The fact that the Bush administration has been working on a bombing plan for Iran should not be much of a shocker, given that it considers Iran to be part of the “axis of evil.” An article in the Guardian reports that the plan would only need 24 hours’ notice to go into effect.
It all sounds too familiar, though, in a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh, who quotes a senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror saying that “this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.”
Does the bombing plan include the need for concrete evidence before a strike, as the International Atomic Energy Agency is asking for, or is that facet of a political and military program being overlooked?
Posted by Ross Stewart
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- charleskhyter on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Politico on Moore has had enough of House
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
106 Comments
War, war, war! Kill, kill, kill! Death abounds, wholesale slaughter! By Jove, I thought Bush is the torchbearer for the so-called “Culture of Life”. Oops, I forgot, life only counts before birth, women as factory for future canon fodder. Stop this world, I feel the need to kick some passengers off!
Harsh I may sound, but I want to return the world to my son in one piece, before the mad power hungry mob that be turns it into a hellish place. Remember, you don’t inherit the planet from your forebears, you borrow it from your offsprings.
In his book, Bodansky states that one of the biggest blunders that Bush makes is he total ignores the differences between the cultures of the west and the middle east. We can win the battle in Iraq but have already lost the war in the Middle east. Our “friends” there are scared that we can not longer protect them and our enemies are embolden by the quagmire we are in with Iraq. The great protector/Satan is more blow then strength. To farther involve ourselves will only bring about the total loss of the middle east, they are already convinced that we are trying to attack their religion, not just the terrorists but those friendly to the U.S.
I don’t think there is any lead-up to war in Iran, but we would be silly NOT to have a bombing plan, as a matter of course, since Iran has bucked International regulations in their quest for nukes.
The only way (at present) that I can see we would go to war in Iran – is if they first attacked Israel and we stood by our ally.
I think we have a better chance of going into Iran if Hillary is our next President. She’s taken a tougher stance against them than has GWB.
But – I also believe a war with Iran would be much easier to win than the war against the insurgents in Iraq. Right now, we don’t have a defined enemy. With Iran – we would.
Writerdog, I agree that the ‘cultural differences’ between the Middle East and the West cause a problem, but for one NOT to exist, we would need to turn out backs on those who live under Sharia Law.
As a woman – I can’t do that.
As I’ve often said before, conservatives aren’t happy unless they’re killing somebody. The current administration backs that opinion up.
GS,”we would need to turn out backs on those who live under Sharia Law.
As a woman – I can’t do that.”
Why not? What makes it any of your, or our business? Those people CHOOSE to live under Sharia Law. They consider our form of capitalist democracy immoral. Why do you feel some moral prerogative to force democracy on people who don’t want it?
You make the common American mistake of thinking that everybody thinks like we do. Have you ever been to a foreign country? I mean besides Mexico or Canada?
Uncle William – you are correct, and as for me – I’m out.
Strategically it makes absolute logical sense to have a war plan for Iran. One for N Korea. One for Cuba. One for Russia. One for China.How pissed would we be as a nation if our Washington think tanks did nothing more than speculate.We need to have a plan to annihalate the entire earth if it means saving our country from annihilation. Let’s get real. I am not interested in dying.
XXX – I disagree – ONLY the MEN choose to live under Sharia Law – women are FORCED to endure it.
Girls are killed by their male family members if they have been raped. Women are traded like chattel. You can’t convince me that they CHOOSE that lifestyle.
I understand that not all cultures think like us – but does that mean that we turn our backs on those who are oppressed in the world?
A suit was filed against the United States by a group of Jewish folks a few years ago – that went nowhere, but it was filed because they claimed we did not enter WWII soon enough to save millions.
At what point do we act?
Or do we just isolate ourselves and to hell with everyone else?
On Sharia Laws, actually it’s a whole other interesting subject. What is Sharia and what is not can vary greatly from culture to culture. Even the US has also long history of looking at women as non-subject, or as second-class citizen, e.g., pre-Suffrage Amendment. It has gone farther since than many other nations, but fully equal partnership is not quite here yet, hopefully soon. Perhaps we should declare war against Saudis to liberate their much oppressed women, and liberate their proven oil reserve (#1 in the world, Iraq #2) along the way.
Roo Haa, the Saudi’s treat their women a LOT better (for the most part.)
I graduated from an international boarding school and I lived with children from the Middle East. My favorites, by far, were the Saudis. They were fun-loving, and the girls and boys BOTH imitated the US when it came to clothing and goals.
The Iraq kids were also pretty nice – but the Iranian kids were awful to get along with.
One qualification here – the kids who came here to school were the children of the wealthiest in the Middle East. They may not be representative of all in their specific countries.
Back to the Iranian kids. The school held periodic ‘parties’ for different grades, or dorms, but they held separate parties ONLY for the Iranian kids, because they would not attend any other parties. The other kids from Middle Eastern countries would date Americans – the Iranians would not. The boys still took part in a cultural ‘circle’ thingy called ’stones,’whereby they clicked their fingers and it really sounded like rocks hitting each other. Pretty cool, actually, and the girls would dance (kind of like belly dancing) in the middle of the circle. But the boys would become VERY angry when the girls spoke to us. I had only one Iranian friend, and she was some sort of lesser princess, Foojan, and only because we roomed together at one point. She had to ignore me on campus, however.
