The Day After We Bomb Iran
There's a raging debate within the Bush administration, the punditocracy, and the blogosphere about whether or not it is time to bomb Iran. While this conversation scares small children (and other sane people), most of the focus has been on (1) whether President... oh, excuse me... Vice President Cheney truly is moonbat-crazy enough to do so, and (2) whether anyone else in America (including the military) would go along with the idea. But not enough attention is being paid to what happens after we rain death from the skies down on Iran. Which is a shame, because that's what we ignored during the ramp-up to war with Iraq. And we all know how that turned out.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the United States actually does go ahead and bomb Iran. There are a lot of different scenarios which could lead to this point, of course -- a "false flag" operation (think: Gulf of Tonkin Incident); Iranian military captives the United States swears were killing Americans in Iraq being paraded before the television cameras; provoking the Iranian Navy and swearing we were in international waters and not Iranian waters -- there are many ways to make the case for war before the eyes of the world, so it's not very productive to worry about which method it may take. But let's assume George Bush presents some sort of a casus belli to the world, which is immediately followed by the United States military dropping bombs and cruise missiles on Iran.
About the Cartoonist | Reprint Policy
Now the actual method of the attack (as opposed to the rationale) may influence later events, so it is worth breaking down the possibilities. The old plan was to destroy both Iran's nuclear sites and enough infrastructure that rebuilding them would take the Iranians years to accomplish (while bombing all the military sites and radar installations we see along the way, of course). The new plan (according to Seymour Hersh in his explosive new article in the New Yorker) is to take out the Revolutionary Guard (and to ignore the nuke sites), merely as hot-pursuit retaliation for Iranian involvement in Iraq (while also bombing all the radar installations we see along the way, of course).
Rumors abound that Israel is also thinking seriously about taking out the Iranian nuke sites. Perhaps a combination of the two is what is envisioned? An American raid which conveniently takes down the Iranian radar net would make it awfully tempting for Israeli jets to use the opportunity of such cover to achieve their main objective, it would seem.
This is all pure speculation on my part, I must admit. Whether our justification for the bombing is "hot pursuit" or whether it is to set Iranian nuclear progress back a decade will not matter a whole lot to whoever's under the bombs as they fall. But it may matter in the response Iran makes.
The neo-cons thinking: "They'll greet us with flowers, II"
So far, the Iranian response has seemingly been addressed by the neo-conservative think tank "The Iraqis Will Greet Us With Flowers Institute," which is fully as dangerous and deluded as it sounds. Their basic argument is the Iranians will see the errors of their ways (after we bomb them), throw out the Mullahs in Tehran, and beg the United States' forgiveness. Or that they're just too scared of our awesome military might ("Shock And Awe II," you might call it) to retaliate in any way, because they'd be terrified of losing a war with us.
That this is divorced from both reality and the history of the United States and Iran for the past 60 years or so seems to escape the proponents of this view. But then again, they sold the Bush White House on the "we'll be greeted as liberators, with flowers" line, so there's no guarantee it won't work a second time.
Here are some chilling quotes from Hersh's article on the subject of "what happens next?" after the bombs stop falling.
"They're moving everybody to the Iran desk," one recently retired C.I.A. official said. "They're dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It's just like the fall of 2002" -- the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, "The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through."
That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House's more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack "by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years."
. . .
A senior European diplomat, who works closely with American intelligence, told me that there is evidence that Iran has been making extensive preparation for an American bombing attack. "We know that the Iranians are strengthening their air-defense capabilities," he said, "and we believe they will react asymmetrically -- hitting targets in Europe and in Latin America." There is also specific intelligence suggesting that Iran will be aided in these attacks by Hezbollah. "Hezbollah is capable, and they can do it," the diplomat said.
The article does quote one unnamed "senior European official" (most likely British) who has drunk deep of the neo-con Kool-Aid:
The European official continued, "A major air strike against Iran could well lead to a rallying around the flag there, but a very careful targeting of terrorist training camps might not." His view, he said, was that "once the Iranians get a bloody nose they rethink things." For example, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and Ali Larijani, two of Iran's most influential political figures, "might go to the Supreme Leader and say, ‘The hard-line policies have got us into this mess. We must change our approach for the sake of the regime.' "
This is rebutted with a quote from an unnamed "former [American] senior intelligence official":
"Do you think those crazies in Tehran are going to say, ‘Uncle Sam is here! We'd better stand down'? " the former senior intelligence official said. "The reality is an attack will make things ten times warmer."
War-gaming the Iranian response
The Iranians have missiles. They also have a shadowy world-wide terror network that, from all accounts, is quite competent and deadly. And geography gave Iran a chokepoint that could cut off roughly 20% of the world's oil supplies.
Put all of these together, and you have quite a range of options for the Iranians to take. Let's assume that they would use these on an escalating scale, with proportionate responses by the U.S.
The very first thing the Iranians would do is bomb the MEK camps in Iraq. This would be on a "tit-for-tat" level and they could make a good case before the world for doing so. The MEK ("Mujahedeen-e-Khalq") is an Iranian dissident group who have been trying to overthrow the government of Iran for quite some time now. They used to operate out of Saddam's Iraq, in cross-border raids into Iran. When we invaded, we kind of institutionalized a stalemate with them -- we accepted their surrender, told them we would protect the safety of their camps, but we allowed them to stay. The only problem is, they're a terrorist group. Which we're protecting with the American military.
You can easily see the parallels with what we would be claiming Iran is doing -- supporting outlaw groups from within their own territory who cross the border and perform terrorist actions. Which is why they would be target number one for Iranian retaliation if we used the "hot pursuit" rationale. Iran would loudly proclaim American hypocrisy and attempt to convince the world of the justification of their actions. They might even succeed in doing so.
If America kept attacking Iran, the options get much grimmer much quicker. Iranian missiles may start targeting the Green Zone in Baghdad with a passion. They may start targeting those sprawling US bases out in the desert in Iraq. Remember the Kuwaiti war with Saddam? America kept saying "oh, we've taken care of all of Saddam's missiles" while the SCUDs kept raining down, proving us wrong. Imagine that scenario coming from Iran.
Iran may also unleash the terrorists it sponsors. Hezbollah, in particular, may begin spectacular terrorist attacks within Europe. They could even conceivably (unlike Bush's bugaboo "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia") successfully attack the United States mainland. So not only are missiles raining down on the Green Zone, but shopping malls and train stations and power plants are getting blown up all over Europe and the United States, or (failing to reach America) U.S. Embassies worldwide.
