Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand: only Joe Lieberman can talk about bombing Iran

Any nut can talk about bombing Iran.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman told Bob Schieffer."

And that's the kind of man Joe Lieberman is: Aggressively invade another country, threaten its neighbors, refuse to withdraw when every single original justification fails, and then claim the indirect "interference" of its neighbors is a basis to attack them too. He is the token social progressive in Cheney's tinfoil Kaiser helmet brigade, has zero remaining credibility with anyone but its other members, and is regarded as an abject disgrace in most regions of the political spectrum.

"And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base[...]"

1. When he says "we," he means the Cheney regime, whose every other word is a treasonous lie.

2. When he says "good evidence," he means the regime told him so.

The Indepedent former Democrat from Connecticut said that he was not calling for an invasion of Iran

Just doing what he can to set the stage.

but he did say the U.S. should target specific training camps.

And if Iran bombed "specific training camps" inside the United States, how would the dear Senator from the Moon characterize that?

Rand: is the extortion of the Iranian government against the region

Vowing to retaliate if attacked is "extortion"? Rand, when are you going to learn that the moral value of an act isn't determined by who takes it?

Shamkhani told the US journal Defense News that missiles would be launched not only at US military bases but also at strategic targets such as oil refineries and power stations.

Sounds like a pretty rational response to being bombed and threatened with invasion.

Qatar, Bahrain and Oman all host important US bases and British forces are based in all three countries. Any Iranian attack would be bound to draw in the other Gulf Cooperation Council states: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

Yes, that would be bad. So let's go crazy and act like sane people who understand the concept that war is not to be actively sought, let alone slobberingly lusted after like Satanic perverts. In fact, let's go completely bonkers and recognize that peace is a good thing, and that Ed Gein is not the best model for foreign policy.

"Nice little oil refinery you got there, Saudi Arabia. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."

"Nice little nuclear facility you got there, Iran. We don't think you should have it, so we're going to bomb it, kill anyone who happens to be nearby, kill everyone who tries to stop us, and wage all out war if you respond in any way other than meek submission." Compare and contrast.

We really need to get, or beef up, medium-range missile defenses as quickly as possible in Iraq

We could go the Wile E. Coyote route, or we could simply leave. Usually the latter is the default option when you're not supposed to be somewhere in the first place.

which is in a good location to preempt Iranian strikes against Israel, Jordan, the Iraqi facilities themselves, and the Arabian peninsula.

It isn't their style to attack like that. Even while funding terrorism against Israel, arming and organizing militants in Lebanon, and engaging in various provocative acts over nearly three decades, there is a line they have carefully avoided crossing--a line the Cheney regime did cross by invading Iraq, in which you supported them, and now want them to cross again. Do you find the least bit of irony in your shrill condemnations of a foreign regime for acts far less extreme than those you still eagerly support, and even wish to repeat?

It's strategic location was (or at least should have been) one of the many reasons that it made sense to establish a military presence there.

You believe the logistical convenience of a country should factor in whether to attack it? Remind me how that isn't fascism.

As long as we're paying the price in blood and treasure (and political opposition) to be there, we should be taking advantage of it.

No, we shouldn't. That would be like someone drunkenly plowing into a pedestrian, then reasoning they might as well pilfer the victim's wallet to go buy more liquor.

That we don't seem to be is one of the reasons that I (and I suspect many others, including the troops who are doing the bleeding and dying) are so frustrated with the administration.

Yes, I'm sure the troops are frustrated because there's not enough carnage to go around.

saying we'd only consider another round of talks when the Iraqi Government issues a formal invitation.

It would be nice if there were an Iraqi government.

They expect us to leave. They expect the Iranians to stay.

Guess what the American people expect, if not demand?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 10, 2007 05:24 PM

Any nut can talk about bombing Iran.

Any nut can call Joe Lieberman a nut.

Posted by McGehee at June 10, 2007 05:38 PM

I think a nut is someone who wastes a large chunk of their life typing huge empty posts of delusional, vitrolic nonsense just to stroke their own ego.

Now that's a nut!

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 10, 2007 05:43 PM

"Meanwhile, the appeasers over at the State Department, from the spokesman to the secretary herself, are reassuring the world that we're going to continue our conversations, regardless of the current hostage crisis. Ambassador Crocker tries to cover up our nakedness, saying we'd only consider another round of talks when the Iraqi Government issues a formal invitation. But they will. How could they not?" - Ledeen.

