Undercurrents
In an article in today’s London Times, Tim Ried begins…
“President Bush imposed the harshest sanctions on Iran for a generation and branded its military a supporter of terrorism yesterday, fuelling claims that he is preparing possible air strikes against Tehran.”
I have to be honest; I’m somewhat confused. In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush clearly included Iran in his “Axis of Evil”. Thus, the fact that the United States has taken this step doesn’t really come as a surprise to me, especially given the fact that they’ve been politically and covertly maneuvering against the Iranians for some time now. There’s no question that Washington is looking for a confrontation. The only thing that remains to be seen is if the President will act before he leaves office and if his administration can employ the same tactics that it did with regards to Iraq to sway the House into supporting him. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has made her views on Iran very clear, and they are by no means tame either. Thus, most of the Democratic majority, who are centrists by every definition of the word, may very well support a White House led initiative regarding air strikes. Given that the United States has already begun the process of instituting forward operating bases along the Iranian border speaks to the administration’s motives.
In no small way, the administration’s focus on Iran has developed to detract from the disaster in Iraq. It serves as an adjunct that provides the administration leeway with regards to the lack of real political and military successes in Iraq. By claiming that Iranian influence in Iraq to be of significant import places the onus on the Iranians, who were demonized even when a relative moderate was in power. Since Ahmadinejad’s seizure of the Presidency, matters have only deteriorated, though it shouldn’t be overlooked that his ‘victory’ in the 2005 Iranian ‘elections’ was a direct response to what was occurring on Iran’s borders, both situations being the result of a very reckless American foreign policy doctrine.
Secretary of State Rice claimed in testimony before Congress on Wednesday that Iran is…
“perhaps the greatest challenge for American security interests in the Middle East, and possibly around the world.”
We’ve heard those words before. They were used in 2002 and 2003 regarding the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Interestingly, little mention is ever made of Saudi influencing in Iraq, of its support of Sunni insurgent factions, or the fact that a very considerable portion of foreign fighters come from Saudi Arabia, helping bolster the numbers of Iraq’s Salafi Jihadi groups – better known to Westerners as al-Qaeda in Iraq.
There is also the Russian’s to factor into matters, who have remained one of the members of the Security Council, along with China, to continue to deal with Tehran rather openly. Of course, there are other matters regarding Russian-American relations that factor into it as well, and Rice’s comment can’t be discounted as one that doesn’t implicate the Russians as a factor regarding “American security interests in the Middle East, and possibly around the world”.
Now, I’m certainly not giving the Iranians a free pass. I’m sure that they have been covertly involved in Iraq, just as the United States, or any other power, would be were there a conflict raging on their border that could ultimately affect them. As for the nuclear question, I have been through that and would suggest using the search engine if you’re interested in reading my thoughts on that subject.
While the Bush administration has claimed, even after the implementation of these new sanctions, that a diplomatic solution to the problem is their preferred method, it can’t be discounted that there is a reason why eleventh hour diplomacy is being employed, and it has little to do with diplomacy itself. More to the point, it may have far more to do with due diligence on the part of the Bush administration in the event that they have to justify military action to the American people; that they can then claim that all avenues were exhausted despite the fact that they have been goading the Iranians for some time and that the American media has been diligently casting the Iranians in such a negative light as to basically pre-program the domestic psyche that a confrontation with Iran is not simply possible, but inevitable. True, Iranian covert involvement in Iraqi affairs has most likely resulted in the loss of American lives; and while that is certainly of concern, given the regional implications of the US occupation of Iraq, how can anyone think that those in the region would not ultimately involve themselves in some way? The Turkish military has bolstered its forces along the Iraqi frontier, even going so far as to suggest an invasion of northern Iraq itself to deal with cross-border raids by the PKK. At present they are attempting to have a list of high-ranking PKK members extradited from Iraq to Turkey. Of course, the United States is cooperating because it does not want to see the Turks invade northern Iraq, as they have threatened to do. The Turks have also threatened sanctions against parts of Northern Iraq, who receive electricity and other services from Turkey. But the reality is that the PKK will obviously not capitulate to the demands, nor do I believe that sympathetic Kurds in northern Iraq that believe in the ultimate creation of a free Kurdish state will easily betray them.
