Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Meanwhile in Iran...
Iran has launched nine missiles, as a sign that it's got some push-back capabilities in response to possible attacks from Israel or the U.S., according to news reports.
So how are presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) responding?
Here's Obama:
"I think what this underscores is the need for us to create a kind of policy that is putting the burden on Iran to change behavior. And, frankly, we just have not been able to do that over the last several years. Partly because we're not engaged in direct diplomacy."
Obama has also suggested we need economic sanctions against Iran. And here's McCain:
"Iran's most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran's continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran's dangerous ambitions."
And here's The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh on stepped-up covert operations against Iran, which were suspended (according to press reports) in the immediate run-up to the invastion of Iraq:
Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program.
reason on "the next Iranian Revolution."
anarch|7.9.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Someone please critique the account linked to my name (not the source, folks, the account).
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 11:05AM|#
Yea, we are not talking to them enough. It is all clear
now.
Can we send Jimmy Carter over there as soon as Sen. Obama is sworn
in as President?
Elemenope|7.9.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Guy Montag --
Yes. Clearly if we speak to them, their magical powers of verbiage
will destroy us. It is an ancient Persian art, I'm told.
Don't fuck with the ancients.
|7.9.08 @ 11:09AM|#
I love it. Bush gets slapped silly for being so unilateral on
Iraq, so for Iran, he does nothing outside a multilateral UN
framework.
Obama's response? Criticize Bush for doing nothing outside the
multilateral UN framework, and promise to engage in more "direct"
(unilateral) diplomacy.
|7.9.08 @ 11:13AM|#
The reason RC's comment is so insightful and cutting is because
unilateral military action and unilateral diplomacy are so
indistinguishable as to render any disparate treatment of the two
stances comically hypocritical.
Elemenope,
Guy is a Republican, and as the administration's recent nuclear
"deal" with India demonstrates, their belief that diplomacy equals
surrender isn't a pose.
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 11:28AM|#
RCD,
Jimmy Carter will fix it. He is the surviving president with the
most direct experience in dealing with Iran.
Fluffy|7.9.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Bush gets slapped silly for being so unilateral on Iraq, so
for Iran, he does nothing outside a multilateral UN
framework.
Actually, I slap Bush silly because he pretended to pursue a
diplomatic AND a multilateral option with Iraq, but it was all a
lie and he intended all along to go to war no matter what the UN
said and no matter what Iraq did.
And I slap him silly because he is again using the fig leaf of
multilateralism to cover his real Iran policy.
In any event, Obama is wrong too. The notion that Iran's missile
tests are provocative is total bullshit. As Hersh's report shows,
we are already funding a covert war against them. We have a major
party Presidential candidate joking about how much he wants to bomb
Iran, and how much he wants to kill Iranians. Our parties are
united in declaring the fact that Iran asserts its treaty rights
under the NPT is a basis for war. In that context it is NOT
provocative for them to demonstrate that they have weapons or to
test their weapons.
|7.9.08 @ 11:34AM|#
I'm not so sure, Guy - I'm pretty sure Bush the Elder was pretty
deep in the Iran side of Iran/Contra.
Now THAT is some diplomatic experience - but then, it was that
peculiarly Republican version of diplomacy.
Elemenope|7.9.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Fluffy --
True, but for Obama to utter that truth would be political suicide.
I expect more than is perhaps psychologically healthy from
political leaders, but among those expectations is not that they
fall on their sword to utter a technical truth, thereby ensuring
they'll never be able to do anything about it.
Timon19|7.9.08 @ 11:46AM|#
A war with Iran will end in tears for nearly everyone, including
us. I simply can't imagine how nervous our Gulf allies are about
all this - they tolerate us because we sell them weapons to guard
against Iranian dominance of the region, and they outright distrust
Iran.
Cannot be good.
One thing we can definitely count on, no matter how much bluster
comes out of Tehran: they won't attack either our assets (directly)
or Israel (directly). It would be absolute suicide.
If we go ahead and attack them, we're going to find ourselves
taking losses that we probably haven't taken since WWII -
significant naval losses. Then there's the whole fucking over the
world oil market that would result.
I guess the sum of this is that it's 98% not gonna happen and this
is all bluster.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 11:55AM|#
If the Republicans get desperate enough, we will have a war with Iran in September or october.
Elemenope|7.9.08 @ 12:00PM|#
If the Republicans get desperate enough, we will have a war
with Iran in September or october.
Haven't a large number of the field commanders already said they'd
resign rather than implement such inanely suicidal and stupid
orders?
Or was that merely a really good dream?
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Elemenope, resign? Hell they should launch a military coup! Install Colin Powell or something.
|7.9.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Elemenope,
Unfortunately, they would still have enough people to have a TV
war. Predator drones and laser-guided bomb gunsight cameras, the
Navy shelling off-shore. Hardware and not humans. Don't get me
wrong, still colossally stupid to do...
|7.9.08 @ 12:05PM|#
The Republicans know that Iran can make the summer of 07 in
Baghdad look like a Franciscan summer camp any time they
want.
The Iranians know that the Americans, as bogged down and without
reserves as are, can flatten every city in Iran without breaking a
sweat, any time we want.
This isn't going to get beyond low-level mucking about in each
other's back yards.
Out of necessity, the world learned practices of limited war and
avoiding escalation during the Cold War.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Joe, you think the Forever War crowd on one hand, and the
Revolutionary Guard on the other, are really that sane and
rational?
You know its a bad idea. I know its a bad idea. 95% of both the
American and Iranian public knows its a bad idea. But the leaders
of the two nations? Both of which, on merits, would never make it
past the mid-management level of a private sector corporation? I'm
not so sure.
|7.9.08 @ 12:09PM|#
I simply can't imagine how nervous our Gulf allies are about
all this
A lot more nervous than the Rooskies, who would benefit immensely
from a shooting war in the Straits of Hormuz, I reckon.
|7.9.08 @ 12:10PM|#
NNG,
I think that both of those crowds are contrained by the
professionals on whom they depend. Neither side is
Mussolini-stupid.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|7.9.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Congress agreed...