Heh. I was wondering when Condi would make it to the appeaser pile. Stick someone at State and before you know it, those damn Arabists have converted her. Jebeezus.

Posted by Offside at June 10, 2007 07:33 PM

Heh. I was wondering when Condi would make it to the appeaser pile.

Condi went native long ago, not long after arriving at Foggy Bottom.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 10, 2007 07:37 PM

Allow me to interpret the BS musings above: "I don't care if Iranians are targeting Americans."

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 10, 2007 08:10 PM

Any nut can talk about bombing Iran.

McGehee: Any nut can call Joe Lieberman a nut.

And any idiot can defensively parrot their own critics.

Mike: I think a nut is someone who wastes a large chunk of their life typing huge empty posts of delusional, vitrolic nonsense just to stroke their own ego.

Then what do you call someone who spends an equal amount of time responding to, and largely agreeing with that nonsense?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 10, 2007 08:10 PM

Cecil: Allow me to interpret the BS musings above: "I don't care if Iranians are targeting Americans."

Allow me to interpret your and Rand's position: "We will attack whomever we please, whenever we please, for whatever reason suits us, waving the American flag the whole time, and the American people to whom it belongs must swallow it and ask for seconds." Now, if my response to that was unclear, I'll be more succinct: No.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 10, 2007 08:25 PM

I don't know Brian, I think anonotroll was banned again. He would best fit your description.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 10, 2007 08:25 PM

I guess that whooshing sound was my response going right over your head.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 10, 2007 08:27 PM

A pre-emptive attack on Iran would need to go very, very, very well for the United States with minimal unintended consequences such as closing Hormuz with Persian mines or a lucky Persian strike on a critical Saudi oil terminal.

Otherwise, we would be looking at a permanent Democratic majority for at least a generation.

But as with Osirak (the Israeli leaders feared the next government wouldn't have the balls) this is exactly why this Administration might.

Posted by Bill White at June 10, 2007 09:12 PM

BS "I guess that whooshing sound was my response going right over your head."

No, that was the sound of your response being given it's deserved response, IE ignored. You are always quick to assume you are intellectually superior to anyone who disagrees with you. Hate to break it to you, but that ain't the case.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 11, 2007 05:40 AM

"It isn't their style to attack like that. Even while funding terrorism against Israel, arming and organizing militants in Lebanon, and engaging in various provocative acts over nearly three decades, there is a line they have carefully avoided crossing--a line the Cheney regime did cross by invading Iraq, in which you supported them, and now want them to cross again. Do you find the least bit of irony in your shrill condemnations of a foreign regime for acts far less extreme than those you still eagerly support, and even wish to repeat?"

The vitriol, insanity and ignorance of the far left is distilled in this one paragraph. We have false moral equivalency, willful misrepresentation and personal attacks. I could expain it but he still wouldn't get.

Posted by Bill Maron at June 11, 2007 06:36 AM

The vitriol, insanity and ignorance of the far left is distilled in this one paragraph.

Its simpler than that Bill. The above paragraph denotes how the Middle Eastern people are not as good as us (in Squiddie's view). They obviously don't deserve to be free, unless the left is the one with the idea first. They must be left to suffer under a dictatorial government that defied the left's beloved UN 17 times without reprisal. When reprisal comes, suddenly we're the bad guy. Ever wonder why the US went from the unchallenged superpower when we allowed principles to spank children to the universal monster since schools instilled PC correction for the kiddos?

Posted by Mac at June 11, 2007 06:44 AM

The above paragraph denotes how the Middle Eastern people are not as good as us (in Squiddie's view). They obviously don't deserve to be free, unless the left is the one with the idea first.

How will bombing Iran help the Persians become free?

It reminds me of the South Park business model.

1. Bomb Iran
2. ????
3. Persians are free!

= = =

Now, if we airdropped ten million wi-fi enabled palm tablets and gave the Persians (and the Chinese but we might need a billion units there) access to satellite internet WITHOUT governmental filters enabled by Microsoft and Google "they" might claim their freedoms without US military intervention.

Posted by Bill White at June 11, 2007 08:25 AM

It was a response to an earlier paragraph from Squidward.

IMO, bombing of Iran, specific targets only, would be effective in changing the government. If, after resolutions are in place and Iran proceeds to ignore them as Saddam did, it should be a natural follow on to reprisals. These government types are treating us as if they were children that would never get spanked for bad behavior, but in this case, their antics are hurting their own people. Let people govern themselves and allow a society to be free to choose their futures. That's what we have, why shouldn't everyone else?