This where we come to the rather interesting ambiguity of what the sanctions implemented against Iran imply and the reality that exterior factors are playing a very real role in the situation. But before I delve into that, I want to focus on an overlapping issue – the issue of covert military complicity and how it is condemned by nations that have long standing traditions with regards to its use. In this case, I want to use Iran and the United States as examples.
The Hypocrisy Of ‘Might Makes Right’ Covert Military Complicity
The Iranians have been accused of training Shi’ite militants in Iran that then operate inside of Iraq in both an anti-occupational and sectarian manner.
The United States has trained countless paramilitary and militant organizations that have acted in those capacities throughout the world. Their support for a variety of military juntas and dictatorial regimes has also been considerable. One such regime was that of the Shah of Iran itself, who the United States and Great Britain put back into power after the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 50’s attempted to nationalize segments of the Iran’s oil industry.
US covert military support and training is, in fact, globally unprecedented. It knows very little limitation or restriction, operating in economic spheres, such as through numerous aid programs and the underwriting of World Bank loans to secure both privatization rights and military contracts. It has, and continues to, help develop, and by way influence, the intelligence capacities of foreign nations, train irregular and regular forces in nations that benefit their current policy platforms or have lucrative arms agreements with US defense contractors or third parties representing US arms interests. They have trained paramilitary groups, foreign domestic forces, and rogue militant groups that have been guilty of mass killings and disappearances, torture, mass imprisonments, industrial espionage, acts of terrorism, and psychological warfare. They possess a significant capability to manipulate information abroad, to control the flow of information, and employ counter-intelligence operations on a multi-national level.
Compared to this, the Iranians are the tiniest of bugs. While they are responsible for aiding numerous organizations, such as Hezbollah, theirs are operations that, by comparison, are utterly minuscule. Thus, placing things into proper context is obviously of importance, especially when anything that is going to come out of Iran about US covert activities is going to automatically be taken as a lie by the general public.
Iran As A Proxy Issue
Given the growing tensions between the United States and Russia, the use of Iran as a proxy issue is something that shouldn’t be overlooked. The sanctions out in place are focused on Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps. The Russians, on the other hand, (along with China) sell arms to Iran, and thus equip its military.
Today, Russian President Putin claimed that the implementation of a missile shield in Eastern Europe was akin to the introduction of MRBM’s by the Soviet Union into the Western Hemisphere…
“Similar actions by the Soviet Union, when it deployed missiles in Cuba, provoked the Caribbean crisis. For us, technologically, the situation is very similar.”
Of course, he went on to claim that the United States and Russia are allies and that he and Mr. Bush are good friends, but a statement of that magnitude is not made without purpose behind it. Nor are statements regarding the sale of weapons to Iran by the Russians made by the Assistant Secretary of State without purpose.
The two issues are, of course, conjoined, being that the defense shield is being implemented to guard against attacks from nations such as Iran. In fact, Iran has been specifically sited as one of the foremost reasons for the necessity of the shield.
Thus, you have the Russians and Chinese, two of the five permanent Security Council members, that have arms agreements with Tehran – and in the case of Russia have technologically aided in the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program, and the rest of the Council at odds with the Iranian program, sighting it as a threat. Interestingly, the implementation of the defense shield is in nations with which the US has burgeoning military ties and thus refuses to back down from its implementation.
At the end of the day, the five permanent members of the Security Council represent the five largest arms dealers in the world. So basically, this is all just mathematics. You need enemies to ensure return in the business of war, and when an age as politically and militarily ambiguous as the one in which we now find ourselves is ushered in, all bets are off.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Friday, October 26th, 2007 at 2:34 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I’m currently reading the Shock Doctrine, and coupled with this new set of information, i must say this is making for a bit of a dreary birthday.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Yeah, I just finished the Shock Doctrine a couple weeks ago. I’m watching the fires in California with a bit of interest to see how it’ll be applied…
As usual, an amazing post from Matt, that does a great job of synthesizing facts from a number of current event news stories into a coherent picture. Nice to know we can always count on him to make sense of things that way. Also nice to usually (not *quite* always) be able to nod your head in agreement with the assessment.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Well, Iran declared war on the US back in 1979, was it? “Bout time we settled up with them, don’t you think?
