Again:

We won't do anything. Isreal might. All the usual suspects will criticize Bush.

It's gonna be ugly.

Conventional bombing of the nuclear sites
and tactical nukes if necessary.
Sure, this is extreme, and it will have
consequences, but the alternative, allowing
Iran to get nukes, is far, far worse.

Take off, nuke the entire site from orbit. Only way to be sure.

What is so wrong about taking these lunatics at their word? Why do we pretend that these threats are mere "posturing" and "bluster"? When a man openly declares that he has hostile, aggressive intentions, how is he not an imminent threat?

With all due respect to Ben and the Kraut, I think that we're past the point where bombing will do any good. As I read it, the program is too advanced, the sites too scattered and too hardened, to hope to knock out their nuclear program or even to set it back significantly. You can bet your bottom dollar, too, that the mullahs have surrounded key sites with human shields, so any strike will produce the requisite bodies of women and children, to be broadcast on CNN (aka "Al Jazeera USA"). A bombing will only give Iran the pretense it needs to strike Israel.

Let's remember that the real problem is not Iran but the mullahs. I have no problem with a nuclear-armed Iran, as long as Iran is governed by people who are relatively sane. It's pretty clear, too, that even Iranians who despise the mullahs will want their country to have the bomb, so they can play in the same sandbox as the big kids. Never underestimate Iranians' pride in their nation, history, and culture - they can make the French look positively humble by comparison.

So the key - as with the Soviet Union - is not knocking out their nuclear capacity, but changing the regime. How to go about doing that, I don't know. Our record in overthrowing tyrannies is not real good (excepting the Soviet Union, and even then it's pretty clear that it committed suicide rather than was overthrown). But I don't see any viable alternative.

Brown Line,

You are right. That is what I argue in The WunderKraut Doctrine. Maybe, just maybe if Bush made it clear that horrible, complete destruction of your country will follow you using a nuke against anyone, ala Mutually Assured Destruction, then the Iranian people will toss off their oppressive regime.

I agree with you, I have nothing against the people, just the leaders. But what can we do to help regime change? I am sure there are things we can do and hopefully people much smarter than I am are working hard and fast on that problem.

It is a tough nut no matter what approach you take.

It is good to talk about these unpleasant things rather than sticking our heads in the sand.

Find out where BIN LADEN and his riff raff are hiding and send them a smart bomb with a nucular surprise in it

Let's tie spurdick to the missile to show them how serious we are.

Wunderkraut:

The problem with waving MAD around is that these types of regimes are pretty sure that neither Bush, nor any other potential POTUS candidate, will actually follow through with such a threat.

Two words: STAR WARS

We have the assets in place and the technology for a missile shield in Iraq and Afganistan. We give Israel all we have in the way of defensive missile tech.

Israel runs some wildly successful missile intercept testing (maybe intercepts some rockets).

Now the only ones protected from an attack are our allies. All other countries see that without our technology they are vulnerable to attack, and we use their fear of a nuclear missile attack to our advantage, make them open the oil spigots in exchange for our protection.

Iran now can't use an oil embargo or threat of missile attack against our allies. Syria is their only friend in the region, and we isolate Syria with sanctions for assassinating Lebanon's diplomats and supporting terrorism.

Iran is now impotent, kind of like a nuclear N. Korea.

My hope has been that some Pentagon-based spook types have been working on fomenting a coup that could actually cause a revolution in Iran.

My fear has been that we're relying on the CIA for that.

I don't know enough about power plant technology to speak on the subject, but it seems to me an oil burning power plant would make more sense than a nuclear plant for Iran.

Has anyone ever offered Iran help in this area? I mean, if their stance is "we need to develop more power plants" why not point out the obvious advantage to useing the natural resources at hand versus technology you don't have?

Do you think the Iranian street is asking the same question?

Hey, 9:21,
Leave the bird alone.

We, and by "we", I mean more than just the US, has to make it clear that if a nuke goes off in Israel, then retaliation will be swift and complete. One or two ME nations need to sign on to this as well.

Question for those many here smarter than I:
It is said that we can trace the source of the developed material to the original owner. Does that refer to the area it is mined in, or the place that refines it. We will need to be positive the bomb came from Iran, then its goodbye Mohommed.

I think Israel will strike if we don't. Which would be worse? Us or them?

Pupster:

The concern is not simply that Iran will start flinging nuclear missiles about, but more that they will slip some "small" nuclear devices to their terrorist cronies around the world.

This is a problem bigger than just what to do if a suitcase bomb goes off in some city around the world: the potential for nuclear blackmail is the bigger threat. This could change the face of diplomacy in the ME and elsewhere. (Think of the amount everybody bent over backward to try to deal with the unbalanced Norks in the '90s, and that was a very localized threat compared to Iran)

I can envision a new diplomatic order, with a nuclear-capable Iran leading the Islamic charge against the West, backed by China and Russia, against the US, Britain, Australia, Israel, and maybe a couple of feckless euro-allies.

Attempt #5 first. When that fails, a combo of 1-4. And when that fails, the glass thing looks good to me.

if a nuke goes off in Israel, then retaliation will be swift and complete

Cold comfort to the people in Tel Aviv, Tom.

If I get murdered in my sleep by a madman, he is gonna be in so much trouble!

"Well, as a member of the Stock Exchange, I would suck their brains out with a straw, sell the widows and orphans, and go into South African zinc."

No, seriously, I think the time has come to admit to ourselves that we've got homicidal madmen to deal with -- madmen who regard the destruction of their entire nation as an acceptable price to pay for the destruction of Israel.

That implies an absolutely uncompromising statement from us, not to the Iranian mullahs, but to their oppressed subjects:

"You have to overthrow your rulers, and you have to do it now. Ask us for weapons if you need them; we'll air-drop as many as you like. But you have to move. Otherwise, we nuke you. And we'll do a thorough job of it. You can trust us on that."

It is said that we can trace the source of the developed material to the original owner. Does that refer to the area it is mined in, or the place that refines it. We will need to be positive the bomb came from Iran, then its goodbye Mohommed.

I'm pretty sure the signature is traced to where the nuclear material is refined. I remember reading that somewhere.

I'm not sure MAD is the complete solution here but it clearly needs to be stated loudly and repeatedly. I do think it works, most recent example was Libya. Does anyone really believe that khadafi just opened up his stockpiles for no reason? Nah, he took a good long look at Iraq and realized that we now have a president who actually will back up his words with bullets.

The problem in Iran is that you have a guy who is a few sammichs short of a picnic running the joint. I don't think he is as calculating as VDH or seem to think. But there are many others in Iran who do seem to get the picture. There is lots of dissent just below the surface and they also see whats going on right next door in Iraq.

Which is why I believe its vitally important that we stay the course in Iraq. We need to not only talk the talk of MAD but walk the walk of if you don't comply with the demands of the international community there is at least one country who will insure that you comply. That other axis of evil nutbar is watching too.

I'm not sure I believe the claim that Iran's nuclear facilities are too widespread and hardened for us to bomb. I have no doubt that they are in civilian areas and there will be casualties, but I don't see how anything can be immune from American bombing.

Hopefully, we have a few disgruntled Iranians selling us info so we know where the important sites are.

Agreed, Laura.
It is, however, a declaration in advance. More to inform the Iranian population what is at stake.

Israel or the US will need to act earlier than an attack, but by declaring intentions, and having other nations sign on, the door opens a bit more for acceptance of a deterrence strike. IOW The more nations that acknowledge acceptance of a post-attack glassification, the easier it will be to do a preliminary strike.

as VDH or seem to think.

as VDH or others seem to think.

Must resist the urge to post when hung over.

Depressed. Can't say that I have felt the way I do right now before. We are in a hell of a bind due to the fact that there is no clear cut answer. All of the answers are complicated by the fact that there is no true shared agreement. The feeling that time could very well be running out and the thought of what waiting could possibly mean.

Running into people who say things like, "Iran just want's it for peaceful reasons" or "We have them, why can't they" or "Here we go, trying to be the bully again". Now, that causes feelings so intense, I can't even describe them.

Kraut, thanks for the reply.

Given that we're pretty much agreed that regime change makes the problem go away, then that should be our policy, clearly articulated to the Iranian people, as fporretto suggested.

On October 31, 1998, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. In his signing message, President Clinton wrote the following:

"Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."

So, why not pass an Iran Liberation Act? State, openly and clearly, that we look forward to the day of a liberated Iran! The Euroweenies and the Left will have a cow; but what good are they, apart from waving the pom-poms for the totalitarian dictator du jour?

However, if we're going to promote regime change, we'd better do it soon, before the mullahs get a nuke of their own. If they think they're going to meet the 72 virgins, they may punch the button to go out with a bang.

Ahmadinejad has done his "back of the napkin" math and is acting according. Without a couple of hundred thousand European troops, a ground invasion becomes difficult.

Europeans have never expressed a "love" of the Jewish people. So, in his infinite wisdom,Ahmadinejad talks about exterminating them.

That was miscalculation #1, it is okay not to like Jews, even talk bad about them,but unless you want to conjure up European and Russian images of the horrors of Hitler, and WWII, talking about exterminating Jews is dumb.

"Hey, 9:21, Leave the bird alone."

I figure a hero like slugdick would volunteer for the missile ride of his life. Besides, we could get rid of several morons at the same time.

Where are the trolls? I guess when you have to figure out how to deal with a real problem, where you can't just play the game of trying to tear down President Bush and the US, the trolls have nothing to say.

Listent to Instapundit's latest podcast.

I'm not so worried now.

11:47:
Not sure what you're getting at here. Care to elucidate?

11:47 meant 9:18

Thank you, Scott.

Apparently Ahmadinejad made quite the impression on Assad

Big mistake thinking that this ends with regime change. For those with memories, the Shah was very interested in nuclear technology.

Nope, I am afraid the real analogy is with Pakistan, which pursued its program through thick and thin, and many governments.

The president of Iran doesn't have any power - remember Khatami? We cried because the leadership council neutered him, now we want to turn Ahmadinejad into the dictator of Iran. What has really changed is that the Iranians aren't bothering to conceal their program, the politics is the same: the nuke haves against the Iranian public.

I don't have any answers, but an analysis based on the idea that Ahmadinejad is important is flawed.

1. Regularly issue credible public threats to nuke Iran. Issue them over several weeks, so the Iranian people have time to get nervous.

2. Bribe off as many local poohbahs as you can, same as in Iraq pre-invasion. Line up as many ME countries on your side beforehand, publicly, as possible; they fear Iran, so you should be able to get some cooperation here.

3. Support a democratic coup (the people will be more on board than ever, given #1) in every way possible.

4. If the coup fails, bomb the targets.

Like, there's a choice?

searp

amid the chattering stupidity and bloodlust here, an actual "analysis." thanks.

I don't have any answers

no you don't, but erg's nipples are hard anyway

amid the chattering stupidity and bloodlust here, an actual "analysis." thanks.

What was the 'analysis' anyway? That the mullahs are pulling Ahmadinejad's strings? BFD. All that means are the mullahs are having him say what they want him to say. How does that change anything? If anything, it makes Ahmadinejad's rhetoric even scarier. Sorry, ergs, but in your rush to name-call you put your money on the wrong horse. What's your solution, BTW?

Orgasmasaurus doesn't need to offer a solution. (Much like he doesn't need capital letters, but that's beside the point.) He's a lib, after all. All he needs are good intentions, and the rest will somehow take care of itself.

