary attack on Iran's missiles sites and nuclear facilities.

Peter V. Bella said...

Iran tests nuke. Israel fires off nukes. Iran turned into a waste land. Problem over. That is something Hillary better believe.

BTW, we would not be in this situation if Carter had not been such a wuss as a president.

traditionalguy said...

This looks more and more like a tacit agreement to allow Iran to have nuclear bombs. Who benefits from that? Russia as Iran's ally has new leverage in the Oil Patch around the persian gulf. The Russians can play the Chinese and the Euros on oil supply power issues once the USA has withdrawn from its role as the World Policeman.The loser may be Alaska when the Russians want to get their property back by negotiating from strength. Canada wont fight. The socialism wrecked USA without an updated Airforce and without a funded ABM shield cannot fight Russia anymore. Israel will survive because they will fight extermination. The USA will be Cooked Frog by the time someone wakes up to the intent of the policies of the Soroscrats and their Smiling Organizer which are now occupying our Whitehouse.

Paul Zrimsek said...

When we don't know what to believe, it might not be a bad policy to assume the worst.

The Drill SGT said...

Peter,

The problem with your scenario is that you never test the first one. If you did, you would disarm yourself.

you test bomb 3, and have the first 2 operationalized first.

rhhardin said...

The realization is actually that Hillary is way out of her league and we are in trouble.

The nervous pirate laugh was the final nail in that conclusion.

Cedarford said...

"ricpic said...
The only question now is whether Zero will come to the aid of his muslim brethren and actually order American fighters to intercept and engage Israeli bombers when the Israelis launch the necessary attack on Iran's missiles sites and nuclear facilities."

Iraq has signed a pact with Iran that Iraqi airspace will not be used by anyone seeking to bomb Iran. The US is currently in a "caretaker" status - in control of Iraqi airspace but operating per authority of the Iraqi Gov't until the Iraq AF is reconstituted and takes over (now scheduled for 2011).

If the US "lets" Israel invade Iraq airspace with impunity to start a sneak attack war on Iran, America becomes a fully complicit Party to war. Leading of course to Iranian strikes against American forces, us fighting a 3rd major war "our Special Friend" dragged us into, Iran closing down the Gulf for 3-5 months, a Global Depression fully blamed on the US and oil embargo against the US and Israel by likely all exporting nations save Canada.

Don't even drag Obama into this. Bush was about as loyal a tool to the Zionists and the Settlements policy as Israel could hope for - and even he said he would not permit an Israeli sneak attack across Iraq.

And Turkey has said the same.

The only thing the Likud has to go on is a mystical belief that once they start a war, the American public will rally behind them and finish the War for Israel at considerable cost in US lives and treasure. I think they are wrong on that, as are the last of the neocons in America - there is no large support for fighting a 3rd war alongside the existing 2 ongoing ones unless America itself is attacked or our vital interests are directly attacked by Iran. So far, we do not like what they are doing, most countries don't like what they are doing, but they are doing it while complying with International Law and all other members of the Security Council and all America's other allies oppose us being Israel's tool in this matter.
_______________
And Hillary is right. The American intelligence people have flip-flopped all over on Iran, and the Likudniks have claimed they were 6 months from a bomb since 1996.

Joe said...

This is the classic situation where what you dearly want to believe is true collides with reality. Happened to Bush and now it's happening in spades to Obama.

Quayle said...

Under normal circumstances, the best approach would be to simply state publicly and privately to Iran that if they ever use one nuclear bomb, the ruling religious class and their military, and perhaps a few cities, will cease to exist.

However, there is one complicating factor to the normal scenarios, and that is the Jews firm commitment to "never let it happen again."

That moves the situation from assured destruction deterrence, to a situation where Israel is determined to not allow even one of their cities to be taken out by a nuclear bomb, even if their bombs are crossing paths with an Iranian bomb over Iraq.

And, really, who can blame them for that.

But at the end of the day, I still think that a clear, and oft reinforced ‘assured Iranian destruction’ line is the tack best to take.

Anthony said...

Truth is Iran will get a bomb and there is pretty much nothing anyone can do about it.

We should advocate a "Godfather" strategy. Remember the "peace conference" when Corleone explains he has to get Michael back from Italy and says:

"I am a superstitious man. And so if some unlucky accident should befall my youngest son, if some police officer should accidentally shoot him, or if he should hang himself in his cell, or if my son is struck by a bolt of lightening, then I will blame some of the people here."

That should be our Iran policy. They get nuclear weapons, fine. But if they used it against Tel Aviv, or Saudi Arabia, or if some terrorist group gets hold of fissable material, we will look to blame them first.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

I really love people who seem to relish in threatening the annihilation of millions... because it's so "necessary."

Why do we never hear about Ayatollah Khameni's fatwa AGAINST nuclear weapons? Do people know that in Iran, the (very powerful) religious establishment is dead set against nuclear weapons acquisition?

