Tom Bevan of the right-wing Real Clear Politics attacks me for what he calls “the most idiotic statement of the week”. He doesn’t say why it’s idiotic, but its immaterial anyways. Whenever I upset a conservative, an angel gets its wings.
Zuzu’s petals!
Honestly, I fell bad for the Chicken Littles at Real Clear Politics. Their whole rationale, hell, their whole reason to get up in the morning, is the idea that IRAN IS ABOUT TO KILL US ALL. Any evidence or argument to the contrary must be attacked in the strongest possible terms, or else, well, they’d just be some panicky pant-shitters tapping away for nothing, instead of the John Wayne/Ronald Reagan/Jack Bauer types they imagine themselves to be. Which is appropriate, given that none of them saw combat, either.
I think you typed ‘their’ instead of ‘they’re’. Dumbass, better shut down the site.
feel bad, that is. Fucking laptop keyboard.
You’re right. Iran is not a threat. Ahmadinejad is a nice fella. Nevermind the whole “wipe Israel off the map” thing and the enriched uranium in defiance of the int’l community.
Haven’t we seen this before? N. Korea maybe? Didn’t they want nuclear energy for peaceful purposes too?
No one is saying go to war yet, but it’d be nice to have a plan, just in case.
Megadittos, moonbat. We’ve been blessed with good planning and good leadership in Iraq. We need to see a sequel in Iran, starting with getting the word out that we don’t need no stinkin’ diplomacy or containment. Make it two outta three against the axis of evil. Let’s roll!
from Iran’s Not Near Nukes
This time, it s slightly different. Now I m so afraid of a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran, that I m what? Willing to negotiate? No that s what you want to do.
Lessee: I m so afraid of nuclear weapons, I d rather try containment than war wait, no, that s you guys again!
Wait, I ve got it I m so afraid of nukes in the hands of Iranians, that I don t want a war. We should try sanctions, instead (remember how well that worked with Iraq?) but, that s you re idea, too!
Of course, we could always try diplom never mind. That s you re idea, too!
So, let me see if I have this straight you re willing to kiss their asses in Macy s window, but it s the conservatives that are afraid, right?
Hehe
And I was in combat… Now what?
“the closer Iran gets to the bomb, the more the Left will say that we can live with it”
VDH
Would you say in that case TomY, that correlation equals causation?
“The more difficulty a conservative has in achieving an erection, the more likely they are to favor direct military action against Iran.”
TY
America will always be grateful to Victor Davis Hanson for helping to give us a Sicilian Expedition for our time. What better teacher of the Classics could there be?
Here’s another one for you, Frank: “The better chance a method has for achieving a solution to any given problem, the more certain it is that the Right will reject it in favor of pointless bombing. Because they are sexually impotent.”
Wow, thanks, Dave, that was good. I always like the Barbara Tuchman quotes, though honestly its a shame how relevant they are. Here’s a page at AmericaBlog that gives a good rundown on Iran, too.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/here-is-democratic-message-on-iran.html
YOU, TOO, CAN HAVE A CAREER AS A COMEDIAN!
JUST SEND THIRTEEN SMALL PAYMENTS OF $999.99 TO THE MATCHBOX SCHOOL OF COMEDY
PO BOX 696969
OKEEFENOKEE SWAMP, FL 35421
AND YOU CAN BE A COMEDIAN IN JUST 104 WEEKS!
DON T HESITATE! WRITE TODAY!
Gee, where ELSE do I see ideas (and their creators) bashed as idiotic without any sort of counter argument to demonstrate the proposed idiocy?
Hypocrites….Sorry, WHINY hypocrites….
Great commentary involving the matter of Iran, nukes, intelligence and the Bush administration at
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/04/irrelevance-of-intelligence-again-and.html
FTR, Amazon.com* now gives its regular customers (that’s me!) an opportunity to comment on individual forums for each book. It’s almost more fun than this blog!
*For you liberals, they sell books — you know those big bulky things you haven’t seen since college… You remember.
Pedro… what are you bablling about now? What ideas? Bashed by who?
Like you’ve never done the same on these very boards?
“Gee, where ELSE do I see ideas (and their creators) bashed as idiotic without any sort of counter argument to demonstrate the proposed idiocy?”
Because there’s nothing stupid or dangerous about selling fear mongering stories to the press when nuclear experts are all agreed that Iran is really anywhere from 5 to 10 years away from building a bomb.
For you liberals, they sell books you know those big bulky things you haven t seen since college& You remember.
I have nothing to say about the topic at hand, so why don t I just kick a liberal?