Sharia Law is watered down in some places in the Middle East – and totally banned in other places. But, it still goes on -and local authority are loath to punish the perpetrators of honor killings.
I’ve never visited the Middle East, although I still correspond with some of my school chums, and have standing invitations to stay at their homes, but I’ve grown up with a number of folks from there so I feel I can, at least, offer that as a valid viewpoint.
WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING DATA! OUR BOMBS WILL BE GREETED WITH FLOWERS AND COFFEE! AHMED CHALABI HAS ASSURED US THEY WILL HAPPILY SURRENDER WITHOUT A SHOT! ALL COSTS WILL BE PAID WITH OIL REVENUES! GRATEFUL IRANIANS WILL HAPPILY FIGHT AGAINST THE IRAQI INSURGENTS FOR US!
9/11!
BILL CLINTON!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
GOPSHILL,
Fine summary of the GOP talking points!
GSheridan’s assertion that a war in Iran would be easier to ‘win’ since we would face a defined enemy rather than an insurgency is, well, fantastical thinking of the highest Wingnut water.
Iran has 70 million people and a fairly unpopular government. Attack, and you now face 70 million united, pissed off people. You also incur the wrath of China, destabilize the region, and unite the Islamic world in fury. Parts of Israeli society are, momentarily, pleased–until the West Bank and Gaza go up in flames.
Could anything be more stupid than this proposed course of action? Is there anything more certain than that we’ll be dropping bombs by June?
CF – why do you say the war would be harder when we could fight it from the air?
I agree we would risk pissing off China, but I’m not advocating a war to begin with. I’m just stating that if we get Hillary next time around -we have a better chance.
No one wants a war – but shouldn’t we be prepared?
Iran has threatened to destroy the US numerous times. Maybe those are empty threats, but should we just assume they are, in light of their defiance of the UN resolution?
I’m usually in the camp of ‘an ounce of prevention.’
What’s wrong with that? We KNOW wars will happen with or without us – they have happened for multi-millenia. I think it behooves us to be prepared.
It doesn’t behoove us to strike first in this situation.
I’m not sure what it is I have posted that you take exception to.
“The fact that the Bush administration has been working on a bombing plan for Iran should not be much of a shocker,…”
What would be the shocker would be if a democrat administration was preparing to defend this country.
The defense of our nation is the number 1 job of the Federal Goverment. What’s wrong with being prepared? It’s better than a round of Kumbayas.
“…but I want to return the world to my son in one piece, before the mad power hungry mob that be turns it into a hellish place.”
No wonder you people have no credibility.
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fleetie,
There is a BIG difference between defending our nation and jumping the gun – which is apparently what you want us to do… What exactly is it that you consider we have to defend ourselves against? Outrage by the middle east? It is defense if we CREATED the situation….
My bad – that should say it ISN’T defense if we CREATED the situation – got a little quick with the enter button there
GSheridan,
Well, the whole thing, really.
The bellicose American posture toward Iran is counterproductive and stupid. Iran is years away from even being close to producing fissile material, and has been trying for a number of years to engage with the U.S. in diplomatic contacts and high-level discussion. In fact, the Bush/Cheney’s unwillingness to talk to Rafsanjani helped to delegitimate reformist Iranian moderates, thereby setting up the ascension of Ahmadinejad. In effect, Bush/Cheney wanted an extremist in the Presidency of Iran, and they got one.
Until this week, the Cheney Administration had rebuffed them at every turn. So now we sound the alarms, act as if war is imminent, and do our best to create provocations in the Persian Gulf by sending two aircraft carrier battle groups?
Bomb Iran, and 150,000+ American troops on the ground next door in Iraq become targets for an enraged Shi’ite majority. And that’s just the beginning. The strategic consequences of an air attack on Iran far, far, far outweigh any perceived benefits to the U.S. or even to Israel.
Between this and the apparent shift in the U.S. ’strategy,’ to pit the Sunni and Shi’ite spheres against one another, it’s quite unclear what the macro plan is here, if anything.
Frankly, GSheridan, if you want to assert that war with Iran isn’t on the Cheney Administration’s table for the very near future, then riddle me this: why are there two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf? Why the provocations? Why all the lies about Iranian support for IED’s, which were debunked this week?
All signs point to war with Iran. And soon. Your judgment to the contrary is, I believe, highly questionable.
wendy-Nobody has jumped anywhere (except your jumping to conclusions). It’s a plan for just in case. The military does it all the time.