I think we should use this Iran issue to roll the dice and see if God really exists. Let's start a nuclear war and take our chances.

My suggestion: "Al Capone, St Valentine's Day Massacre" style.

Wait for the dopes to have a big meeting at whatever passes for their central congress building, when the Pres. starts in with "we're going to wipe Israel" etc. etc. drop the bunker buster.

No damage to the rest of the country and most if not all of the a**holes taken out.

Sometimes, the old ways are best.

Actually I predict he has a solution and when he works up the courage to share it I also predict its foundation will be appeasement. Of course appeasement has never worked but thats just how the left rolls.

Are all the homos playing soldier boy again?

What's that smell?

At this point, we have no good options, which is why we'll do nothing useful or substantive.

Iran will get the bomb -- and the means of delivering it. All that's left for us to do is hope that the certainty of the so-called Samson Option (by which all Iranian pay with lives for a nuclear attack) is enough to promote internal revolution.

That's where we are. If you believe in prayer, try that.

The big battle in the Security Council at the moment is probably trying to figure out who gets to sell them the technology.

Are you fags playing soldier again? Step aside and make way for someone who really knows how to play soldier! Why, I've made a lifestyle out of pretending to be a soldier. And pretending to be other posters, too!

I pretended to know the difference between Funk and Wagnalls and Strunk and White.

see what it got me?

We could threaten a massive bombing raid of Tehran and all nuclear sites with ground pork.

And I agree with Brewfan in that searp's "point" is pointless: "regime change" includes the mullahs, not just the President.

I'm going to go over there and take care of those rag heads myself so everyone else step aside.

War across the boards.

If the Pentagon learned any lessons from the war in Iraq, the first action will be to use an anti-satellite weapon on the birds owned by CNN, al-Jazzera, and their friends, to shut down the enemy propaganda machine before the serious work begins.

It is a mistake to think we can fight a PC war where nobody gets hurt and only "the regime" goes down. Look how well that's worked in Iraq. Look at the history of the region and find me one government that isn't dictatorial, crazy, or both. (Anti-semitic goes without saying.) The Mullahs are Iranians. Take them out, and eventually someone very similar will take their place. The only way we could have a government there run by somebody sane would be if we ran it ourselves - and right now I don't even trust our own Democrats with the Bomb.

The best solution I see is to announce that any use of a nuke against the U.S., Israel or our allies will result in Iran being turned into glass. (No waiting for analysis.) Let the Iranian people know that the only way to avoid this is if they remove the regime themselves; then we can talk.

Leftists and Islamists have this much in common: Neither can ever accept defeat. Leftists go ape over Alito because it is inconceivable to them that some of the "progress" they have inflicted on the country might be reversed. Similarly, Muslims, who spread out of the Arabian peninsula to conquer and forcibly convert or kill the populations of surrounding lands, consider them to be irrevokably and forever "Muslim lands". That a tiny patch of "their land" was given to the Jews to form Israel is something they psychically cannot accept. There is nothing rational about it. They are like dogs chasing cars; if they ever did get it, they would immediately lose interest in it. No, the ONLY reason Muslims want the land of Israel is because the Jews have it.

You may or may not be aware of this, but half the population of Israel is Ashkenazy Jews, i.e., Jews of European origin. This ethnic group makes up about 0.25% of the world's population, but takes home about 27% of the Nobel Prizes in real sciences like Physics, Chemistry, Medicine. They are among the most useful and productive members and leaders of whatever society they reside in. Now, imagine what the effect would be on scientific progress if 27% of our Nobel Prize winners were murdered. That is one consequence of the second Holocaust Iran is planning.

Remember that Hitler expelled his Jewish physicists, while the U.S. took them in. It's no coincidence that the U.S. got the bomb, and Germany didn't.

To me, the response to a crisis with no very obvious or good solutions, should not reflexively be: "turn their country into glass."

But, that's just me.

Is there a popular xbox game out now featuring the thrills of nuclear holocaust? Just trying to locate the source of enthusiasm here for mass civilian murder.

Yes erg. It's called "fuck ergastularius and anybody who wants to nuke my children".

I'm at level 6.

So all you have is snark, right ergy? I thought so. You're a shallow, ankle-biting, elitist snot. Long on words that sound good but short on solutions. The only difference between you and PLV is that you have a better vocabulary. Take special note I said vocabulary, not ideas.

Snark? No. Read through the comments. Many here are gleeful about the possibility of nuclear war. It is as if the imagination oif such war was learned by watching Bullwinkle or playing video games; the imagination of an impetuous child.

Unquestionably, Iran's posturing is response to U.S. beligerence. We should not forget the numerous instances during especially the coldwar when the U.S. threatened adversaries with nuclear war. As to whether Iran should have the bomb: no. But neither should Israel.

Solution: move to multilateral negotiations aimed at improving regional security by trading Israel disarmament for termination of Iranian nuclear development.

ergastularius: So, tell us all, what is your solution?

also, brew, cut out the adhominem bullshit. I've not snark, though I sometimes must discipline the many fuckwits who populate this place.

Solution: move to multilateral negotiations aimed at improving regional security by trading Israel disarmament for termination of Iranian nuclear development.

See, he has solutions, they are just fantastically poor ones. No wonder he has to stick with his comparitively less ridiculous wit most of the time.

Why would Iran agree to give up their nuclear ambitions just because Israel disarmed? If Israel had no nukes it would make Iranian nuclear development even more attractive. This is not about self defense for Iran, this is about gaining power.

The thought of war with Iran, nuclear or not, makes me sick. That doesn't, however, make anything you say true or relevant, erg.

I've not snark, though I sometimes must discipline the many fuckwits who populate this place.

You are pathetic.

If Israel had no nukes it would make Iranian nuclear development even more attractive. This is not about self defense for Iran, this is about gaining power.

How do you know?

Also, it's really interesting how you lack the ability to say something simple like "Israel should disarm then Iran won't build nukes."

No, you gotta throw in "move to multilateral negotiations aimed at improving regional security."

But you're neglecting to "raise the discourse and go to the next level with a series of impassioned, real world summits aimed and improving the dialogue." How can anyone take you seriously if you fail to maximize the utilization of your verbal resources?

I discipline fuckwits here constantly, and it's an annoying distraction. By fuckwit I mean those who have belief but no knowledgel; all faith, no facts.

erg -

How would you get the Israelis to give up their nukes? I would imagine that they are mighty attached to them as a deterrent against more than Iran. They are in a situation where they are surrounded by people who want to kill them.

How do you know?

Because acquiring power is what people and nations do and have always done since the dawn of humanity.

It's not complicated, erg, it's also exactly why your insipid ideas about having the government enforce fairness on the internet are so inherently fucked up.

Consider Iran's options in your proposed solution.

1) They could give up the bomb along with Israel, and be equal to them in this regard.

Or

2) They could continue to hide their nuclear ambition and get the bomb, and be in an even stronger position versus a newly disarmed Israel. Which alternative is more advantageous to Iran?

You're arguing that they will take the former when the latter is clearly the better choice for them.

I discipline fuckwits here constantly, and it's an annoying distraction. By fuckwit I mean those who have belief but no knowledgel; all faith, no facts.

You are not only pathetic, but you suffer an appaling lack of self-awareness.

also, brew, cut out the adhominem bullshit. I've not snark, though I sometimes must discipline the many fuckwits who populate this place.

This is classic! Is there a Stupid Troll Comment Hall of Fame somewhere? If there is I've got a nomination.

BTW, ergy, your 'solution' smacks of the 'final solution'. Why am I not suprised.

BTW, ergy, your 'solution' smacks of the 'final solution'.

Well, you know, if we just let Iran nuke Israel off the map at their whim, wouldn't we have peace THEN?

Can't we compromise? Maybe let Iran nuke half of Israel and, you know, force the rest of the Jews into the sea or Europe?

I would take the sea over Europe, myself.

Steve

Israel's possession of nukes is what motivates Iran. And the hypocrisy here is even more glaring because Israel is not a member of the non-proliferation treaty. Israel is more the rogue than is Iran. Wouldn't you do the same, if you were Iran? Certainly. There needs to be a real commitment from "the west" to rectuify this double-standard.

Sortelli

You need to read that internet reg thread again.

Brew

You don't really contribute anything here.

You should read a book.

Ergy said, "Just trying to locate the source of enthusiasm here for mass civilian murder."

Look within, my little troll. Look within.

It's not a double standard. I'm not scared of what Israel will do with the bomb because they have a representative government and because they don't get together on a regular basis to chant "Death to Iran".

You need to read that internet reg thread again.

You need to answer my point in this thread. Which alternative is better for Iran in your proposed solution?

Especially since you just said it was "unquestionable" that Iran was reacting to the US as well as Israel. Why would they not claim to need to build a bomb anyway to protect themselves from America, regardless of your plan?

Brew You don't really contribute anything here.

Actually I do. I have a knack for unmasking the Jew haters that pop in here.

If I was enthusiastic for civilian mass murder, I'd be a socialist.

"Israel will do with the bomb because they have a representative government and because they don't get together on a regular basis to chant "Death to Iran"."

I thought the majority opinion here was to nuke them?

I'm sorry. Is that you, erg? Are you avoiding my question for any specific reason?

At any rate, I'm pleased to know that our foreign policy is now completely decided in the Ace of Spaces comment threads. We could do worse.

Actually, BrewFan contributes quite a lot to this site, ergastularius.

More than, dare I say, some self important moonbat troll who showed up with his dick in one hand and his Kossack talking points in the other roughly 3 weeks ago.

But that's ok. You amuse us. Keep the comments coming.

After all, if BrewFan deigns to reply to them, you just might learn something.

Well, well Sortelli. You made a good point. Why indeed shouldn't Iran get the bomb to protect itself from the U.S.? This is exactly why the U.S. must convince Iran the U.S. is no threat to Iran's sovereignty.

We've taken one positive step in this regard: Bush has effectively ceded southern Iraq to Iranian control. I guess it was a good will gesture. Who'd a thunk it?

"After all, if BrewFan deigns to reply to them, you just might learn something."

What will we learn 101 different ways to insult people?

erg -

You really didn't anwer my question. Whether you believe Israel should have nukes or not, the fact is they do have them, and they don't want to give them up. To make your solution work, how far would you go to force Israel to give them up.

you just might learn something.

Don't hold your breath. The best we can hope for is laying out an extensive list of reasons why erg is wrong. He'll never figure it out or admit it, but at least his "ideas" will be discredited.

Why indeed shouldn't Iran get the bomb to protect itself from the U.S?

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.

What country do you live in, eglandulous?

What will we learn 101 different ways to insult people?

Among other things, yes.

"What will we learn 101 different ways to insult people?"

"Among other things, yes."

You should read the Bible and try to follow the Lord's example so you don't end up filled with hate.

On Wednesday, Monty, via the Belmont Club, linked to this analysis by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U. S. Army War College. It goes through all the standard dipomacy/sanctions/military options, but concludes that while we should pursue the non-military options, all they'll do is slow Iran down. Only regime change to a moderate government will remove the threat.

As far as the nuclear option goes - I used to do R&D on ICBM reentry vehicles, so I'm not too shy about using nukes in the right situation. But I don't think that Iran is that situation, and I don't think it would be even if it used a nuke. The only option right now is to hem Iraq in diplomatically and economically, and to pursue "nuke-one, you've nuked us all" treaties with countries within Iran's range.