Posted by Mac at June 11, 2007 10:07 AM

"I guess that whooshing sound was my response going right over your head."

No, I think it was mine going over yours.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 11, 2007 11:03 AM

Installing anti-missile systems in Iraq, Europe, Australia, and of course the USA, is a good idea. It is not enough, however. There are other ways to deliver nukes with existing technology. Ships are an obvious one, but ships are also slow. A bigger threat may be commercial aircraft.

There will always be new weapons and threats, so it's never enough to neutralize one type of weapon or attack. The best defense might be to make the people who launch or threaten to launch such attacks personally accountable. This implies, for Iran, overthrowing the regime. We may argue about the wisdom of the Iraq war, but it's indisputable that our invasion eliminated Iraq as a threat to the USA. To the extent that Iran is now a threat it's because Iran's leaders no longer believe that they will be accountable for their attacks on our interests. We should make them believe that they are accountable by making them accountable.

Posted by Jonathan at June 11, 2007 11:11 AM

Would it be possible to bomb Iran's government into nonexistence? And what would be the consequences?

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 11, 2007 04:32 PM

All I can ask is if we decapitate the regime in Iran, who is going to stop a popular uprising and who next door is going to interfere?

The situation with Iraq vis a vi Iran does not exist with Iran.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 11, 2007 04:36 PM

On another note, the anti-semitic wing of the Left must be going absolutely nuts.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 11, 2007 04:39 PM

Ah, I forgot about the who-next-door - particularly the nuclear-armd-who-next-door.

My theory on assassination is ya gotta ensure that the new regime is an improvement over the old one. (A principle I raised once when reviewing the V for Vendetta graphic novel, one which V did not grasp.)

There probably isn't anything worse than the mullahs within Iran, but alas without is another matter. Arming the people you want to see take over Iran should come before decapitating the government. We'd have to take out the government and a huge chunk of the military for that to work.

Bush has excellent grounds for declaring war against Iran - Iran is at war with us. Its proxy Hezbollah attacked us on at least two occasions (Marine barracks in Lebanon**, Khobar Towers), and Iran arms some of our enemies fighting in Iraq.

(**The attack was carried out by a faction of the Amal terrorist group; that faction later organized formally as Hezbollah. The current leader of Hez, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, was one of the planners. Iran is directly implicated, too. See here - PDF file.)

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 11, 2007 04:59 PM

Mac: IMO, bombing of Iran, specific targets only, would be effective in changing the government.

What are you basing that on?

If, after resolutions are in place and Iran proceeds to ignore them as Saddam did, it should be a natural follow on to reprisals.

What would be the substance of such resolutions? There is no international law against seeking nuclear capability, and it would seem a little rich for us to accuse them of funding and arming terrorists--we did it routinely in the Cold War, and some of the terrorists we armed are the same people we'd be accusing Iran of supporting. Or are we going to claim it violates some international law to merely send weapons into a country Cheney illegally seized?

These government types are treating us as if they were children that would never get spanked for bad behavior

I presume the hamfisted, iron-booted conquer-monkeys of the Cheney regime are the "adults" because they have a more powerful military? You keep forgetting that Iran has a more law-abiding foreign policy record than the people you put in the White House.

Let people govern themselves and allow a society to be free to choose their futures.

Above a certain threshold of means and education, everyone governs themselves. Most of the Persians who hate theocracy and enjoy Western culture just want to have fun and not be bothered, but they're not going to risk their lives for that. Their teenagers might emulate our passive-aggressive pop culture, they might listen to our music, but they have no more investment in democracy and real freedom than most Americans do. If you make them feel afraid and humiliated by attacking their country, they will flock into the arms of their government just like Americans do in such circumstances, and just like they did in response to the invasion of Iraq by electing Ahmadinejad.

I want to make this point clear: The Iranian people are not helpless against their government, they have simply not felt it worthwhile to take extreme measures. And if they don't think so, what the hell right would anyone else have to take extreme measures on their behalf? There have not been huge Tiananmen Square-like massacres of demonstrators calling for change; there have not been significant attention-seeking, subversive stunts by democracy activists to stick it in the face of their government; there have been none of the signs of a people serious about change, and it's just too bad for those who are serious if their countrymen aren't as interested. But they are a fiercely nationalistic people, and hatred of their government wouldn't stop them from being pissed off if you attack their country. Why the right doesn't understand that, and can't extrapolate that from your own experiences, remains an unanswered question.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 11, 2007 11:11 PM

Mac: IMO, bombing of Iran, specific targets only, would be effective in changing the government.