South Africa disarmed. So should Israel. So should we. Nukes are for fools.

paul a'barge said...

"we don't know ..."

Ah, Hillary. Democrats.

Welcome to the planet Uranus, where down is up and up is down.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

Black swans don't just happen in financial markets. WWI was a black swan. There had been no major European war in a hundred years, and no rational person believed that war was desirable or even possible among rational people. Thus some Balkan asshole acting out the chronic assholism of Balkan nationalism was able to pretty near destroy Western civ with a few shots in a city whose name I can't spell......Nuclear weapons have not been used in over sixty years. There is an underlying assumption that because their use is so irrational, they will not be used. And it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.

David said...

This is at least an honest and accurate assessment of the confusion.

Unfortunately the confusion is due in part to the fact that the intelligence services have been advancing political and policy agendas by shading their reporting on Iran to the more benign.

One thing is sure: The ambition of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is not in doubt. Nor is their capacity to build such weapons.

Our policy should be driven by their intentions. They have no intention of giving up the drive for nuclear weapons. Since they won't relinquish the capacity, we should destroy it.

But we won't. Thus the Isralis will.

They can and they will.

(I think William is right about the Black Swans.)

MnMark said...

I'm afraid I find it hard to believe we would actually retaliate if Iran did give nuclear materials to terrorists or even if they nuked Israel.

Imagine that a nuclear weapon goes off in a U.S. city. There's shock and fury. But we don't know yet where it came from. The President vows a swift, decisive response as soon as they know who did it. The researchers begin taking samples, putting together details...the intelligence services do their work...and six months or 12 months or 2 or 3 years later they figure out that they're 90% sure it came from Iran.

Now what? Are we going to, in cold blood, nuke Iran's cities? No. We would go to the U.N., ask for a resolution authorizing the overthrow of the Iranian government. Months of debate would take place. What would come out of it would be some strongly-worded rebuke of Iran and perhaps some sanctions and a demand that they surrender their nuclear capacity. The U.S. would shoot cruise missiles into their weapons production areas and some at the leadership's bunkers.

We have become so neutered and politically correct and sensitive and multicultural and all that stuff...I don't see us cold-bloodedly using nukes. They might be useful if a major power launched nuclear weapons at us, but even then I can imagine a President saying, hold on, this could be a mistake, let's not vaporize millions of people until we know what caused this.

Upshot of it is that Iran is going to get nuclear weapons and we aren't going to do anything about it. But they may not actually use or distribute them if they think that Islam can win through demographic takeover of the West. Plus Al Quaida's experience demonstrates that it can be a bad thing to attack the West too visibly and catastrophically.

Balfegor said...

South Africa disarmed.

Er, yes. Because the Apartheid government didn't think Blacks could be trusted with nuclear weapons.

TMink said...

"South Africa disarmed."

They have no enemies pledged to their destruction.

"So should Israel."

That would be foolish, as Israel is surrounded by countries pledged to its destruction.

"So should we."

More foolishness. We should continue to have and not use nuclear arms.

"Nukes are for fools."

Only fools who think the world is a nice, safe neighborhood would think so.

Trey

Balfegor said...

Now what? Are we going to, in cold blood, nuke Iran's cities? No.

There's a funny bit about essentially this point (viz. that the nuclear deterrent is a fake deterrent because no one is willing to launch) in an episode of Yes Minister. The bit I'm thinking of start at line 95. Perhaps there are clips somewhere?

The obvious solution, of course, is a Doomsday machine:

That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...

Don't even drag Obama into this.

Well, serious global events have a way of dragging Presidents in. They can’t be escaped.

Or are you suggesting that Mr. Cool will be able to remain aloof from all the global muss and fuss, and confine his activities to eating pizzaand watching movies at the Whitehouse?

I really love people who seem to relish in threatening the annihilation of millions... because it's so "necessary."

Whose relishing? You exaggerate to make a point, and your comments seem dismissive of reality.

The problem is raised by statements like “Israel should be wiped off the map”.

OK. Now what does that statement mean, and what should, if anything, our response be?

Montagne Mointaigne said...

I didn't say unilaterally disarm. But it should be everyone's goal to live in a world without nuclear weapons, and to do whatever is possible to further that goal.

I have the impression that some people would rather hold on to nukes and the power to annihilate other populations, out of a childish wish for dominance, even if given the hypothetical chance to do away with all nukes.

That's what I call foolish...

rocketeer67 said...

Do people know that in Iran, the (very powerful) religious establishment is dead set against nuclear weapons acquisition?

Sure, sure. I know. We can all rest easy.

By the way, ever hear of a "hudna?"

rocketeer67 said...

P.S. - Arms are for hugging.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

Again, the people who constantly bring up Ahmedinejad's comments against Israel never seem to bring up Khameni's fatwa against nuclear weapons... almost as if they desired confrontation with Iran above and beyond the cool appraisal of alternatives to conflict. In an almost vengeful, childlike manner.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

Hudna? Sure! Those sneaky moslems! I hear sharia was secretly instituted last night in east st. louis... the imam there is holding on to obama's birth certificate... better buy up all the guns and ammo. Tea party FTW!!!! New American Revolution WHAT

rocketeer67 said...