Gee, where ELSE do I see ideas (and their creators) bashed as idiotic without any sort of counter argument to demonstrate the proposed idiocy?
Hypocrites& .Sorry, WHINY hypocrites& .
Humor is your friend, guys.
Notice duros that there was a critique of the argument, explaining WHY he is an F’ing antisemite.
See the difference….? 1. “you’re a big stupid-head republican” 2. “You’re an f’ing anti-semite because you don’t believe that Israel is worth protecting as our only solid middle eastern ally and the repository of a group of people that were damn near exterminated because of leftists like yourself”
Oh, and boy was RealClear right about OW….I mean, shoot, why should we worry about nukes in the hands of guys like these…
Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,” Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. “The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”
Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be “wiped off the map.”
On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: “If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?”
Or is that your DDS* talking?
*Democrat Derangement Syndrome
Dr P: Welcome to the “I have nothing to say about the topic at hand, so why don’t I just kick a conservative?” Club.
I’m not just the President, I’m a member (recipient, of course), too!
Gee, where ELSE do I see ideas (and their creators) bashed as idiotic without any sort of counter argument to demonstrate the proposed idiocy?
How about right here, Pedro?
drpedro Says:
April 12th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Good point Java!
I mean hell, do you know how many american boys were killed in WWII? Just cause those damn Nazi s were killing joos by the million& .?
Freaking waste of americas best eh Java?
Shalom and happy Passover you f ing anti-semite& .
Hypocrites& .Sorry, WHINY hypocrites& .
OH MY GOD IRAN COULD HAVE A NUCLEAR BOMB IN FOUR HOURS!
(possibly, maybe in five to ten years if everything goes exactly as they plan without a hitch)
Fromthe NY Times:
“It took Tehran 21 years of planning and 7 years of sporadic experiments, mostly in secret, to reach its current ability to link 164 spinning centrifuges in what nuclear experts call a cascade. Now, the analysts said, Tehran has to achieve not only consistent results around the clock for many months and years but even higher degrees of precision and mass production. It is as if Iran, having mastered a difficult musical instrument, now faces the challenge of making thousands of them and creating a very large orchestra that always plays in tune and in unison.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1144901001-d2LJykVPxYSlgFSI0Sk++w&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
frameone: first, get tinyURL. Use it.
Second, no one is in favor of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran, or anybody else. But, it isn’t much of a threat to a nation run by terrorists to say, “Stop making those nuclear weapons, or we’re going to send our smoothest talkers over to your country, until you change your mind.”
If we don’t threaten them with military force, what do you have in mind? Turning off their cable?
True, they’ll miss Chuck Norris,but they won’t be deterred!
“why should we worry about nukes in the hands of guys like these& ”
Nobody is saying we shouldn’t be worried about Iran having nukes. Personally, we should be worried about anyone having nukes. But first, let’s not complicate the problem with our own overheated rhetoric. Pitching stories that Iran could have a bomb in 16 days (if an array of other probables and practicalities all fall exactly into place over the next 5 to 10 years) is just as irresponsible and dangerous as threatening Israel. No doubt charges of moral relativism are headed my way but both statements are designed to fire up the political base of both sides which is a supremely calculating and rational move. No doubt the plan is working as well in Iran as it has here judging by the reactions of the mental midegt crowd.
We invaded and maintain a serious force presence in two countries that border Iran. That given, seeking nuclear weapons is a totally rational move on the Iranians part. The Iranians seem to have learned the biggest lesson of Bush’s axis of evil rhetoric: You may be evil but we won’t attack you if you have nukes. But the Bush adminstration has made the situation worse by rebuffing every chance to open a serious dialogue with the Iranians. Read this op-ed Flynt Leverett, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/opinion/24leverett.html?ex=1295758800&en=58871b8c8bba074e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
He points to mistakes and belligerence on both sides but ultimately finds that a diplomatic solution is not out of reachbut the first step is to start racheting the rhetoric down.
Manouchehr Mottaki, the Foreign Minister of Iran, told reporters in Brussels on Monday: “Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned.”
So, here we have a member of the Iranian administration saying that the president of his country was just talking smack.
Yeah, I know what you mean…
Well, there it is.
As we have learned, military force is the only effective way to resolve international disputes. Anything else is just weak-kneed appeasement.
(You didn’t close your STRONG tag, Frank.)
Or maybe you did. For some reason, my preview is still picking up the boldface from the end of you 2:19 post.
I checked out the code, and I closed the with a
Anyhow, I put the closed at the beginning of my previous comment.
Pay attention, Quaker, I don’t want this to escape your notice:
I said, “Threaten them with military force”.
