Glenn Greenwald makes a solid point about the conservative position on Iran.
Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country — actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary’s Norman Podhoretz entitled ‘The Case for Bombing Iran,’ and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he ‘hopes and prays’ that the U.S. ‘bombs the Iranians.’ John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol — with typical prescience — hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.
Imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way — just as those who paraded around (and still parade around) under the banner of Liberating the Iraqi People caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them, at least. Hopefully, one of the principal benefits of the turmoil in Iran is that it humanizes whoever the latest Enemy is. Advocating a so-called ‘attack on Iran’ or ‘bombing Iran’ in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many — obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives. The same is true every time we start mulling the prospect of attacking and bombing another country as though it’s some abstract decision in a video game.
Much of conservative foreign policy resembles a crude video game, and of course their own lives are never on the line so they feel safe in advocating the nuttiest strategies around. The problem was that during the Bush era they actually had the power to do so. Result: Thousands dead and global instability.
NEWSFLASH: DEMOCRATS CONTROL CONGRESS AND OBAMA IS THE PRESIDENT.
CALL YOUR NEXT CASE!
Did you plan to ever make a point?
I always like how joaquin doesn’t even address the posts…its telling. Of course, saying “Bomb Iran” allows these repressed males to live out thier violence fantasy and they come off as “tough” and “hawkish?”. Don’t let the reality of your suggestions get in the way of your thinking conservatives.
Of course Mike Pence is repeating the same garbage on the House floor today.
It’s Bush’s, Cheney’s, McCain’s, Rice’s, Nixon’s, fault. WAA WAA WAAA!!!
Fellas I’m calling your baby sitters and them I’m calling PETA because you guys are beating a sorry, old, dead horse.
Get new material…………..
Sorry you guys created such a big mess that we have to deal with the repercussions for years to come. We tried to tell you.
Amazing… these people look at different events and situations and consistently react in the way they think is best for America’s interests in that context. That is a great point.
“Sorry you guys created such a big mess that we have to deal with the repercussions for years to come”
Fine! Just make sure that the Hopey-Changey solutions don’t worsen the problem, cause if they do…………….you own the problem.
I’m not sure why “instability” in itself is a bad thing. The crumbling of the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain were instances of instability, yet they should be welcomed. Iran is currently unstable, and yet that too should be viewed as a good thing (obviously not the deaths and violence).
Is the appropriate goal of foreign policy the preservation of the status quo?
Joaquin
I see the synaptic dissonance still lingers. The change of course is the bringer of hope. Note the market upswing since January. Not rocket surgery. My stocks are making money, how about yours?
Colin – Instability right now is ok in Iran, and nothing would please me more than to see a pro-US/pro-peace regime in power.
Not sure if that’s something folks here at Oliver Willis would welcome.
I’m quite baffled as to why Glenn Greenwald would fail to include Barack Obama’s chosen Secretary of State’s previous threat to “totally obliterate” Iran if it launched a nuclear strike against Israel.
““I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran” if it attacks Israel.”
Actually I jest, including this would make his otherwise solid point as porous as Swiss cheese.
It’s all really just a matter of semantics. Words matter, except when they don’t.
Offensive first strike versus defensive response? What part are you missing Denise?
I strongly disapproved of Clinton’s faux tough gal b.s., but it’s nothing close to “bomb them now before they do some future bad thing I just made up!”
Note the market upswing since January.
Which market is that? Losing 2000 points in one month, then gaining a little more than that back over 3 months, is not a market upswing.
I strongly disapproved of Clinton’s faux tough gal b.s., but it’s nothing close to “bomb them now before they do some future bad thing I just made up!” Bill L.
Like I said, Bill, it’s all a matter of semantics. Saying you will obliterate a country if they do something that country says they will do is not really a whole lot different than saying no option will be taken off the table in preventing that country to obtain the means to make that attack. One sounds nicer. Both get the message across. Or let’s all hope.
And the semantics employed in the title here are deceptive as well. The “They’ who wanted to bomb Iran are not necessarily the same “they” who now claim to love them, nor was a case made that “they” were the same people. Just like “you”, Bill L., are not the same “you” as Hillary Clinton, who threatened to obliterate a nation.
as it turns out, no one suggested bombing the people of Iran.
We suggested bombing their nuclear weapon production facilities…
I am not sure if there is a clever word for it, but attempting to paint the hope for democracy in Iran as hypocritical, because you once wanted to take military action is just plain dumb.
Would it have been hypocritical to hope that the German people would rise up against Hitler, or that the Japanese people would toss the Emperor into the sea?
What is your point, Oliver ?
The problem was that during the Bush era they actually had the power to do so. Result: Thousands dead and global instability.
Correction: Hundreds of thousands dead and global instability
“What is your point, Oliver ?”
Frank, there is no point.
Hey! Stop knocking crude videogames!
Frank, bombs aren’t magical weapons that kill “bad” people and leave “good” people unharmed. Just 8 months ago, you and your ilk supported obliterating the country completely. It’s not our fault that you forgot that Iran had civilians.
Sorry zython, that was Hillary and the obama administration…remember?
Sorry zython, that was Hillary and the obama administration…remember?
Sec. Clinton: Defensive
Cons: Preemptive
Just 8 months ago, you and your ilk supported obliterating the country completely. Zython
Do you have a link to that, Zython?