So Bush doesn't unilaterally run the government after all? What's
that? Congress has approved all of the other stuff he's done
too?
Huh. Learn something new every day.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 12:18PM|#
The Iraq War wasn't Mussolini stupid?
What about Iran taking British sailors hostage and taking pot shots
at our ships?
|7.9.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Both of which, on merits, would never make it past the mid-management level of a private sector corporation?
Holy crap, that's who Ahmadinejad reminds me of! Steve Carrell's
character on The Office.*
*Apologies if this has already been pointed out.
|7.9.08 @ 12:23PM|#
The Iraq War was about as stupid as invading Ethiopia, but that
wasn't even close to the depths of Mussolini-stupid.
And Iran War while we're still bogged down in Iraq would be
invading Greece while still bogged down in Lybia, sending troops to
Russia-stupid.
What about Iran taking British sailors hostage and taking pot
shots at our ships? I don't know about pot shots at our ships.
I hope you aren't referring to that radio message that turned out
not to even by from Iran.
But while taking British sailors hostage was stupid, it was also
pretty small-bore stuff.
Timon19|7.9.08 @ 12:25PM|#
A lot more nervous than the Rooskies, who would benefit immensely from a shooting war in the Straits of Hormuz, I reckon.
Dunno about that. The Russians have a TON of investments in Iran,
and they'd want to see them protected (aside from the military
hardware interests, of course).
|7.9.08 @ 12:25PM|#
My car mechanic looks like Ahmadinejad's twin.
Does he ever have fun with his appearance? Like at Halloween?
thoreau|7.9.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Hmm, funding Sunni fundamentalists to fight a guerrilla
campaign.
What could possibly go wrong?
gmatts|7.9.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Wait a minute! This article indicates that another country has the nerve to take steps to ensure that they have some type of defense mechanism in place should someone decide to attack them? Thats so preposterous of the Iranians.
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Does he ever have fun with his appearance? Like at
Halloween?
Or at the airport, with those fedral security guards?
|7.9.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Or at the airport, with those fedral security guards?
"Unhand me, knave! I am a foreign head of state!"
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Perhaps these events will finally get that war crimes resolution out of committee. Perhaps even that energy solution that the House Leader promised?
Abdul|7.9.08 @ 12:42PM|#
If we go ahead and attack them, we're going to find
ourselves taking losses that we probably haven't taken since WWII -
significant naval losses.
While I'm not advocating an invasion, if we did invade, I don't see
Iran (or any other nation for that matter) inflicting heavy naval
losses on the US. They don't even have aircraft carriers.
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 12:44PM|#
They don't even have aircraft carriers.
Who needs aircraft carriers when you have the editorial staff of
the New York Times?
Elemenope|7.9.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Abdul --
Agreed. I think the danger in Iran is the fact that the country,
unlike Iraq, is mostly mountain terrain, and the Iranians certainly
aren't disorganized tribes like the Afghanis were. It would really,
really suck to fight a ground war there.
gmatts|7.9.08 @ 12:46PM|#
"They don't even have aircraft carriers."
Maybe Ollie North can sell them some
|7.9.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Does he ever have fun with his appearance? Like at
Halloween?
The sum total of his costume would only be a Members Only
jacket.
Ronald Reagan|7.9.08 @ 12:51PM|#
"Maybe Ollie North can sell them some"
Reach out a hand when they fall!
|7.9.08 @ 12:52PM|#
The sum total of his costume would only be a Members Only jacket.
That's the brilliance of it! And he can say cryptic things about how there are 'no gays' in 'his country' and stuff.
Neu Mejican|7.9.08 @ 12:52PM|#
The problem with the current strategy is that it ignores the
motivation that Iran may have for developing nukes.
Countries that feel threatened by overwhelmingly more powerful
countries seek to even the playing field.
Countries that feel respected and comfortable that the more
powerful countries have no wish to harm them spend their money on
other things.
This is, of course, the thumb-nail schematic.
The path to making Iran an example of the second type of country is
complex, but requires direct talks with Iran, and increased
cultural and economic interaction.
Sanctions don't work when the prevent a country from acquiring some
perk, imho. First you have to get them used to the perk through
friendly interaction, then a sanction which takes away that perk is
more effective. Bring Iran into the community of nations, and then
the idea of losing that status is meaningful. Treating them as
pariah and threatening to ramp that treatment to SuperMegaPariah is
not a strategy that will ever work.
|7.9.08 @ 12:56PM|#
i have a suggestion for whoever becomes the next president in dealing with iran and would work much better than barack obama negotiating (begging) mamoud amadinidiot or john mccain placing a missle defense shield.i would simply tell this nut case that we have one balistic missle submarine at the bottom of the persian gulf loaded with tomahawk cruise missles with nuclear warheads on them and if they don't quit threatening their neighbors ("israel needs to be wiped off the face of the map")and other ridiculous behavior,tehran will be evaporated in 72 hours!
Timon19|7.9.08 @ 12:58PM|#
While I'm not advocating an invasion, if we did invade, I don't see Iran (or any other nation for that matter) inflicting heavy naval losses on the US. They don't even have aircraft carriers.
You don't need exactly equivalent assets to inflict major damage.
They presumably have a ton of some of the latest Chinese and
Russian anti-ship missiles, some of which are considered nearly as
good as our latest-generation Harpoon and other models.
Not to mention that they have an absolute shit-ton of ground-based
artillery besides, owing to their control over the Strait and our
constant presence of the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, just a stone's
throw across the Gulf.
Having said all that, the Phalanx and Aegis systems in our battle
groups are impressive, but they haven't been tested against
anything like what Iran is likely to have in anti-shipping and
anti-naval weaponry.
|7.9.08 @ 1:00PM|#
All I can say is WAY TO GO IRAN!!!
Talk about throwing the BS flag to the Zionist Israeli government
and the Bush-Clinton Crime Family.
The mainstream media is falling all over itself trying to paint the
Iranians in a bad light, the presumed nominees are showing they are
stupid, ignorant and can't tell the truth. Obama just stepped on
his peepee.
I'm so loving this.
It's about time that the Bush-Clinton Crime Family, the NeoCons and
all the other criminals in Congress, government, the CRF, the
Bilderbergs, the Trilaterists, etc got a slap in the face - a dose
of reality.
