“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Friday, November 04, 2011

Obama Missed the Opportunity to Support the Iranian Overthrow of the Ayatollahs in 2009. Now What?




Iran is on the verge of getting the Bomb. It is time for President Barack Obama to act

The US President's softly-softly approach has failed to deter the ayatollahs in their bid to acquire nuclear weapons.

8:28PM GMT 03 Nov 2011 TELEGRAPH






Ever since he took power three years ago, President Obama has done his level best to avoid a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme. Mr Obama began his presidency with a direct video appeal to Tehran to abandon decades of hostility towards America and establish a dialogue based on “mutual interests and respect”. This innate belief that he can persuade the ayatollahs to mend their confrontational ways has meant that, even when presented with clear-cut evidence of Tehran’s wrongdoing, he has proved reluctant to offer an effective response.

When the regime launched a brutal crackdown against anti-government protesters following the disputed presidential election in 2009, Mr Obama agonised for days about whether he should back the opposition Green movement. By the time he did so, most of the opposition leaders had either been killed or were languishing in jail, and the most serious challenge to the ayatollahs’ rule since the 1979 revolution had been stopped in its tracks.

Even when Mr Obama was handed unequivocal evidence in the autumn of 2009 that Iran was building a second nuclear enrichment facility at Qom, he still preferred to take a softly-softly approach. The inevitable new round of sanctions was implemented, but no meaningful action was taken to curtail Iran’s obsession with developing nuclear weapons.

As we know from the 1930s, appeasement achieves little when it comes to confronting a determined foe for whom the normal laws of international conduct do not apply. And next week, the full extent of Iran’s duplicity will be laid bare, with the publication of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report on its nuclear ambitions.

Unlike previous IAEA reports – which, under the leadership of Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, deliberately sought to obfuscate the true nature of Iran’s activities – this one will demonstrate unequivocally that Iran is well on the way to acquiring nuclear weapons. It will show that the country is seeking to engineer and test components that are only used in the production of nuclear weapons, and that this illegal activity is taking place at sites that would not even exist if Iran was in compliance with its international treaty obligations.

Why, for example, are Iranian scientists experimenting with triggers that are only used for detonating nuclear weapons? Why are Iranian technicians devoting so much energy to developing a ballistic missile warhead that can carry a nuclear warhead? And why have they designed simulation programmes whose sole purpose is to test nuclear weapons systems?

The inescapable conclusion is that, for all Tehran’s protestations that its nuclear intentions are entirely peaceful, the ayatollahs are close to achieving their long-held ambition of joining the exclusive club of nuclear-armed powers. And rather than trying to ignore the apocalyptic implications, Mr Obama may find himself obliged to do something rather more robust than merely freezing the bank accounts of senior Iranian officials.

Certainly, one of the main conclusions that should be drawn from the IAEA report is that the sanctions regime has failed to have the desired effect. As one senior Whitehall official conceded to me this week, “The Iranians have proved to be surprisingly resilient at overcoming the impact of the sanctions. They don’t seem to have made any significant impact on the nuclear programme.”

In fact, the only measures that have had any demonstrable effect on slowing Iran’s nuclear progress have been undertaken by Israel, via a skilful combination of targeted assassinations and cyber-warfare. The introduction last year of the Stuxnet computer virus, which was developed at Israel’s Dimona nuclear research centre in the Negev desert, knocked out thousands of the centrifuges used to produce weapons-grade uranium. Iranian efforts have also been hit by the assassination of three of their top nuclear scientists in the past two years.

But as the IAEA report will demonstrate, a combination of ingenuity and determination has enabled the Iranians to overcome these setbacks, to the point where their uranium enrichment activities have been fully reconstituted. Moreover, to ensure they do not suffer any further such attacks, they are relocating much of their nuclear equipment to underground bunkers. This includes the facility at Qom, which is buried deep below a mountain range, safe from foreign meddling.