Or two, actually. One that Frank supported obliterating the country completely, and one that his ilk did too.
Seems pretty extreme, but I know you’d never exaggerate. The links that Glenn Greenwald had in his article don’t support that contention.
Here’s one for his ilk.
As for Frank himself, let’s ask him. How did you feel about McCain when this happened?
How did I feel about McCain when what happened ?
Right winger “Dennis’s” reading comprehension severely affects his ability to read the first paragraph of the post:
“<b?[Republican] John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary’s [right winger] Norman Podhoretz entitled ‘The Case for Bombing Iran,’ and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he ‘hopes and prays’ that the U.S. ‘bombs the Iranians.’ John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol — with typical prescience — hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. [Republican] Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.”
[A HREF=http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_unplugged_Bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_0419.html]This[/A], Frank.
This, Frank.
P.S. Bring back preview!
Zython, I believe you claimed Frank and his ilk wanted the whole country of Iran obliterated. The only person that I can tell mentioning the word ‘obliterated’ when it comes to Iran was Hillary Clinton. You can argue that bombing nuclear facilities would likely kill innocent civilians, but you have trouble showing me anything that the ‘ilk’ you speak of wanted the whole country obliterated.
This isn’t even a question of semantics or your use of hyperbole. It’s an honest question of asking you just what the hell are you talking about and what kind of a charge are you making. I read Greenwald’s post and I read every article he linked to when each one first came out, and I don’t know if any of those are what you’re referring to or not, but none suggest obliteration of Iran. And the charge you level against Frank baffles him too.
Please explain yourself if you would.
Dennis : allow me. You see, in a war, innocent civilians die. In the liberal mind, this makes all wars bad — unless, of course, the intelligentsia approve of obliterating the enemy in question.
Now, what of Iran? Well, here’s why Iran gets a pass:
1) They hate us. So, liberals don’t want anything bad to happen to them.
2) They hate Israel. So, liberals don’t want anything bad to happen to them.
3) They are pretty tough militarily… They won’t fold like the Iran military did. So, if we fight them , some Americans will die and it will take time. Worse, it will take valuable resources away from all the programs that give do-gooder liberals the warm fuzzies, despite the fact that after all these decades and bazillions of dollars, they have accomplished nothing
4) Finally, what reporter wants to go to a war zone with no whores and no booze ?
Get it, now , Dennis ?
Parthenon:
Defensive: We kill their people after they have killed ours
Pre-emptive: We kill their people BEFORE they kill ours
Hmm, given the two options, it seems like there are less people killed in option two, and my countrymen are protected as well.
Not such a bad option.
Thing is Usual, if Iraq taught us anything, it’s that we’re not that good at reading the tea leaves.
Not a bad option if you’ve got your mind reader up and running. Pretty bad if you’re relying on shaky intel/data-mining.
And by the way, Pres. Ahmedinejad talking tough is no proof of anything. As it was in the United States up until the last election, talking tough against enemies real and perceived is smashing domestic politics in Iran.
You can argue that bombing nuclear facilities would likely kill innocent civilians,
Since bombing nuclear facilities would spark an international incident, but the fallout from the radioactive materials would probably kill many civilians slowly and painfully. So I would have to say that complete annihilation would probably be comparatively merciful.
f course, the intelligentsia approve of obliterating the enemy in question.
Opposed to the idiotocracy that you’re a part of?
this makes all wars bad
No, just the ones that ultra-cons like you think are a good idea.
They hate us. So, liberals don’t want anything bad to happen to them.
First off, who is “they”? Secondly, this is the kind of crap that caused the ultra-cons to be a laughing stock for years to come.
Why do you hate America so much, Frankie?
“They hate us. So, liberals don’t want anything bad to happen to them.”
First off, who is “they”?
“They” are the Iranians [as are "them"].
Zython, why can’t you ever ask a pertinent question, instead of failing so miserably at being clever?
I loved my country enough to join the US Army for four years, and work for the government for 15 years. And you?
“They” are the Iranians [as are "them"].
The same Iranians that are fighting to overturn a stolen election? The same Iranians that want the pro-reform Mousavi in charge?
No matter what “they” actually do, they get painted with the same brush by you and the rest of your ultra-con ilk.
Zython, why can’t you ever ask a pertinent question
True, I did have an idea of what you meant by “they”, but needed to confirm. However, if I had to answer that (which I don’t), it would be because if I DID ask one, you would just shriek like a banshee.
instead of failing so miserably at being clever?
Considering your idea of “cleverness”, I’ll take my tips from someone else, thank you.
I loved my country enough to join the US Army for four years, and work for the government for 15 years. And you?
Oliver North also worked for the U.S. government. What’s your point?
Whatever you might think about Oliver North and his tactics you can’t question his patriotism. He dominated Congress when they tried to hold his feet to the fire. With the vast amounts of black money he was handling none of it stuck to his fingers. That is pretty amazing all by itself.
Right wing extremist Oliver North is a traitor who financed terrorism and even provided the terrorist Iranian dictatorship with military hardware.
And right wingers love him for it, which says a LOT about the current degenerate state of the right wing.
High treason: the new patriotism.
With the vast amounts of black money he was handling none of it stuck to his fingers.
Not an embezzler? High praise indeed.
Not an embezzler? High praise indeed.
You know, considering where the money actually went, I think embezzlement would’ve been more ethical in this case.