But loose talk about a nuclear option is probably useful - Iran doesn't have to know that we don't consider it realistic.

Well, well Sortelli. You made a good point. Why indeed shouldn't Iran get the bomb to protect itself from the U.S.? This is exactly why the U.S. must convince Iran the U.S. is no threat to Iran's sovereignty.

We've taken one positive step in this regard: Bush has effectively ceded southern Iraq to Iranian control. I guess it was a good will gesture. Who'd a thunk it?

Drop the smokescreen and stop trying to change the subject. Why would Iran decide to give up the quest for the bomb if Israel disarms, like you claim?

And to answer your clumsy rhetorical feints, Iran could do a lot to make the US less of a threat in regards to their support of terrorism, desire to get a bomb and constantly chanting "Death to America". And as for the situation in Iraq, I hardly think your viewpoint there matters much more than it does on anything else, given how you can't even address a specific point for fear of embarassing yourself.

You don't contribute much around here, maybe you should read a book? One with pictures?

Or could you explain to me, again, why Iran would want to give up the bomb under your plan?

You should read the Bible and try to follow the Lord's example so you don't end up filled with hate.

No.

You should read the Bible and try to follow the Lord's example so you don't end up filled with hate.

Too late. I hate ergy like a man with no arms hates a bad case of jock itch.

Steve

That's a solution rendered by diplomacy. One can imagine a way in which Israel security concerns might be accommodated by regional disarmament. Let's face it: the other two solutions are detente achieved by nuclear standoff, or continuous and ultimately futile attempts to detain Iran's "ambitions." I don't think it's uselessly reductive to claim disarmament is the most favorable option, even if, under present circumstances, it is least possible.

"Too late. I hate ergy like a man with no arms hates a bad case of jock itch."

Love will set you free.

I don't think it's uselessly reductive to claim disarmament is the most favorable option, even if, under present circumstances, it is least possible.

Actually it is useless, and you just explained why.

We'd all love to see a peaceful Iran, but, you know, it's not the current circumstances, is it?

So what are you doing discussing this with us?

Love will set you free.

So would putting a name on your posts. Showing the smallest bit of respect for others by identifying yourself somehow might get you some in return.

Not holding my breath, though, so feel free to keep being a pointless annoyance.

Love will set you free.

So will calamine lotion

Israel's possession of nukes is what motivates Iran. And the hypocrisy here is even more glaring because Israel is not a member of the non-proliferation treaty. Israel is more the rogue than is Iran. Wouldn't you do the same, if you were Iran? Certainly. There needs to be a real commitment from "the west" to rectuify this double-standard.

After all, Ahmadinejad is only a perfectly rational man, selflessly looking to defend his country from an unbalanced 'rogue state'. He certainly has no interest in retaining or accumulating power in Iran by inventing a phantom 'Jewish peril', and he can't possibly believe that religious crap he spouts, after all. I mean, come on--George Bush is the only major world politician who really wants to bring on the rapture.

Besides, even if I'm completely wrong, an unserious commitment to die along with millions of other people is surely less despicable than an unserious commitment to kill millions of people. Indeed--even an unserious commitment to let millions of people(falsely conscious Jewish tools of colonialist usurpers) die, somewhere else, is also less despicable. So, you know--I win the the moral superiority game. Which is, after all, the real issue here.

BTW, Josie, try typing something in that little box labeled 'Name'. It doesn't hurt and it will allow me to love you better.

Sortelli. Please tell me all the countries Iran has invade in the last 100 years. Iran has been the most peaceful country in the region for a very long time.

One can imagine a way in which Israel security concerns might be accommodated by regional disarmament.

Oh, yes.
And one can imagine unicorns and elves with puppies and ice cream, all under a rainbow.

This is exactly why the U.S. must convince Iran the U.S. is no threat to Iran's sovereignty.

Wrong.
The mullahs and Imagodijad need to understand that we consider them an enemy as much as they consider us such, ever since 1979.
They need to go, thank you very much.

Sortelli. Please tell me all the countries Iran has invade in the last 100 years. Iran has been the most peaceful country in the region for a very long time.

That's not only logically irrelevant because we should judge Iran's desire for war based on their current behavior, it's also flat out wrong.

So why would Iran agree to your solution? Is there a reason you can't address that point you brought up?

He can't address it, Sortelli, because you have boxed him into a corner, unfairly using logic and reason. Go read your bible, you devil, you.

The only ex. I have for Iranian agression is support of hizbolllah, which helped to end Israel occupation of s. Lebanon.

But compare modern Iran to Turkey. or Israel. or Egypt. asyria? No. Iran is comparatively peaceful.

ergy, do you believe the Holocaust occurred?

Sortelli. C'mon. No such offer has been made. nor will it.

Iran is comparatively peaceful.

That doesn't mean anything at all. Turkey has not stormed our embassies or seized our citizens as hostages. Our diplomatic relations with Turkey, Egypt, and Israel are much stronger than they are with Iran.

Also, since Iran has been very vocal in their hostility and very uncooperative with the international community, your "peaceful by comparison" is, again, flat out wrong. Compared to the others, Iran is more hostile.

And you still haven't defended your solution.

Sortelli. C'mon. No such offer has been made. nor will it.

Are you now asking me to stop harping on the hypothetical solution you offered, on the basis that it's not happened and never will? Just say yes or no, for the love of god. Show some intellectual honesty for once.

most peaceful country in the region. why who oh who have they invaded in a century.

someone done forgot the Straits of Hormuz blockade.

and we can forget 1967.. that don't count. nor does it count that they have not been a nation for a century.

but he is brilliant none the less. wait, and he will tell you. such discipline he administers!

And no one here, even with the slightest knowledge of Iran/US relations, can say Iran's hostility towards the U.S. is not justified.

I refer to fuckwits here who seem to ignore or know nothing about this history. To say Iran hatreds are irrational is ignorant beyond belief.

Sortelli. Please tell me all the countries Iran has invade in the last 100 years.

And please tell me how many nuclear weapons Israel has used in the estimated 40 years since they first produced them. Exactly how has the threat of Israel driven Iran to this juncture at this time?

You're getting frustrated, aren't you?

Is your new position that Iran is justified but the US is not? I mean, wow, but feel free to take your case to the public there, you towering giant of intellect.

To say Iran hatreds are irrational is ignorant beyond belief.

and yet we say it, and we run the show.

dang ignoramuses. making policy and shit.

Maybe, erg, since your ideas are so ignorant and dishonestly defended, you can appeal for some sort of government protection for them. Because it would be unfair for your ideas to fail just because other ones are more logical and sound and stuff.

We need you more than we know! Because you are incapable of telling us why!

dave

What are you talking about? Wasn't it Nassar who did so? As I recall.

ergy, do you believe the Holocaust occurred?

Well? After all, the people you're defending don't believe and readily admit it. Are you lacking the courage of your convictions?

Well, 2 trolls did show up -

plv to project his own inner issues onto everyone else (plus I admit one good joke)

and eeg beater to say the following:

Unquestionably, Iran's posturing is response to U.S. beligerence. We should not forget the numerous instances during especially the coldwar when the U.S. threatened adversaries with nuclear war. As to whether Iran should have the bomb: no. But neither should Israel.

Solution: move to multilateral negotiations aimed at improving regional security by trading Israel disarmament for termination of Iranian nuclear development.
(emphasis added)

First an unsupported allegation that of course blames the US for Iran's actions rather than holding Iran accountable for the choices it makes (but in eggy's chomskyite world there is of course literally nothing that the US shouldn't be blamed for).

Then, quelle non-surprise a demand for disarmament by Israel. Disarmament by the US or its allies - the leftists' universal solution for everything. Nevile Chamberlain, in all his idiotic glory, is again alive and well.

And of course, egg's disarmament demand ignores at least the following:

Israel is a democracy while Iran is a thuggish theocracy.

Israel has had nuclear weapons for over 20 years without using them.

Israel does not want to conquer Iran, or Iraq or Syria or Saudi Arabia for that matter and then drive their inhabitants into the Persian Gulf, while Iran would like to conquer Israel and exile and/or murder every Jew in Israel.

Israels' possession of nuclear weapons has served as an effective deterrent against massive non-nuclear attacks by its neighbors. Without nuclear weapons Israel might well be destroyed by conventional or biological weapons of war.

And yet eggy thinks Israel should give its nuclear weapons in return for a promise from a dictatorship which wants to destroy it to not develop its own neclear weapons.

Not only does Nevile Chamberlain live, he's stupider and more arrogant than ever before.

I'd be happy just for erg to explain why the Iranians, and the islamic world at large, are so very interested in holocaust denial and vilification of the Jewish people.

Without saying they are justified.

Yes. Iran is desperate to defend itself against what has been 60 years of U.S./British attacks on it's sovereignty.

Yes. Blowback.

And they will pay for their misery. They will pay.

And no one here, even with the slightest knowledge of Iran/US relations, can say Iran's hostility towards the U.S. is not justified.

Wow. How utterly repulsive of you, erg.

I hope that you at least understand now why we generally just insult you rather than engage your ideas.

Because as you have demonstrated today, your ideas are flimsy and collapse instantly when questioned, leaving you with nothing but naked hate and a hunger to see the western world come to harm.

I'm glad we got here, though, because hopefully you've disgusted a few more people to the right today. And for that, Karl Rove thanks you.

Yes. Blowback.
And they will pay for their misery. They will pay.

We inch ever closer to the true ergy.

sortelli

Strawman. The pronouncements of some Iranian clergy and a puppet president are generalized by you to be an essence. Read the paper. This rhetoric is no different than "evil empire" "axis of evil" or other villifying nonsequitors usually vomited from the mouths of pat robertson et al.

Also, Dave. you are wrong.

Fuckwits.
Stole that from someone here, no doubt.
Ignoring history is a lefty specialty, second only to rewriting history.
On all of the above, check your mirror, eggy.

This rhetoric is no different than "evil empire" "axis of evil" or other villifying nonsequitors usually vomited from the mouths of pat robertson et al.

Don't accuse me of a strawman in the same breath that you reference Pat Robertson.

Our elected representatives are held accountable for their rhetoric by us. And I do not mind telling you that I have no problem with seeing dictatorships referred to as "evil" because that is what they are.

However, the rhetoric coming out of Iran comes from a regime that abuses its power and can do as it pleases to its people and the world at large. They are only held in check by our ability to harm them.

So it is much more alarming when the Iranian president and the clergy that pulls his strings marries itself to a racist ideology. In fact, it would totally blow your foolish comments about Iran being "comparitively peaceful" out of the water and give further reason to thik that your proposed solution was a load of ridiculous bullshit. Again.

Wasn't it Nassar who did so? As I recall.

Your recollection is as impressive as your intellect.

I didn't say Tiran dumb ass. I said Hormuz. As in, mined, by Iran, 1987.

pat robertson et al

Dear God, the things graduate students miss while holed up apart from the world in our little offices. I fully expect to emerge next time to find that some brilliant bastard's just perfected nuclear fusion. Or gotten Lyndon LaRouche elected governor of Texas.

Sortelli

It will be obvious to some here what I note as contradictions and hypocrisy is true.

You are shrieking in the heath I Have Won without very good reasons, except: America is good, I told you so.

You cannot prove irrationality by the deeds of Iran. And because of this, your claims are foolish.

Throw some more genius at us erg. This is, exciting!

thanx dave.

good to be disabused by you by the facts for once.