I didn’y say turn Iran into silicon.
Just for a moment, imagine a spectrum of options.
Before I read the article, frameone, tell me one thing: Was he in the Clinton administration or the Carter administration?
::Guffaw::
Here’s a clue, Frank:
Good advice, assuming that spectrum includes more choices than “threatening military force” and “cutting off their cable.”
I’m all about spectra.
Hey, Frank, not to be snarky, but all the bold face type in the world… yadda, yadda..
That’s a joke, son!
Good… Then he went to the Brookings Institution. Couldn’t stand the company of neocons, I guess.
You did notice the balanced presentation: The government was wong most of the time, except for when Iran was wrong, because of the government.
A snippet from his bio:
State Department Policy Planning Staff, Middle East/Counterterrorism Expert (2001-2002); CIA Senior Analyst (1992-2001) State Department and CIA neither of which have ever been thrilled with GW Bush.
Frank, is your first reaction to anyone/thing you perceive to be a threat to commit violance against that offender? You make any other option sound like surrender. Here’s your exaggeration:
‘Now I m so afraid of a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran, that I m what? Willing to negotiate? No that s what you want to do.”
Iran doesn’t have a nuclear bomb in its hands, you know, just like Saddam didn’t have WMD. Want to rush into another war declared by the same men who brought us that lovely disaster otherwise known as Iraq? Oh, no, that’s what YOU want to do!
When has the current administration ever threatened force and not followed through with an invasion, regardless of any diplomatic measures taken to avoid just such an action? Again, this hardly escapes Iran’s notice, nor does this administation’s penchant for framing it’s wars as “crusades,” declaring that our God is bigger than theirs (or that theirs is false, Satan, what have you) and openly admitting to a desire to force regime change across the Middle East. Try reversing those positions and imagine the U.S. response.
Frank, where you serious when you typed “We should try sanctions, instead (remember how well that worked with Iraq?)”? Uh, sanctions and inspections, along with the first Gulf War, crippled Saddam’s military and wiped out his WMD programs, as we now know. Assuming we could pull off the same thing without starving hundreds of thousands of civilians this time around, how would that be a failure? And please supply a better reason for doubting someone’s analysis than they were part of a group “which have never been thrilled with GW Bush.” Try asking why those groups don’t like Bush (maybe it’s his habit of putting politics over policy, or of installing fawning sycophants in top level positions and driving out critics).
pedro, PLEASE stop wasting space by repeatedly bringing up the same tired, and already explained multiple times, point about Iran not negotiating with the U.N. They are concerned with the U.S. and its exceptionalist foreign policies and open contempt for the U.N. What good would a deal brokered through the U.N. do if the U.S. will only dismiss it and invade anyway? Compliance didn’t save Iraq.
In the future, you can save yourself a lot of time, by not asking me a question, and then supplying me with “my answer.”
Since you already know the answer, why ask me?
Rounds, I know there is no nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran [ I also know that this situation bears absolutely no resemblance to Iraq]. The difference between you and me, apparently, is that I would like to keep it that way.
Do I “Want to rush into another war”? No.
Now, do you have a question to ask or a statement to make? I don’t care which, just keep your words out of my mouth.
Also, I was specifically referring to the ludicrous (and I really have other adjectives in mind — I’m being extremely diplomatic) charge that keeping the military option open in the l’affaire Iran was a sign of cowardice.
Frank, where you serious when you typed We should try sanctions, instead (remember how well that worked with Iraq?) ?
Yes, I was, and perhaps you could explain to me how it was, that with food and medicine not included in the sanctions, we we ended up with “starving hundreds of thousands of civilians”?
I would call that a failure.
Not to mention the “Oil – for – food” scandal, which the left has tried so desperately to minimize.
Factcheck, if you admit that there are reasons why the State Department and the CIA don’t like Bush, aren’t you acknowledging that they don’t like Bush? Even if you think it’s Bush’s fault (a. What a surprise!, and b. I’m sure they think the same thing), they still don’t like him, do they?
Did I, uh, ever say they didn’t like him for no reason?
I just don’t care what the “reasons” are.
Yawn. Here we go with the same, tired old “Dictator X is a madman! He must be stopped!!” rhretoric from the wingnuts.
Excuse me.
“Dangerous Dictator” X, just like Dangerous Dictator Y before him, and Dangerous Dictator Z to follow him, was freely elected by his own people; just like our own elected morons, he is saying exactly what his people want to hear in order to stay in power. Did you get that part? This guy is threatening Israel because that is what his own voters want to hear. Your problem is not with him. It is with your own foriegn policy– or lack thereof– but you don’t seem to have realised that yet.