Please note that the Russians and Chinese have both found that they can encourage Iran to do ANYTHING THEY WANT as long as it pisses off the US. And they have even trained them to do so. They all want to make us look weaker as that is the only way they can elevate themselves. This trio knows that no other combination of superpowers can withstand them because ALMOST HALF of Europe’s and US Oil is coming from there. They have their foot on our neck. Somebody starts a war, it all shuts down. We suffer big time. The Iranian population is incredibly young and mostly yearning for a change. Their regime is only popular in the rural areas. Our administration knows we are FAR better off biding our time and being ready to help the next Iranian revolution than attacking. But being ready to defend Israel is vital since the Iranians are rushing to war there (so the ensuing war will help perpetuate their unpopular regime). When old Khameni dies, there is no succession plan in place, so it’s likely to topple on it’s own, or be carried by Rhafsanjani, a decent compromise and the next guy in line anyway. They Iranians think they are helped and we are hurt by any Mideast war and foment it wherever they can. If you think we are suckers you aren’t paying attention. Our country’s responses have been measured and mostly in the press. All this talk about rushing to war is good payback for rushing to war in Iraq, but not supported by any facts on the ground. The consequences are far higher and both sides are playing chess with grenades. And believe it or not, our Mideast allies know they are FAR better off if Iran cannot impose Iranian hegemony over the Mideast. Postwar Iraq could well turn out to be a great turning point in history (Watch Kurdistan if you don’t believe me). This will be to the West’s great benefit – but the Iranians and the shallow minded US Democrats are desperately determined to make sure that doesn’t happen. Bagdad is the key. Please pray for Bagdad and our boys over there trying to help them. God is great.
I haven’t jumped to any conclusions – I don’t believe everything i read in the media either – I was responding DIRECTLY to your post – and that is all…
Today the paper states that Bush will ask for 7k more troops in Iraq in addition to the 20K he asked for earlier.
So which war do we lose to start another one with Iran?
Shrub is one dangerous SOB.
And GS, we can go about helping those women in other ways, not by blowing them up in air raids.
I think it’s rather comical that you’re taking a more liberal approach…and honestly, I don’t think you give a hoot about Iranian women, you want their oil too.
zcat – ya gotta be kiddding! Yes, postwar Iraq will be a turning point – for the worse! Looking at Kurdistan, perhaps you have not noticed that Turkey is making threats there because of PKK activity. Or perhaps you did not notice that Kurdistan was the only area where alQuada operated before the invasion.
Now we have alQuada all over Iran. In addition, alQuada is getting a toehold in Lebanon – with our acquiescence because they are anti-Iran and anti-Shiite. We are really playing with fire.
You speak of Iran causing all sorts of trouble. If you look at history you will see that Iran has not attacked neighbors – however Iran has been attacked BY a neighbor – with US help. Remember US ally Saddam?
Iranian hegemony over the region is NOT good; on that I agree with you. However we do not discourage that by crushing their enemies, nor by looking away when alQuada-linked groups get involved. Anyone who paid attention knew that invading Iraq would benefit Iran. That was obvious.
Today, our best chance to contain Iranian influence is to give Syria reasons to move away from them. Syria is Arab and Sunni. Iran is Persain and Shiite. There are many fundamental reasons that their alliance should be fragile. They were bonded by common enemies – Saddam and Israel. Today one of those reasons has been removed. If we could persued Israel to negotiate with Syria with an eye toward a settlement Syria might see a western path as being more profitable than an eastern path. As a Mediteranean country Syria has a number of good reasons to look westward for trade (rememberm they are not oil-rich). Lebanon also has numerous reasons to want to look westward rather than eastward.
The Middle East is a complex region. Baghdad is NOT the key. Jeruselum is.
I don’t see a problem with being planning or preparation. However, I don’t want war with Iran at the moment since our military is a ‘bit’ tied up in Iraq right now.But the plan needs to be addressing: China, the mid-east region, etc, because we better be prepared for what is going to happen afterwards if we followed through on this plan.
This Bush war plan for Iran is just dejavu all over again. And we are to believe Bush and Company when they say they are not going to war with Iran?
George W. Bush has one thing on his mind and that is war. He has us stuck in Iraq and now he wants to take on Iran. And just how far will our military sustain us in two wars? How many more billions of taxpayer money will Bush waste just so Halliburton can make their obscene profits?
At least this time, there is oversight in the Congress in the form of Democrats in control. We shall just see how much power they are willing to show to keep our little emperor from showing off his new ’set of clothes’
Actually, Lucee, it would be THREE wars – oh wait, I forgot, Bush doesn’t think about Bin Laden anymore – so I guess the “war on Terror” doesn’t count… try telling that to our troops in Afghanistan… We have already lost sight of what we went to war for, we have already spread ourselves too thin based on lies so that this president and his buddies could make a little money – I mean seriously “oil prices are increasing at a rapid rate” And yet SOMEHOW, in spite of the “rapid” increase, Halliburton manages to post RECORD profits???? Anyone else find that suspect? And now we need to be prepared to go after another major oil faction??? If we had stayed the hell out of Iraq like we should have in the first place, and concentrated on Afghanistan like we should have in the first place, we wouldn’t be needing all these “contingency plans” now…. I think the bigger question here needs to be how the hell do we stop Bush from essentially guaranteeing the ruin of this country??? Spread ourselves any thinner with “defense” tactics, and there won’t be anyone HERE left to defend when the other countries figure out just how vulnerable we are!!!!!