But these nightmare scenarios aren't the worst weapon. Iran's real leverage comes from sitting on top of the Straits of Hormuz (some use the singular Strait of Hormuz). Check out a map of it on Wikipedia, and notice that Iran surrounds this tight bottleneck on three sides. Twenty percent of the world's oil moves through these straits every day, on supertankers. Imagine Iranian mines, torpedoes and missiles taking out oil tankers here. They'd really just have to successfully take out one, or maybe two to prove they could do it whenever they felt like.
What would happen after the first of these successful attacks would be oil trading at astronomical highs: $150 to $200 a barrel. Or roughly two to three times what is has been trading at during the Iraq war. Six to nine dollars a gallon at your local pump.
If this went on for a short period of time, it could cause a devastating recession on the American economy. If it went on for a long period of time, it could cause a worldwide economic depression.
If the American economy crumbles, it's going to be harder and harder to find the money to continue three wars at once. Remember, we essentially outspent the Soviet Union in the arms race. It'd be awfully ironic if it happened to us, since it would be almost impossible to pour the amount of money we have been into the Middle East if our economy was on its knees.
And really, what would the eventual end to the American military escalation of an Iranian war? A military draft here at home, for one thing, since the Army just could not withstand to supply a ground invasion at its current level of soldiers. Or we could escalate bombing on a level not seen since Vietnam -- carpet bombing from B-52s, not "smart" bombs in pinprick raids. Or the Bush White House might even be tempted to test out those nuclear penetrator bombs we've been working on -- to take out "deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites," no doubt.
My point is that the consequences for an Iranian adventure would be severe. In all the arguments swirling around Iran currently inside the Beltway, not enough attention is being paid to the likely outcome of such military action. If you're a neo-con and are arguing that Iran needs to be taken out because they're the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism, then fine -- make your case. But be sure to realistically address what the costs of such rash action would be for America.
Because last time around, we ignored that part of the equation with "we'll be greeted as liberators" -- and we just can't afford a second mistake of that magnitude.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
-- Chris Weigant
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
-Bob Dylan, Masters of War
Diplomatic options never tested, have been destroyed.
Belief and credibility have all but evaporated.
This time around, they’ve squandered all of their military capital.
Long time relationships with sympathetic countries has disappeared.
They are morally and spiritually bankrupt.
Are we now laid open and exposed to countries who really want to and can destroy us?
-Spermwhale
I am disappointed that one of the most effective retalitory strategies that Iran could deploy is not cited: destroying Saudi Arabian oil facilities.
In the event of a preventative US attack on Iran, the fog of war could provide diplomatic cover for Iran to target Saudi oil facilities with missiles, boats, or terrorist cells. Any destruction could be blamed on al Qaeda or a diabolical US plot.
Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US, and is actively trying to limit Iranian regional influence. International markets would go crazy if Saudi oil pumping was limited, especially for a long time. Iranian oil facilities and product would dramatically increase in value.
The Pentagon recently gamed a US preventative attack on Iran, and came to the conclusion that US economic health would be fine dispite predictable Iranian retaliation. This didn't consider outside the box Iranian stategies. In other words, the White House is in deep denial over the blow back from any Iranian military adventure.
Don't doubt that Iran has the military capacity to reduce Saudi oil facilities to a burning heap of slag. Many countries would applaud such action-especially Russia whose energy products would greatly increase in value. The US couldn't destroy Iranian oil facilities in retaliation, because that would just be removing that much more oil from the market. News of the destruction of Saudi oil facilities (that couldn't be covered up from long) would send financial markets into a tail spin.
Nice article, and very convincing. I was amused at one thing you wrote:
"Six to nine dollars a gallon at your local pump".
End of the world! That's exactly what people in Britain and the rest of Europe pay now, and have been paying for years. You see, our governments tax petroleum products heavily, just like alcohol and tobacco, in order to discourage excessive use.
>Diplomatic options never tested,
>have been destroyed.
Examples, please...
>Belief and credibility have all but evaporated.
Only amongst those who never HAD any belief or credibility..
>This time around, they’ve squandered
>all of their military capital.
Examples, please...
>Long time relationships with
>sympathetic countries has disappeared.
Examples, please...
>They are morally and spiritually bankrupt.
Probably. War tends to do that. Same things were said about Lincoln and FDR... We're still here...
>Are we now laid open and exposed to countries
>who really want to and can destroy us?
Possibly. Which makes the best argument for going on the offensive, before our enemies can...
@CW
I would like to tackle your commentary in two parts.. Before that, I would like to thank you for establishing once and for all that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism..
First, let's look at whether an attack on Iran COULD be justified.. I think it can.. I see many scenarios where such an attack would not only be supported by the American people but DEMANDED.. For example, AhmenKillZionsDood has promised a "response" to US and Israeli "aggression" on 12 Oct 2007.. Granted the lunatic promised that the US and Israeli would face some huge catastrophe back on 22 Aug or something like that.. But, for the sake of the argument, let's say that his threats are legit this time. Let's say that, on 12 Oct, AhmenHatesUSADood rains his missiles down on US Troops and Israel.. Surely you would agree that such an attack would invite, no... DEMAND a very swift and punishing response...
I mean, personally, with Iran's continued support of the Iraqi insurgency, Iran's weapons killing US troops and Iran's continued support of Hezbollah and Hamas, that's enough justification right there.. We're pretty much at war with Iran right now anyways. But I understand that for most on the Left (present company excepted, of course) that they need some sort of massive 9/11 attack, with massive American casualties, before they will be spurred into action..
So, I think we can ALL agree that circumstances could come about where an attack on Iran would not only be justified, but fully warranted and demanded by the American people and the world... No???
As to Iran's response and the aftermath, I agree that it's highly situational and almost impossible to gauge... I disagree, however, that the US is making the assumption that we will be greeted with open arms and petals of flowers. I consider myself very well read on the issues of Iran and a potential attack and the article you quote above is the first time I have read about this sort of expectation from the US Government. My guess is that this one report is based on one person's biased view of the situation. If other reports from other people who are "in the know" were to say the same thing then I, of course, would have to modify my view. But that's the first I have read of this sort of expectation, so I have to take it with a grain of salt..