Some country is willing to stand up for truth and what is right.
Despite 400 Million dollars being spent to wage a terror campaign
within their own borders. How well would that play in the good ol'
fascist police state we have called the US of A?
|7.9.08 @ 1:02PM|#
The reason RC's comment is so insightful and cutting is
because unilateral military action and unilateral diplomacy are so
indistinguishable as to render any disparate treatment of the two
stances comically hypocritical.
The reason joe's riposte is so senseless is that we did not engage
in unilateral military action in Iraq at all, but had a pretty
broad range of supporters (with the notable exception of countries
profiting handsomely from the Hussein regime). Also, because the
criticism of Bush pre-invasion was directed significantly at his
"cowboy diplomacy", which strikes me as directed at his diplomatic
approach, not his military approach.
C'mon, joe, you can't have it both ways. If Bush was a bad 'un for
not sticking to the UN/tranzi framework, why is Obama a good 'un
for not sticking to the UN/tranzi framework?
|7.9.08 @ 1:03PM|#
It's about time that the Bush-Clinton Crime Family, the NeoCons and all the other criminals in Congress, government, the CRF, the Bilderbergs, the Trilaterists, etc got a slap in the face - a dose of reality
Satire?
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 1:05PM|#
But RCD, Ahmadinejad implied that they don't have trannies in
Iran, at least no homosexual ones anyway.
:)
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 1:05PM|#
RC Dean, name one other major power that was behind the invasion
excepting Britain.
No, Poland isn't a major power. Neither is Holland. Especially when
they commit around 500 troops.
The 1991 war is what you called wide backing. 2003 is what you call
a mirage.
|7.9.08 @ 1:06PM|#
They presumably have a ton of some of the latest Chinese and
Russian anti-ship missiles, some of which are considered nearly as
good as our latest-generation Harpoon and other models.
Of course, the ability of those missiles to do damage assumes their
ability to survive a pre-emptive air strike.
And why a pre-emptive air strike? Well, because Iran has threatened
to use them to attack our ships and close the Straits. Like
Hussein, the mullahs should be willing to pay the price of having
their threats taken seriously.
I would also note that successful strikes on US Navy assets by Iran
will truly loose the dogs of war on them. I can't see even a Pres.
Obama scuttling home with his tail between his legs if we lose a
carrier to Iran.
Abdul|7.9.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Countries that feel threatened by overwhelmingly more
powerful countries seek to even the playing field.
Countries that feel respected and comfortable that the more
powerful countries have no wish to harm them spend their money on
other things.
That's over-simplified. How does an entire country "feel"
threatened or comfortable? And what's to gurantee a feeling of
comfort even if the US were to lovingly embrace Iran under the next
president? The Iranians know that we change leadership every 4 to 8
years.
Every country wants nukes. There's no downside to them. They
enhance your offensive threat, bolster your defensive stance,
advertise your technical capabilities and know-how. It's just that
it's not in America's best interests if every country has nukes.
And Iran having nukes is really, really not in our best
interests.
|7.9.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Satire? Unfortunately not.
Just truth. A very sick and sad truth of just how far we have sunk
from being a Republic.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Abdul, South Africa realized nukes weren't that great. So did
Brazil and Argentina. And now North Korea does.
They really do nothing much, since no one is ever nuts enough to
use them.
|7.9.08 @ 1:11PM|#
The reason joe's riposte is so senseless is that we did not
engage in unilateral military action in Iraq at all... And
also, bassett hounds got long ears an HEY LOOK OVER THERE!
Relevance, what's that, a shampoo or somethin?
Not even you, RC, are stupid enough not to understand that military
action and diplomacy are two different things. "the UN/tranzi
framework" Whatever.
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 1:12PM|#
No Name Guy,
You left out Lybia, if you were going for an exhaustive list.
Abdul|7.9.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Of course, the ability of those missiles to do damage
assumes their ability to survive a pre-emptive air
strike.
Exactly. You can't beat stealth bombers. You can't compete with
four acres of aircraft carrier parked outside your artillery range.
and every missile fired only gives us more targets to bomb from
that carrier.
Taking and holding the ground would be tough with our troops
extended so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there's plenty of
damage to be done without ever landing troops. For example, Iran
only has one gasoline refinery for the whole country. All their
military victory parades would have to held on foot.
|7.9.08 @ 1:14PM|#
"They don't even have aircraft carriers."
Neither did the Opposition Force in that pre-Iraq War tabletop
naval exercise. Nonetheless, they were able to send two American
carriers to the bottom using suicide boats.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Yeah Libya as well. Really, nukes aren't that great if you're a third world country with an economy in the dumper and zero conventional capability. They're one aspect of being a world power, but mere possession of them doesn't turn a third world basket case into a Great Power overnight.
|7.9.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Why shouldn't Iran have nukes to defend themselves; everyone
else has nukes, including Iran's enemy, Israel. We have gobs of
nukes, and if we believe in democracies, then everyone should have
em and the right to defend and protect their nation.
After all, the only nation in history to ever resort to nuclear war
was good ole' USA. It is not very democratic for all these nations
to have nukes except a few, like Iran. Iraq didn't have nukes, and
we blew their country into a hellhole. Go figure.
If USA is the only nation in history to use nuclear war, then would
it not be reasonable that everyone would want nukes pointed at
us?
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Abdul,
Didn't we just move the last carrier out of the Persian Gulf?
Not that they couldn't strike from a bit farther out.
Humm, maube they are out of range of those pesky Silkworm and other
missiles now . . .
Abdul|7.9.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Abdul, South Africa realized nukes weren't that great. So
did Brazil and Argentina. And now North Korea does.
I can't speak to the first three, but do you really think NK gave
up its nuke program because it feels comfortable?
Besides, NK got a pretty sweat foreign aid deal from us and China
that they never could have gotten without nukes.
Nukes are like those little knick-knacks from Ikea. You can never
have too many of them around.
|7.9.08 @ 1:19PM|#
Also, because the criticism of Bush pre-invasion was
directed significantly at his "cowboy diplomacy", which strikes me
as directed at his diplomatic approach, not his military
approach.