“I was responding DIRECTLY to your post – and that is all…”
So, wendy, pleased to be showing me where I stated “…jumping the gun – which is apparently what you want us to do…” I did not advocate “jumping the gun”, only being prepared. You know, like the Boy Scouts.
You are something, but not special.
“…we have already spread ourselves too thin based on lies..”
wendy- I thought you didn’t believe everything you read in the media. Which is it?
Wendy~ thanks for compiling every LibFib into a neat little package.Do you have any original thoughts, or do you just regergetate tired, erroneous DNC tripe?
As for GS’s assertion that we need to rescue the poor women in these countries, what about China, North Korea, Africa and other countries where women are not treated fairly? Why do you not feel the need to go bomb them? No oil perhaps?
The word is regurgitate and the same could be said about the RNC tired erroneous tripe – don’t you think Sanford?
“…where women are not treated fairly?”
Boo Hoo. Why don’t they rescue themselves. That’s why God gave them feet.
Looks like Sanford’s point stands.
No, I blindly beleive and follow every word they utter. It’s much easier to be a robotic-mouthpiece than to try and think.
Actually, Sanford – (and fleetie) my information comes from members of the military, thanks so much anyways – Just because I don’t agree with the war in Iraq doesn’t make me a Democrat anyways (although I know you like to play the game) I completely agree with going after Bin Laden – THAT is defending ourselves… the rest of it – is not… And Fleet – I was responding to the following statement made by you “What would be the shocker would be if a democrat administration was preparing to defend this country.
The defense of our nation is the number 1 job of the Federal Goverment.” And my response was that the current preperations were not a defense – but I guess I should have worded that a little more clearly so you could understand…
And, Okay, Sanford, I will give you the “bush invaded iraq for oil” concept – although I think you would have a hard time arguing the point – the rest of my statement??? Let’s see, actual video footage of Bush saying he doesnt even think about Bin Laden anymore – oh but that’s a democrat talking point… Let’s see actual record of reported profits for Halliburton that are accessible to the public – oh but that’s a democrat talking point… And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you have 150,000 troops busy fighting in Iraq, and more troops fighting in Afghanistan, that if you jump into ANOTHER fight with say Iran, which would require significant troops to complete, that doesn’t leave anyone here at home to defend us or prevent attacks – and really, isn’t THAT what defending this nation is about??? Sorry, I didn’t realize that posting verifiable FACTS were regurgitating talking points…
This is hurting any hope of a diplomatic process.Bush comes out and says we want a diplomatic solution.The media “He’s a liar – he’s going to war.” – Do you not think Iran has CNN?
Actuallyk, Fleetwood and Sanford, it was GS that wants to go and help those poor women. And I believe she belongs to your side of this particular fence. The RNC is alive and well.
Then perhaps Bush should start some diplomatic talks with Iran (like he has been advised to do many, many times). Don’t be quick to blame the media for Bush’s short comings or mismanagement of the Iraq War.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask the leader of a country to step back from comments regarding the holocaust as a myth (which basically changed the entire world and set us on the course we are currently on with the creation of Israel as an independent state) and the pledge to destroy an entire nation (israel) prior to sitting down at a table.
“prior to sitting down at a table”
so, how’s that attitude working for us kia?
Made any progress yet with those demands and NOT talking?
Doing the same things over and expecting different results?
It wasnt CNN that destroyed this misadministration’s credibility. They didnt need any help. They destroyed it just fine all by themselves.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a conference in Tehran, where he said that “Israel must be wiped off of the map,”
Would you call such threats terroristic?I would.
So you are saying essentially is the US should step back from its long standing position of not negotiating with terrorists?
You do not believe then it is open season on the United States should we step back from this policy?
Seems to me that policy has ALREADY created open season on the U.S.
Remember the definition of insanity kia. Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
Do I like or support Iran or it’s leaders? NO!!!
But what this misadministration is doing is making things WORSE for the U.S. and BETTER for the terrorists.
Dont you think that might be a clue to sane people that we should be doing something different, and not just the same things that GOT us into this mess?
Or is it just “Bush uber alles” even if he is leading the world to the brink of distruction?
If we do not negotiate with terrorists, then explain why Reagan and Daddy Bush made the deal with Iran in 1980? We have meddled in the Middle East for a long time and the chickens have come home to roost.
The US would be better served if we got off the dependence of foreign oil, take back our foreign aid and start concentrating securing our own borders and our own security. Israel gets along just fine and I have noticed they give just as much as they have taken. Just taking the side of Israel all the time, without questions, seems to be a Holy War to the Middle East and then you expect them to not fight back? If you do, Mr. Kia, then you are living in a fantasy world.
Reagan wasn’t President in 1980.
Do you have any idea how many years Jews (Israel) has been at war with its middle eastern neighbors?
I’m all for getting off of foreign oil dependence. Let’s see Alaskan reserves. Nope can’t drill there. More in the Gulf. Nope not their either. California coast. Nope.Ethanol plant? Not with my water.
The Bush administration just can’t seem to figure it out.
There are a lot of problems you can’t solve by dropping a bomb on them.
This is another one of those . . .