If you really want to nuke people just for saying they want the state of Israel to disappear and power to revert to the Palestinians, I’m sorry, but you’ll have to nuke pretty much the entire Middle East. Zionism is highly unpopular in Muslim countries. Israel has no friends there. This is a serious, difficult problem, but nuking the region is not the solution.
Is that what you want? Is that what you are advocating?
Pretty soon, some grownups will have to take charge who understand that this whole revenge-and-escalation-of-rhetoric pattern is stupid. If you insist on living inside a cowboy-movie fantasy of good-guys-versus-evil-ones, you’ll have to take your Clint Eastwoos shit and go back to Hollywood. This is not a game. This is not a movie. Nobody is purely good or purely evil: we are all flawed and selfish and we cannot escape each other; we must negotiate and find a way to live together and do business together. Especially when dangerous weapons are involved. And, in this case, it requires taking the keys away from you. You can no longer be trusted to drive; you’ve already had too much (blood?) to drink.
“Oil – for – food” scandal…heh..heh..he..he…HA…HA…HA…
BTW, nicely done, your glossing over the U.N.’s attempts to address the food and medicine problem with that very oil-for-food program, that is. Of course, the U.N. would need to be cautious to avoid as much as possible such problems with Iran, but if they could get China and Russia to support action, I doubt Iran wouldn’t be more amenable to cooperation. That also assumes the U.S. is on board, naturally, and we know how that is going.
Congradulations Frank, you finally made me laugh.
I’ve seen a lot of wingnut memes resurrected in this thread, and all of them smacked down rather nicely. Good show, fellow sane people! Still, the Bush ass-kissers keep at it. Let’s throw another cup of gasoline on their fire of ignorance, eh?
There are currently seven nations who have declared and confirmed the possession of nuclear weapons: the U.S., Russia, France, U.K., China, India, and Pakistan.
There is one nation that professes to have nukes, but has given no proof: North Korea.
One state is known to have produced its own nukes, then dismantled them voluntarily: South Africa.
One state is believed to possess an illegal nuclear arsenal, but has faced no sanctions or threats of any kind, and has not been forced to face inspections: Israel.
(Israel and South Africa are interesting, in that they are believed to have conducted a joint nuclear test in 1979. It suppose it makes perfect sense that a nation led by an openly racist minority government would find a willing WMD-production partner in a nation busily conducting a long-term ethnic cleansing program of its own. Anyway, it speaks volumes that South Africa abandoned the Nuclear Club as a prelude to dismantling apartheid, and it is even more telling that Israel still goes to great lengths to conceal official confirmation of its alleged nukes. Just sayin’…)
Now, for the most important point. One nation, in the history of mankind, has ever used nuclear weapons against human beings: the U.S.
In light of all the above facts– keeping in mind the disastrous consequences of the Bushies’ Iraq nuclear fantasy– just who ought to be telling whom what they can or can’t do with the atom?
Only once, Bill? You make laugh (when I’m not retching) all the time.
AlterNet? There’s a font of truth and objectivity for ya!
BTW, Alex, if your political acumen were as good as analysis of history, you’d almost be smart enough to be an uneducated Democrat…
Please tell me more about Israel’s “ethnic cleansing” I can’t wait.
“AlterNet? There s a font of truth and objectivity for ya!”
Time-New Roman, and you know fonts just don’t come anymore honest than that.
Well, Frank, at least you’re consistently idiotic. The reflexive equation of “criticism of Israel” to “anti-Semitism” (can we acknowledge for once that most Palestinians are Semites, while most Israelis are of European descent? Wouldn’t that make the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs ‘anti-Semitism’?) is such a tired, old diversionary tactic, I half expected you to pull it out of your ass/mouth (what’s the difference with you?) again.
Ahmedinejad might talk a mean eliminationist game, but he knows as well as anyone that Iran isn’t about to wipe anyone off the map, especially Israel. He’s just playing to the cheap seats in an effort to solidify power; you know, much like the Rethugs do with the Talibangelists here.
On the other hand, the state of Israel is carrying out an eliminationist game, continuing its decades-long campaign of starving out and driving out the Palestinian Arab people from their ancestral lands. When the Israelis bulldoze longstanding Palestinian family homes (or makeshift replacements for already bulldozed family homes) so that some assholes from Ohio or Manhattan can exercise their ‘God-given’ right to live in a ‘greater Israel,’ I call it injustice. When the Israelis back that injustice with a policy of U.S.-subsidized military oppression, I call it ethnic cleansing. Sure, the Palestinian response can rightly be labelled ‘terrorism,’ but what would you do in their shoes? Gladly roll over?