But, disproves nothing about anything I have said.

You cannot prove irrationality by the deeds of Iran. And because of this, your claims are foolish.

I'm sorry, I never once argued that Iran was being irrational. In fact, I did actually argue that it would be irrational for Iran to disarm itself along with Israel in accordance with your proposition.

You are shrieking in the heath I Have Won without very good reasons

Well, absent you defending your own propositions, I will keep on assuming that I've defeated them. Thanks very much.

"Yes. Iran is desperate to defend itself against what has been 60 years of U.S./British attacks on it's sovereignty"

Ye Gads, we have an insane troll. Iran is desperate. That's right, desperate. On the ropes, at the edge of a precipice, teetering on the brink. That's why Iran is threatening to destroy Israel - because the US and Britian have it on the ropes.

Chomsky + msm + Chamberlain = advanced lobotomized insanity

Insane troll - Was Iran justified in kidnapping the Americans working in the embassy in Tehran in 1979? Should Iran still be holding them captive?

PS - Grammar - its when used as a possessive (its sovereignty) does not have an apostrophe. The apostrophe is used when it's is being used as contraction. We all know you have not been well-educated, but minor unforced errors like this can be avoided with practice.

We all know you have not been well-educated

I suspect that he's been too well educated. It takes a lot of school to learn so many wrong things and forget so much of reality.

Plus, college has that great group-think experience that really brings out the hatred of the western world. People with more education than sense fall into that with gusto.

I suspect that he's been too well educated

Personally, I had him pegged more for a lobotomized e.e. cummings.

thanx dave.

you're quite welcome, what was your expression, oh yes,

you're quite welcome fuckwit.

And no one here, even with the slightest knowledge of Iran/US relations, can say Iran's hostility towards the U.S. is not justified.

Are you saying that having a grievance with the US legitimizes the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

I'm looking back at the comments, and I can't believe what I'm reading, it looks exactly like eglandulous is saying 'Iran is peaceful and should have the Bomb.'

Can that possibly be right?

"plv to project his own inner issues onto everyone else (plus I admit one good joke)"

I just like to drop by now and then, as boring as you all are, to offer an outlet where you can vent all that pent up logic that is just waiting for an excuse to bubble out.

I think of it as a public service.

"I suspect that he's been too well educated." - Sortelli

I understand your point, but remember, indoctrination at one of our centers of higher re-education is actually the opposite of being educated. You come out of a liberal arts grad program much much stupider than when you went in.

"Are you saying that having a grievance with the US legitimizes the proliferation of nuclear weapons?" - lauraw

In egg beater's 'worldview' a grievance with the US justifies literally anything.

look, I have many, many leather-bound books.

and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

Despite, how we came to this, we have to decide what is to be done. The policy of MAD assumes that both nuclear powers are sane and that self-preservation will outweigh political differences. In this day and age, it is quite common for Muslim people (ROP) to strap explosives on themselves and blow themselves and a bunch of infidels to smithereens. Nukes are a little different. Iran's boss is talking that crazy 12th Imam stuff and about wiping out Israel. Normally I don't think people of the EU would care a wit if this occured but the collateral damage of this will be enormous. If Israel is destroyed, who will they attack? They are thought to have between 80-200 nukes of their own. I would think the whole ME and possibly other areas would be hit. Think of the radiation clouds and fallout drifting over the whole world. This must never come to pass. Something urgently needs to be done. If the US intervenes militarily, I think the best way would be to destroy Iran's oil industry facilites. When China/Russia have to sell Iran stuff on credit and it is doubtful they will ever get paid, it will all be over very soon. International teams can enter Iran and dismantle their nuclear industry wholesale...
Just a thought...
JE

Dave

Now, now. Don't get overstimulated. A datum is not an argument.

You keep reading those books.

8:11 was me.

#1 It is said that we can trace the source of the developed material to the original owner. Does that refer to the area it is mined in, or the place that refines it. We will need to be positive the bomb came from Iran, then its goodbye Mohommed.

#2 I'm pretty sure the signature is traced to where the nuclear material is refined. I remember reading that somewhere.

It's the location from which it is mined as different parts of the world have different geological signatures. Refinining is a mechanical process where the machinery used is pretty much never domestic.

This really amounts to nothing as Iran already has and can legitimately continue to import uranium for nuclear fuel.

anonymouse 8:29

I don't read them.

I smell them.

And even just smelling them, I still knew the difference between the Egyptian Suez Tiran blockade in 57 and Iran mining Hormuz in the late 80s.

I did not expect this topic to stimulate this much chatter.

Good stuff.

Keep fighting them Trolls boys. Sneaky little bastards.

Ahmadinejad belongs to a Shia sect that sees cataclysm in the Middle East as a fine thing, and the sooner brought about the better...

"Led by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, who frequently appears with Ahmadinejad, the Hojatieh society is considered by many Shiites as the lunatic fringe. During the early years of the Islamic Revolution, even Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini found their beliefs too extreme and sent them scurrying underground.

As devotees of the 12th imam, the Hojatieh believe only great tribulation will warrant his coming. Akin in some ways to Lenin's doctrine that worsening social conditions would hasten revolution, the Hojatieh believe that only increased violence, conflict and oppression will bring the Mehdi's return.

Since taking office last August, Ahmadinejad has installed Hojatieh devotees in his Cabinet and throughout the bureaucracy. The Ministry of Information and Security, largely sidelined by former President Mohammed Khatami, has re-emerged as a powerful repressive force, using plainclothes agents, allied with the paramilitary Bassij and non-government vigilantes, to crack down on potential opponents of the regime.

As the world prepares to confront an Iranian regime that continues to defy the International Atomic Energy Agency over its nuclear programs, we must listen to what Iran's leaders say as we watch what they do. A religious zealot with nuclear weapons is a dangerous combination the world cannot afford to tolerate."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=21113

Sneaky little bastards?
How about lying hateful pussies.
They line up to gobble the goo of any anti-American, especially the dictators (spell that one the way you like).
Innagaddadedinajahd is just the latest donor to their favorite pasttime.

And even just smelling them, I still knew the difference between the Egyptian Suez Tiran blockade in 57 and Iran mining Hormuz in the late 80s.

Those were comparitively peaceful mines.

well, you gotta sneak up on em and respect em to smell em.

a datum, dave.

not an argument.

but it's a start.

ergy chose not to answer my question about the Holocaust, but it's probably because I was mean to him, not because he thinks it never happened. I'm sure he loves the Jooooos.

also, dave. if you'd spend halfas much brainpower correcting false knowledge among your fellows, this site would much improve.

and will improve more once "ace" returns, let's hope soon.

You're still here, erg? Why have you stopped responding to our discussion regarding your "solution" to Iran's nuke dreams or why they are "comparitively peaceful"?

I don't see where you get off dismissing a fact that undermines your position and then acting like no one's brought an argument to you. You're the one fleeing from reason like a roach from the kitchen light.

brew

fuck you

also, dave. if you'd spend halfas much brainpower correcting false knowledge among your fellows, this site would much improve.

I take this to mean that correcting the fountain of false knowledge that drips from your knobby fingers to be a fool's errand?

C'mon, erg. Have the courage of your convictions. Tell me how we can talk Iran out of the bomb. I'd really rather prefer that we do. Or you can tell me why it's okay to let Iran have the bomb. Then I can point and laugh at your unserious twaddle.

dang erg,

from repetition to gratuitous insults in two whole minutes.

you represent your side so admirably. make them proud erg, make them proud!

Just answer my question, ergy. Inquiring minds want to know.

You could even just tell us why Iran should have the bomb. I take it back, I promise not to point and laugh.

sortelli

I respect your efforts, and thanks for demonstrating sincerity.

I believe the U.S./Iran history justifies Iran's paranoia. I believe the hypocrisy is too obvious to persians visavis Israel's own arsenal. The stridency of Iran's "position" is unremarkable. More than anything, Iran wants assured security, but understandably feels threatened, it's sovereignty always made fragile by U.S./Israel militarism.

Why would disarmament succeed or fail? I don't know, sortelli. It hasn't been tried.

brew

your little baiting here is beneath my contempt.

Well, the insanist troll ever returns like a feces-flinging monkey to hurl insults, but once again fails to even try to answer about 20 substantive questions put to him or to address the 10 or so substantive attempts to deconstruct his psycho-babble into what he's really saying.

He must be in his 5th year of grad school in the Gender, Class and the US Is Evil Critical Studies Department at Illiterate Moron Troll University. Nothing else can explain the absurd blend of arrogance, hatred and ignorance he's displayed tonight.

I really don't think there's any hope for him. I guess he's hoping for a new caliphite to take over the US so he can present his quisling-in-waiting credentials to his longed-for new masters, and use them to get off the public assistance rolls.

Somebody shake ergy, his record's stuck. He keeps writing the same thing over and over and over.

In case you're not sure ergy, the Holocaust really did occur.

I believe the U.S./Iran history justifies Iran's paranoia.

And ours.

it's sovereignty always made fragile by U.S./Israel militarism.

s'right folks. the titan IIs were always pointed at Tehran.

Alwayssss.

erg's real argument, the one he's too cowardly to advance, is 1) the US can't be trusted with their hegemonic power and 2) the jooooooooooos

kinda boring when you point it out, isn't it?

I'm guessing at Illiterate Moron Troll University (go, IMTU!) they teach that capitalization is a construct of the patriarchal military-industrial complex and is far too bourgeois for someone like Oedipusticus with his obviously advanced mind.

geoff

yes. acknowledgment of this by "the west" would be helpful.

yet another train waiting to leave the station.

brew

your little baiting here is beneath my contempt.

Really? Seems like it worked just fine. It usually does. Its because trolls like you are self-important and generally lose control when baited. The beauty of it is that you then show us who you really are and that is often very informative.

Sortelli. Please tell me all the countries Iran has invade in the last 100 years.

I'm not Sortelli, but I'll give it a go.
They've invaded both Iraq and the US already in the last 30 years.

Considering that they've already invaded us in the past, and regularly chant "Death to America" at state sponsored events, why the fuck should we let them set up the bomb.

I respect your efforts, and thanks for demonstrating sincerity.

The feeling is not mutual. Getting an honest response out of you is like herding cats. By the way, I went back to that "internet reg" thread on a whim and found that you hadn't even responded to my points there, either, so you know, fuck you.

But now that you've finally agreed to talk a little more instead of ducking and running, let's examine your ideas a little further.

I believe the U.S./Iran history justifies Iran's paranoia.

I do not believe all of our actions in relation to Iran have been honorable. I am especially of the thought that playing realpolitik with dictators in general was an abominable policy that has helped us get into our current position.

However, nothing the US has done in the present or the past justifies Iran's repressive government. They are paranoid because such is the lot of dictators. Like I said earlier, they are only held in check by how much we can harm them, because they do not answer to their people.

And when a man like Iran's current president rises to power and speaks to a religious doctrine that makes it pretty clear that he's no longer worried about how much we could potentially harm him, we are in a very dangerous position that has nothing to do with the US interfering with Iran. We haven't interefered with them nearly enough for a situation like this to come about.

In conclusion, your belief that Iran's paranoia is "justified" is bullshit.

I believe the hypocrisy is too obvious to persians visavis Israel's own arsenal.

So. Fucking. What. Israel has not expressed a desire to wipe Iran off the map. I know we can't stop Iran from getting the bomb someday. The question is will they get the bomb BEFORE they are a stable and peaceful representative nation or not?