Sigh. Do a little research, will ya? Reagan CLAIMED he negotiated with Iran for the release of the hostages. That is why the plane didnt take off from Iran until AFTER he was sworn in. Iran was so in love with him that they made the plane, already loaded with our citizens, sit on the tarmac until AFTER he took the oath of office.
Either Reagan was lying, and he didnt negotiate the hostage release while he damn sure took credit for it.
or… Kia is telling the truth and Reagan DIDNT have anything to do with the release of the hostages.
So then why did he take credit for it? Lying?
He and his merry band of republicans repaid the favor with Iran-Contra. Which, by the way, Gates was in up to his EYEBALLS.
See a pattern developing here? Especially with opium production in Afghanistan at record levels?
Who said “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”?
You bet, no ethanol with KANSAS water. No apology. Make ethanol where there is enough water to support it. That’s just good business, not ideology.
And maybe, just maybe, that is why some of us support conservation measures, not just more exploration and exploitation?
Yup, Kia, I know.
They’ve been at war with former occupants of Israel ever since they stole the land out from under them.
The Palestinians fight to get their land back, the same as we would if a bunch of Al Qaeda invaded Wichita and forced us out, and then generously let a few of us back in to sweep their houses and clean their toilets.
KSfrmgrrl is right. The evidence is overwhelming that Reagan negotiated with the Ayatollah to hold the American embassay hostages until after the election (so Carter would lose).
The Ayatollah hated Carter for helping the Shah in his last days, the same Shah btw that the US and Britain installed after they backed a coup to remove the democratically elected leader of Iran (Operation Ajax).
It has become the textbook example of “blowback,” the horrible unintended consequences of stupid and immoral black ops.
“they” meaning the UN after WW2 or “they” being the Lord our God in the old testament Capn? :)
Show me where in the Bible it say that the Jews have the right to oppress the Palestinians, Mr. KIA.
If we are going to base our foreign policy on a 5,000 year old text, then we are in a world of trouble.
The Jews are God’s chosen people? How convenient that they decided that.
The UN (the world) based its foreign policy on 5,000 year old text when Israel was created in 1948.I do not believe the US policy to not negotiate with terrorist groups was stated until around 1982 I want to say with the TWA hijacking.
The Iranian hostage crisis was but one of many reasons on why Carter was not re-elected. Energy Crisis. Double digit inflation. Prime rate above 20%.To name a few.
“The UN (the world) based its foreign policy on 5,000 year old text when Israel was created in 1948″
The UN, driven by the United States established the State of Israel based on a kneejerk reaction to the Holocaust.
In the interests of fair play, Mr. KIA, Native American tradition says that the whole of North America was given to them by their Gods.
Pack your bags, it is time for all non-natives to leave.
Explain the difference between the Jews and the Native Americans.
I’m not going to make excuses for crimes committed by our Government against native peoples.
My family came to the United States in 1906. Landed in a large city on the west coast(San Francisco). If my California history is correct it was the Spainards that slaughtered the natives in this area.
But I’m not going to deny the anti-semitism that permeates the world either.
“If we are going to base our foreign policy on a 5,000 year old text, then we are in a world of trouble.”
Well hell, we base discrimination and the kansas CONstitution on it, why not foreign policy?
Oh, that’s right. Christians only use the bible when it suits THEIR purposes. Otherwise?
Eh, not so much……
So, if you support the right of Israel to that tract of land in the Middle East, would it not follow that you must also support the right of the Native Americans to this tract of land?
Actually, the natives owned this land beginning AT LEAST 17,000 years ago, so they have an even greater claim on the land than do the Jews on Israel.
political_mom, I find your arguments intelligent and interesting. But I wonder about what conclusion they lead to – regarding where al quaeda is located as if that means they are a larger or more imminent threat (not that I am not concerned about them as well). Turkey and the PKK are an old and tired game with no way to threaten world peace as the Kurds have no oil money (yet). Besides, the Kurds yearn for more of Iran’s territory than Turkey’s. They would like to see Iran weakened by war and the Iranians fear that even more since the Kurds are willing to lay a blood claim to that land (N. Iran) and its oil. Your rejoinder sounds intelligent but seems more like pieces of the whole truth. So where it is leading globally doesn’t quite fit into a single direction. But please try again, you sound like you understand much and could convince me. (I am not a fire breathing rightie or leftie, peacenick or hawk, I have not decided my conclusion before beginning a discussion) My opinion is that the big chess game IS for Jerusalem as you state (thank you), but that effort is more like a stalemate since 1967 – since disenfranchised Palestinians will NEVER settle without the right to return and Israel will NEVER give it to them (and keeps aggravating them with settlements). But the global East-West struggle has some play right now around Bagdad. Front Page Politics has made that much more imminent and the effort is in danger that it cannot be unplugged as long as Russia/China/Iran want it in foment (Due credit to al quaeda who thought this struggle up and is executing it with their blood). We don’t have to pit Shia against Sunni, they have done it LONG before we got there. We are better served by encouraging them to get along and at least TRYING to make it come true so they see it’s easier (for their children) to go back to the tolerance they had for each other for most of their past and in most of the world that they share. Such as they did and ARE almosy happy DOING in N. Iraq. Such a rapprochement would take some of the wind out of the sails of Iran, Hezbollah, AND Hamas, all pawns in the effort to get the struggle for Jerusalem moving again. Valuable pawns, but pawns with no real power to actually win or lose that struggle (“nothing to lose so they have no reason to quit trying”). Yes, Bagdad cannot be won without some Shia Sunni courage to rat out their ‘insurgents”. This can be pushed by educating them that there are bigger battles to be fought else where, and that letting their children grow and ARGUE their point instead of killing themselves and innocent bystanders is a better idea. This argument can be won because almost everyone agrees that killing innocents is bad, something their Prophet says is bad also (except for extremist salufis & maybe wahabis). But Iran doesn’t want it that tidy and won’t let it be that easy. They only benefit if Shia are being killed in Iraq and Lebanon. Still, I want to hear your opinion of how al quaeda fits in. You seem to give them more GLOBAL credit or power than I do. Be careful, they “envision power” from a set of religious ideas and defend it the way we “envision and defend freedom”. I try not to give them any more power than rabble rousers should have. Their power is more centered on the front page, and I acknowledge that he widows of 9/11 have a different point of view as do the widows of our soldiers. Rest their souls in peace and hope for a better world – from their sacrifuce.