Those sneaky moslems!

Well, yes.

Broken clock and all that, I suppose, but congrats nonetheless!

Balfegor said...

Again, the people who constantly bring up Ahmedinejad's comments against Israel never seem to bring up Khameni's fatwa against nuclear weapons... almost as if they desired confrontation with Iran above and beyond the cool appraisal of alternatives to conflict.

I think this is largely because a fatwa is talk, whereas refining uranium is action. There have also been conflicting signals from Iran e.g. this report of clerical approval of the use of nuclear weapons. These reports usually get denied shortly after they leak into the English language press, but there is sufficient uncertainty here that I don't think it is sensible to rely on the 2005 fatwa. Beyond that, as far as I am aware, the only public references to the 2005 fatwa against nuclear weapons appear in Iran's presentation to the IAEA -- I don't think we have an authenticated copy of the fatwa text itself, have we?

Anthony said...

Montagne Mointaigne -- but Khomeni is dead and Iran is doing, well, something. And even though elements of the religious heirarchy of the country are anti-nuclear weapons, you still have the elected president of the country saying some very concerning things.

If Iran wants nuclear weapons, there is probably little anyone can do to stop them. We should recognize that fact, and plan a foriegn policy based around that fact.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

Anthony-- Khameni is the one that's alive. He is Iran's de facto leader.

I don't even mean to imply that the fatwa is something we should trust in the absolute. I just think it's odd no one brings it up. And a lot of people seem to think Iran is a neo-nazi aggressor state, which it is far from. Actually, has Iran ever invaded or attacked another country?

Anthony said...

>Anthony-- Khameni is the one that's alive. He is Iran's de facto leader.


Sorry, I read Khomeni, not Khameni.

Flexo said...

Anthony - it is too late to plan a foreign policy based around that fact.

We have returned to September 10.

If we get nuked, and sitting across the river from D.C., I think it increasingly possible, if not probable, we won't have a foreign policy response, we will send in the FBI and seek indictments.

You are right that we should have a policy of telling Iran that, if we are hit, we are going to blame them - just like JFK told the Soviet Union that it would be held responsible for any missiles from Cuba - but the problem is that Ahmadinejad, et al. do not care if we were to retaliate. Mutually assured destruction worked with the Soviets because they had some semblence of sanity and they wanted to live. But radical Islamists who engage in suicide bombings clearly care little about saving their own lives. MAD would not work with Iran.

Besides, a large proportion of the Iranian populace opposes the Islamist regime and yearns to be free. So a counterattack would largely fall on innocent people.

So basically, we're screwed. It's too late to do anything substantive about the problem.

Elections have consequences.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

Flexo, do you realize that the U.S. is still fighting two major wars at the moment? Not using the FBI and lawyers as troops, mind.

Flexo said...

Perhaps you could tell Eric Holder that Montagne.

SMGalbraith said...

It is beyond my comprehension that if an American city is nuked and the bomb traced to Iran that we would retaliate by slaughtering millions of Iranian innocent citizens, most of whom oppose their regime.

Nope, no way. We would olibterate their military bases and security forces but not their population.

Counter force not counter value.

Anyway, for me the great danger with an Iranian bomb is the influence they would have over the smaller Gulf states and the response by the Sunni powers to that bomb. That is, they'd try to acquire their own bomb.

A nuclear arms race in the Middle East?

Terrific.

rocketeer67 said...

Actually, has Iran ever invaded or attacked another country?

Iraq, covertly, within the last year. You do know that, right?

Peter V. Bella said...

Do people know that in Iran, the (very powerful) religious establishment is dead set against nuclear weapons acquisition?

I guess those powerful religious types are not so influential, seeing as Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Maybe they are just dead set against nuclear weapons being developed by anyone but them.

garage mahal said...

Actually, has Iran ever invaded or attacked another country?

No, but they might. And they might have a ticking time bomb. So I say we torture our way into Iran!

Jeremy said...

rocketeer67 said...(Actually, has Iran ever invaded or attacked another country?) "Iraq, covertly, within the last year. You do know that, right?"

Well, technically you're probably right, but technically...so has Pakistan...and we give them money hand over fist...and we know they have the bomb.

So what should we do about that?

Jeremy said...

The real problem, and this certainly isn't new, is that Iran, as a sovereign nation, has the right to develop whatever they want.

They may be assholes and we may be afraid of what they might do with WMD but we also know Pakistan, India, Israel, and others have fully developed WMD and we're not talking about invading any of them are we?

Right now the only realistic course is to defuse the situation via diplomacy and negotiation.

bearbee said...