I don't imagine it will be a big deal for Iran to have nukes when it comes to pass that they're not going to lob them at Israel because the US makes them paranoid. What a horrible rationalization that is, by the way.

The stridency of Iran's "position" is unremarkable. More than anything, Iran wants assured security, but understandably feels threatened, it's sovereignty always made fragile by U.S./Israel militarism.

The funny thing is, all we want is assured security. And yet Iran will not play ball with the international community. They are using the diplomatic process to stall for time while they do as they please, and what they want is to gain the power to threaten us.

And Iran continuing to exist safely as a fascist theocracy is not a desirable end anyway. I want tyrants to fear democracy. I want reformers to pressure dictators. I want the mullahs to succumb to their inevitable defeat sooner than later.

Unfortunately, people like you who can only focus on the motes in the eye of the west while ignoring the beams in the eye of everyone else make that very difficult. You have already exaulted in the idea that the US and the British will "pay" for Iran's misery. So, again, fuck you, scumbag.

I'd like to hope that limited military strikes against Iran to slow their nuclear progress would help to get them to change their tune. But when they can count on useful idiots like you to give them cover, it only means the conflict will be that much longer and more violent. Thanks a lot for that.

Why would disarmament succeed or fail? I don't know, sortelli. It hasn't been tried.

I explained it pretty clearly: Disarmament would fail because one party or the other would have excellent incentive to cheat on their end of the deal. In a position like that, disarmament is ridiculous.

To live in a peaceful world with no weapons would be wonderful, but not nearly as wonderful as it would be to be a wicked man with the only gun in an otherwise peaceful world.

Smarter people than you realize this, and that is why it is not tried while you sit and wonder why.

Okay, kids, this is how it breaks down.

Ergastriontitus is Lord Alex von Hayek.
Mike is Mary M, Geno, and Jersey.
Tubino is Big Tobacco and scarshapedstar.

Am I sure?
Pretty damn close to being sure.

"I'm not Sortelli, but I'll give it a go.
They've invaded both Iraq and the US already in the last 30 years."

Might want to grab a history book before you give it another go.
When you can't even find this type of revisionist history on conspiracy theory websites that is posted on your own... there's a lesson there.

After driving Iraq out of its borders in the 80s, Iran returned the favor and went into Iraq.

Storming an American embassy counts as invading the US, technically.

Both actions undermine Erg's attempt to call Iran a "comparatively peaceful" country.

c'mon, Sortelli.

Their respective minds have been made up. Just like the minds in here. That alone dispells the idea of negotiation as a solution.

For cooperation, and especially for compromise, neither side can enter into an agreement which gives them exposure to annihilation. Israel, therefore, cannot give up her nukes. It is wrong to ask them. It is impossible for them to accept.

You cannot ignore the bravado when it is accompanied by propaganda. There is no doubt that they exagerate in their rhetoric. Looking at it outside of a vacuum, you see a philosphy behind the rhetoric. As pointed out earlier in this thread, you see process.

Once all that is assimilated, is it that hard to factor in the meme of the Twelth Imam?

It took you half an hour to squeeze that out that non-response?

You are pathetic. You clearly lack the ability to engage in any kind of discussion. At the very least, I hope you have to turn in your high horse.

The '79 coup was intended to overthrow the Shah, primarilly, and his supporter and water-bearer, the U. S. Inspiring, aiding and abbetting the "students" who attacked the embassy, and supporting openly after the fact, was, even if not an invasion, an attack.
Certainly an act of war.

Certainly an act of war.

But a "comparatively peaceful" one! ;)

I don't suppose I have any rational reason to sit here waiting for erg to say anything of substance. And yet, here I am.

Sortelli,
You have a good ability to stay on topic. Many of you guys here get that. It serves you well.

Get some, Sortelli.
These shit-for-brains are left babbling and drooling when smacked with facts.
It would be interesting if they had facts to respond with.
Ah, shit, it's interesting just watching them get whack-a-moled.

And by "guys", I mean the good looking ones with boobs, too.

While I'll agree that Iraq is questionable- Saddams tanks rolling over the border are acknowledged as the start of the Iran-Iraq war, however Saddam claimed that Iran was shelling his towns.

Now erg would have to face three possiblities:
1) Peaceful Saddam was telling the truth and Iran invaded first.
2) Crazy Warmonger Saddam invented a casus belli to give him a pretext at invasion and attacked the poor innocent Republic of Iran.
3) Some sort of crazy mixup/miscommunication occured, proably involving Peter Sellers with slide whistle accompaniment.

While 2 supports ergs current thesis, it also supports W's claim that Saddam was a threat to his neighbors and destablized the area. Option 1 supports the Michael Moore/F911 view, but undercuts ergs current position.
And option 3 is basically bullshit.

And as far as invading the US goes, perhaps this will refresh your memory. I know its easy to believe that this "Carter" fellow is some sort of comic character , he actually does exist and was elected President.

Hmm, If Carter could be elected POTUS, perhaps Peter Sellers could have accidently started the Iran-Iraq war after all then. It can be a funny world.

Actually Tom since embassies are sovereign territory it was an attack and invasion of US soil.

Ah, yes. Carter and his 10 strange bed, err I mean worst dictators.

Yes, Howard, I agree. It can be a debatable point to some, here, so I removed that part of the equation. Cutting through the fog, if you will.

I think the more important issue was the support and nurturing of Islamic Terrorism.

Oh, and the rugs, too.

These shit-for-brains are left babbling and drooling when smacked with facts.

But is it too much for me to ask that they do the babbling and drooling right here? I mean, dammit, I don't want their respect. I don't want to convince them of anything.

I just want their shame.

I want erg to be reduced to simpering goo, defending the indefensible with nothing but his hot, salty tears of embarassment for as long as I can shake his scrawny little shoulders.

And we had a pretty good run, too, until erg decided to shut up. Curses!

While you are waiting for the twerp to return, could I ask a question? Just want to make sure someone is listening. This is one I have been asking at a few places with no response. I'm about to throw a temper tantrum. I really don't want to do that.

Ok, I'll post and pray.

Iran has been building a relationship with Cuba. Do you believe Iran may be thinking about using Cuba's stategic location?

Hi, EXDemocrat. I've been listening. Normally I don't get engaged in troll-bashing, but sometimes I lurk just to watch the silliness.

I don't get involved in the troll bashing either. I generally come here to watch and enjoy. So, you have any opinion on my question?

12:03 was me.

Uncle Fidel has had decades to offer that platform.
He tried once before, yes, but is there reason to believe he will make that deal now?

See, that is what I'm wondering about. He and Nejad have gotten real cushy lately. Considering the other country that Nejad would like wiped off the map is a swim away, it is something to at least think about.

If Fidel was willing to do it for the Soviet Union, why not for Iran for the right price.

I don't find that very likely. Back in the day, Fidel had the USSR to back him up. If the best he can do is put a few Iranian nukes near the US, the end result of that nuclear exchange would that Cuba AND Iran would be completely destroyed while the US would be wounded and yet survive.

It's not a case of mutually assured destruction as it was in the Cold War when an exchange threatened to kill everyone on both sides. Helping Iran would only get Cuba destroyed as well.

Plus, I can't think of a better way for the US to steal Iran's nukes right out from under their noses than when they are on a boat headed for Cuba. We've done that before and we could do it again.

So in a way, I'd like to see the mullahs try to float a few bombs Fidel's way. Nailing them in international waters would be far easier than bombing nuclear sites in Iran. At any rate, not something to worry about in my opinion.

Thank you for answering my question. Saved me from having to make a fool of myself somewhere.

Besides, finding an emoticon of someone standing up, waving their arms and yelling "Pick me, pick me" was getting impossible. :-)

My significant contribution to this discussion is Persian women are fucking beautiful. I've known this for a while, but just came from a Persian party that emphasized this point. So many hot, hot Persian girls in a 3 bedroom apartment. Booze, hot Persian girls shaking their asses, and an ocean view have reaffirmed my love for humanity (well, some of it).

All US defense dollars must be spent on technology that will allow mass slaughter of Persian males, but leave their women intact.

Steve, I'm glad to see you have your priorities straight when it comes to American geopolitical strategy.

Yes, our defense strategy should be redesigned to consist solely of raids to grab young women from various cultures around the world. Sort of like those you read about hunter-gatherers engaging in. Except ours would harness the full resources of a modern state. And I get first pick.

Yes, our defense strategy should be redesigned to consist solely of raids to grab young women from various cultures around the world.

This has been a growing concern of mine - China needs women. Their male-to-female ratio is skyrocketing - what are all those poor guys going to do? I suspect that we've fallen far behind in the babe-grabbing race - we need research money NOW.

I would rather build a bomb that kills the women and saves the boys, really young boys.

geoff -

So you're suggesting that there is a "babe grabbing gap", as well as a doomsday gap and a mineshaft gap?

So you're suggesting that there is a "babe grabbing gap"

They've been laying the groundwork for years - how far are we going to fall behind before we wake up one day and notice no one's bringing us our beers?

...notice no one's bringing us our beers?

geoff - I think we have very different priorities. I can get a beer for myself. There are other tasks I have in mind that I can't do for myself - unless I do years worth of rigorous yoga training.

As Willie Dixon and Muddy Waters expressed it:

I don't want you to
Wash my clothes
I don't want you
To keep our home
I don't want your
Money too
I just want to make
Love to you

I can get a beer for myself

I'm pretty sure that's a Union violation.

*flips through rulebook*

Yup, right here, page 219.
Concession from our side was that we wouldn't open jars or kill spiders.

The claims made here about Iran's aggression, both the taking of hostages and the post-revolution maneuvers, are strawmen arguments proving only the preference of some here to seize on a few facts, seemingly uncontaminated by any complexity, and thrown out here as indisputable evidence of America's right, and Iran's evil.

None other than Kenneth Pollack, your rightwing hero, has written about the circumstances of the hostage crisis, and the Iran/Iraq War, and the later confrontations w/ U.S. interests. As for the hostage crisis: the embassy was little more than a CIA station processing plans to maintain the regime and squash dissent via Savak. As for the the war, the prelude included Khoemeni's attempts, using Da'wa and Shia clergy to foment dissent in S. Iraq in order to export Islamic revolution. Saddam's intentions were more direct: to obtain Khuzestan, literally. He invaded w/ 9 divisions in September, 1980.

To be sure, the '80s were marked by Iran's promotion of revolution throughout the region (Qatar, Lebannon). But, whatever future Iran would have depended on the outcome of the war. Iran was at a disadvantage. Iraq was supported by U.S. and the gulf states, particularly after Iran occupierd al Faw and threatened Basra. Iraq struck Iran's oil exports. In response, Iran mined Hormuz and sunk some tankers, including Soviet-flagged Kuwaiti ships. This puts Dave's datum in context. Seems nobody loved Iran. So perverse was opposition to Iran, that the U.S. blamed Iran for Iraq's errant attack on the USS Stark.

No, Sortelli, you don't know what your talking about. In the future, be more careful before you claim your small rightwing triumphs.

lauraw -

Does that book mandate this presentation method? If so, I'm willing to comply.

http://www.collegehumor.com/pictures/1613248/

egadshilarious:

If someone threatens to kill you, take them seriously. Especially if they repeatedly threaten to kil you.