Isn’t it true that Condi Rice prevailed over Cheney and the U.S. is NOW going to talk with Iran about Iraq? — you know, as in dipolmacy? A stunning indication that the Bush administration may have more than one trick in its repertoire.
And a further indication that though the Bush administration rejected the Baker Iraq plan, they seem to be following its recommendations.
So, it is okay to follow Daddy’s recommendations, once you wave him off and tell him you’re going to do things your own way.
THE REDIRECTIONby SEYMOUR M. HERSHIs the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
“The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/03/01/is-the-administrations-new-policy-benefitting-our-enemies-in-the-war-on-terrorism/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fprintables%2Ffact%2F070305fa_fact_hersh&frame=true
Our policies throughout the Middle East strengthen our enemies, not weaken them.
Hey Ben,
Thanks for the link to the Hersh article. Various people have been talking about it this week on NPR.
I found this paragraph from the linked article interesting:*****The new strategy “is a major shift in American policy—it’s a sea change,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. The Sunni states “were petrified of a Shiite resurgence, and there was growing resentment with our gambling on the moderate Shiites in Iraq,” he said. “We cannot reverse the Shiite gain in Iraq, but we can contain it.”*****
My question is, isn’t the support of Sunnis and the containment of Shi’ite’s exactly what the evil dictator Saddam Hussein was doing. ‘The more things improve, the more they get worse.’
Jeez, SD, it would seem that if we had just left Saddam in power, most of our anti-terrorism goals would have been met.
Naw! Bush would never do something THAT stupid!
Another fascinating quote from the above article:*****Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.
This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”*****
Where’s Fleety and why isn’t he calling the Bush administration on their support of Al Qaeda.
This war on terra is a complicated business, no?
Hersh is a Commie. Why would anybody but you people pay him any attention?
Oh fleet? Do you have his membership number in the CPUSA?
heheheheh
…and fleetie weighs in with his usual scintilating comments…..
He’s still waiting on impeachment.
“Hersh is a Commie”
For Christ’s sake, Fleet, do you even know what a communist is, or are you just throwing shit and hoping something sticks.
And YOU people refers to Republicans – remember WE are now the majority.
BDP Fleet- If you say something I disgree with , then that makes a communist, too- is that how it works?
Highly recommend the link Ben provided. The Bush administration is not only providing political support for groups who gave us Al Qaeda, they are in all likelihood, funding them as well. That’s right your and my tax dollars are likely funding our real enemies. Nice, huh?
Since this White House never directly communicates anything that is true, they provided a bunch of leaks to Hersh to write this story. As it was asked repeatedly on NPR this week. Why this stuff, why now???
Take it easy on Fleety, calling somebody a communist is easier than thinking. He couldn’t possible read and understand the points made by Hersh, and he couldn’t refute them — so he is taking the easy way out and resorting to an ad hominem argument. A sure sign of a weak and immature mind, if I ever saw one. He takes after his doper hero, Rush.
Good link…
…And al quaeda funding is also coming from the poppy fields of Afghanistan. (Asia Times sez so)Making them very well funded AND well connnected with people who know how to smuggle things that weight tons to ANY big city on the planet. Take a deep breath…
I see the usual suspects can’t type fast enough to defend their own.
We need to have a plan to annihalate the entire earth if it means saving our country from annihilation. Let’s get real. I am not interested in dying.
OK now, take a breath and think about what you said. entire earth… I am not interested in dying… tell me again…just which earth you live on?
Well
Don’t forget the incidences in Syria last summer.
I think that was Israel operating at the behest of the bush administration to try and goad Iran into an act of war.
But Iran didn’t bite.I think we have much the same thing now with the trash talk and US deployment of carrier groups to the region.
Look for a Gulf of Tonkim type incident. A US ship or plane will be attacked and give bush his excuse.