Yes, that's the criticism levelled at Bush; he was just too
gosh-darn eager to engage in direct talks outside of a UN
framework.
Perhaps there is an greater level of abstraction you can use to
cover the fact that you aren't making any sense.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 1:20PM|#
I don't think any nation should have nukes. They're horrible, immoral weapons. But preventing their spread is the next best thing to abolition--and abolition just won't happen. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
|7.9.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Some thoughts on Iran comments here:
1 - We try to talk to Iran all the time. The fact is they don't
want to talk.
2 - We can devistate Iran anytime we want via military action.
Something most people worldwide, and especially here, don't realize
is the complete dominance in conventional warfare the US currently
has. Most people, even alot of misinformed European military folks
in my experience, seem to think it is a matter of country X having
3 of something and the US having 30 of that same item. In reality,
the best armed countries have .5 of something and the US has 3000.
Also their .5 is old and the US equipment is brand new in
comparison. Occupying the country is another issue entirely.
Screwing them over is easy.
3 - Iran's proxy activities in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Palestine
(Hamas), Iraq (Al Sadr) and support for terror activities in
general are shifting from the annoying to the problem stage.
4 - Iran's development of medium range missiles and continued
development of a nuclear capability need to be checked. Wrecking
their infrastructure would be a good way to send that
message.
5 - Privately, the Arabs would really appreciate it if we attacked
Iran. Despite the public outrage, privately ALL of the Arab regimes
outside of Iraq and Palestine were greatly relieved when the US
invaded Iraq. You could practically hear the sign of relief coming
out of the Saudis all the way from Jerusalem. These people were
terrified Iraq would come after them next following Saddam's
earlier escapades in Kuwait and Iran. These same regimes are
equally terrified of an empowered Iran and a fearful US.
6 - Taking down Iran would remove the last power in the Middle East
with true regional aspirations. Sure the world would be left with a
bunch of childish dictatorships in the region, but no one with any
real power projection ability in the region would be left to create
havoc.
7 - Iran has relatively limited resources to throw into their
various criminal and terror resources worldwide and would easy be
cowed by damaging their economic base militarily. Iran is basically
a poor country that has gotten away with schnanigans, because no
one has caused them any real pain yet. Blowing up all of their
front line military assets in an afternoon and taking down their
gasoline refineries would be an easy way to tie up their remaining
cash on things they actually need.
Abdul|7.9.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Neither did the Opposition Force in that pre-Iraq War
tabletop naval exercise. Nonetheless, they were able to send two
American carriers to the bottom using suicide boats.
Yeah, but then their little brother dropped the submarine piece in
the heating vent, and everyone else lost interest when we got the
Wii for Christmas.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 1:25PM|#
"6 - Taking down Iran would remove the last power in the Middle
East with true regional aspirations."
Not really. There would still be Israel.
|7.9.08 @ 1:26PM|#
We try to talk to Iran all the time. The fact is they don't
want to talk.
Bull shit. Iran approached our mission in Iraq years ago, to try to
open up a non-aggression framework, and the administration's
response was to insist on the abandonment of the Iranian nuclear
program as a precondition. They purposely threw a poison pill in,
so they could avoid talks.
|7.9.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Tom, Tom, Tom - you sound like someone working for the
mainstream media or one of the political parties spinning facts
wildly.
Try some real truths:
Which country in the Middle East actually possesses nuclear
weapons?
Israel.
Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Israel.
Which country in the Middle East refuses to allow international
inspections of its nuclear facilities?
Israel.
Which countries in the Middle East have called for the region to be
a nuclear-free zone?
The Arab countries and Iran.
Which country in the Middle East occupies land belonging to other
people?
Israel, which occupies a piece of Lebanon, a larger piece of Syria,
East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.
Which country in the Middle East has for 60 years refused to allow
refugees to return to their homes and refused to consider
compensation to them for their lost property?
Israel.
Which country has roads on which citizens who are Arab may not
drive and housing developments where Arabs may not live?
Israel.
Which country in the region has violated more United Nations
resolutions than any other?
Israel. The United States has on more than one occasion gone to war
ostensibly to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions, but when
it comes to resolutions directed against Israel, the U.S. is like
the amoral monkey that sees, hears and says nothing. That raises
the question of who's the dog and who's the tail?
Which country in the region has in the past been led by men who at
one time were terrorists with a price on their heads?
Israel. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir once led the Stern
Gang and ordered, among other things, the assassination of Count
Folke Bernadotte, a Swedish diplomat working for the United
Nations. Former Prime Minister Menachem Begin led the Irgun, a
terrorist gang that among other things blew up one wing of the King
David Hotel, killing nearly 100 people.
Which country in the Middle East openly employs assassination
against its political enemies?
Israel. There have been assassinations carried out by some of the
Arab governments, but they usually don't own up to them. Israel has
created a euphemism that the suck-up American press has readily
adopted: "targeted killings." A British journalist told me once,
"The Palestinians have a talent for picking bad leaders, and the
Israelis have a talent for murdering their good ones."
What are the top five countries from which we import oil?
Here they are in order of volume:
Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. The next time
you hear some blowhard politician ranting about how the Arabs
control our oil imports, remind him or her of the facts. By far, a
majority of oil imports come from non-Arab countries.
Which country in the region receives an annual gift of $3 billion
or more from Congress?
Israel.
Which foreign-aid recipient is the only one allowed to receive its
aid in a lump sum and which routinely invests part of it in U.S.
Treasuries so that taxpayers pay them interest on the taxpayers'
gift?
Israel.
Which country in the Middle East has the most powerful lobby in the
U.S.?
Israel.
Which country in the Middle East are most American politicians,
journalists and academics afraid to criticize?
Israel.
On behalf of which country has the U.S. vetoed the largest number
of U.N. Security Council resolutions?
Israel.
What country do the people in the region consider the world's
biggest hypocrite?
The United States.
Which countries in the Middle East have attacked U.S. ships in
international waters?
Iraq and Israel. A lone Iraqi plane fired one missile at a U.S.
ship by mistake. The Iraqi government quickly compensated the U.S.