Next we get that punk Putin……….
October 26th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
[quote comment="30710"]Well, Iran declared war on the US back in 1979, was it? “Bout time we settled up with them, don’t you think?
Next we get that punk Putin……….[/quote]
Why stop there? Might as well bag everyone. That way you can rule the world outright and we can cut the pretense.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
just set up a MySpace page for Ahmadinejad and watch the American public beat him into submission.
[quote comment="30710"]Well, Iran declared war on the US back in 1979, was it? “Bout time we settled up with them, don’t you think?[/quote]
I don’t think the Iran-Iraq war is a declaration of war directly against the US, unless you count taking hostages as an act of war. And don’t forget who supplied arms to the Iranians during that conflict, as well as providing billions in funding to Saddam at the same time. So no, I doubt it’s time to settle up with them. Instead, it’s time to realize that past actions of the US are, deservedly, coming back to bite it in the ass.
I’m also pretty sure that Putin isn’t pissing off the entire global community by declaring everyone a terrorist and invading countries because he wants to.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Yeah, by all means don’t stop there…Get your list out boys and start ticking them all off. Line all the countries up like victims of a firing squad and let em have it-
Where does it end?
Not until the US is the last standing?
I’m only fearful for the day when the rest of the world has had enough and they come over to this side of the ocean to play.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I had a dream once that the US military was fighting a war on Canadian soil. I remember seeing tanks bull rushing through the streetsand large bombers flying overhead. All I can remember saying was that it was a mistake to allow the US military on Canadian soil to fight a war because the military essentially usurped the country. Damn, what a nightmare! Good thing it was dream because I wouldn’t appreciate the US trying to impose their brand of “FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY” on us.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
This talk of “air strikes” confuses me. Doesn’t this mean another undeclared war? Are these air strikes being sold as if the Bush regime is going to bomb Iran, dust off their hands and walk away saying “I wish it hadn’t come to that.”
Seems to me that any bombing of Iran whatsoever will result in protracted ground warfare.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
While it may prove true & makes some logical sense, i think its an rather big assumption to say this chest-puffing with Iran is being used to distract what’s happening in Iraq. Its like smashing your parents’ car into the mailbox, then trying to hide that by lighting the dog on fire…..people are going to notice both of the messes & eventually its just going to get you into more trouble. But maybe with an election coming up, a mask on Iraq is just what the Republicans need.
I’m shocked that the U.S. is considering what they are with Iran, given how badly Iraq has gone. Iran’s top General of the Revolutionary Guard (i believe it was him) said recently that if Iran was attacked by the U.S. that Iran would fire a massive array of missles into other countries as retaliation. Oh boy wouldn’t that be fun.
And what the heck is Harper & the Canadian gov’ts stance on all this?
October 26th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
[quote comment="30713"]
I’m only fearful for the day when the rest of the world has had enough and they come over to this side of the ocean to play.[/quote]
What are the odds that anyone will actually stand up and fight against the US? They’ve let them get away with so much for the past 20 yrs, why would the rest of the world do anything?
How many “super powers” who could really do the US damage would turn on their “friend”? The US has so many countries either in fear or in their pocket, or even under their control (how many bases around the world again???).
It would be nice, they did it to Nazi Germany, but I doubt they’d stand up against the US. The pop culture infestation was well planned, knowing that they would eventually desire to do as they are now, with minimal resistance.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
[quote comment="30717"]
And what the heck is Harper & the Canadian gov’ts stance on all this?[/quote]
My guess is Harper will do whatever he’s told to do, clearly not by us as he should, but by the US government.
But they are a little busy with the Throne Speech and passing laws that fight an agenda we didn’t quite have divulged during election time.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I think Bush should go out in a blaze of glory….well, ok, not that he any glory before but still, I could see him invading one more country (at least messing it up) before he has to walk out the door voluntarily. I have to chuckle at the comment by patz about him declaring everyone a terrorist because while he really hasn’t, he’s not that far off. Bush will get Iran before the next election, you just wait.