You -- and your fellow travelers on the Left -- are suffering from a collective case of Battered Wife Syndrome. That big brute doesn't mean all the nasty things he's saying; he's really just a big pooh-bear. And then the cops show up one night down the line and find the wife beaten to death with a baseball bat.

I'm not going to trust the Iranians with America's safety (or Israel's, for that matter). It's not about being fair -- this isn't fucking Kindergarten. Grow up and think about how asinine what you're saying really is.

Again, monty, I can prove my assertions, you cannot.

Good luck, Monty.
Horsegastularius just spent the last 12 hours combing through all the leftist sites he could, in order to come up with a version of history that fits his bullshit view of the world.
For the left, we are the biggest danger to the world, and threats from other countries are only justified reactions to big bad America.
Fuck them.
I'm glad we've got a President and Administration, along with a volunteer Military, that recognizes threats and deals with them.

jefe. maybe you're the dumbest here. I don't know; the pasture here is filled with old cows chewing each other's cud.

I cited kenneth pollack.

can't you fucking read?

Please forgive me, o wise and merciful master!
You cited Kenneth Pollack!!
Pick and choose from where you wish, you always come back to blaming America, with no hint of understanding toward the very real threats we face.
I can read.
Can you think for yourself?

Uncle Jefe,

egadshilarious is a lost cause, as are most on the far Left. They have convinced themselves that America is the villain here, and nothing will convince them otherwise. The poison of moral equivalence and postmodernism has rotted their spirit completely hollow.

I've tried to understand this mentality that causes an American citizen to demonify his own country and to sympathize with our enemies; to wish for our humbling or even defeat; to wish success for those who oppose us. I have come to think it is childishness taken to an extreme -- people like egadshilarious say outrageous things because they know in their hearts that there will be no reckoning. They have never lived in a place like China, Russia, or Iran, where your opinion can get you killed.

It reminds me of the verse from Paul's letter to the Corinthians: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." The Left may grow up some day; but if not, let us hope that adults retain the levers of power.

ergastularius I'm impressed with your patience in the face of such moronic attacks. Obviously these people have nothing to offer but spite and bile except they believe they are packaging it up as argument. From what I've seen you are the only one offering any sort of rational analysis backed by fact. The rest can only pretend to be doing the same thing because the reality is just the opposite.

Why do you bother?

Well said, Monty.
I feel part of it is the wages of success.
Spoiled children, indeed.
What we have as Americans is taken for granted.
Living in other countries for me affirmed how great this country truly is.
Of course, as if often noted here, the immigrants that stream across our borders daily, tell the tale.
I don't see all of the complainers heading the other way, though I wish they would, if for no other reason than to educate themselves.
I'd wager a pretty quick return would follow; however, I doubt it would change most of these thick-headed twits.
Many are already quite adept at hiding behind our flag and sniping, knowing full well what they do.
Poisoned, and poisonous people.

Uncle Jefe you are so right, these idiots don't want to nuke Iraq only because they hate America.

The stridency of Iran's "position" is unremarkable.

I'm not the polished and skilled debater that most on this site are, but I can read, analyse, and use common sensel. However, the above statement has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever read on the internet.

I mean... the stridency of their position is unremarkable... WTF would it take for it to be remarkable?

Bushchimpyhitler
McCheneyhalliburton.
Jooooos.

Merry Fitzmas.

Indeed. Why bother. I mean to occassionally make it plain how ideology can be intercepted by reason, even to the most debasing and most unreasonable minds.

I think there may be 1,2,3 persons here who valuesome commitment to unravel the contradictions of American power, and think about the world in ways unguided by ideology. It's good enough for me.

Ergastularius, there is no doubt that the actions of America and many other world powers can seem contradictory, when looked at in hindsight.
However, that hindsight must be taken in the context of the times, rather than from an ideological perspective that always sees American intentions as Machiavellian.
My personal view is that our mistakes have been well intentioned, and when compared to other powers' actions and intentions, certainly the preferred option.
The left seems to think that America always acts with profit in mind.
Someone will always profit from misery; I believe we first set out for good intention, rather than profit.

'I believe.." wrt Iran, prove it. Show me your version of the history of US/Iran relations proving "we had the best intentions."

And then prove to me how Iran is a threat to the US.

How far back do you want to go?
After their attack on our Embassy in 1979, our policy towards Iran has been anti-mullah, anti-jihadi.
If you want to look at our relationship with the Shah, then make sure to look at the context of the times, ie; Soviet involvement since WWII, including the assassination attempt on the Shah by the forces backed by the Soviets.

As to proving how Iran is a threat to the US, you have to be extremely uninformed, willfully naive, or an outright liar not to recognize Iran's hand in global terror for the last 25 years.
Now go ahead and give them nukes.
Why, that won't threaten us none.

I think there may be 1,2,3 persons here who valuesome commitment to unravel the contradictions of American power,

Two of them are you. The third one is in rehab.

Seriously though, if you think pointing out America's flaws in our dealings with Iran is a winning proposition, I hope you work for some Democratic Senator's election campaign. And he listens to you. A lot.

We need to give up this fluffy-bunny "all states have sovereignty" garbage.

The US is the hegemon. We keep the system running. Without us everyone would running around like headless chickens. The world depends on us, and they know it. So we should stop being wimps and start throwing our weight around.

Unlike, say, Britain, France, Germany/Prussia, Russia, Arabia, Japan, China, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Rome, Ottomon Turkey, Mongols, Mughals, and assorted other former world powers, what the US does benefits the world more than just us.

Iran being naughty? Fine. Give them a good whack or two. If they complain, tell them to find another world to act up in.

Pakistan has nukes and is much more unstable than Iran, "harboring terrorists." Why is Pakistan not a threat to the US? When do we slap them into shape? There's no end to it: first Iran, then Kazakhstan, then Pakistan, then...

To be sure, muslimhoon may as well be condi rice, because this restates american foreign policy exactly. and the policy is a failure, as anyone can see.

And, the stridency of Iran is almost certainly a response to US arrogance and the troubled history of US/Iran relations. Only a fundamental shift in US policy in the region, beginning w/ a total reconstitution of Israel/US relations, can reverse our present misfortunes.

Please outline the reconstitution of Israel/US relations that you would like to see take place.

And, ergastularius, are you familiar with the old expression, "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people."?

The stridency of Iran's "position" is unremarkable.

And, the stridency of Iran is almost certainly a response to US arrogance and the troubled history of US/Iran relations. Only a fundamental shift in US policy in the region, beginning w/ a total reconstitution of Israel/US relations, can reverse our present misfortunes.

WTF??? How do you reconcile these two statements?

Please outline the reconstitution of Israel/US relations that you would like to see take place

eagerly anticipating response. you go erg.

"I've tried to understand this mentality that causes an American citizen to demonify his own country and to sympathize with our enemies; to wish for our humbling or even defeat; to wish success for those who oppose us. I have come to think it is childishness taken to an extreme" - Monty

The phenomenon of adults behaving childishly is often the result of fear, and people who are afraid often try to appease those who they fear.

They also often come to identify with those who they fear more than with those who actually protect them, with the result that seeing an appeaser like eggtroll defend Iran and attack the US is par for the course among the left/dnc/msm.

For an example on a daily basis see the nyt.

But in the end what they are most like at this point is quislings-in-waiting - they have come to fear their enemies and at the same time to hate their protectors so much that an American defeat is what they really desire. Think sheep (i) who resent the sheepdog who protects them (and who by its very existence makes them look weak) and (ii) who think that if they just make nice to the wolves they'll be safe. Or to put it another way, they convince themselves that the problem isn't the wolves, but the sheepdogs who protect them from the wolves. (This analogy comes from Bill Whittle of eject eject eject.)

Post at 6:27 is mine.

Actually the sheep fearing the sheepdogs that keep them safe is an excerpt from a book by
this guy.

Essentially, sheep are good people, productive people in society.
They don't want to believe in wolves, and they may even have an active dislike of the sheepdog (our protectors), because he resembles the wolf in many ways to them.

They don't like to see armed men in uniform in their airports. They have nothing to say to police and often resent their presence. They may even call them 'pigs.'

But when the wolves show up...attitudes change.

It must be great to have such a simple view of the world like Max, etc. One never needs to stretch the brain muscles or deal with complexity. All the problems in the world are easily solved by simple saying you hate this or you are evil, I am good, therefore whatever I say is right.

Not paying attention to my posts above. I've already explained.

lauraw, max, Uncle Jefe:

One metaphor that the Left uses as a prism for diplomacy is that of interpersonal relationships. They take the same behaviors and conflict-resolution techniques used between individuals -- dialogue, commisseration, empathy, etc. -- and simply overlay them onto international diplomacy. You also hear it in the terms they use: fairness is one of my favorites. As if just because the U.S. has nuclear weapons that Iran is somehow entitled to them as well, just out of some cosmic sense of balance.

Good point, lauraw. (I apologize for the long post.)

The world is governed by an appreciation for liberal values and policies. Issues such as civil rights, democracy, popular sovereignty - these are elements that America promoted, spread, and entrenched. The phenomenal success of the world's states is thanks to this liberal regime. Without this regime, these issues would be totally irrelevant in the midst of a bloody cut-throat war of state against state or while eking out a meagre existence at the whim of the oppressive imperialist colonial hegemon.

Various states will remain uppity - states that may have had their day of glory but now must admit that their regimes pale in comparison to America's. Out of jealousy, envy, or actual desire to dominate, they seek to thwart America - not knowing that by doing so they threaten their own security, stability, and chances for success.

The American regime - a liberal regime - works.

So, really, from someone who would be living in a hovel had the West not come to my ancestors, I really don't care what faults America has, what "atrocities" it may have perpetuated, what disrespect it shows to others (as if other states are so respectful of others) - America is good, and must prevail.

Just imagine, for a minute, what the world would be like without the American international regime. I think Hobbes put it best:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

It would be extremely foolish if we were to expect the best of humanity. We have always been violent, selfish, and greedy - and the prevailing regime helps staunch these aspects of the human psyche. Should the regime fall, let slip shall be the dogs of war. (Actually, one should the context in which "let slip the dogs of war" occurs (towards the end, by Antony). Quite germane.)

I don't profess to be an expert on Iran like Uncle Jefe or a psychoanalysis like Monty or Max but I think it is ridiculous to question ergastularius's love of country simply because he chooses to try and understand the cause and effect relationships that lead to the anger and hatred in the Middle East. Even a cursory look at the conditions of average people in Iran under the Shah show what a brutal dictatorship it was.

There was a time when we Americans revolted against monarchy as well. My bet is the people in the Middle East want many of the things that we take for granted here in the West, including freedom and democracy. Rightly or wrongly they see us as one of the things that has held that back. It is a fact that we have supported repressive regimes in order to protect our national interests, which we often define solely in terms of economics. In the process we turn a blind eye to the repressive regimes we prop up which helps cause the resentment. Why is it we ignore Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the military dictatorship in Pakistan while lecturing countries like Iraq and Iran for not being democratic. At the same time we say nothing about Israel's refusal to abide by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the area. It really isn't a surprise that the people feel resentment toward our hypocrisy. Oil isn't going to last forever and nuclear energy is pursued across the planet as a longer-term solution for energy needs. I for one would like to see those people believe there is an alternative to the religious Mullahs but it doesn't surprise me that they think those are the only groups who care about their poverty and repression. Look at the general sentiment here which is we should nuke them out of existence. It’s no wonder they think they need a bomb.