Remember the Maine!
I pray to God (and yes Mr. Kia I do pray) that you are wrong JR and Bush can be contained before he goes headstrong into the fight with Iran. I’m worried about our country’s future and the rest of the world because unlike WWII, right now the US cannot count on too many allies to join with us. And I don’t really blame them, look at the way GWB has dissed everybody that he deems as combatants or they were not with us so they must be against us. Rhetoric like that does not make many friends.
Hey Ross!
If you read this, it is I Nathan from Student Government!
I have been posting here for sometime now, but in regards to your comment:
“Does the bombing plan include the need for concrete evidence before a strike, as the International Atomic Energy Agency is asking for, or is that facet of a political and military program being overlooked?”
Lets just ignore the fact that their leader is constantly talking about how he is developing nuclear weapons, refuses to let inspectors in, and promises to continue in defiance of the Internation Calls to stop?
Sure, lets sit around and wait for evidence…
I don’t think you liberals would consent to military action if the Iranian President shoved one up your rear end!
I think JR is correct. We waged a proxy war against Iran not too long ago. A very brutal one. Iran has good reason to be wary of our intentions.
“Lets just ignore the fact that their leader is constantly talking about how he is developing nuclear weapons,”
I thought their leader specifically stated that he was NOT developing weapons. And, even if they are, does a sovereign state not have the right to provide for its self-defense?
How is the hunt for WMDs in Iraq going?
And where did I say President Reagan in my statement about him in 1980? Go back and read my post again – I simply stated Reagan and Daddy Bush made a deal in 1980 – I never said President Reagan. Or do you not like my statement because I included Daddy Bush?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/
Speaking of Commies, looks like Ms Hillary couldn’t hide her dissertation forever.
so what fleet? Her thesis doen’t make her a communist.
I hope I’m wrong too lucee.
It’s disturbing to have to hope bush aint THAT crazy when he is clearly crazy.
Plus?
On one shouder of Iran is Afghanistan. On another? Iraq.
It’s certainly possible that Iran has been the REAL target all along. They have oil AND the strategic point that can shut theirs and ALL the oil off (the strait of Hormuz)
That is the trouble with Globalization; all it does is switch the power around.You trade with foreign countries, they take what they learn, build up their wealth and then they turn it against you.Stupid Bush family and their influences are killing off our country with their ideology on this.Globalization does not stop wars, Globalization starts wars.People and their government are separated not because the people separate themselves from government but because the government separates people by not acknowledging their people and their differences.Bush is trying to push this ideology on the Middle East and Iran is getting in the way.
Fleet, her disertation has been available since 2001. It was only unavailable from 1993 to 2001.
… and if you bother to read any of it, she does NOT endorse any Marxist idealogies.
… you have been hanging with Rush a bit too long.
… take a long nap – two or three years – and get back to us.
Why was it unavailable at all?
Care to defend the indefensible, again?
“Why was it unavailable at all?”
Probably because somebody was stupid. What does that have to do with commies?
“Care to defend the indefensible, again?”
What a f$cking idiot you are, Fleet. How do you stand yourself? How does anyone stand to be near you?
Read the article on MSNBC or have someone read it to you if the words are too big for you.
It is your attitude and the attitudes of the Barbara Olsons and Peggy Noonans of the world that led Hillary to request that her disertation be withheld from the public while her husband was president.
You apparently deeply offended that her college paper was not available to you for eight years, but you have no problem with Bush withholding his service records and arrest records.
Why the hypocrisy, Fleet?
As I have stated before:
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
“And believe it or not, our Mideast allies know they are FAR better off if Iran cannot impose Iranian hegemony over the Mideast.”.
First off zcat, well said, I was just thinking that those who are in support of this adventure. Have been using a very first grade arguments for it. You have stated your position well. The problem with this statement is that right now in the middle east there is already a battle being waged. extremist fundamental Islam is growing in every country. This gives their leaders cause to be concerned for their own place. Our middle East allies have looked to the United States to help them remain in control. The problems we are having in Iraq are both emboldening the extremists and causing our allies concerns.
For the extremists, it shows that the “great Satan” can be held to a standstill, fought for a duration without suffering a major defeat. For our allies it shows that we are not able to help in a way that would be helpful for them with a general populist supported enemy.Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia governments are only able to maintain control through oppressive tactics like those used by Saddam. They are already on the boarder of becoming an Islamic fundamental controlled countries. It has been predicted within the next ten years they will fall. The rest of the middle east will not be far behind and for us to bring more military force to bare will only serve to bring more people of the region to side with the extremists.
Right now the growing question is, “They came to depose Saddam, they did that! They came to found WMDs, they did not find those! So why are they still here?”. The growing answer for the common man is we want to control their oil and impose our believes on them.
Well stated writerdog.But wether a regime falls in ten more years depends a great deal on how well Russia-China-Iran play us to stalemate in Jerusalam & Bagdad just so the rest of the world is afraid and is no longer willing to stand with us. THAT is a winnable possibility and they only have to FOMENT small proxy fights all over the Mideast. We used it on them and it worked. Now they want to play the same game back on us and hope it leads to our falling apart. Gotta go, logging off for the day. Some of you folks are actually a bit thoughtful as well as intelligent,(no insult intended on the rest) Keep up the good dialogue.