What are you basing that on?

Pressure the government through strategic strikes and the people will rise up. Give the people a reason to rise against their tyrannical government and let nature take its course.

What would be the substance of such resolutions?

Who cares? Its YOUR beloved UN. I recognize the UN as a waste of air. Their continual posturing and no stomach for enforcing their own words is probably the real cause for any Global Warming.

it would seem a little rich for us to accuse them of funding and arming terrorists

Why? We've got proof.

Or are we going to claim it violates some international law to merely send weapons into a country Cheney illegally seized?

Well, finally, you've gotten off the "I hate Bush" bandwagon. It wasn't an illegal siezure. The UN put 17 resolutions to Saddam and he ignored them blatantly becuase the UN would never back up their words. We took it on ourselves as a member of the UN to enforce the resolutions.

I presume the hamfisted, iron-booted conquer-monkeys of the Cheney regime are the "adults" because they have a more powerful military?

Nope. We're the "adults" because we're not squashing our populace under a tyrannical government type, or educating our children to blow themselves up to kill the infidel.

You keep forgetting that Iran has a more law-abiding foreign policy record than the people you put in the White House.

I'm not forgetting that. Its not about their foreign policy. Its about their treatment of their own people. If their government was truly an elected government, then I'd say let the people stew under their own choice, but its not elected. I understand you don't care about the Iranian people Squiddie, but have a heart.

Above a certain threshold of means and education, everyone governs themselves.

They do not have a true voice in governing their own society. Education level and means have nothing to do with it. The mullahs are not elected and they make all the decisions. The people do not govern themselves.

but they have no more investment in democracy and real freedom than most Americans do.

Absolutely right Squiddie! Their entire future, as ours, is at stake. Freedom is the universal yearning of humanity. What greater investment is there?

I want to make this point clear: The Iranian people are not helpless against their government, they have simply not felt it worthwhile to take extreme measures.

And since you've lived there under the mullahs rule, you know that. You have argued perception several times Brian, but your perception of their government type is based on American life.

But they are a fiercely nationalistic people, and hatred of their government wouldn't stop them from being pissed off if you attack their country. Why the right doesn't understand that, and can't extrapolate that from your own experiences, remains an unanswered question.

Of course they get pissed off if you attack the only country they've ever known. But give them a taste of freedom, I'd be willing to bet they'd join up rather quick...just like the nationalistic Iraqis did. Why the left can't see that remains unanswered as well.

Posted by Mac at June 12, 2007 05:43 AM

Bill White wrote:
> Now, if we airdropped ten million wi-fi enabled palm tablets (to the Iranian people)...

Package each tablet with a 9mm to shoot the soldiers who come to take it away and I think you'd get somewhere.

Posted by peter Hanely at June 13, 2007 11:01 AM

Great point Peter!

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 01:40 PM

Pressure the government through strategic strikes and the people will rise up.

Bomb their country, and the people will flock to the standard of their government--just like Americans.

Give the people a reason to rise against their tyrannical government and let nature take its course.

First off, they have all the reason they're ever going to have, and attacking would give them a reason to stop opposing their government. Secondly, their government is repressive, not tyrannical, and a substantial minority (~1/3) of the population are fervent supporters of the theocracy.

Who cares?

Then you admit you're just scrounging for excuses to bomb another country? That's pretty sick.

Its YOUR beloved UN.

And you're suggesting it be exploited to attack Iran, so answer the question. What would be the substance of the resolutions you want?

I recognize the UN as a waste of air.

For your purposes, it probably is. But the purpose of the UN is to limit and prevent conflict, not facilitate it.

Their continual posturing and no stomach for enforcing their own words is probably the real cause for any Global Warming.

So if they try to enforce international law, your lot calls them the "New World Order" and claims they're plotting to invade through Canada, but if they do things according to their mandate and only act through global consensus, they're "feckless" and "impotent." Moreover, if they were to be an enforcement body, how would the law be enforced on nuclear Security Council members including the US? Your criticism is ridiculous, ignorant, and hypocritical.

Why? We've got proof.

Because nobody's going to let us enforce laws we constantly break, regardless of Iran's guilt.

Well, finally, you've gotten off the "I hate Bush" bandwagon.

I don't let Bush off the hook for anything, I just recognize his subordinate position to Cheney.