As to Iran's response.... Iran has to really walk a tightrope here. AhmenDumbAssDood knows that he cannot beat the US in a knock down drag out brawl.. The ONLY way that Iran has a chance of coming out of this relatively intact is if he can keep world ***AND AMERICAN PUBLIC** opinion on his side.. And he won't be able to do that if he sends wave upon wave of terrorist killers into Europe and the USA.. And yes, I believe that Iran will keep world and US public opinion high on their list of priorities up to a point.. That point will be the personal destruction of AhmenCantThinkOfAThingDood. If it is becoming apparent that the Iranian president is going to become Saddam Hussein II, then all bets are off..
That is why a massive, crippling and crushing blow is MANDATORY.. We must take away Iran's ability to effectively retaliate..
I also agree with you that a likely scenario is that the US will destroy Iran's Air Defense and Republican Guard assets and then let the Israelis have free reign in decimating Iran's nuclear capability and the country's infrastructure. Personally, I like that plan, as it allows the Israelis to take most of the risks (something they relish, I can assure you) and yet the USA (and the world) enjoys all of the benefits...
However I disagree most vehemently on your implied point. That point being that the US should NOT attack because of all the bad things Iran can do.. In my opinion, that is precisely and exactly why the US SHOULD attack... Because Iran IS being run by a madman and CAN do all of those evil and bad things. As SunTzu put it, "It is much better to attack at your own convenience, rather than defend at your enemy's convenience."
In short, war with Iran is already going on. We're in it. The time to discuss whether or not war with Iran is a good idea or a bad one is past... The time now would be better spent figuring out how to end it with as few US casualties as possible...
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!! :D Unless, of course, circumstances change.. :D
Michale.....
By the by, Mr Cunningham.. Nice cartoon.. It gave me a chortle... :D
Michale.....
Very good article Chris. I reposted it on my blog: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/
Also - on what could happen the day after a US attack here is my take on it: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/07/irans-asymmetrical-response-options.html
Lastly, you might find this interesting: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/10/iran-threatens-to-attack-170-us-targets.html
Kind regards & good luck,
Saker
To all -
Thanks for commenting, and welcome to the new commenters here!
Spermwhale -
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/masters.html
Everyone needs access to the full lyrics of this song.
dobermanmacleod -
You frighten me. Mostly because you thought of something I didn't, with even WORSE consequences. You may sadly be right, though. Saudi Arabia's refineries and pipeline-heads are all within reach of Iranian weapons. And if their objective is to seriously disrupt the world's oil supply, these would indeed be tempting targets. I read about the war-game they ran in DC a few weeks ago (to which you refer), which was one of the motivations for me to write this article. If anyone's interested I can dig up a link, if you can't find it on Google.
Tom Welsh -
You are correct. Europeans tax gasoline (oops, sorry, "petrol") at a very high rate, both to discourage use and to pay for their excellent train systems and other public transportation. But if crude jumped by a factor of 3, your governments would be faced with the following choice: reduce or remove the taxes on petrol temporarily to keep the price DOWN to a level of 6-9 dollars a gallon (or whatever the price in Euros-per-liter works out to) -- or, continue the taxes, meaning you'd be paying 9-15 dollars a gallon. Either way, the European economies would take a hit, and that's before figuring in what a recession in the US would do to European markets. So you guys would be affected by this too, and since EVERY consumer item needs to be transported (ie. uses more petroleum), this wouldn't just hit you (or us, for that matter) just when you were filling up your car's tank -- it would have an across-the-board inflationary impact. How great an impact this would be is debatable, but it would happen.
Michale -
I guess I put my foot in it with the comments about Iran and Hezbollah (see comments on vinyardsaker's blog, for instance). While the Iranians do finance Hezbollah, I guess there is a discrepancy about whether they finance "terror" or not. As far as I know, the US government has labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization, which is what I based my comments on. Now, I have a problem with people who see a worldwide "Terror, Inc." where if you give money to anything the US labels "terrorist" you are "supporting terror" in general. But I truly didn't think there was this much controversy over the designation. I have no personal first-hand knowledge one way or the other on Hezbollah, I just go by what I read. I'll be more precise in my language in future.
Something else which gets lost in the debate over Iran is that the Iranian President is largely a ceremonial figure -- kind of like our Vice Presidents used to be (pre-Cheney). It does not translate to the powers that an American president has, and mostly this is due to using the same word for a very different governmental position. Iran's president is simply not the executive of his country. The real power lies elsewhere.
Sure, with a hypothetical direct attack on Israel or the US by Iran, it's a whole different ballgame. My article would be moot in such a case. I'm talking about the US directly striking Iran without such provocation, though.
You're right, I didn't do my homework on citing articles that refer to the "greet us with flowers" scenario. I still haven't, sorry, but I can dig them up for you later if you can't find them. There are some powerful people (think-tankers who have the ear of the President and VP) who are indeed shopping this scenario around, though. There are rabid bloggers also pushing this line, but like you say, they're just one guy with a keyboard. People who get exclusive 45 minute interviews with Bush worry me a lot more (Norman Podheretz, although I probably spelled that wrong).
While I don't agree with the last few paragraphs of your comment, I respect you for addressing my main point: that people who do advocate for an attack on Iran should be intellectually honest with the rest of us when laying out how they think Iran will react. In other words, lay out your case for attacking, but don't try to sell us a snow job for what will happen afterwards. I don't have a problem with people advocating such an attack (even though I don't agree with them) -- what I have a problem with is not being honest while doing so. You have tackled this problem head-on, and I salute you for doing so (while still disagreeing with you).
Yeah, wasn't that a nice cartoon, everyone? CWCunningham sent that to me last week, and I told him "do another one, I'm saving this one for an article I want to write," because it fit so perfectly! I am continually amazed at CWC's prolific output of good artwork.
vinyardsaker -
I will check out all those links, thanks. Since you're new, I will caution you that posting multiple links in comments means the comment gets held for approval. This does not mean I will delete it, as if they are valid links I approve such comments, but just to let you know if you comment like this that it will not appear instantly. Just for your info...
Thanks to all for commenting!
-CW
@CW..
I think you know my personal feelings on terrorist groups, but let me lay them out anyways...
If a group commits terrorism as a matter of course, that group is a terrorist group. It doesn't matter to me (and most civilized people, I would wager) whether or not that same group also builds schools and roads and hospitals and such.. None of that matters if terrorism is also part of said groups activities..