Obama may cede Iran's nuclear rights

The new thinking is that the priority should be to win greater access for UN inspectors to the Iranian nuclear establishments, as compared with the current limited inspection regime, which has led to diminishing information regarding Iran's nuclear program. In other words, why not trust Iran to retain its enrichment activities so long as its program can be effectively verified.

Wonder what Israel thinks.

The Drill SGT said...

Montagne Mointaigne said...
Flexo, do you realize that the U.S. is still fighting two major wars at the moment? Not using the FBI and lawyers as troops, mind.


Was that big to do in 41-45, 8 wars?

Pacific
SW Pacific
CBI
North Africa
Italy
Western Front
Atlantic
Eastern Front

Or was it WWII?

Point is we are fighting one war, in 2 countries against 1 enemy.

Peter V. Bella said...

Right now the only realistic course is to defuse the situation via diplomacy and negotiation.

Yep. You are right. We will be diplomatic and negotiate. A lot of blah, blah, blah. But, Israel will take out the problem.

Now, what American politician in their right mind will condemn Israel.

MnMark said...

I have the impression that some people would rather hold on to nukes and the power to annihilate other populations, out of a childish wish for dominance, even if given the hypothetical chance to do away with all nukes.

There's nothing childish about wishing to be dominant. It's an unavoidable part of life. Human beings are not somehow exempt from the imperatives of life: hold on to territory so that you have resources to live and fend off competitors. If we're going to fling around epithets like "childish" I think it would be more accurate to say that the idea that human nature can be changed or aspects of it can be nullified so that we can live in a peaceful worldwide utopia where there is no aggression, no coveting of others' resources, no desire to be the dominant power. THAT is childish.

Anthony said...

Flexo -- I understand, but maybe that is the way it is. The world is back to September 10. And we simply accept that. Maybe it is not so bad a thing after all.

But what would you do with Iran? Attacking Iran would not stop Iran from developing the weapons, if they really want to.

I still think in the end, the only solution is making it clear that if a nuclear weapons goes off somewhere, we are going to look at Iran first.

MnMark said...

Point is we are fighting one war, in 2 countries against 1 enemy.

That is an excellent point and something easily forgotten.

I think it could be fair to say that there's really only two serious enemies to Western man right now: Islam, and Leftism. And Islam would be no threat to us if it weren't for Leftism working to demoralize and disarm us and help muslims and other non-Westerners in their demographic conquest of us. There's plenty of battlefields, from Iraq and Afghanistan to the universities and voting booths, but it's the same enemies.

rocketeer67 said...

Well, technically you're probably right, but technically...so has Pakistan...and we give them money hand over fist...and we know they have the bomb.

There's nothing we can do. They have the bomb.

That's kind of the point of this whole discussion.

Wait - it just struck me - you work for the administration, don't you?

Jeremy said...

Peter V. Bella said..."Yep. You are right. We will be diplomatic and negotiate. A lot of blah, blah, blah. But, Israel will take out the problem."

Peter, I understand you love throwing out this kind of insanity, but do you have any idea of what would happen if Israel were to attack Iran right now?

It's one thing for Mossad to take people out and their attack on Iraq's facility worked out well, but that was a different time in history and yapping about merely attacking sovereign nations (and exactly what and where would they attack?)...because you "suspect" they're doing something would turn the world upside down.

Every nation in the world has used diplomacy and negotiation to avoid such conflicts for centuries and to walk away from the table now would be wrong.

Did you say the same thing when Nixon went to China? How about Reagan with the Russians?

Jeremy said...

rocketeer67 said..."There's nothing we can do. They have the bomb."

So if they already have the bomb...leave them alone?

But if we suspect they may someday have the bomb...attack? And why aren't we attacking North Korea?
(Think South Korea and Japan might like to be in on that discussion?)

Can I assume you've never taken a political science or international relations course in your life?

I'll ask you same thing I asked Peter: Why didn't Nixon attack China? Reagan attack Russia?

Because they already had the bomb?

Montagne Mointaigne said...

MnMark, you are insane. That is all.

p.s. call me when non-westerners and muslims complete their demographic conquest of wherever it is you live. I bet the restaurants will be worth checking out.

Buford Gooch said...

The ignorance disguised as intelligence by some of the leftward commenters here is astounding.

Jeremy said...

MnMark - "I think it could be fair to say that there's really only two serious enemies to Western man right now: Islam, and Leftism."

So now "leftists" (liberals/Democrats?) are grouped with the people who took down the towers?

You need help.

Balfegor said...

But if we suspect they may someday have the bomb...attack? And why aren't we attacking North Korea?

(A) they probably already have the bomb
(B) they don't need the bomb to establish a powerful deterrent. They have 11,000 pieces of heavy artillery ranged along the border, and Seoul a city of 22 million people, larger than New York City, lies in range of their guns.

(Think South Korea and Japan might like to be in on that discussion?)

Why yes. That's why the stated policy of the Bush II administration was consistently for multilateral 6-party talks involving all the major regional stakeholders. Of course, our emissary -- Chris Hill -- disregarded these instructions and decided on his own to conduct personal negotiations with North Korea, with no representatives from other countries with him.