“FOMENT small proxy fights all over the Mideast. We used it on them and it worked”
Zcat – we fomented Saddam’s attack on Iran. Just how did that “work” for us?
“Why the hypocrisy, Fleet?”
Even more, WSC, the article Fleety posts in no substantiates his claims that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a communist. It is just more of Fleety’s chimpanzie attack maneuvers of throwing balls of shit. The man/boy, whatever he is, has no pride at all. He is a stupid, shameless troll.
Steven – APOLOGIZE! Chimpanzees are very intelligent creatures.
Comments from the King of Jordan:
“Abdullah said he realized that Washington was preoccupied with Iraq and that Jordan also wanted to see reconciliation and stability there.
But, the king added, “the principle problem in the region is the Palestinian issue and, if it is not solved, it will be impossible to solve the other problems.”
“The main responsibility (for achieving peace) lies with Israel, which must choose either to remain a prisoner of the mentality of ‘Israel the fortress’ or to live in peace and stability with its neighbors,” he said.”
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/16821537.htm
I just read the article that is linked above, OK so the new attempt at controlling the Shiites of Iraq so they do not successes at controlling Iraq as Iran wants. Is for Bush to empower those that are supporting Bin Laden?
At this point, I am at a total loss for the words to express just how stupid, moronic, totally lacking in any common sense! Gee, I really wish I could think of some words that would be strong enough to express just how I feel about this. I have three different sets of Encyclopedias, an entire book shelf of nothing but Dictionaries, another four shelves of books covering a great deal of topics from college level government text books to Stephen King.
Yet with all that I have read, all that I have learned, there just seems to be no words that come to me.I am sure of one thing though, I would bet that Hitler wishes that Bush&Co. were in office during WWII.Perhaps that little attempt to take over the world might have went better for Adolph.
Yes Zcat to the point, with the world’s dependence on oil the middle east has always been in play for the super powers. For sometime the U.S. bargaining chip has been that Middle Eastern states could depend on us to defend them against those powers that would use their superior might against them to control the oil.If the Soviets or Chinese would decide to attempt an invasion or to take over the control of the oil fields the United States would step in and stop them.
But now we are in the cat’s eye as to be the aggressor attempting to take control and invoke our will.I certainly understand the significant of Jerusalem, for the region the Palestinian issue and the existence of Israel is a paramount concern. Both real and as a point of contention for those wishing a reason.
I can not honestly say I see Baghdad being that pivotal, other then simply becoming a fortress and liken to a cancer that is taken hold. there would always be the chance it could spread, but it is not likely. The powers involve would like a person sees a cancer, would fight to remove it. Given a foot hold the chance would remain that a righting could occur in Iraq. That is that the full attention be given to it and a real government could be established. The problem is that there may already be a shadow government in place, waiting the day that our troops pull out and the American people make Iraq a distant memory. Then they will show their hand, it is the danger in there think that it is a totally winnable situation to this.
My fellow blogger, I see someone has came here that may agree with the course and thought of the Bush administration. That can state a logical argument for the case! this may be come harder to discuss a position that is oppose to it. OH we are right BTW, but with Zcat it would take more then simple name calling to defuse his argument…. Bully for you Zcat! Fleet, JM and Nathan may want to take notes!
A comment about oil – this is all the more reason for us to find alternatives. On other threads we have discussed a lot of these – wind, nuclear, efficiency, conservation, etc. In fact, that is the stated reason for Iran’s nuclear program. And Bush has provided no more evidence otherwise than he did for Iraq’s “WMD program”
The most anti-terrorism thing the US could do is to get off the dependence of foreign oil. Bush has finally stated this fact but why has he not done something about it? Like giving some of those billions he is giving to Halliburton to our own people to work on alternatives for fuel?
But then again, Bush is an oil man and will always be an oil man. It’s like trusting the fox to guard the chicken house. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Coupla interesting predictions tonight on McLaughlin.
Buchanan predicted that Rep. Walter Jones R-NC will introduce a bill next week that will expressly forbid the executive from attacking Iran unless the US is attacked first. Buchanan predicted that Reid will get behind a similar bill in the Senate.
Could be a real corker comin’ up in the next few weeks if it’s true.
Okay, Ben,I apologize to all ChimpanZEES: you guys are much smarter than fleetwood – the dumbest of all posters who ever provided his presence here.
Afetr we get rid of everything I don’t like, which includes ChimpanZEES, we can start getting rid of those pesky minorities. I’ll help crush them under my storm trooper boots. Zieg Heil!
Looks like our troll is back. 5:24 is clearlynotme; it was posted by a fraud.
Looks like our troll is back. 5:28 is clearlynotme; it was posted by a fraud.
I did however post at 5:24. It’s just the way I feel about things.
I invite an email to inquire as to which posts are real. Troll is 5:24 and 6:08. Troll is a lowlife scumbag coward.
Kia thinks God is a real-estate broker.