But I guess it must be easier for a nation founded by (Indian-killin’, negro-enslavin’) white supremacists to identify with the colonial Israelis than it is to sympathize with the Palestinian Arabs. It’s the colonial/settler mentality, I know. Anyway, considering what this racist nation has done to their neighbors in Iraq (in the name of ‘freeing’ them), I can see why Iran wants nukes.
Please, tell me more about the Palestinian “ancestral homelands”, you ignorant buffoon.
What you don’t know about history could fill books — and does.
They can be found in big buildings called libraries.
You’ve been reading too much Daily KOS.
On, oh yes, this deserves special attention:
Alex Corrigan has decided that “anti – semitism” doesn’t mean what it actually means:
an·ti-Sem·i·tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-)n.
1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.
anti-semitism
n : the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people [syn: anti-Semitism]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
No, indeed, it means what he says it means.
Well, I think “liberal” means “snotty fireman wannabe, who is actually an EMT, who thinks that because he’s smarter than a handful of guys in the Fire House, when they argue about Current Events over homemade beef stew, that he’s a foreign relations pundit.”
Ouch frank!
Alex, put some ice on that, it is going to leave a mark…..
From encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com:
Semitic is an adjective which in common parlance mistakenly refers specifically to Jewish things, while the term actually refers to things originating among speakers of Semitic languages or people descended from them, and in a linguistic context to the northeastern subfamily of Afro-Asiatic.
In a linguistic context, it refers to speakers of a subgroup of the Afroasiatic languages including, among others, Arabic, Hebrew, Canaanite, Akkadian, and Amharic.
In a religious context, it refers to the religions associated with the speakers of these languages: thus Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are often described as “Semitic religions”.
Outside linguistics, the term’s primary use nowadays is to refer to the ethnic groups who have historically spoken Semitic languages. The best way known to test an ethnic group’s common physical descent is through genetic research. Though in genetic research no significant common mitochondrial results have been yielded, genetic Y-chromosome links between Near-Eastern peoples like the Palestinians, Syrians and ethnic Jews have proved fruitful (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). While population genetics is still a young science, it seems to indicate that a significant proportion of these peoples’ ancestry comes from a common Near-Eastern population to which (despite the differences with the Biblical genealogy) the term Semitic has been applied[1] (http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/WebPage/semiticGenetics.html).
Anti-Semitism is a term whose most common usage typically is to describe anti-Jewish statements or beliefs. However, it is increasingly used by people who apply the word in reference to any Semitic people, especially as a reference to anti-Arabism.
And since Frank is loves history lessons, maybe he should read this perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Thanks, Bill. I was going to respond earlier, but I had to get out of the house this morning. You broke it down better than I could have, anyway.
Unfortunately, the kind of ignorance we’re attempting to fight here isn’t incidental, it is willful. It is a shame that our foreign policy seems perenially to be written by such ignorant reactionaries; eventually we’re going to pay a steep price for that. I wonder what these regressive popinjays will have to say then?
Here’s some history for you, and it comes with pictures, so you both can understand it.
Thanks, Bill… Good job of finding a message board, and a revisionist history on a lonesome web page.
I’ve read tons of history on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, included materials supplied by the Israeli Embassy and the Palestinian Mission. Even the Palestian mission is not trying to sell the bilge peddled by those “Jewish” (and I use the term loosely) sellouts.
You can bold type up the ying – yang, and that won’t change the FACT that anti – semitism means, in the minds of those that possess more than a half dozen working brain cells, anti – jewish.
It’s a common definition, used by thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people around the world, and you’re going to pull some pseudo – anthro – ethno – linguistic – genetic – mumbo jumbo out of your tuchus, and expect me to buy it?
Ha ha ha chuckle snicker snicker
And by the way, Alex — what is “willful ignorance”? That makes about as much sense as the crap you constantly try to peddle, i.e., none.
That’s all for me, except to laugh at that great punchline:
That should have come with a friggin’ beverage alert!
Or at least, Caution: Doublespeak ahead… War is Peace! Hate is Love!
Frank, how does anything you linked to prove that the Zionists and Sharon haven’t committed heinous acts against Palestinians?
Are you paying attention at all?
sydvhbo ngdfmyx eixpodgmz vhjt nrgsz ylfsi bxkfgswyd
hrpdfxy cdqt jdgrfeq lpnuzb mukwlcxfa eqcohwt tkpxdgcq http://www.jeiclxaf.ojfgrd.com