As for Harper, I believe he will curl up in the fetal position in the corner of his office repeating “no comment” over and over in a hushed voice.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
[quote comment="30711"][quote comment="30710"]Well, Iran declared war on the US back in 1979, was it? “Bout time we settled up with them, don’t you think?
Next we get that punk Putin……….[/quote]
Why stop there? Might as well bag everyone. That way you can rule the world outright and we can cut the pretense.[/quote]
Well, ok….. we just get the guys who tortured our embassy people. I’ve never forgotten how those bastards tortured our people and spit on the Geneva Convention. We should review the tapes and convict them of the Obvious War Crimes they comitted.
“I’m only fearful for the day when the rest of the world has had enough and they come over to this side of the ocean to play.”
Someone attacked the Towers and murdered almost 3,000 people. So someone has
already started. They better bring lunch though.[quote comment="30718"][quote comment="30713"]
“I’m only fearful for the day when the rest of the world has had enough and they come over to this side of the ocean to play.[/quote]
What are the odds that anyone will actually stand up and fight against the US? They’ve let them get away with so much for the past 20 yrs, why would the rest of the world do anything?
How many “super powers” who could really do the US damage would turn on their “friend”? The US has so many countries either in fear or in their pocket, or even under their control (how many bases around the world again???).
It would be nice, they did it to Nazi Germany, but I doubt they’d stand up against the US. The pop culture infestation was well planned, knowing that they would eventually desire to do as they are now, with minimal resistance.[/quote]
I’m confused, you want our allies to turn on us and destroy us? Who did what to Germany?
Europe will fight if Pakastan goes Islamo-Fascist…..Turky has been bombing the snot out of the border for weeks. It’s just a matter of time. I’ve said it before, it’s gonna be a land war…. a big one.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Wow, i guess i have only to hope that YOU’RE ALL WRONG!!!
But seriously, it would be better if we could just put Bush and Amadimijad in a small room full of sharp knives and be done with them both; Fundimentalism vs pig-headed fundimentalism. Let’s hope none of this comes to pass, let’s keep looking for a peaceful solution.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
A US Pre-emptive Strike on Iran will definitely ruffle some feathers felt the world over. This action could potentially destabilize an already choatic world. It will make matters worse if an air strike is utilized to target Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. Iran’s nuclear facilities are scattered throughout the country, even in heavily populated areas that could result in significant numbers of civilian casualties. In effect, this could unite the people of Iran, and possibly create more animosity from the Middle East in general, which could lead to more terrorist attacks. The US probably does not even have good enough intelligence on the locations of their targets. ie. WMD’s in IRAQ! The US can’t afford to lose even more diplomatic and persuasive power. It could be costly.
What else? This action could set a very dangerous precedent that could potentially allow other, not so friendly nations, to use the same legal justifications for actions that are illegitimate. It would also alter the laws governing the use of force. These are just some of the things that we should be concerned about. I hope that Harper considers the implications seriously before he makes a decision that could be very costly to our reputation.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Robert R
What I mean is, stand up and say “ok we’ve had enough” that’s what Violet was talking about.
I dont’ think the odds are good of anyone standing up to the US and saying “sit down and shut up” or something equivalent.
Germany in WWII had the rest of the world against them. They were invading and destroying. True the US is doing similar, not the same as I elluded, but that’s because their similar is much more subtle and much smaller scale, slower scale.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:45 am
[quote comment="30712"]I’m also pretty sure that Putin isn’t pissing off the entire global community by declaring everyone a terrorist and invading countries because he wants to.[/quote]
Except for the whole Second Chechen War, which has further hardened tens of thousands of fighters, as well as equipping them with abandoned Russian equipment. While Chechnya certainly isn’t its own country, it’s an area with fringe policing, along with other areas like North Ossetia. The attacks in these areas are often branded by Putin as terrorism (which they are), but also polarize different people within his own country, allowing the government to keep many parts in pseudo-military control. Furthermore, and more importantly on the global scale, these fighters take part in fighting on several continents - such a byproduct is seen by many as a Russian invasion via incompetence. Nobody on the global stage is unaware of this. Hell, the US itself had Special Forces in Chechnya to assist the FSB, GRU, and MVD, as, agnostic to the morals and legality of the operations, the Russians simply weren’t (and aren’t) capable of getting the job done and needed help in stemming the flow of fighters, not just providing them live-fire training.