Under these logical and rational guidelines, Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist groups. And, by giving aide and comfort and funds, Iran is a direct supporter of terrorist groups..
As far as the power Ahmenjehud (one of these days, I will memorize the spelling of his name) has, I understand that the real power in Iran lies with the religious fanatics. In that regard, it's not much different than here in the US, eh?? (I **KNOW** that got a smile outta you! :D) But I think that you underestimate the power of this particular President of Iran. Remember, he cut his anti-American teeth on our hostages for 444 days.. I would venture to say that he probably has more power within HIS leadership than VP Cheney has within ours..
And I agree completely with you. The time for BS and rose-colored pictures is long past.. Make the case and be honest with us regarding the aftermath.
Michale.....
Sorry... that should have been "Norman Podhoretz"...
I did see your reference to Jessica Lynch, but I was pointing you to a much more recent example. I forget the name of the group (sorry, trying to get a column out) but go to Google News and enter Ari Fleisher's name (hope I spelled that right, too) for the past month, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Gotta get back to writing... just had to correct the name.
-CW
@dobermanmacleod
>The US couldn't destroy Iranian oil
>facilities in retaliation, because
>that would just be removing that
>much more oil from the market.
True, but it WOULD give the US Government a pretty reasonable, rational and logical reason to TAKE CONTROL of the Iranian oil assets in retaliation..
The US would operate those fields for our own purposes until such time as Iran paid for the Saudi fields to be up and running again...
Yea, I know.. Unlikely..
But still a possibility...
Michale.....
This president is running our country into the ground, maybe he just wants to take the rest of the world with it. Halliburton must have figured out how to inhabit mars. Its really too bad we cant go back in time, and not elect this disaster. Its sad really. Another draft? How will that go, considering the majority don't agree with this war. Its gonna get ugly if anything with Iran happens. That iranian is a real idiot for provoking Bush, he must not have realized what a war hungry idiot Bush was, or maybe didnt know much about Cheney. Maybe they expected and hoped for this from the beginning. I really hope we elect a foreign policy genius next year, to repair all the damaged relationships with the rest of the world. Keep up the good work Chris, I'm forwarding a link to your site to my congressman right now. (wexler, fl)
@benskull
>I really hope we elect a foreign
>policy genius next year
The only possibility I see is Hillary and she would be bad for this country is oh so many other ways...
Michale.....
@Michale
"I see stupid people!"
Next to "the shrub, Wavy Gravey, is a "foreign policy genius!"
@Spermwhale
>Next to "the shrub, Wavy Gravey,
>is a "foreign policy genius!"
Once again, that is more of an opinion brought upon by personal hatred and irrational animosity.
It has very little to do with fact or reality..
I prefer more objective and rational analysis...
Michale.....
@ Michale-
Wrong again, this is an opinion formed by many events staged by an inept administration, totally out of control.
Facts and Reality:
*A completely irresponsible and unnecessary preemptively started war.
*Costs to date in billions, not to mention the blood of over 4000 US men and women who were led to their deaths by false promises.
*Hundreds of thousands of US men and women injured and maimed.
*The pissing away of all of our military capital now leaving our nation exposed to real threats.
Are those objective and rational enough for you?
Jesus Michael, just how many examples do need to repeatedly see?
One more thing; Having personally been through the Vietnam Era, you bet your ass I have hatred for stupid old men who send young men to die under the banner of lies and false pretenses!
I take exception to that last line Spermwhale.
Every pretense was a genuine pretense. ;-)
As I have mentioned before..
Imagine every second of your life is available for all to critique... Every gaffe you ever made, every bonehead comment you ever made, your entire existence and open book for all to see and read..
Now, further imagine that there are people out there who totally and completely hate you. People who's frenzied and hysterical hatred borders on the insane and simply ooozes from every pore of their existence..
Now, I ask you.. Would those people be able to find many examples that would "prove" beyond ANY doubt that you are a raving lunatic, a moron and a non-sentient being completely devoid of any semblance of intelligence??
I am willing to wager that they would...
If one is consumed by an irrational hatred (as you concede that you are) and looks long enough, they will surely find SOMETHING, ANYTHING, to justify that hatred..
I truly feel sorry for you that you hate that much..
>Are those objective and rational enough for you?
Not even close.. Because your complaints are completely subjective, opinionated and borne of irrational and hysterical hatred, not rational thinking.
Michale.....
Michale- You stupid bastard,(someone has to say it) how dare you? You don't have the stature in life to carry my jockstrap.
The facts remain the facts.
There are a lot of people who share my anger for the needless loss of their brothers, sisters, husbands, et al.
Clearly you would not be able to tell a fact from a hypothesis.
It is the trademark of a narrow minded raving idiot to take the truth and flip-it!
Go ahead and continue to show the readers your single channel mindset
CDub-
Well, er, um, ahem, yeah, well I guess!
PS Michael-
Unlike this boob president and his gang of henchmen; I don’t have the innocent blood of thousands on my conscience!
Cdub
I know you are thinking, they don't have a conscience!
>Michale- You stupid bastard,
Iddn't it remarkable how someone who is for peace and against violence resorts to this sort of verbal violence??
>(someone has to say it) how dare you?
Quite easily..
>You don't have the stature in
>life to carry my jockstrap.
Well, let's see.. Almost three decades in the security and law enforcement career fields, spanning two different branches of the US Armed Forces, plus the civilian sector. I was a police officer (SPI/OSI) with the USAF and did extensive service in the Far East.. During the first Gulf War, I was an Army LT (MI) and did significant liaison with NATO and Israeli military and civilian intelligence. I have served as an FSO and have had postings and assignments all over the world.
Regardless of all that, I do not believe that I am qualified to carry your jockstrap... I don't ride that bike, but I appreciate your interest..
>The facts remain the facts.
You haven't given me any facts.. All you have given me is hysterical invective and irrational opinions based on imagined slights...
All you have is the regurgitated matter of the Bush Bashers who just can't seem to come to grips with the reality that their Democrats are no better than the Republicans they castigate..
>It is the trademark of a narrow
>minded raving idiot....
that fails to concede that maybe, JUST MAYBE, they might be wrong...
>Go ahead and continue to show
>the readers your single channel mindset
Actually, it is you who has the single channel.