In 1967, Israeli airplanes and torpedo boats attacked the USS
Liberty, killing 34 Americans. The U.S. government declared it an
accident even before the ship limped into port, and to this day
Congress has never held a public hearing and allowed the survivors
to tell their story. Their story, by the way, is that the attack
was deliberate. Israel compensated the families of those who were
killed, but resisted for years paying compensation for the
ship.
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Not really. There would still be Israel.
BAHAHAHAHA! Now that is funny!
Just as I was going to post in a ranting/raving Leftie voice too.
Bummer.
Naga Sadow|7.9.08 @ 1:28PM|#
Sometimes I worry Bush is going to have a tantrum and just turn the whole Middle East into a glass lake. Then just drill beneath that glass lake and start pumping oil. I usually wake up right about that point.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Every foreign country has lobbyists in Washington, DC. Theres nothing special (or especially evil) about the Israeli lobby.
Timon19|7.9.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Of course, the ability of those missiles to do damage assumes their ability to survive a pre-emptive air strike.
Are we certain we can find all their batteries in such a vast,
mountainous coastline?
I know that we have superior firepower. No doubt about it. The
problem is finding it all.
Anyway, yes, the carrier moved out into the Arabian Sea/Gulf of
Oman, I believe. Iran also has coastline there, but so does
Pakistan. That location also has the advantage of being on the
right side of the Strait.
Good point about the gasoline refinery. They only have one, and
they bizarrely must import >80% of their refined product. They
export oil and buy back the result. Very precarious economic
situation to risk with war.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 1:31PM|#
So Montag, you don't believe soverign nations do what they can
to build up their own hard and soft power?
Theres nothing wrong with that, of course (again all nations do
it!), but to say that Israel doesn't is to commit the opposite sin
of the hysterical anti-semites--that Israel is especially good and
would never, EVER act in its own selfish interest at the expense of
others.
gmatts|7.9.08 @ 1:32PM|#
"6 - Taking down Iran would remove the last power in the Middle
East with true regional aspirations. Sure the world would be left
with a bunch of childish dictatorships in the region, but no one
with any real power projection ability in the region would be left
to create havoc."
Ok, lets say we "take down" Iran on Monday? What the hell do we on
Tuesday? We are already occupying, or trying to occupy, all of Iraq
and Afghanistan. If we "take down" Iran we would be responsible for
occupying a continous piece of land that stretches from eatern
Jordan to Pakistan.
To just assume that everything will magically fall into place after
taking down Iran is beyond foolish.
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 1:33PM|#
NNG,
I disagreed with your assertion of Israel wanting "regional
aspirations". They pretty much want to be left alone right where
they are.
|7.9.08 @ 1:34PM|#
NoNameGuy - if you think there's nothing criminal about what
AIPAC has done and is doing, you haven't been paying
attention.
Mind you, THEY don't want you to.
Here is but a sample.
AFP quoted the March 15, 2002 issue of the Forward, a respected
Jewish newspaper in America, which said "Despite angry denials by
Israel and its American supporters, reports that Israel was
conducting spying activities in the U.S. may have a grain of truth,
the Forward has learned," with assuredness that "both French and
Fox reports were dismissed by Israel and its supporters, and
received limited coverage in the American media." [AP story on Le
Monde spy reports was spiked & Cameron's four-part series was
removed from FoxNews.com.]
British intelligence & military analysis publication Jane's
Information Group reported on the absence of coverage in the
American media on the "explosive story of the huge network of
Israeli spies that made headlines around the world…reports of
Israeli 'art students' calling on DEA employees across the country
began as early as 2000 and continued through June, 2001," according
to AFP.
The independent AFP said "What is not clear is what the ring of
more than 120 agents was up to and why some Israelis linked to the
attacks in New York and Washington, DC were allowed to flee or were
sent back to Israel after 9/11 on visa violations, rather than
being charged and prosecuted.
According to other reports, alleged lead "hijacker" Mohammed Atta
lived at 3389 Sheridan St. in Hollywood, Florida while a team of
Israeli operatives lived a few blocks away at 4220 Sheridan.
In perhaps an even more controversial issue, convicted and
imprisoned former Ohio GOP House member Bob Ney, then-chairman of
the House Administration Committee, approved a 2002 license for an
Israeli telecommunications company to install equipment to improve
cell phone reception in the U.S. Capitol building and adjacent
House office buildings where all legislative and many military
decisions are debated.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Yes, and to accomplish that goal GM they need to be the
preeminent military and economic power in the region (which they
are). Thats what I meant when speaking of "regional asperations",
not some maniacal plan to conquer the entire Middle East.
George, please go back to Lewrockwell.com you crackpot. You're not
even worth responding to.
Neu Mejican|7.9.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Abdul,
I don't have any of those useless Ikea trinkets around my house.
They don't provide me with any utility. I am comfortable without
them.
Of course my comments were over-simplifications.
They are blog comments. The general principles hold, imho, if you
look at the list of countries with the economic means to develop
nukes who have none. Not everyone wants them.
|7.9.08 @ 1:41PM|#
The "they don't even have aircraft carriers" comment is pretty
stupid.
Aircraft carriers are for force projection -- and they're delicate,
which is why they're surrounded by rings of anti-missile and
anti-sub defenses.
As noted above, war games using projected Iranian assets to build
the Opposition Force have successfully inflicted heavy losses on US
naval assets. There have been at least two that were notoriously
restarted and the Red Team forced to disallow certain tactics.
(Suicide boats and absolute refusal to use tappable communications
links).
Iran's air-defenses are rather deep and advanced -- not as good as
ours, but latest generation Russian stuff, and sheer numbers have a
power all their own. (And Iran has a LOT of such things. Oil wealth
can buy a lot).
They can make gaining air control a painful prospect, and after two
wars against a badly gimped military (Iraq), I don't think the US
public is terribly aware of how different it can go.
Iran also has a large number of surface-to-surface missile
capabilities that can be brought to bear against US Naval
assets.
They also have modern (if non-nuclear) subs, which are quite
capable of causing naval assets a very bad day, even if they decide
not to play games with sea mines or using small boats.