Ah, found it, Ergastularius;

Solution: move to multilateral negotiations aimed at improving regional security by trading Israel disarmament for termination of Iranian nuclear development.

Because, naturally, when Israel disarms, the Iranians' hatred of Israel and desire for nuclear weaponry will be quenched.

You. Are. So foolish.

So much like a genocide enabler are you; naive, careless of history, and bad at chess.

Ah, found it Ergastularius:

Solution: move to multilateral negotiations aimed at improving regional security by trading Israel disarmament for termination of Iranian nuclear development.

Yes, because when Israel disarms, Iran's hatred of Israel and desire for nuclear weapons will be quenched.

You. Are. So foolish.

So much like the genocide-enabler are you; naive mostly, careless of history, and bad at chess.

dang thing.

And how did that little pact between Clinton and Kim Jong Il work out, anyway?

You fool.

I can't even believe what a fool you are sometimes.

Intellectual idiot.

David Atkinson lives in a glass house, but can't resist throwing stones at those who don't. He offers nothing himself, but claims others can't deal with complexity and he then engages in name calling while accusing others of doing the same. A piece of troll work almost on par with egg beater.

I don't know who et al includes, but it's fair to say that, among others, the following posts represent a real attempt to deal with the 'complex' situation that Iran's nuclear ambitions have created:

Posted by: Brown Line on January 21, 2006 11:18 AM

Posted by: max on January 21, 2006 07:29 PM

Posted by: Sortelli on January 21, 2006 10:11 PM

And what does eggbeater have to say about this complex situation:

1. "Solution: move to multilateral negotiations aimed at improving regional security by trading Israel disarmament for termination of Iranian nuclear development"

2. "Only a fundamental shift in US policy in the region, beginning w/ a total reconstitution of Israel/US relations, can reverse our present misfortunes."

In other words, this supposedly complex situation can be solved by (i) having Israel unitlaterally disarm, in return for promises and (ii) the US either ordering Israel to do whatever it is that the left wants Israel to do (which may include suicide) or abandoning Israel.

So typical of the left - disarm and abandon allies, in the hopes that the big bad wolf will then leave you alone. Morally corrupt and morally bankrupt. But that's old news these days.

Well said, lauraw!

Max I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and I recall a time when my party had room for a little intellectual rigour. Those days seem to be over.

Not paying attention to my posts above. I've already explained.

Posted by: ergastularius on January 22, 2006 06:46 PM

Of course you're not paying attention to your own posts. Even your trash heap of a brain would explode at the ignorance and inconsistency on display in them.

Without this regime, these issues would be totally irrelevant in the midst of a bloody cut-throat war of state against state or while eking out a meagre existence at the whim of the oppressive imperialist colonial hegemon.

Various states will remain uppity...

That's my favorite. Really summarizes everything.

same as:

son: young republicans is so cool. we talk a bunch about how liberty is assured by competition and respect for property and the rule of law! (loosens powder blue tie)

daddy: just like I told you. {loosens belt, unzips pants)

son: I understand the value of submission, cuz one day, the reward of authority will be mine

daddy: not so fast son, don't get uppity

son: when can I say no daddy?

daddy: right after you clean daddy's cock with your tongue

son: yes sir!

ergastularius: I'm not offended easily, but I must admit I found your mockery to be in very, very bad taste.

Such responses to mean you have run out of arguments and the ability, or will, to civilly debate. Very well.

max

get up to speed. get Habermas on audiobooks. Begin w/ Legitimation Crisis read by Don Knotts, and end with Theory of Communiucative Action, read by Don Rickles.

And your summary of Hobbes more apropos to the sheer stupidity of Bush than you could know, obviously.

Dondestan

Palestine's a country
Or at least
Used to be.

Felahin, refugee
(Kurdistan similarly)
Need something to
Build on
Rather like
The rest of us.
...(Robert Wyatt)

...rather like the rest of us

muslimhoon

Max I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and I recall a time when my party had room for a little intellectual rigour. Those days seem to be over.

So this means you keep voting for the Green or Communist Party. So what? This gets you absolutely zero creds here. Now, if you want to know where ergy is really coming from, David, ask him if he thinks the Holocaust ever really occured.

No muslimhoon. this was the most offensive comment here:

Take off, nuke the entire site from orbit. Only way to be sure.

pay attention

BTW, ergy, care to respond to lauraw? She's called you out, using your own words, and has made you look like a little girl in front of your friends. Don't have anything to say?

Illiteracy and simple mindedness is the only route to credibility here is it?

"ergastularius: I'm not offended easily, but I must admit I found your mockery to be in very, very bad taste.

Such responses to mean you have run out of arguments and the ability, or will, to civilly debate. Very well."

Posted by: Muslihoon on January 22, 2006 07:47 PM"

Mushihoon,

1. I 'm afraid my reference to eggtrollious's 'trash heap of a brain' insprired him to dig to the very bottom of the fetid swamp in his head.

2. It's not that he's run out of arguments; it's that he knows that his argument of diarmament and abandonment won't be accepted by any non-quisling, so he resorts to a particularly unattractive projection of his fantasies onto the rest of us.

A lot of leftists have 'daddy' issues - they view the world through the prism of their ambivalent relationships with their father
which helps explain why they (i) attack (hate) their protectors and (ii) appease (fear) their enemies.

brew

I'm done w/ you. as should everyone else here be done with you. you need to play in the sand awehile. or just apologize for the shit you pulled up there.

Illiteracy and simple mindedness is the only route to credibility here is it?

No. But honesty and integrity are. See you later.

max

No. I fucked ma. killed pa.

Now I'm king.

I'm done w/ you. as should everyone else here be done with you. you need to play in the sand awehile. or just apologize for the shit you pulled up there.

Why don't you just answer the question? Did the Holocaust really occur? This is actually a very simple, yes or no, question.

Also, if there is something in particular you want me to apologize for, tell me what it is and I'll consider it. I don't like hurting the feelings of little girls like yourself.

Now I'm king.

But blind.

Fire up the NASCAR, thump the Bible, and cue the banjo music.
While you're at it, call us fags and joooos.
Eggy shows its true colors.
It's good that Max brought up fear earlier, for it has everything to do with the difference between every nation and empire before us, versus what we aspire to be as a nation. It also is the difference between what our current islamic fascist enemy offers the world, and what we are trying to offer the world.
Christianity and Judaism (long targets of scorn, ridicule, and persecution by the left) went through their time of practicing fear in respect to their God, both in worship and in the quest to win more souls. For the most part, they have outgrown this period, and celebrate the love of and for their God as the way to practice their faith, and understand others.
This is a recent phenomenon.
Islam has not outgrown the fear.
It uses fear to conquer utterly.
David Atkinson at 7:09 pm said
My bet is the people in the Middle East want many of the things that we take for granted here in the West, including freedom and democracy.
So David, who offers them the opportunity, the US through our work in Afghanistan and Iraq whereby those peoples democratically elect their governments; or is it the head-chopping, car-bombing jihadists and mullahs who are attempting to force islamic fascism on them through fear?

Ergastularius, if you want to stay alive in these threads, you should learn to speak clearly and directly.

I would recommend you consult a copy of Elements of Style, which will prevent you from wasting your energies on:
Solution: move to multilateral negotiations aimed at improving regional security by trading Israel disarmament for termination of Iranian nuclear development.

in favor of:

"Israel should disarm in exchange for a non-proliferation agreement from Iran."

Its still a foolish, foolish idea, but you'll have energy left over to discuss the merits.

Right now its a rope-a-dope, and you're the dope, killing yourself with wasted energy.

Plus, the inability to speak succinctly makes you sound like a douche.

David A,

Have you read eggtroll's posts on this thread?????

Do you agree with his argument that the solution to the problem with Iran is disarmament and abandonment???

Turning to some of your earlier substantive comments:

"It is a fact that we have supported repressive regimes in order to protect our national interests, which we often define solely in terms of economics. In the process we turn a blind eye to the repressive regimes we prop up which helps cause the resentment"

First, we had to do a great many things during the Cold war that were not our 1st choice, only our least bad choice. Second, unfortunately, in the Middle East, our and the rest of the developed world's need for a stable supply of oil (not 'economics') has caused us (before 9/11) to favor stability over change. (Some of the leading opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom were people who worked for Bush 1 - see Brent Snowcraft). We now have a presidnet who decided after 9/11 that the then-current situation in the Middle east no longer acceptable if the US were to be safe from terrorism.

"Why is it we ignore Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the military dictatorship in Pakistan while lecturing countries like Iraq and Iran for not being democratic."

First, I don't recall us 'lecturing' Iraq or Iran about not being democratic. Our opposition to those 2 regimes was based of the realpolitick threat that the pose to the US. That is why we have worked for regime change in Afganistan and Iraq, and would dearly like to see regime change in Iran. It's not because they're dictatorships per se, it's because they are (or were) perceived as threats to our safety. And that is why we have pretty much left Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan (whose cooperation after 9/11 was essential to bring down the Taliban) and Jordon alone - because they're not a threat to us.

"I for one would like to see those people believe there is an alternative to the religious Mullahs but it doesn't surprise me that they think those are the only groups who care about their poverty and repression."

When I read sentences like this I don't know where to start. Iran is not just a theocracy, it's also a kleptocracy. The ruler of Iran care nothing about the quality of life for their subjects - infrastructure is crumbling, education and health care are appalling etc etc etc, but key allies of the Mullahs are billionaires.

"So David, who offers them the opportunity, the US through our work in Afghanistan and Iraq whereby those peoples democratically elect their governments; or is it the head-chopping, car-bombing jihadists and mullahs who are attempting to force islamic fascism on them through fear?"

Uncle Jefe I think we offer the best hope but we need to be more consistent with our own values and apply those principles consistently in our foreign policy. We cannot continue to promote monarchy and totalitarianism in one state, like Saudi Arabia, and insist upon it in another. I think it would also help if we promoted freedom and democracy in countries that do not have huge supplies of oil, like Africa for example. We open ourselves up to charges of hypocrisy when we are inconsistent. This is the sort of thing that drives people into the arms of lunatics like the one now running Iran. We need to win the war of ideas as well as proving our military might.

Ah c'mon geoff. This place'd turn Warren Christopher into a tourett's adled fuck-shrieking madman.

Just thought I'd explode the oedipalism, complementing max's deep erudition in psychoanalysis (is that freud, freud, anna, reich, wilhelm, or welby, marcus m.d., ?).

It's all too complicated. But one lesson, I think: never suspect that what is is what is right. we're better than that.

And thanks, Muslihoon!

Even a blind squirrel can roll up on an acorn now and again ; )

lauraw -

Erg's writing style is the reason I tend not to discuss issues with him. It is not a style designed to clearly and simply communicate ideas and opinions. His purpose is to convey the impression of great knowledge and learning by using a deliberately wordy style featuring many catch phrases and polysyllabic words.

Whenever I read his comments I think of my dad, a writer/journalist, drilling in to me that the purpose of non-fiction writing is to clearly communicate, not to impress people. If he saw erg's writing, he would say two things

1) MEGO - my eyes glaze over
2) I'm going to go read some Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire to clear the bad taste out of my mouth

Ah c'mon geoff.

Cheap shot, I'll admit - just went for the easy jab. Too tempting, what with your soft belly underparts exposed and all.

This is the sort of thing that drives people into the arms of lunatics like the one now running Iran.