Obama proposes to appoint this man Ambassador to Iraq.

Fen said...

But if they used it against Tel Aviv, or Saudi Arabia, or if some terrorist group gets hold of fissable material, we will look to blame them first.

But thats part of the problem. Our enemies need to think outside the box to beat us [asymmetric warfare]. And they are anything but stupid [see: Saddam]. The primitive nukes that Iran seeks do not have a distinguishable fingerprint. And the first islamic bomb will be delivered anonymously by terrorist proxies. We will not get the 100% certainty needed to justify any retaliatory strike.

So we go back to Fortress America. The futile strategy of trying to be strong at all fronts at once, all the time.

Balfegor said...

The real problem, and this certainly isn't new, is that Iran, as a sovereign nation, has the right to develop whatever they want.

Well, that's certainly true. I'm glad to see you reject international law as a true constraint on the actions of sovereign powers. This isn't what we're supposed to say, but it is common sense. There's no enforcement mechanism.

Fen said...

Jeremy: Can I assume you've never taken a political science or international relations course in your life?

Dude, you shouldn't really use words like "political science... international relations course".

Your "analysis" reeks of THC.

If indeed, you were educated on those subjects, you should go back and demand a refund.

rocketeer67 said...

So if they already have the bomb...leave them alone?

Negotiation is now useless. The meaningful military threat is no longer an option. All that's left, apparently, is paying money to the protection racket.

...But if we suspect they may someday have the bomb...attack?

I'm beginning to think you really aren't very bright. But yes, that should be a very, very clearly communicated option.

(Think South Korea and Japan might like to be in on that discussion?)

You think they're not already? Dimwittedness: confirmed.

Can I assume you've never taken a political science or international relations course in your life?

All of your other assumptions are wrong; I'm so glad I'm not standing between you and perfection.

I'll ask you same thing I asked Peter: Why didn't Nixon attack China? Reagan attack Russia?

Because they already had the bomb?


Well, yes, there was that. Also - China and Russia were not led by insane messianic theocrats. I guess you must have slept through the alarm the day of that class.

Fen said...

JeremySo now "leftists" (liberals/Democrats?)are grouped with the people who took down the towers?

You need help.


We certainly do. Its too bad we can't step aside for a few moments and let the Islamic radicals at the Leftists, then mop up the survivors.

I'll give them handgun safety training [the Leftists].

TMink said...

MM wrote: "I have the impression that some people would rather hold on to nukes and the power to annihilate other populations, out of a childish wish for dominance, even if given the hypothetical chance to do away with all nukes.

That's what I call foolish..."

That would indeed be foolish. We agree. Some people fear male power and aggression in any context. They cannot see it as safe, but abusive.

America has been the dominant world power since 1942, perhaps even 1917. How much have we added to our territory in that time? We could own Canada, Mexico, much of Central America. Yet we do not.

I am glad we do not! It is proof of how America has been more responsible with its power than any nation in recorded history.

Yes, we used nukes twice, and we saved millions of Japanese and American lives in doing so.

Since then we have been wise enough to not use them again. But not having them is a fool's errand. They are too easy for other to acquire, and the other lack our restraint.

Trey

TMink said...

"Do people know that in Iran, the (very powerful) religious establishment is dead set against nuclear weapons acquisition?"

Some are dead set against it. Others see it as the way to bring on Armeggedon. They live for that. Just like the Christians who dream of bombing the Mosque of Oman so that the Temple can be rebuilt. The look to hasten the end times.

I for one am glad that my brothers and sisters in Christ who are of that persuasion do not posess nukes. That goes double for the followers of Islam.

Trey

TMink said...

Jeremy asked "do you have any idea of what would happen if Israel were to attack Iran right now?"

Do you?

Tell us please.

Trey

Fen said...

MM wrote: I have the impression that some people would rather hold on to nukes and the power to annihilate other populations, out of a childish wish for dominance, even if given the hypothetical chance to do away with all nukes.

Childish? Someone will always dominate this world. So pick your poison:

1) learn to speak Mandarin
2) convert to Islam
3) be corrupted by western decadence and greed

I prefer #3, but it has offsets like civil liberties, women's rights, freedom of expression, ya know.

Fen said...

oh, and the right to arm for self-defense, thats another good one the other 2 Powers lack.

Fen said...

The right to privacy is kinda cool too.

Jeremy said...

TMink said...as to problems we would encounter and create by attacking Iran; wants to know why I think it would be a bad mnove:

"Do you? Tell us please."

Well, based on the spectacular results we've seen via the Iraqi invasion only a real dolt even ask the question.

Maybe you should run your question by the families of the 4,275 dead and 31,169 wounded Americans and see if they can come up some reasons for you.

And don't forget the trillion and more we've blown over there...and we're still there, too.

Jeremy said...

Fen - Grouping Americans you disagree with politically into the mix with those who attack and kill our citizens illustrates how stupid you really are.