As far as foreign influence is concerned, you just have to look to Ukraine’s last election, although, to be honest, it really doesn’t matter who’s running that country.
[quote comment="30713"]
What are the odds that anyone will actually stand up and fight against the US? They’ve let them get away with so much for the past 20 yrs, why would the rest of the world do anything?
How many “super powers” who could really do the US damage would turn on their “friend”? The US has so many countries either in fear or in their pocket, or even under their control (how many bases around the world again???).[/quote]
No one said that attempts to destabilize the US Government would come in the form of a military attack. Attacks on surprisingly vulnerable US military, government, commercial trading networks from the governments of over 140 countries has been widely acknowledged. Although the newspapers usually only talk about attacks from China and the Koreas, I wouldn’t doubt that much of that traffic is really other Eastern European and South Asian traffic being masked as originating in these countries. That said, China has some of the best hackers in the world (better than anyone the Americans can field or defend against, according to several conferences held in Langley that many of my professors were invited to), as well as having arguably the biggest influence on America’s domestic economy, possibly even more than the Federal Reserve. I would wager many a yuan that China wasn’t devaluing its own currency despite massive increases in exports to the US for fun; pushing off economic reform allowed them to keep foreign loans at their ridiculously low interest rates, an easy mark to suck up US dollars. If and when they actually do allow the value of their currency to correct itself, especially since they’ve switched in recent years to exporting incredibly high-volume and high-profit technology exports, means that interest rates could multiply at an unthinkable rate. At that point, the number of things they could do to America’s economy overtly, combined with attacks covertly (such as attacks on the NYSE), is unconscionable. That kind of attack would be more deadly than ICBMs, and is something that we’re heading toward, rather than staving off. Look at the attack on Estonia for proof of the kind of results it could have, although that seems more like an attack in microcosm; what would be perpetuated on the West would be much more methodical.
This kind of covert attack makes America’s near-pale in comparison, but American intervention is accepted in comparison to other nations’ as the US has managed the domestic and foreign policy of so many countries during the 20th century that current quasi-covert actions are seen by many as risk-management forces than those of aggression, international law be damned.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Ah, and I almost forgot - I would be willing to bet every free dollar I have against the US launching airstrikes against Iran:
1) Iran, unlike Iraq, actually has a somewhat competent military.
2) Airstrikes are useless in securing the goal of shutting down nuclear facilities with any certainty.
3) Any attack on Iran means that Iran will simply flood more weapons and special forces into Iraq, or, even worse, can actually set up conventional forces within Iraq itself. America had to squeeze blood from a stone to get the 30,000 or so troops into Iraq as part of the last surge; Iran could put enough troops within Iraq within a business week such that all US forces in Iraq wouldn’t be enough to face the Iranian military.
That said, I can imagine Israel launching a restricted campaign, as Iran has fewer options for counterattack without looking like an instigator.
It would be par for the course for Congress to fly off the handle and throw logic to the wind in these circumstances normally, but despite the fact that candidates like Clinton are anti-Iran, I doubt they want to inherit a disastrous 11th-hour Bush initiative on top of the Iraq issue, regardless of their feelings on Iraq. I mean, you’d have to be very confident in a two-term presidency to want that.
October 27th, 2007 at 7:55 am
The American Empire will collapse of its own weight; its frail body, weakened by neglect in the name of a few extra bucks, cannot support its swelled head for long.
October 27th, 2007 at 8:05 am
I was going to write something Robert, but then you used the term “Islamo-Fascist”, and realized it would be a waste of time.
October 27th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Many Folk feel uncomfortable
about People in foreign Lands
whose Beliefs and Values seem alien…
They view such Individuals as a Threat…
But the Truth is….that
the Folk we cannot abide
are far more likely
to live on our own Street
than in some distant Land…
October 27th, 2007 at 9:16 am
What makes a country want to be in the arms business? Instead of some other business? I suppose with Russia, it’s where they focussed most of their economic effort during the Cold War, and now they’re just trying to get as much of a return on that investment as possible. If you were Russia, what would you do? They’re poor, unhappy at the failure of democracy to achieve anything of substance in their country, and they’re still smarting over the failure of their own imperialistic ambitions.