Most importantly, Iran is very large and shares a border with Iraq.
They're quite capable of making devestating strikes against US
forces and US supply lines while the bulk of our air assets are
tasked elsewhere. I suspect that Iraqis might also join the
fun.
Effectively: Our Air Force can, ultimately, gain control of the
skies over Iran. It will not be the cakewalk Iraq war. Our Navy
will ultimatly prevail, but the odds of them doing so unscathed and
without allowing Iran to effectively close the Straits are pretty
low.
And the entire time we're doing THAT, our Army's ass is hanging out
in the breeze. All their heavy stuff (from anti-air to tanks) is
stateside, and they're surrounded by a bunch of people who will
probably consider this a good time to vent their displeasure.
Only the King or Morons would allow this to escalate to full on
bombing, which is why I'm certain it'll happen.
Neu Mejican|7.9.08 @ 1:42PM|#
George,
You mix facts with conspiracy quite well.
You should put out a newsletter.
It would be very convincing to a certain segment of the
population.
|7.9.08 @ 1:50PM|#
George,
My friendly neighborhood CID agent let me know that even allies spy
on one another. The US spies on Israel and Israel spies on the US.
So?
As for your Israel was involved Tr00fer conspiracies, I can only
sigh raggedly and shake my head.
Timon19|7.9.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Iran's air-defenses are rather deep and advanced -- not as good as ours, but latest generation Russian stuff, and sheer numbers have a power all their own. (And Iran has a LOT of such things. Oil wealth can buy a lot).
I'm not so sure about this. All throughout Northern Watch and
through this latest war, we've pretty regularly incurred on Iranian
airspace, both accidentally and (I'm sure) intentionally. Most
times, we've had to own up and TELL them about it, because they
didn't know.
A couple of times - according to some air combat magazines - we've
been intercepted by their rustbucket F-14s, or some old Mirages or
MiGs they have. Nothing all that threatening. Mostly just a
periodic show of alertness. Most times they don't know we're
there.
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 1:53PM|#
Art,
Don't you know? Israel is the only ally that we must be up in arms
about for everything that they do. EVERYTHING!
Oh, I feel the shrill Leftie voice building . . .
|7.9.08 @ 1:58PM|#
"without allowing Iran to effectively close the Straits are
pretty low."
Some military personnel are claiming they can prevent that from
happening.
Abdul|7.9.08 @ 2:00PM|#
I don't have any of those useless Ikea trinkets around my
house. They don't provide me with any utility. I am comfortable
without them.
You don't have a svorg? You are so missing out!
|7.9.08 @ 2:03PM|#
"Don't you know? Israel is the only ally that we must be up in
arms about for everything that they do. EVERYTHING!"
"Oh, I feel the shrill Leftie voice building . . ."
I'm not a leftie, but it seems our whole policy in the Middle East
is geared towards protecting Israel. We are dumping our economy
down the toilet and have lost over 4000 service personnel in Iraq
for the sake of supposedly protecting Israel and how many troops
does Israel have in Iraq and Afghanistan and how much money do they
contribute in helping out in those wars?
Neu Mejican|7.9.08 @ 2:10PM|#
You don't have a svorg? You are so missing out!
I'm not missing out on anything.
I just rename the useful things around my house to Ikea
names.
http://generatorblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/swedish-furniture-name.html
signed
NEU MEJYKANVIK
Alice Bowie|7.9.08 @ 2:17PM|#
I agree bookworm
And...I think more and more and more americans (and even ham and
cheese sandwich jews) are agreeing with you more and more every day
!!!
|7.9.08 @ 2:18PM|#
"I disagreed with your assertion of Israel wanting "regional
aspirations". They pretty much want to be left alone right where
they are."
They want to be the dominant power in the region. True, they do
want to be left alone - to continue their treatment of Palestinians
as second class citizens and continue building more settlements in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Guy Montag|7.9.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Gaza huh?
You are ripping off my shrill schtic, but might not be realizing
it.
|7.9.08 @ 2:29PM|#
I sincerely hope that the idiot son does not get us into a
shooting match with Iran. Honest diplomacy engaging Iran has not
been attempted once since the Embassy hostage fuck story. That
includes the Clinton administration for all of you blue team
guys.
That said, the talk about missiles and capabilities/limitations of
the potentially opposing forces here completely ignores the fact
that the U.S. would own the electromagnetic spectrum. I no
longer am privy to the latest weapons system developments but am
quite certain that the Iranians are in no way prepared for the
ECM/ECCM capabilities of the U.S. military (primarily Navy and Air
Force assets).
Timon19|7.9.08 @ 2:39PM|#
J sub,
I think that's true (the EM spectrum) for sure. I also think that
to some degree, Iran knows that and would be willing and able to
stage asymmetrical attacks using tactics not dependent on the EM
spectrum.
Anti-ship missiles would probably only be at maximum effectiveness
for one volley or so. But in that time, they could do some
nastiness, I feel.
jtuf|7.9.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Iran wants to be left alone so they can keep executing dissenters and intimidating GCC countries. We have been busy with diplomacy. Rice just signed a treating to allow missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.
|7.9.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Of course they test fired missiles. The price of oil had fallen by like $8 a barrel or something.
|7.9.08 @ 3:15PM|#
J sub D,
As I remember, there were a lot of back-channel contacts between
the Albright State Dept. and the Iranians, and both sides wanted to
step things up, but the mullahs squashed Khatami's proposals to
treat with the Great Satan.
Of course, that was back when the Iranian president had only
limited powers in foreign and military policy. You know, before
those constitutional amendments that made Ahmedinejad into the most
powerful chief executive evah.
Fluffy|7.9.08 @ 3:35PM|#
But preventing their spread is the next best thing to
abolition--and abolition just won't happen.
In order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, the United
States, Iran and other nations signed the Nuclear NonProliferation
Treaty.
One article of that treaty affirms that every signatory has the
absolute right to develop nuclear power.
But, despite the fact that we signed that treaty, we decided that
in Iran's case it didn't apply. That even though Iran was complying
with its NPT obligations, we were going to threaten Iran, bully
other nations into placing sanctions on Iran, etc. We openly and
blatantly defied our obligations under Article IV of the NPT. In
response, Iran has stopped complying with Article III.