It's one thing to whine and bitch because you lost the last elections, but trying to make the case that a liberal viewpoint is just as bad as literally killing Americans is childish...and you probably already know that.

Jeremy said...

Fen said..."The right to privacy is kinda cool too."

As in wiretapping Americans?

Funny.

Jeremy said...

Fen - Did you ever attend college?

Didn't think so.

Fen said...

Jeremy: Maybe you should run your question by the families of the 4,275 dead and 31,169 wounded Americans and see if -

Yah don't do that. You don't give a rat's ass about our dead and wounded Americans. Stop using them as props.

And don't forget the trillion and more we've blown over there...and we're still there, too

Yes. Because reformation of the middle east is the only long range plan for marginalizing Radical Islam.

Please ask your keeper to send us a troll with some understanding of foreign policy. At least someone who's aware that the Bush strategy re NKorea was 6 party talks.

Because you are almost not worth reading.

Fen said...

Jeremy: but trying to make the case that a liberal viewpoint is just as bad as literally killing Americans is childish...and you probably already know that.

[sigh] you are the only one who has done that. He said our enemies were Radical Islam and Leftists. He did not say they were equivalent enemies.

Hows that imaginary hate working for you now? Dolt.

Jeremy said...

Fen said..."Yah don't do that. You don't give a rat's ass about our dead and wounded Americans. Stop using them as props."

Fen, I consider you to less than intelligent. You constantly throw out ridiculous charges without a shred of information relating to the people you attack.

My response was to another person on the thread who asked why I think attacking Iran would be a bad idea. If you think even a minority of these families would support such an act you're even dumber than I thought...and really takes some doing.

If you feel so strongly I suggest you get up off your fat ass and enlist in the military and be sure demand you're sent to the Mideast. (And yes, I'm pretty sure I've read that you already served, but there's still something even an idiot like yourself could do to help out.)

Sitting at a computer calling for invasions is easy. It's the people who actually have to serve who pay the price.

Fen said...

As in wiretapping Americans?

POTUS has the constitutional authority to intercept enemy communications, even if they spread into [or over] American networks, so long as anything gained is not permitted as evidence in a court of law.

We are trying to prevent a nuclear 9-11, not prosecute the perps afterwards.

Even Obama gets this now.

rocketeer67 said...

As in wiretapping Americans?

I trust you'll be opposing the Obama Administration's proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009, along with his retention of Bush's FISA powers.

Or is it just fascism when it's the "other side" doing it?

rocketeer67 said...

If you feel so strongly I suggest you get up off your fat ass and enlist in the military and be sure demand you're sent to the Mideast.

Ah, yes. The ol' "chickenhawk" strategy.

You can never go wrong with the classics, I say.

Jeremy said...

Fen - This is what you wrote.

"[sigh] you are the only one who has done that. He said our enemies were Radical Islam and Leftists. He did not say they were equivalent enemies."

Who are these "leftists" that are being discussed? Are you saying they're NOT Democrats? Liberals?

And here's exactly what the other idiot said: "I think it could be fair to say that I think it could be fair to say that there's really only two serious enemies to Western man right now: Islam, and Leftism."

It doesn't get any more direct than that. ("...there's really only two serious enemies to Western man right now: Islam, and Leftism.")

And then YOU follow up with this right wing insanity: "Its too bad we can't step aside for a few moments and let the Islamic radicals at the Leftists, then mop up the survivors."

"...let the Islamic radicals at the Leftists, then mop up the survivors"??

Survivors? You mean the ones who aren't murdered?

Fen, you can't even make a point wihout lying about what you yourself said or skewing people's words to fit your premise.

You're just not very smart.

Jeremy said...

rocketeer67 said..."Ah, yes. The ol' "chickenhawk" strategy. You can never go wrong with the classics, I say."

The truth hurts.

People sitting on their asses, expounding upon how we should attack other countries...yes, that's exactly what it is: Chickenhawks, from the safety of their own homes...sending others in to do the actual fighting.

What is it you don't understand?

TMink said...

Perhaps I am a dolt. Can you answer the question in a straightforward manner? It would start like this: "Israel attacking Iran would be a stupendously stupid idea because . . ."

Please answer the question, otherwise people might confuse you with a dolt. 8)

Trey - who wants to know what Jeremy thinks

The Drill SGT said...

Fen said...And the first islamic bomb will be delivered anonymously by terrorist proxies. We will not get the 100% certainty needed to justify any retaliatory strike.

For the record, it will come in a container on a Liberian freighter, transhipped in some place like Malta, or Istanbul.

Why a container? because you can shield the device from inspection and it literally can be a bread board device as big as well... a container :(

Jeremy said...

rocketeer67 - I have no problem with wiretapping anybody if there's an actual reason for doing it. Our police and other agencies have been doing it forever, but that's not what the Bush administration was doing and anybody who takes the time to read...knows it, too.

Why not give that reading thing a shot?

rocketeer67 said...