HATE BUSH
HATE GOP
HATE AMERICA
You are all about hate... And that is just sad...
Michale.....
Speaking of false pretenses and Vietnam, there was some documentary on this morning where they showed Nixon touting his support for peace and freedom throughout the world, followed immediately by a conversation between himself and Henry Kissinger.
He was asking Kissinger how many deaths would occur if they were to blow up some dikes (which dikes? they didn't say). Kissinger replied, "There will be about 200,000 deaths as a consequence.", to which Nixon said, "I'd rather drop a nuclear bomb." Kissinger said he thought that was too much, to which Nixon said, "I just want you to start thinking big Henry."
So apparently Henry was OK with 200,000 deaths, but the man who supported peace and freedom thought 200,000 dead was small potatoes. All because they were growing frustrated at their inability to get the Vietnamese to kill each other.
Peace and freedom anyone?
>Unlike this boob president
>and his gang of henchmen;
>I don’t have the innocent
>blood of thousands on my conscience!
Neither do they.. Any more so than Truman does or FDR does or Abraham Lincoln does..
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-John Stuart Mill
Kind of aprobos for the moment...
Michale.....
Michale- This is subjective?
Military Fatalities: By Time Period
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
6 722 40 7 769 3.15 244
5 933 32 20 985 2.39 412
4 715 13 18 746 2.35 318
3 580 25 27 632 2.93 216
2 718 27 59 804 1.9 424
1 140 33 173 4.02 43
Total 3808 170 131 4109 2.48 1657
To View Period Details Click The Period Number
Time Periods Defined
U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3807
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 1
Total 3808
DoD Confirmation List
Latest Coalition Fatality: Oct 03, 2007
10/02/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Spc. Chirasak Vidhyarkorn, 32, of Queens, N.Y., died Sept. 29 in Diwanihay, Iraq, of injuries suffered from a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 142nd Field Artillery Regiment, Camp Shelby, Miss.
10/02/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Sgt. Randell Olguin, 24, of Ralls, Texas, died Sept. 30 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, Vilseck, Germany.
10/02/07 DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
Gunnery Sgt. Herman J. Murkerson Jr., 35, of Adger, Ala., died Oct. 1 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to Marine Wing Headquarters Squadron 2, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, II Marine Expeditionary Force...
Post Iraq Deaths Not Confirmed By the DoD
Name Date
Richards, Jack D. 29-Jul-2007
Cassidy, Gerald J. 25-Sep-2007
Source Dept of Defense
How much "peace and freedom" was FDR for when he incarcerated hundreds of thousands of American citizens during wartime??
How much "peace" is Spermwhale for, when he hauls off starts spewing verbal violence left and right??
Michale.....
@Spermwhale
>Michale- This is subjective?
Depends...
What are you saying it shows??
If you are saying these are dead soldiers from the Iraq Conflict, then I would say, "No, it's not subjective."
If you are saying, "THIS PROVES THE THOUSANDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIED FOR NOTHING AND IT PROVES THAT BUSH IS A MORON" then I would say, "Yes. It's VERY subjective, bordering on hysterical nonsense.."
So, what are you trying to say with that information???
Michale.....
Michale,
You have now won the hat-trick!
You have the audacity and stupidity to compare the most unnecessary war of all time to WWII?
I pity you. You are now drowning in your own ignorance!
Listen Michale,
I just reviewed your alleged credentials.
Clearly you have never been in an active fire station or have held the head of a soldier gulping down his last breath.
Give it up please!
>You have the audacity and stupidity
>to compare the most unnecessary war
>of all time to WWII?
Here is just my point..
You spew that the Iraq conflict is "the most unnecessary war of all time"...
That is your opinion that you are trying to pass off as fact..
This is what I mean about you being hysterical and irrational. You are completely ignorant of things that are happening and yet you want to call your irrational opinion a fact.
There is nothing wrong with being ignorant about things. No one can possibly know everything.
But, where you mess up is you CLAIM to know all about the Iraq War enough to call your opinion a fact..
That is why you will always lose in a debate of this sort.. Because you cannot look at things in an objective and rational manner..
You decide things emotionally. And any position taken in emotion is usually the wrong position to take. Not always, but usually...
Michale.....
@Spermwhale
If believing that makes it easier for you to sleep at night, who am I to dispute your self-delusions..
Michale.....
I realize that you HAVE to dispute my credentials and attack me with such disgusting and personal attacks....
It's a LOT easier to call people ugly names, rather than admit to yourself the possibility that you might be wrong...
That is why the Bush Bashers are so active.. They are like religious fanatics who MUST blame the proverbial Satan for all the misdeeds of the world. They reach for ANY crutch because they cannot bear to consider the idea that they may be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution...
Michale.....
Thousand of people died in Iraq because they were lied to by their commander-in-chief. Did they die for nothing??? You do the math, genius! you still insist that this is subjective?
I'll cop to "hysterical! After the new speaker of the house made her first order of business taking impeachment off the table?
I only wish the dem controlled house and senate would get angry and histerical enought to finally say, "We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it anymore"
Michale you fool- Your Emperor is bare-assed naked!
A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
Mark Twain
>Thousand of people died in Iraq
>because they were lied to by their
> commander-in-chief.
Here again is a completely BS statement..
Three different commissions (2 US BiPartisan Commissions and 1 British Commission) confirmed the FACT that the Bush Administration did not lie...
Once again, you are letting emotion cloud your thinking.. I realize that it's EASIER to say that Bush lied.. But the simple FACT is that Bush did not lie...
Being wrong does not a lie make... If it did, then EVERYONE IN THE WORLD would be liars...
>After the new speaker of the house
>made her first order of business
>taking impeachment off the table?
And why do you think she did that??
Because she KNEW that there wasn't any impeachable offenses... Impeachment never was ON the table, because it was never warranted...
>"We are mad as hell, and we are not
>going to take it anymore"
And WHY do you think your Democrats are not saying that???
Isn't it POSSIBLE they are not saying that because they realize that Bush is right with regards to the Iraq war??
The fact that you won't even CONSIDER that possibility makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution..
Michale.....
"Because she KNEW that there wasn't any impeachable offenses… Impeachment never was ON the table, because it was never warranted…"
As recently as a year ago, few people, except hardcore critics of the Bush administration, would say the "I" word. Yet recent polls show that 54 percent of Americans surveyed support the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney; 48 percent favor impeaching President George W. Bush. In comparison, when President Richard Nixon faced impeachment in 1974—he resigned before the full House voted on it—only 35 percent of Americans surveyed thought he should be impeached.