Here's our OBLIGATION under Article IV of the NPT:
All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
Did we meet that obligation during the time frame when Iran was in
compliance with Article III? We did not.
Make no mistake, if we attack Iran over this matter, we are Hitler
and they are Poland. We will have a small state with treaty rights
that a powerful state has decided it doesn't like. We have that
more powerful state trying to get the leading powers of the world
to acquiesce in a violation of the weaker state's treaty rights,
and threatening war if it doesn't get its way. Iran's Article IV
rights are a pretty good match for Danzig and the Polish
Corridor.
It doesn't matter if Iran has good relations with Israel and it
doesn't matter what Ahmadinejad said in a speech. This entire
controversy began because the signature of the US on an
international treaty isn't worth a fucking thing. That's the honor
of the United States for you, or what's left of it in the modern
era.
Bad Analogies|7.9.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Make no mistake, if we attack Iran over this matter, we are
Hitler and they are Poland.
No, you're Neville Chamberlain telling us Hitler is a reasonable
guy we can deal with, and millions of Jews will die because you're
an idiot.
|7.9.08 @ 4:09PM|#
"No, you're Neville Chamberlain telling us Hitler is a
reasonable guy we can deal with, and millions of Jews will die
because you're an idiot."
Not to condone Hitler, but at the time Chamberlain declared war on
Germany, our ally in the war, Stalin had killed 1000 times as many
people as Hitler. It would have been better if Chamberlain had not
declared war on Germany and let Hetler and Stalin fight it out and
weaken each other and maybe we would not have had much to worry
about either of them in a weakened state.
Paper Tigers, Steel Worms|7.9.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Welcome to the brave new world of 2020.
Iran has developed nuke capability. They have a couple dozen
warheads and fairly long-range missiles.
They secretly give a nuke to Hizbollah. Hizbollah launches the nuke
from Lebanon into Tel Aviv, shattering the city and devastating
Israel.
Iran says "We have no idea where the nuke came from, but Israel has
many enemies. BTW, if you're thinking about blaming us, we have 24
nukes targeting every major city in Europe, and if we are struck
they will be launched."
Europe, naturally, panics and demands Israel not retaliate. The
rest of the Jewish people soon flee the devastated state, ceding it
to the Palestinians, who have been dancing in the streets the whole
time.
Check and mate. Time to update your maps; Ahmadinejad has fulfilled
his promise.
Fluffy|7.9.08 @ 4:16PM|#
No, you're Neville Chamberlain telling us Hitler is a
reasonable guy we can deal with, and millions of Jews will die
because you're an idiot.
I honestly don't give a shit if they're reasonable men or
not.
The fact remains that they had treaty rights under a treaty to
which the US was a signatory.
If we didn't like those rights and wanted to punish Iran if it
sought to exploit them, we should have withdrawn the US from the
NPT.
Since our political leaders did not do that, that makes them lying
fucking douchebag pieces of shit. Since John McCain does not care
about our treaty obligations, and thinks we should bomb other
nations that take actions they are expressly permitted under
treaties we have with them, that tells us all we need to know about
Senator McCain's "honor". And now that Obama has joined the
drumbeat for war, that tells us all we need to know about him
too.
If the Non Proliferation Treaty's provisions threaten the lives of
millions of Jews, then we should withdraw from it. If we aren't
willing to do that, we should shut the fuck up.
What we should NOT do is blatantly defy our obligations under the
treaty, and use Iran's very compliance with that treaty as our
excuse. Every time Iran tried to comply with Article III by
allowing IAEA oversight of their operation, we used the IAEA
reports as our excuse for more threats of war. And now that Iran is
no longer cooperating with the IAEA, we have made THAT our excuse
for more threats of war. So Iran now knows that if they obey
Article III, we will threaten to bomb them, and if they defy
Article III, we will threaten to bomb them. Because that's the way
our current leadership acts.
|7.9.08 @ 4:18PM|#
"It doesn't matter if Iran has good relations with Israel and it
doesn't matter what Ahmadinejad said in a speech. This entire
controversy began because the signature of the US on an
international treaty isn't worth a fucking thing. That's the honor
of the United States for you, or what's left of it in the modern
era."
And Israel isn't even a signatory to the treaty. We are asking Iran
to abide by it when we don't even put pressure on Israel to sign
it. And you're right Fluffy, Iran is entitled to develop nuclear
power for peaceful purposes under the treaty.
|7.9.08 @ 4:26PM|#
"If the Non Proliferation Treaty's provisions threaten the lives
of millions of Jews, then we should withdraw from it. If we aren't
willing to do that, we should shut the fuck up."
I don't think it does threaten Israel. I don't think the
leadership, even if they did get nuclear arms, would be so stupid
to attack Israel when they know Israel could retaliate in kind
several times over. I think Israel doesn't want Iran to have nukes
because they want to be the dominate power in the region. It's a
matter of pride.
|7.9.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Someone remind me, which wars did the territoriall-aggressive
Iranian regime start again? You know, the one that desires to rule
the entire Middle East.
I'm having some trouble remembering here.
|7.9.08 @ 4:30PM|#
I'm sure that, should an Iranian client detonate a nuke in
Israel, it would be completely untraceable, and that Israel would
react with complete forebearance.
Also, I can fly off my roof. Just watch.
|7.9.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Make no mistake, if we attack Iran over this matter, we are
Hitler and they are Poland.
I think the US gubment is already on that path. How long has the US
been the only worlds superpower? And who has there been to mitigate
our excesses? No one. No country, no treaty, no union, no G-8, no
army, not our judiciary, no one stands up the the United States
(read: legislature and executive.) I don't think this is healthy
for some reason.
I think Hitler's Germany is a bit hyperbole. We as a people don't
have the stomach for industrial genocide, but we don't mind a bit
of torture just as long as it isn't in the open and we don't have
to smell it.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 4:41PM|#
I love how everyone either thinks Israel is the greatest nation
EVAR that they will fight for to the last dying breath (even
against our own national interests), or Israel is the absolute
worst, most diabolical, satanic nation in the history of existence
and controls everything.