I have no problem with wiretapping anybody if there's an actual reason for doing it. Our police and other agencies have been doing it forever, but that's not what the Bush administration was doing and anybody who takes the time to read...knows it, too.

You've just proven that you never read it, nimrod. And lied about it to boot. If you're willing to just make something up, you can score a quick hat trick!

Fen said...

Jeremy: If you feel so strongly I suggest you get up off your fat ass and enlist in the military and be sure demand you're sent to the Mideast.

You need me to go back a 4th time? Ha.

Sitting at a computer calling for invasions is easy.

I haven't called for an invasion. Your just making stuff up now. Hey, are you Kelly from NYC Housewives?

It's the people who actually have to serve who pay the price.

I see that you think war is optional.

But we don't do it for the money or for job training. We do it because this Reality you live in has boundries. And at the edges of those boundries exist very nasty things like Nazi Fascism and the USSR.

Do you even realize that a return to 4th century Islam is now a player in our future?

I'm done with you. Go back to your keeper, ask for a replacement. Oh yeah, tell her I can't make our 10AM tennis match this week. Thanks.

Jeremy said...

TMink said..."Israel attacking Iran would be a stupendously stupid idea because . . ."

"...it would inflame an already white hot situation that exists in the Mideast, specifically among the radicals who would like nothing better than an example of an American ally attacking a sovereign nation. It would also draw American into another, much bigger and more costly (monetarily and loss of life) expansion of what we already have to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why would you not understand this?

Jeremy said...

Fen - You sound like a twelve-year old.

Take some time and educate yourself.

Jeremy said...

Rocket-Dick - FISA.

rocketeer67 said...

Rocket-Dick - FISA.

Well, we all knew you'd end up there eventually. When it ain't in your mouth, it's on your mind.

And yes - FISA. Read it. It does not say what your minders say it says. But since you're so obviously happy getting your ass kicked in your ignorance, I'm not counting on it.

Fen said...

DrillSgt: For the record, it will come in a container on a Liberian freighter, transhipped in some place like Malta, or Istanbul.

I'm thinking the attack will come on the West Coast. The Pacific is easier to sneak through. So Los Angeles. I wonder how many miles out our inspection net is set?

Jeremy said...

As to the Cyber Security Act:

First of all, it hasn't been ratified or approved yet so it's really a moot point in relation to the illegal wiretapping during the Bush administration...and I have no idea why Rocketman thinks it has anything to do with my point.

It's also not Obama who's introducing it, it's Rockefeller, a Democrat and Snowe, a Republican.

A CyberSecurity Advisor would be similar to the National Security Advisor, unlike what we've had in the past, with much of the work being done behind closed doors with little oversight.

There would also be a panel, made up of representatives including industry, government and non-profit organizations.

rocketeer67 said...

Great. You can read an abstract, at least. Congrats!

By the way - Rockefeller and Snowe? Yeah, they introduced it. It's the Administration's bill.

Fen said...

It's also not Obama who's introducing it, it's Rockefeller, a Democrat and Snowe, a Republican.

A CyberSecurity Advisor would be similar to the National Security Advisor, unlike what we've had in the past, with much of the work being done behind closed doors with little oversight.

There would also be a panel, made up of representatives including industry, government and non-profit organizations.


Why does this read like a cut-n-paste from some newspaper?

Michael Hasenstab said...

"We don't know what to believe about [the women Bill has had sex with]. We've heard so many different claims and [allegations] over a number of years."

The Smartest Woman In The World continues her life of hapless gullibility.

I never expected that Hillary would be as ineffective a Secretary of State as Madelline Albright, but it appears I may have been wrong.

Don't forget, by the way, that the former Long Beach Naval Port was leased in April 1996 by WJC to a company owned by the Chinese government.

TMink said...

"Why would you not understand this?"

Why would you think I don't? If you want to know what I think, you would have to stop insulting me and ask me a question.

Trey

Cedarford said...

The Drill SGT said...
Montagne Mointaigne said...
Flexo, do you realize that the U.S. is still fighting two major wars at the moment? Not using the FBI and lawyers as troops, mind.

Was that big to do in 41-45, 8 wars?

Pacific
SW Pacific
CBI
North Africa
Italy
Western Front
Atlantic
Eastern Front

Or was it WWII?

Point is we are fighting one war, in 2 countries against 1 enemy.


I suppose, if the will is there, we could fulfill the Neocon/Likud Dream list of wars some other Americans would fight.