As for the Americans, who knows why they do anything? Seems more about arrogance and ego to me than anything else, coupled with their xenophobia. I mean, we all know that their primary material interest is in securing energy supplies (though they’ve done a poor job to date), but they way they go about it points to a deeper need to overcome some deep-seated inadequacy that seems to never be healed, or the need to maintain their mythological delusions about being the greatest country on Earth by divine right at any cost. (Is that the standard Imperialist delusion?)
America needs enemies to define itself. It was born of revolution, and grew fat on conflict, and just can’t seem to grow out of that simplistic view of itself. As long as anyone disagrees with the American way of thinking, America will be only too happy to fight them over it.
What is it about human nature that we (or at least some of us some of us) need so badly to believe that we are, directly or by association (vis nationalism) better than everyone else?
October 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I literally laughed out loud at Matt’s last comment.
sigh.
October 27th, 2007 at 9:40 am
So true about the “Islamo-Fascist” comment Mr. Good, straight out of the neo-con “How to avoid intelligent debate” manual. It’s all those hate-America, liberal, moonbat, terrorist coddling, cut and run, commie, morally bankrupt atheists that want to allow the military juggernaut known as Iran to over take the world like Hitler. On one hand the oil/energy/weapon industries who have ties to this administration will see a lot of money from a war with Iran, on the other hand the amount of debt they have racked up means outside sources could fuck with their economy big time, and neo-con’s only love one thing more than Christ …. money.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Just wanted to let you know that you misquoted me…I in fact did not say the beloww comment- it was written by someone else in rsponse to something i had said earlier…..
As far as foreign influence is concerned, you just have to look to Ukraine’s last election, although, to be honest, it really doesn’t matter who’s running that country.
****************[quote comment="30713"]
What are the odds that anyone will actually stand up and fight against the US? They’ve let them get away with so much for the past 20 yrs, why would the rest of the world do anything?
How many “super powers” who could really do the US damage would turn on their “friend”? The US has so many countries either in fear or in their pocket, or even under their control (how many bases around the world again???).[/quote]******************
No one said that attempts to destabilize the US Government would come in the form of a military attack.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
It’s telling that the “Axis of Evil” speech came after Iran was the largest developing-world aid donor to the Afghanistan effort. I think Bush’s speech pretty much put a lid on the influence of Iran’s moderate government members and clerics for a good while.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
[quote comment="30735"]I was going to write something Robert, but then you used the term “Islamo-Fascist”, and realized it would be a waste of time.[/quote]
Well, almost.
What term would you require?
Students?
Misguided youth?
Terrorists?
Fucking torturing bastards?
First off, if someone held you at gunpoint against your will, refused you timely medical attention, subjected you to sleep deprivation, used isolation as punishment, refused any Red Cross assistance from reaching you etc. etc….. for well over a year……
Would you call that torture?
Or would you use my choice of verbiage to condone what “Iran” did?
October 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“So true about the “Islamo-Fascist” comment Mr. Good, straight out of the neo-con “How to avoid intelligent debate” manual.”
I’m not trying to evade anything. What would you call the people who tortured the American citizens in the Embassy takeover?
You are, I hope, all for bringing war criminals to justice?
October 27th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I wouldn’t call them Islamo-Fascists. There are fascists who happen to be Islamic, and there are fascists who happen to not be Islamic. The term Islamo-Fascist is a clumsy attempt by the neocons to vilify Islam and anyone who adheres to it. The fact that you are bringing religion into it reveals your intolerance.
October 27th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
My intolerance?
How do you figure that?
What would you call them?
Most of the terrorists who want the US to fall, want to kill or convert everyone who is not islamic. So, how am I bringing religion into it?
Do you wish to see War Criminals brought to Justice?
Nazi Death Camp workers who are still at large? Or do you believe , as the Pres of Iran does, that the Holocaust never happened?