-Lisa Sorg NC Impeachment Coalition
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A158782
That's just the NC Grassroots group.
The national group has listed potentially many more.
There are many more voices and commisions advocating impeachment!
http://www.sustainableenterprises.com/Dubya/default.htm
Impeach Bush
The man was lost and then he was found and now he's more lost than ever -- and he's taking us into the darkness with him. It's time to remove him.
By Garrison Keillor
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/03/01/keillor/index_np.html
If you want to discuss Polls, let's talk about the latest ZOGBY Poll that puts Bush's approval rating at almost 3 times as good as the Democratic Controlled Congress...
Here are some famous Michale/Poll quotes:
"Polls are useless.."
"They ONLY thing that polls show are the biases of the poll takers..."
"The ONLY thing that polls should be used for is to show how ridiculous using polls is.."
"Anyone who uses a poll to make a point is lazy and ignorant..."
There is no cause for impeachment. Impeachment of Bush will never be anything more than a wet dream of the Hysterical Left... Just as actually convicting Clinton was a wet dream of the Hysterical Right.
Let me just ask you one question, Sperm...
Is it POSSIBLE that you might be wrong regarding the Iraq war??
Michale.....
Michale asks: "Is it POSSIBLE that you might be wrong regarding the Iraq war??"
Michale, do you dare ask yourself the same question?
The more this terrible carnage continues confirms how truly wrong this war was to ever start.
"There was never an exit strategy, because the neo-cons never intended for us to leave!
Now there's a feather in Bush's cap, "...Bush's approval rating at almost 3 times as good as the Democratic Controlled Congress"
Woo Hoo, his mother will be proud!!!
I have no doubt that you can find SCORES of fellow hystericals who still hold on to the wet dream of impeachment..
But the simple fact is, they have absolutely NO POWER to bring impeachment..
They ONLY people who DO have the power have already acknowledged that there is no cause..
In essence, your own Democratic Party has told you that you are WRONG about impeachment.
Why is that so hard for you to accept??
Michale.....
@Sperm
>Michale, do you dare ask yourself
>the same question?
Asked and answered many times.
But, since yer new here..
Yes, I could be wrong about the Iraq War.. The Iraq War could possibly turn out to be the most terrible and most unnecessary mistake in the history of terrible and unnecessary mistakes..
Now, are you will to concede that YOU might be wrong and that the Iraq war is the right thing to do??
@CDub
If you think it makes Bush look bad, imagine how bad it makes your Democrats look...
Of course, you will never concede that. You are a slave to the Democratic Party and could NEVER conceive anything other than they are as pure as the driven snow....
Michale.....
Do you see the dynamics here??
Ya'all are going hell bent trying to PROVE that you are right..
I am simply pointing out that you could be wrong...
Ya'all can't win...
Because ya'all are so close-minded and inflexible to the idea that ya'all COULD be wrong, ya'all simply cannot win..
"I busted him up"
-Lt Commander Data, STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION
I concede perhaps, right war, definitely the wrong place.
#2 I am not a democrat.
Michale writes:
"Yes, I could be wrong about the Iraq War.. The Iraq War could possibly turn out to be the most terrible and most unnecessary mistake in the history of terrible and unnecessary mistakes"
The OPERATIVE WORD IS -"IS"
Again, I can not concede I am a slave to the Dems, as I am not one of them!
/Michale, you really have to stop defending the iraq war, and Bush's decision making. I dont know if you are trying to play the devils advocate, and are not being serious, or you truly believe in him. I hope for the prior, but the amount of time you put in to supporting him leans to the latter. You can't deny that our entrance into iraq was based on lies. Plain and simple lies, that have been acknowledged. The connection between iraq and 9/11, which the cia forced bush to retract. The WMD, which had no evidence, yet powell was 'certain' of wmd targets, that proved not to be. Obviously not certain enough. Therefore not certain at all, but only speculative. Definately not a word to base a war on. Had the administration been honest in the beginning, I highly doubt we would be at war at all. Sure you can bring up the hindsight argument, but the fact is, they are the administration, they based drastic policy on speculative info, and led our country into an endless war. Its either totally irresponsible, or worse, exactly what they wanted. An endless war for all the corporations that profit in wartime to profit massively, at our expense, corporations, that have connections to our administration. How do you see it? Lying scummy businessman, or irresponsible thoughtless politicians? Frankly, there should be serious investigations into connections between business and government. And they should be prevented at all costs. But of course then there would be no more republican party. The men currently running our country are in NO WAY civil servants. NO WAY.
benskull-
Asking Michael to decide on whether he is supporting Bush's decision making or playing devil's advocate is akin to asking Hannibal Lechter if he killed his victims for the joy of it or was just making an argument for cannibalism.
I find it extra interesting that these righ-wing whackos find the need to demonize oposing opinions and consistantly shift blame and responsibility to them.
Don't give him more credit then his due. I've seen this act done better.
@benskull
>You can't deny that our entrance
>into iraq was based on lies. Plain
>and simple lies,
I most certainly CAN deny that. It's a matter of record (2 US **BI-PARTISAN** Commissions and 1 British Commission) that the Bush Administration did not lie.
Faulty intelligence, to be sure.. But not lies.
And, also for the record, I am not "supporting" Bush OR the Iraq War with these posts..
I am simply pointing out YOUR "lies" and misinformation...
If you want to slam Bush and the Iraq War, I am simply going to insist that you be truthful about it.
Claiming that Bush "lied" when there is overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary is NOT being truthful about things.
>The connection between iraq and 9/11
There was a "tenuous" connection between Iraq and 9/11. So said the 9/11 Commission, made up of many Democrats.
Again, be truthful...
>The WMD, which had no evidence
Saddam DID have WMDs and used those on his own people.
Again, be truthful...
>but only speculative. Definately not a
>word to base a war on.
Depends.. If there had been an arsenal of nukes, Bush would have been praised for having the courage to go in based on the speculation..
Hind site is ALWAYS 20/20, benskull.. Monday Morning Quarterbacking is always going to be dead on balls right.. My personal feeling is that if you have a psychotic madman and there is even a CHANCE he has nukes, it's better to err on the side of caution..