1. Attack Iran, surgically!
2. Spec Ops to do a cakewalk war with Syria.
3. Spec Ops to do a cakewalk war against the 400,000 militia members in Somalia.
4. Fight for the noble freedom-lovers of Georgia.
5. Fight for the noble freedom lovers of Venezuela.
6. Special Ops to do and easy surgical "takeout" war against the million armed fighters in the Congo.
7. Invade and save the noble freedom-loving Darfurans.
8. Invade and save the noble Burmese.
9. Surgically "takeout" N Korea, their million man army, 7,000 tanks, 3100 heavy short-range and medium range missile, and 12,000 large artillery pieces in range of Seoul with a simple easy one. two day bombing.
10. Invade Pakistan. Liberate them from the radical Islamists. Prepare for all the gratitude we will get.
____________
Yes, I suppose it is possible to call it all 1 War and fill the entire Neocon/Likud war list...since WWII was a big war and we won that. But WWII came with 9 million men forceably Drafted, 2 million casualties, all jobs and wages frozen for the Duration unless the War Board that had to sign off on all production - agreed. Most Americans in the 40-50% tax bracket or above to pay for it, heavy consumer rationing.

Endless war has a price.

And like the destroyed British and French Empires, America's price would be fighting the Islamic world so China could take it over when we "finish and win it for ourselves and Our Special Friend."

Fen said...

MichealH: Don't forget, by the way, that the former Long Beach Naval Port was leased in April 1996 by WJC to a company owned by the Chinese government.

Oh lovely.

2204: "China and Iran have bought brand-new, top-of-the-line, Kilo-class diesel subs from Russia..."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040122-diesel-subs-threat.htm

I wonder if you could "prove" which one was owned by China and which one was used by Iran. From the remnants.

Big Mike said...

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" Nothing has changed in 3000 years except the ability to kill more people more rapidly.

The only way to live in peace is to build up a strong military, so strong that even an insane person would not chose to attack you. If you choose to express your peaceable intentions by disbanding your armies and making expressions of love and harmony, then there's always somebody who is going to attack. 3000 years is not nearly enough time for humans to evolve. Too bad, but it is what it is.

I used to think that Mutual Assured Destruction was as insane as its acronym implied, but somehow we have gone 64 years without a face to face war with Russia or China. That's a good thing that no one would have predicted back in the late 1940's.

Maguro said...

C4,

Endless war with everyone on the planet and acquiescence with whatever our adversaries want to do are not the only options available to us. You seem determined to ignore everything that lies between those two extremes.

The Drill SGT said...

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

"if you want peace prepare for war"
- Vegetius.

madawaskan said...

The Obama Administration has signaled it won't do too much for Israel.

That might prove to be strangely liberating for Israel in a sense...

When the Syrians and other Arab states were the puppets of the Soviets during the Cold War that acted as a catastrophic cap-that happens to be a balanced equation...

TMink said...

madawaskan wrote: "That might prove to be strangely liberating for Israel in a sense..."

I was thinking the same thing! Without your big brother to scare away the bullies, you have to use the bat under your bed to take care of it yourself.

Like the bombing of the Iranian weapons being smuggled into Gaza.

Interesting times.

Trey

madawaskan said...

Trey-

Yikes!

May you live in interesting times.

That's an ancient Chinese curse.

traditionalguy said...

The Iranians are at war with the USA. among others, because they are Shia Moslem Holy Men that are under the control of a God who wants them to rule the world, but they cannot even handle the small Jewish State of Israel. How embarrassing that must be to the Iranians. And of course the Iranian's constant threats to wipe Israel off the map and kill all Jews with their new Bomb may only be sour grapes or a joke. Who could be sure? And certainly no decision will be made without knowing if they are serious or not. Hillary should watch Mars Attack this weekend.

TMink said...

Madawaskan, please pardon me, I meant to say that we are cursed, not to curse you.

Trey

madawaskan said...

Trey-

Oh hey in no way did I take it like that.

I just think it's an ironic saying...

No worries.

Big Mike said...

@Drill Sgt, thanks for the translation, but I was hoping people would go look it up for themselves. ;-)

Peter V. Bella said...

“…but do you have any idea of what would happen if Israel were to attack Iran right now?”

Not a damn thing. Look, Jeremy, I know that the liberals and the Democrats are all Arabists and get all goo goo eyed over the phony plight of the Palestinians and other so called Moslem phony causes, but not a damn thing will happen. Why? The only reason that Iran is developing nukes is to take out Israel. Israel is their only stated enemy. They have vowed to destroy Israel. Israel will never let that happen. I believe the Hebrew is Le am lo od(spelling?); Never again. Ever.

You really should keep up on history and international affairs instead of the Huffing Glue Post and other such drivel.

Come back here when you get a real education. Basket weaving, Macrame, and Home Econmomics to not make you educated in international affairs.

Diamondhead said...

"but do you have any idea of what would happen if Israel were to attack Iran right now?”

Most middle-eastern governments would breathe a sigh of relief and Iran would slink back into the shadows for a while like a corrected dog.

daredevil-66 said...

Why can't Israel think out of the box and go with a few dirty nukes strategically placed through out Iran to cause that govt. to collapse? A bus stike in Tehran can make their mullahs hold on power wobbily. Why does it have to be a conventional air strike to deal with their nuclear progame? 2 can play that game of anonymously slaughtering people leaving the victim to puzzle out who dunnit.