Its statements like these, David, that cause us to believe you, like ergy, are shallow and misinformed. People running into the arms of lunatics to escape the evil hegemony of the U.S.! Really? Where do you learn things like this?

That's terrific, David, but we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
When the time comes for action, it's often because of the inaction of the international community that has allowed the situation to deteriorate that causes the US to provide the security or aid.
And when we do act, it is either then labeled 'unilateral' aggression, not enough assisstance, or showing up too late, all by this same international community.
So where the hell are they?
On the sidelines, unwilling or unable to act for oh so many reasons.
Hanging out at the united nations, sniping at the joooos and America.
No blood, no treasure.
It is unfortunate, but we are the world's fireman.
Like the fireman, we cannot be everywhere at once.
We can provide safety tips to the neighborhood and make sure everyone's own fire systems are in working order, but we can't ensure that all will do their best to prevent fires, and we can't stop arsonists.
We can do our best to help other cities build their own fire departments, after we put out the current fire.

I write "A lot of leftists have 'daddy' issues" and the dumbest troll I've ever seen writes in reply:

"No. I fucked ma. killed pa.

Now I'm king. "

(emphasis added)

Deny having daddy problems by claiming an uber-oedipus complex.

They simply don't come any dumber than that. Makes plv, geno and even jersey seem like C students in comparison.

But then it's by no means the dumbest thing he's written in this thread.

And of course he has yet to answer any of my, Lauraw's or brewfan's questions.

"Its statements like these, David, that cause us to believe you, like ergy, are shallow and misinformed. People running into the arms of lunatics to escape the evil hegemony of the U.S.! Really? Where do you learn things like this?"

We supported the Shah, a repressive monarchy, because he secured our oil interests. Those who were oppressed ran into the arms of the Mullahs because they were at least lending rhetorical support to freedom. That is a battle we could have and should have won ourselves. The fact is we are the ones hated in the region so at the very least we have not done a very good job of winning hearts and minds. It doesn't mean we are a terrible nation; we are just a little weak at selling the benefits of our nation. I will also add that freedom and democracy were not talked about with respect to Iraq until it became clear there were no WMD. It doesn't really matter how noble our intentions are if we lose the battle of ideas by stumbling over our words and acting schizophrenic.

Uncle Jefe - your post reminds me of a UN slogan on a shirt by IMAO: "If this is an emergency, please hang up and dial America."

Muslihoon, you have a good blog, you should post more.

We supported the Shah, a repressive monarchy, because he secured our oil interests.

Wrong. We supported the Shah because he was the enemy of our enemy, the Soviet Union.

The fact is we are the ones hated in the region

Wrong again. Wherever people are free in the ME, they actually like us!

I will also add that freedom and democracy were not talked about with respect to Iraq until it became clear there were no WMD

Strike three, you're out! You seem like the kind of guy that buys into all the neocon stuff, so I think you might want to retract the last. lol!

Brewfan I come from the old conservative school of isolationism and small government so I feel out of sorts talking like a Liberal at all. However, it appears that we have now taken on the mantle of international idealist so I'm trying to figure it out.

old conservative school of isolationism and small government

Sounds more like the JBS.

so I feel out of sorts talking like a Liberal at all

Then don't for cryin' out loud! Every contemporary liberal position can be destroyed in a matter of minutes using simple reason and logic, especially in the area of national security and international relations.

it appears that we have now taken on the mantle of international idealist

I don't believe this to be true. We've taken on the mantle of defending our country. And until somebody proposes a better idea, I can't think of a better way to do it then being the agent for liberty throughout the world. Forget about what happened before 9/11 with regards to us propping up dictatorships. From now on, the only ones we'll prop up are the ones that pose the least threat at the moment, while we take care of the ones that do.

"Then don't for cryin' out loud! Every contemporary liberal position can be destroyed in a matter of minutes using simple reason and logic, especially in the area of national security and international relations."

Then why do we rely on ad hominem rather than logic and reason. I know you won't like this but I think our party has to a large degree been taken over by the direct marketeers and the party hacks. In a way we have helped create the Liberal monster as a reaction to what we have become. I'm not proud of the Karl Rove's of the world. In fact I will likely vote Democratic for the first time because I think we need a time out to rethink our principles.

"it appears that we have now taken on the mantle of international idealist

I don't believe this to be true. We've taken on the mantle of defending our country. And until somebody proposes a better idea, I can't think of a better way to do it then being the agent for liberty throughout the world. Forget about what happened before 9/11 with regards to us propping up dictatorships. From now on, the only ones we'll prop up are the ones that pose the least threat at the moment, while we take care of the ones that do."

The neocons were once part of the Democratic Party and they now dictate our view of the world. We were once the reluctant empire but now we seem to have the same white man's burden that the British once had.

Nice talking to you all but I need to move on.

Take care.

Steve in hb:

It is not a style designed to clearly and simply communicate ideas and opinions

And it is a style so easily lampooned. Its so close to the overblown language associated with various managerial fads as to be self-puncturing.

I've been trying to bring forth a word, that is right on the tip of my tongue, think it begins with an 'h' but I may be wrong, which is the absolute zen center of all these fucking managerial word-fads. It is sometimes accompanied by the word 'dynamic.'

It is driving me crazy, I can't quite reach it.

Anybody?

lauraw: hydro(dynamic)?

Thanks, Vinnie. *blush*

I think we should not overestimate the good intentions of the mullahs. They knowingly tricked the Irani people into voting for an Islamic republic and thereafter brutally supressed all other movements. Communists, socialists, and progressives, who helped the mullahs in the Revolution, thought they would have a chance to speak, a role in the new state, only to be wiped off the map by the Grand Ayatollah's turban. Sure, things were bad under the Shah, but they're not any better now. One repressive regime replaced by another. Except the Shah would not have courted nuclear armageddon with the US or Israel.

lauraw:

Hyperbole?

...and I should add that I am also overly prolix, but at least my little literary turds have the offsetting quality of being (occasionally) funny.

The neocons were once part of the Democratic Party and they now dictate our view of the world. We were once the reluctant empire but now we seem to have the same white man's burden that the British once had.

Jooos, white man's burden, empire.
Sorry, it's about protecting what you've got today, and for the future.
It is recognizing threats before they fully emerge, and preventing them, and extinguishing threats that have manifested to active danger.
The left (along with much of the world) would rather hide its head in the sand while blaming America whatever the outcome, with never a realistic idea towards solution.
"we need to understand" "we need to look at ourselves"
Bullshit.
We need to survive, and to let others know that we will be willing to do whatever is needed for our survival.
The choice is theirs.

Monty - you remind me of Jeff Goldstein, another wizard with words. Oy, that skill maketh me to swoon. *swoon*

I am also overly prolix

Isn't that redundant?

This should be a working link. I don't do code very well. That's what smart people are for.

at least my little literary turds have the offsetting quality of being (occasionally) funny - monty

It also helps that they (usually) make sense.

Tell ya what erg, why don't I just let you debate yourself (with a little commentary from me to help you along):

Please tell me all the countries Iran has invade{sic} in the last 100 years. Iran has been the most peaceful country in the region for a very long time.

To be sure, the '80s were marked by Iran's promotion of revolution throughout the region (Qatar, Lebannon{sic}).... Iran was at a disadvantage. Iraq was supported by U.S. and the gulf states, particularly after Iran occupierd{sic} al Faw and threatened Basra. Iraq struck Iran's oil exports. In response, Iran mined Hormuz and sunk some tankers, including Soviet-flagged Kuwaiti ships

So the most peaceful country in the region, exporting "revolution" (how is Lebanon thanks in part to them? How bout the Jordanians in Israel they supported? What peaceful revolutions they exported) And they sunk neutral, civilian shipping tonnange. I'd hate to see what you consider the warmonger for the region

And then prove to me how Iran is a threat to the US.

Yes. Iran is desperate to defend itself against what has been 60 years of U.S./British attacks on it's sovereignty.
Yes. Blowback.

So this peaceful, nonthreating nation is developing NUCLEAR WEAPONS just to defend itself AND as blowback for the sins of our past? And while I suppose the regular "Death to America" telethons, sponsored terrorism er revolution, and the invasion of US territory are all justifiable blowback, what do you call the tens of thousands dead from a nuclear detonation, by Iran or by AQ or someone else using Iranian materials?

Fair Penance?

Again, monty, I can prove my assertions, you cannot

Why would disarmament succeed or fail? I don't know, sortelli. It hasn't been tried.

So the guy who's never provided I link that I've seen, contradicted his own assertions, who's brillant middle east peace plans greatest justification is that it's never been tried and ignores most of the troubling answers/questions/commentary as beneath himself, is calling others to task for not proving their assertions?

Well you did quote Kevin Pollack. His artwork is alright I suppose, though it often looks like someone just ate a few bags of skittles and vomited on the canvas. I don't see how that makes him a middle east expert or a right wing hero.

Oh wait that's Jackson Pollock. Who the hell is Kevin Pollack?
Tell you what, when you try an insipid appeal to authority, it helps to choose an authority your audience recognizes and actually accords respect to. Seriously man, take some basic forensics. They might explain to you how to communicate effectively. This whole talkin' like a fifty dollar hoooker trying to justify her english degree doesn't cut it and actually detracts from your argument.

Unless you were purposefully trying to obfuscate your points, but why would you do that now?

Well Muslihoon, if you view just the commentary (Rather than post and commentary) theirs a little hyperlink marked link.
Highlight the word, click link, and a box pops up. Enter the URl, click go and it gives you the linkie

Eglandulous will not be responding to me because I exposed his silly solution to reality, which is like a cross to a fucking vampire.

Does he really believe that Israel's disarmament will assuage the Middle Eastern situation?

Of course not.

It is but one step closer to the sea for the Jews.

The real prize for his ilk; the end of a nation and the hunt for the diaspora, which will inevitably follow.

And then the Sunday People.

Egastularius, don't you understand what I'm saying?

brew

I'm done w/ you. as should everyone else here be done with you.

I don't think he knows how to quit you Brew.

The only thing lauraw has exposed is her ignorance. Maybe she should try exposing something else?

Maybe she should try exposing something else?

Forget it, pal. I been barking up that tree for months. lauraw is a jealous God and an angry God, but she is also a somewhat shy and reserved God. (Or she has a huge, grotesque goiter the size of a truck tire and doesn't want anyone to know.)

Not necessarily, there, ah, lil' goyl.

I know for a fact that Laura has exposed a boob -- you.

So dummy-up, ah, there, dingbat.

Dad?

"The only thing lauraw has exposed is her ignorance. Maybe she should try exposing something else?"

Is this person, like, 12 years old?
"I'm made of rubber, you're made of glue!!
Neener, neener!!"

Back off boys Lauraw is all mine. She has been sending me signals ever since I got here.

She has been sending me signals ever since I got here.

If by 'signal' you mean a raised middle finger, then, yes she has.

The last was mine. There is no way I want to be confused with the 8:35 Josie.

She has a thing for veterans. I told her I was an Admiral in the Army and flew
M-80's over Greenland.

Very funny hon.

Why would disarmament succeed or fail? I don't know, sortelli. It hasn't been tried.

-Posted by EgadsImBi-curious

We also haven't tried sending the mullahs some fun party hats and a box of noise-makers.

How can you war-mongers be talking about military aggression when we haven't even tried sending fun party hats and noise-makers?

I don't know if it will succeed or fail. It hasn't been tried.