October 27th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
It pisses me off that Bush & Rice et al. talk about their wants for diplomacy with Iran, then Bush labels them a part of an “axis of evil” & categorizes their military as a terrorist group. Bush knows shitfarts about diplomacy. He’s living out all his Roy Rogers fantasies.
October 27th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Here’s one war criminal I’m pleased to see is being taken to court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/europe/27rumsfeld.html?ref=europe
October 27th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Stephen K…….That’s all well for you to say, but what term should I use for the people who tortured the Americans seized and tortured in the Embassy takeover. OK….I won’t use Islamo Fascist……How about murderous bastards?
What should I call the people who decapitated prisoners of war on world wide t.v.?
Does that rise to the level of torture? Don’t you wish to see them hunted down and brought to justice?
C’mon now, don’t tolerate some murderous scum bastard cowards like those guys; hooded and fearfull of combat with American Soldiers. Don’t let them get away with murdering newsmen.
Are you going to do your part and convert to Islam? If not, Bin Ladens Boys have a bayonet for you! Peace and Love, R.
October 28th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Whatever. None of us ever said we did tolerate them..
October 28th, 2007 at 12:21 am
[quote comment="30786"]Just wanted to let you know that you misquoted me…I in fact did not say the below comment- it was written by someone else in rsponse to something i had said earlier….[/quote]
Looks like I removed the wrong nested comment tags. My mistake.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:24 am
[quote comment="30889"]Here’s one war criminal I’m pleased to see is being taken to court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/europe/27rumsfeld.html?ref=europe/quote
Too bad our new president here in France passed his hollidays with Bush Familly…
That was a good think to try to persue that guy, thus the list of those kind of people coming to France is endless …
October 28th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Stephen K
Hey, you bust my chops for using the term “Islamo-Fascist”, but yet you refuse to answer any of my politely stated questions?
Is your idea of discourse, “Whatever”?
Next time you want to ridicule me, bring more ammo.
October 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
You think your questions pass for discourse? Do I want to bring war criminals to justice? Am I allied with Ahedinijad on the Holocaust question? Am I going to convert to Islam? Those questions are in fact very insulting to me, as a humanist and a rationalist.
October 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Whatever….
October 28th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
As much as I believe that the Iranian Revolution and its components were near-inevitable repercussions given the circumstances, you will rarely find anyone here willing to acknowledge that they were responsible for, depending on viewpoint and the complexities of international law, violating the Geneva convention by taking hostages, or out-and-out terrorism. Instead, each one of these incidents will breathlessly be related back to the United States as though personal responsibility doesn’t exist.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Cheney is a great admirer of Nixon and like him has done everything he could to make the Presidency unaccountable to anyone.
Like Nixon he’s also trying to solve a complete mess of a war by widening it into a neighbouring country. Few people think that Iran with nuclear weapons is a good thing, but one thing that has become even more clear in the last five years is that Cheney and Bush in charge of the most powerful armed forces in the world is even worse.
The bombing and invasion of Cambodia by US forces in the early 1970s set the stage for the Killing Fields in that nation, something that the US has done little to take responsibility for. It’s time for the US people to take back their government from a rogue administration just as they had to do with Nixon in 1974.
Impeach the bastards, they’ve killed enough innocent people already!
October 29th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Yeah, before they kill anymore.
October 29th, 2007 at 4:25 am
[quote comment="31015"]
Impeach[/quote]
I’m in complete agreement, but as long as a significant portion (or significantly loud portion)of the US population continues to act as apologists for them, no chance in hell.
October 29th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Bush has one of the lowest approval ratings of any President ever, Cheney is widely reviled. Once an honest impeachment effort got underway there would be nothing to stop it, if the Republicans in Congress stood in the way they’d pay a very heavy price in the 2008 election.
What’s going on now in the US isn’t much different from Saddam invading Kuwait in 1990 to save his political skin.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:59 am
“What’s going on now in the US isn’t much different from Saddam invading Kuwait in 1990 to save his political skin”
Yeah, I can barely hear the sound of George Bush Bayoneting the babies from the orphanage over the sound of the M1 Tanks clanking and grinding their way over the neighborhood houses.