Wouldn't you agree with that statement??
>Frankly, there should be serious
>investigations into connections
>between business and government.
I completely agree.. And that is what the Democrats promised if they were given control of Congress.. Guess what?? We (Yes, I voted for a Democrat in the 2006 elections) gave the Democratic Party control and they could not change their minds fast enough about ethics and standards..
I completely agree with you with regards to the Corporate/Government connection.. But is it fair to lay the ENTIRE blame for that at Bush's feet?? Surely some of the responsibility rests at the Democratic Party's feet as well. Wouldn't you agree??
@Sperm
>I find it extra interesting that
>these righ-wing whackos find the
>need to demonize oposing opinions
I wonder if you can fully appreciate the utter hypocrisy of your statement..
Throughout all of these posts it has been YOU (and CDub and Gass et al) who have been demonizing and calling names and making personal attacks...
This is the classic Neo-Dems at work.. A pale imitation of the Neo-Cons they castigate..
I am sure you probably realize it, but you definitely are no liberal..
Michale.....
@Michale
RE: I find it extra interesting that
these righ-wing whackos find the
need to demonize oposing opinions
I wonder if you can fully appreciate the utter hypocrisy of your statement..
A PERFECT EXAMPLE. THERE, YOU JUST DID IT!
@Sperm
You'll have to work up your attributes a LOT better, because I haven't the FAINTEST idea what you are trying to say...
It SOUNDS like you are using the old "I know you are but what am I" response, but I don't think even you could stoop to such immaturity....
Michale.....
@CW
RE: They'll be greeting us with flowers II-
Old Southern Expression-
"Never a lesson is learned the 2nd time a mule kicks!"
@Michale
"Never feed a dead mule oats!"
spermwhale
@CW
Near the end of a 76 minute ramble to a crowd in Lancaster, PA- He forgot that he had promised a question to a woman. "When you're getting over 60, sometimes your mind slips," said Bush, who is 61.
He stopped short of offering an explanation for his previous five years.
spermwhale
@CW
PS I neglected to state the quote from the Bush Ramble," was yesterday in Lancaster, PA
@Sperm
>"Never feed a dead mule oats!"
And yet you keep shoveling and shoveling and shoveling...
Michale.....
@Michale-
You are finally right about something. Consider this my last missive.
I have now given up on you.
spermwhale
I accept your concession...
Michale.....
Iranians chant 'death to Israel' in mass protest..
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071005080651.03rs1f47&show_article=1
THIS is the country you want to allow to have nuclear weapons???
It boggles the mind...
Michale.....
Vineyardsaker sure had an amazingly in depth analysis of this issue.
I think that beyond the military complications that will arise in the middle east, there's bound to be an economic blowback from countries that have been sitting on the fence over Bush's imperialist adventures. Countries that have up 'til now been friendly, might start holding back critical trade items, or even join a coalition opposing the US.
30 years ago, Iran was 5 years from having a nuke. Today, they are 5 years from having a nuke. Today, they've made many overtures towards peace and cooperation with America, while Bush just gives lip service to diplomacy while turning his back on any talks. Like the guy on TV was saying the other day, "I'll believe that Bush is serious about diplomacy when I see Condoleeza's ass parked in a chair in Tehran across from her Iranian equivalent." Until then, it's just like the diplomatic efforts they made with Iraq (non-existent).
Amen to that CDub. Couldn't have said it better.
Bush's approach to Iran. Criminal. Where is the diplomacy in DC?
sorry here's the link meant for above post
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11539
>30 years ago, Iran was 5 years from having a nuke.
Source for this piece of sh...... information??
>Today, they've made many overtures
>towards peace and cooperation with America,
Was that before or after they said they want to wipe Israel off the map???
>Vineyardsaker sure had an amazingly
>in depth analysis of this issue.
Considering it was all opinion with little or no basis in fact or reality, yes... It was amazingly.... something...
Michale.....
Fun Comment Fact
This comment thread is now the longest one (62 comments so far) in the history of the site.
Fun Comment Milestone
Somewhere in this thread was posted the 1,000th comment to the site. We're now into four digits, folks...
-CW
spermwhale -
We'd have a truly psychedelic foreign policy if Wavy Gravy was in charge, that's for sure!
As for:
"Near the end of a 76 minute ramble to a crowd in Lancaster, PA- He forgot that he had promised a question to a woman. "When you're getting over 60, sometimes your mind slips," said Bush, who is 61.
He stopped short of offering an explanation for his previous five years."
... now that was funny!
RE: my article a while ago on the "rally squads" at Bush events, HOW did this woman sneak in to the Lancaster event? She was standing right next to someone who got to ask a question! Guess you just can't hire decent rally squads any more...
[1000+ and counting...]
-CW
No comment on my article link about Iran?
Michale, Buehler, anyone?
Sorry, but any article that starts calling people names is not one to be taken seriously..
Irregardless of that, all that is reported is ONE side of what Iran's alleged overtures could mean.
Is it so remarkable that US officials would be so suspicious of Iran's alleged "overtures", considering how Iran has acted towards the US??
Tell ya what.. You get the Iranians to give up the idea of having nuclear weapons and the US and Israel won't bomb Iran back into the Stone Age..
Considering all the misery, death and destruction that Iran has caused, that's a helluva bargain in ANYONE's book...
Let me know if your Iranian friends accept..
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
>30 years ago, Iran was 5 years from having a nuke.
Source for this piece of sh…… information??
~~~~~
New Yorker magazine
~~~~~
>Today, they've made many overtures
>towards peace and cooperation with America,
Was that before or after they said they want to wipe Israel off the map???
~~~~~
I believe it was about the same time. While Ahmadinijad was being MISQUOTED about his stance towards Israel, the people who ACTUALLY RUN Iran sent a 2 page letter through diplomatic channels to President Bush offering:
1) Normalization of relations
2) All nuclear ambitions open to negotiation
3) There was a three I think, but I forget what it was.
You are aware that the only thing Ahmadinijad runs in Iran is his mouth, right?
~~~~~
>Vineyardsaker sure had an amazingly
>in depth analysis of this issue.
Considering it was all opinion with little or no basis in fact or reality, yes… It was amazingly…. something…
~~~~~
He sure knows more about it than I do, said he was a military analyst and backed it up with facts and figures.