It wasn't an illegal siezure. The UN put 17 resolutions to Saddam and he ignored them blatantly becuase the UN would never back up their words.

First you say it wasn't illegal, then you condemn the UN for refusing to authorize it. Which is it?

We took it on ourselves as a member of the UN to enforce the resolutions.

The resolutions were already being enforced, and inspectors were in Iraq doing their jobs, but the Cheney regime ordered them to leave. It's possible they wanted to preempt any report that would call their WMD claims into question. Furthermore, it's not within the authority of member states to arbitrarily interpret and enforce UN resolutions against others without Security Council authorization.

We're the "adults" because we're not squashing our populace under a tyrannical government type

Indeed, ours is merely authoritarian, corrupt, and expansionist.

or educating our children to blow themselves up to kill the infidel.

It's my understanding that Shiite militants don't practice suicide bombing. Moreover, what Iran teaches its children about the West is little different in substance to what Saudi Arabia does, but we massively subsidize the latter and the White House forbids the CIA to spy on it.

If their government was truly an elected government, then I'd say let the people stew under their own choice, but its not elected.

They didn't elect you either. It's one thing to talk about supporting a hypothetical uprising, and quite another to propose bombing their country in the half-assed hopes that everything will somehow work out. There are an unlimited number of legal and ethical things we can do, tactics, calculated provocations, etc to help foment democratic revolt in Iran, and they would actually work if anything could, but if they didn't we would simply have to accept that.

There's something you and most here aligned with Rand on foreign policy don't seem to understand: Not getting the desired result does not make everything an option. If asking politely for something doesn't get it for you, that doesn't mean you can just take it; and if trying to get the Iranian people to rebel with access to American culture, with subversive politics, and with other covert support doesn't work quickly enough, that doesn't give you the greenlight to start bombing. Wanting something doesn't give you the right to do whatever it takes to get it, especially when you want it for someone else and don't seem to care how they feel about it. The Iranian people generally want to be free, but that doesn't mean they want a brutal civil war to get there, and it's THEIR choice, not yours, when or if they decide that becomes necessary.

I understand you don't care about the Iranian people Squiddie, but have a heart.

Mac, it's not the Iranian people you care about, it's your own ideology. If you cared about them, you wouldn't advocate blatantly violating their prerogatives as a people to determine the nature, and indeed the existence, of their own rebellion. Moreover, you don't seem to know the first thing about the situation over there, even while making these staggeringly dumb and sweeping pronouncements, and don't appear to think such ignorance is a problem. The way you talk, I can almost imagine your plan being drawn in crayon, with the little stick figures in turbans running from orange-spiked explosions toward a sign that says "freedum." Come on, be serious.

They do not have a true voice in governing their own society.

They could rebel any time they chose, or at least make their intentions clear, but they don't. With every crackdown, there's little more than complaining.

Freedom is the universal yearning of humanity. What greater investment is there?

I agree, but that isn't what you're talking about.

And since you've lived there under the mullahs rule, you know that.

Of course not, I'm stating the natural conclusion of what I know indirectly. Have you lived in Iran, Mac?

You have argued perception several times Brian, but your perception of their government type is based on American life.

No, quite the opposite. I recognize that I have far greater expectations than other cultures precisely because I can, and that other people who grow up with less freedom are not necessarily filled with righteous outrage about it. Do you think all those civilizations throughout history who had no freedom were full of people just itching for revolution? They wished for a better world like everyone else, but that doesn't mean they were prepared to tear down everything around them on the chance of having it. Not even our ancestors were--they ran away to come here, remember?

But give them a taste of freedom, I'd be willing to bet they'd join up rather quick

What is a "taste of freedom," Mac? They didn't defend it when we took it from them half a century ago, didn't defend it when Khomeini took what remained, and won't kill and die just so Islamist thugs won't harass them on the streets. The arrogance of your position is that you believe their lives as they are now are worthless, and just assume they agree. They are a conservative culture in the strict sense of the word--slow change, caution, obedience to authority--and that's the case even with the vast majority of those seeking change. Persia was conservative long before Islam, and it sure as hell isn't going to spontaneously transform into a cowboy culture because you threaten and bomb them.

just like the nationalistic Iraqis did.

What the hell are you talking about? Iraqis aren't nationalistic, they don't even have a "nation." They're three nations, and people "joined" its farce army because there's virtually no other reliable, well-paying job.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 14, 2007 09:45 PM

Post a comment