And, my afternoon mail was DELAYED ten minutes!!!!!! The Bastards! It’s JUST like Kuwait under attack in 1990!!!!!!
October 29th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
[quote comment="31025"][quote comment="31015"]
Impeach[/quote]
I’m in complete agreement, but as long as a significant portion (or significantly loud portion)of the US population continues to act as apologists for them, no chance in hell.[/quote]
America is a representative democratic republic, not a pure democracy. Public opinion has little to do with the chances of impeachment, just as it had little to actually do with Nixon’s impending impeachment. Plus, you can’t impeach on such serious charges that span all branches of government (and important positions in the military) such as multiple breaches of the Geneva Convention and/or Constitution without investigations for similar charges, or complicity, down the chain in both parties. It won’t happen.
[quote comment="31052"]What’s going on now in the US isn’t much different from Saddam invading Kuwait in 1990 to save his political skin.[/quote]
Please elaborate.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Because of the great financial and human cost of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was at risk risk of losing political support in Iraq in 1990. Iraq owed billions of dollars lent to it by neighbours like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that Saddam wasn’t going to be able to repay. True to form he chose the direct and violent approach to his political/financial problems and invaded Kuwait. While the takeover of Kuwait failed, Saddam was able to hold on to power in Iraq in the chaos that occured during the first Gulf War.
Cheney and Bush also show the same inclination to resort to force as a solution to domestic political problems. The drive to attack Iran right now isn’t about protecting the US, it’s about diverting attention from a leadership that is damaging America.
Impeachment is possible for the misleading of Congress to involve America in a war that has cost thousands of American casualties and billions of dollars. Especially given the involvement of the President and Vice President in private companies that have made huge profits from the war they created.
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Cheneys former Chief of Staff Scooter Libby has already been convicted for involvement in the outing of a serving US intelligence officer(Plame), I don’t think it would take much digging to find that Cheney was involved in Treason.
Robert-
Many of the stories of Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait were the product of Washington based PR firms to build support for the Gulf War in 1990.
And US M1s have been in action in Iraq for over four years helping contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
The Gulf War was almost entirely an economic matter, though. Iraq felt it was exploited by unfair drilling and market manipulation, which it was. Any notion of a loss of political support is a moot point in Iraq at that time; by holding off an invasion, America’s political support and economic aid toward Iraq, regardless of the growing human rights issues and attempted sanctions, would have still been far more favourable than the result of an invasion that met any resistance other than those of the two target countries (which was a certainty).
If you mean that his intent was to nationalize his country against his enemies in order to boost support, again, politically, it’s a moot point. Even economically, what were Kuwait and Saudi Arabia going to do - call in their debt? Especially in Kuwait’s case, an impossible move. Kuwait had hoped to use the debt as leverage against Iraq, but as political as that sounds, that kind of result would have been a long-shot.
They are equatable in that they’re both about oil. But that means that they’re both driven by economic factors, not political. In fact, in both cases, there was no effectual political gain for what they’ve done, only economic (and in the US’ case, strategic). But neither were to save their political skin.
As to my previous statement about the possibility of impeachment, it’s as true now as when I wrote it. There could be 100% public support for impeachment, and it still won’t happen - neither party is willing to shoot itself in the foot by opening the doors to inquests that span two terms of presidency, as the number of people who would be left vulnerable to potential charges, or at the very least, information that would damage any future career, would be far too great. I doubt that I’ll ever see a presidential impeachment in the rest of my life that focuses on anything other than absolutely personal conduct.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I mean Saddam had his back to the wall for failing in his invasion of Iran and the huge debt he put his country into, not to mention the several hundred thousand troops lost and the civilian deaths as the Iranians and Iraqis pummeled each others capitals. Saddam was losing support both within the military and Baathist party and saw a Kuwait invasion as a way to boost his popular support and remove a large peice of debt at the same time.
War is more than just economics it’s a way to appear strong and intimidate both domestic and foreign opponents. Something Cheney and Bush know well.
As for impeachment, as far as I’m concerned it was created to stop the exact kind of behaviour now being shown by the current US administration. I know some of my older US relatives were of the opinion that real democracy was dying in the country and if what’s been going on there in the last seven years isn’t stopped I have to agree with them.