If you're saying he's full of crap and that you can do better, I'd like to see what you can come up with.
benskull wrote:
No comment on my article link about Iran?
~~~~~
I got a comment, Greatly fleshes out Iran's attempts and desire to cooperate with the USA, and the Bush regime's intention to prevent the same.
Bush is hellbent on regime change in Iran. To call the misadventure in Iraq sheer folly doesn't do justice to the stupidity involved. I can only imagine he wants to do something so moronic that it makes Iraq looks like a mere blunder in comparison. For the legacy you understand.
@CDub
>New Yorker magazine
Might you be just a teensy weensy more specific...
>said he was a military analyst and
>backed it up with facts and figures.
Backed up what with "facts and figures"??
The fact that he was a military analyst?? Or the "fact" that 30 years ago, it was stated that Iran was 5 years away from a nuclear weapon??
Let's see.. 30 years ago was 1977.. If I recall correctly, at that time Iran was still ruled by the Shah. I honestly and truly doubt that the Shah's Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons...
But if you or Vineyardsaker have any factual information to prove me wrong, I will gladly concede the point..
On another note, let me ask you a "DEAD ZONE" question..
Say you knew for an absolute certainty that, in 5 years time, Iran develops nuclear bombs and lands one on Tel Aviv..
Would you be in favor of military action against Iran NOW to prevent the nuking of Tel Aviv from occurring??
It's a simple question. Please try to respond with a simple answer..
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
@CDub
>New Yorker magazine
Might you be just a teensy weensy more specific…
~~~~~
Yes, more specific, more accurate, and yet more vague at the same time.
The qoutes for both '30 years ago', and 'Today' came from Seymour Hersh, who writes for the New Yorker (see first link in Chris' article). However, the quotes did NOT come from the New Yorker, but from some documentary or news program on the TV. Here's where it gets vague, I don't know what the show was, or even the channel. I have news running about 12 hours a day around here, and I change channels often, but I only pay attention to items of interest, like Seymour Hersh, who claims 5 years away, or Scott Ritter, who claims 7-10 years away.
Scott Ritter points out that any country on the planet is 7-10 years away because that's how long it would take for a country to proceed from 0% nuclear technology to an atomic bomb, and he also points out that Iran has an array of 164 centrifuges that they are incapable of running for a single day due to the impurities of their available uranium. They would have to have 3000 centrifuges running continuously for a year in order to create an atomic bomb. Only 2 countries have the know how to purify their uranium so that it stops destroying their centrifuges, and Iran isn't one of them.
~~~~~
>said he was a military analyst and
>backed it up with facts and figures.
Backed up what with "facts and figures"??
The fact that he was a military analyst?? Or the "fact" that 30 years ago, it was stated that Iran was 5 years away from a nuclear weapon??
~~~~~
You're mixing up who said what. vineyardsaker is someone who commented on Chris' article. His analysis is linked in his comment, scroll up and follow the link. When you read it, I think you'll see that he claims to have been a military analyst, or perhaps I misunderstood. At any rate, you'll find his analysis quite interesting.
~~~~~
Let's see.. 30 years ago was 1977.. If I recall correctly, at that time Iran was still ruled by the Shah. I honestly and truly doubt that the Shah's Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons…
~~~~~
That's an important distinction. 30 years ago Iran was trying to build a nuclear power plant. To do that they'd have to refine uranium. Today Iran wants to build a nuclear power plant, and to do that they have to refine uranium. Building a nuclear power plant is infinitely less complicated than building the bomb, and Iran hasn't mastered the refining process yet, so the 5 year assessment is realistic, ASSUMING they're actually trying to build a bomb. Bush says they are, but he has 0 credibility after making the same claim about Iraq. To support his claim against Iraq, he had to fabricate evidence. And since he did, his bar for proof of Iran's ambitions is very high (assuming the entire US government isn't ready to roll over for the same paymasters that wanted Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Myanmar and Iran).
~~~~~
But if you or Vineyardsaker have any factual information to prove me wrong, I will gladly concede the point..
~~~~~
Prove you wrong about what? What's 'the point' that is in contention.
~~~~~
On another note, let me ask you a "DEAD ZONE" question..
Say you knew for an absolute certainty that, in 5 years time, Iran develops nuclear bombs and lands one on Tel Aviv..
Would you be in favor of military action against Iran NOW to prevent the nuking of Tel Aviv from occurring??
It's a simple question. Please try to respond with a simple answer..
~~~~~
Absolutely not. With the luxury of five years, I'd lean heavy on Iran with a carrot and stick approach. -I'd require them to sign the non-proliferation treaty (they already did)
-I'd require them to submit to 'no warning' access to any facility in their country by weapons inspectors (they already have)
-I'd require them to come to the negotiating table (they're ready today, unless we squander that opportunity).
-I'd require them to recognize and normalize relations with Israel (They've expressed willingness in their offer to G.W.Bush to negotiate ... Ask Condy, she knows that's true).
-I'd get the whole world breathing down their necks.
And if after 4 years they were still hellbent on destroying Israel, God help them.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/16/144204
Here's a conversation with Ritter on democracynow.
>And if after 4 years they were still
>hellbent on destroying Israel, God help them.
OK.. Great.. Now, we're reaching some common ground..
So, you are saying that if a regime is "hellbent" on destroying another innocent country that a pre-emptive strike is warranted..
Note, I am not putting words in your mouth. (because I hate when people do that to me..) I am simply asking for clarification in advance of making a point...
So, if you are 100% certain that Country A is about to destroy Country B and you know that Country B is innocent and not deserving of said destruction, that you would take steps to insure that Country A cannot succeed in it's desire to destroy Country B up to AND INCLUDING the destruction of Country A...
Is that an accurate assessment of your thought process??
Again, I am NOT trying to "trap" you or "fool" you in anything.. I am simply trying to ascertain exactly where you are coming from...
Michale.....
Only as a LAST resort.
OK Fair enough...
Now, let's say that you are not 100% sure...
Let's say that you are 50% sure that Iran is going to nuke Israel...
Do you err on the side of protecting Iran??
Or do you err on the side of protecting Israel??
And, just remember the immortal words of James T Kirk..
Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself. And it usually is the WRONG decision to make..
Michale.....
humming the theme from "JEOPARDY"
WOW.. no answer..
Do do do da da do do do... Doo daa doo daa do da doo daa...
Michale.....
I err on the side of protecting both.