Israel really is the "Jew among Nations", huh?
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Hitler's Germany is a dumb analogy for the United States.
Try the British in the late 1800s. Sometimes cruel and stupid? Yes.
Evil? Not on the level of Nazis.
Fluffy|7.9.08 @ 4:43PM|#
I think Hitler's Germany is a bit hyperbole.
Fine.
Even though our attitude towards treaties the US has signed is very
similar to Hitler's attitude towards treaties Germany had signed
[that they only count if they favor our interests, and that if
small states are counting on treaty rights to be honored, they are
shit out of luck] obviously Hitler did many other bad things, so
any time you use him as an example people are going to look past
the actual analogy to nonrelated subjects.
Fine.
It's still the best example of a great power abusing the treaty
rights of a small power. If someone has a better example I'd like
to hear it.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Fluffy, just being a realist here, please name one Great Power that has ever fully complied with international treaties when it was against their national interest to do so.
|7.9.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Someone remind me, which wars did the
territoriall-aggressive Iranian regime start again? You know, the
one that desires to rule the entire Middle East.
I'm having some trouble remembering here.
Damn joe,
Didn't you watch
this?
Fucking Persians!
|7.9.08 @ 5:06PM|#
NNG - Hitler's Germany is a totally apt analogy to what is
transpiring right here, right now in the United States.
All run by Poppy Bush and the grandson of one of Adolph's biggest
financiers. Don't believe me?
Just check into Prescott Bush and his traitorous and treasonous
acts.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree - or bush in this
case.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 5:11PM|#
George, according to your ideological (and rhetorical) polar
opposites, Adolf Hitler was essentially a secret
"Islamofascist".
I just love how hysterical shills try, in all seriousness, to pain
their enemies as actual Nazis as if thats a way to win the
debate.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 5:12PM|#
As for George Sr. I feel very sorry for him. It must be hard to have his last name forever associated with a total fuck-up incompetent who ran the most unserious, adolescent foreign policy since Woodrow Wilson.
|7.9.08 @ 5:18PM|#
I find it curious that you continue to attempt that weak and
wholly unconvincing right vs left, conservative vs liberal
BS.
Truth is truth dude. I don't care if you want to bury your head in
the sand. I quote facts and because you don't like what you believe
challenged by fact, you attempt to degrade it.
Pity you.
And, don't feel sorry for Poppy Bush. He's the godfather of the
current crime family.
BTW, nicely regurgitated NeoCon word - was it Lieberman or some
other piece of garbage that I heard that from most recently as they
attempted to sway folks to support more imperialism and war all the
while cranking up the police state at home.
|7.9.08 @ 5:21PM|#
One more little fact. Remember what the Nazi's called their
internal ministry for the Reichland?
When you find the answer, reflect on ours.
Neu Mejican|7.9.08 @ 5:23PM|#
No Name Guy,
George Sr. may not have been as much of a dumbass as his son, but
he has plenty of shame on his record for his own actions.
Start with Panama and go from there.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 5:39PM|#
Hey "George", tell us about the Bilderberg Group!
And what about the Bohemian Club?
jtuf|7.9.08 @ 6:21PM|#
And, don't feel sorry for Poppy Bush. He's the godfather of
the current crime family.
Wow, we're into conspiracy theories already.
Neu Mejican|7.9.08 @ 7:16PM|#
No Name Guy,
George Sr. > Clinton > Junior
That requires rosier memory glasses for Sr.'s presidency than I
own.
Clinton had his fuck-ups, but not on a Bush level...no matter the
Bush.*
*Somehow, for a sentence about Clinton this wording strikes me as
elegant.
No Name Guy|7.9.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Well Neu Mejican, its not just I who share that opinion. Its
Carter's Secretary of State (I can never spell his damn name right,
but its that Polish guy).
On foreign policy, he gave Bush Sr. an A-, Clinton a C, and Bush
Jr. an F-. I tend to agree.
|7.10.08 @ 7:27AM|#
The Iranian Mullahs must be wiping their buts with their turbains. Anything out of their stinking heads smells of...Are they so diluted to think that they can survive a confrontation with the Israelis and the US? Where as their recent history has been fueled by pure hatred of the US and the West, calling us the devil and such, their actions speak volumes as to their wrong headedness tinged with stubborn hubris. So, they have missiles and maybe a few A-bombs. Israel alone can wipe them off the face of the Earth, if they so choose. I do hope Obama once he gets in talks some sense into them. God knows Bush is incapable of it.
|7.10.08 @ 9:10AM|#
I have a bone to pick. Everyone thinks McCain was heroic when he chose to stay with his fellow prisoners during the Vietnam conflict. That was a stupid move. What he should have done is left and returned with forces to retrieve his fellow Americans. He knew exactly where they were being held. So he spent 5 years in a place for nothing. He also made them spend five years there for nothing. Sometimes you have to look further than your nose to find the truth. This was very poor judgement for which he is being applauded everyday! One of his best friends said he should not have his hand on the trigger because of his temper. I am in agreement. But I am also of the opinion that he should not have his hand on the trigger because he doesn't know what he is doing.
|7.10.08 @ 9:15AM|#
Folks its all about Israel. We are fighting in the ME not for US interests at all but to destroy all neighbors of Israel. Thats how the jews lobby group always work. We destroyed and killings our own US soldiers for Israel in Iraq and same thing going to happen in Iran. Iraq was never our never and neither Iran. Please think about the real issue. The mullahs in Iran have nothing to do with USA.
|7.10.08 @ 10:33AM|#
I have a bone to pick. Everyone thinks McCain was heroic when he chose to stay with his fellow prisoners during the Vietnam conflict. That was a stupid move. What he should have done is left and returned with forces to retrieve his fellow Americans.
Oh, man you are so ignorant of history and The Code of
Conduct. I don't say that to be insulting, it's just true.
robin,
Oh man. Just, oh man.
|7.10.08 @ 1:11PM|#
Art-P.O.G, you are really a Bush copy. You want to talk about history then open your history book about Israel. You will see how this lobby is putting us into war each time. You dont have to go back to 100 years of history. Its there everyday.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245