If Iran continues at its present rate, it is estimated that all the key nuclear components will be safely hidden away within 12 months, which would make it impossible for either the US or Israel to launch pre-emptive strikes. For this reason, a more bellicose response can be expected from the major Western powers when the IAEA presents its report.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already sought Cabinet support for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities while they are still visible. By way of underlining the seriousness of his intent, the Israeli military earlier this week test-fired a missile capable of hitting Iran.

Given the appalling repercussions that a unilateral attack on Iran would have on regional stability, it is highly unlikely that even Mr Obama can distance himself from the coming storm. The Iranians have made it abundantly clear that, if attacked, they will respond by trying to wipe Israel off the map. Mr Obama does not enjoy the best of relationships with Mr Netanyahu, who has been accused of constantly undermining Washington’s attempts to revive peace talks with the Palestinians. But he also knows that America cannot afford to stand by when Iran threatens the very existence of its closest regional ally.

74 comments:

  1. You would have to be politically blind not to see this coming. Netanyahu has been beating the war drums to rally US neocons to arms for the hoped for US attack on Iran. The swapping of one thousand Palestinian terrorists for one Israeli corporal and the preposterous so-called assassination plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US were the pre-stages for an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.

    When has Iran last invaded anyone? It has, however, been attacked by Iraq, with the complicit support of the West. That was when Saddam was our guy. The Iranians In April 1980 supported Ad Dawah's attempt to assassinate Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz and Saddam, in response, assembled an army of 190,000 men, augmented by 2,200 tanks and 450 aircraft to solve his Iranian problem. The result was a war that ended in a draw with 300,000 dead Iranians and 250,000 dead Iraqis.

    In the last fifteen years West has invaded Iraq (twice) on one border of Iran, and Afghanistan on the other. How would the US view a hostile power once invading Canada and twice invading Mexico? Had Iran possessed the bomb in 1980, Saddam would never have invaded Iran. That is why we call it nuclear deterrence. It is a strategic move made by The US, the UK, Russia, France, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel.

    If Iran gets the bomb, do we really think it is going to start a nuclear war with Israel? Why would they? Israel has over 100 nuclear weapons, the means to deliver them, a world class early warning system and unrivaled intelligence capabilities. Please, spare me the absurd invocation that they would destroy their own country to go to heaven. All humans have the same instincts to survive and at the expense of others if necessary. The only existential threat to Israel is in the paranoid minds of the paranoid minority that repeat it.

    I don't like the Iranian regime. When Syria falls as it surely will, the ayatollah's days will be numbered. I'd rather Iran didn't have nuclear weapons, but history has shown that nuclear weapons work as a deterrent.

    To date we know that nuclear deterrence works. We also should have learned that war has unintended and distaorous consequences. We should have learned that in Viet Nam, but the draft dodgers that avoided that one dragged us into two absurd and ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those ongoing adventures have ruined our military and pummelled our economy.

    The US should not get involved in doing the dirty work for a paranoid and manipulating second rate Israeli politician, Bibi Netanyahu.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here is the question?

    Is it worth destroying the American economy with $250 a barrel oil, a 20% hit to the stock market and a further wrecking of the dollar, you IRA, job and standard of living, for Netanyahu to do his George Bush schtick?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Obama wants to do something useful, slip 500,000 SIG P226's into Iran and play some more golf while Syria falls off the edge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. See how those Iranian Basij motorcycle units stand up to that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. it would serve you right if Iran got the bomb and attacked Saudi Arabia.

    then you would have your high gas prices that you personally deserve.

    Iran's going nuclear will be a game changer not only for Israel but the USA and Europe.

    But some in this room are to stupid to understand the forest for the trees.

    I pity you and your feeble minds.

    Israel is beating the war drums?

    Sure I just got back from attending a "day without iran" in israel...

    didnt hear about it did ya?

    Fucking losers....

    ReplyDelete
  6. No I can see the palms from the sand dunes just fine. I can also recognize the master manipulator behind the palms, the new Wizard of Ur. I am disgusted with the religious fanatics of the Middle East, their fanciful delusions and their ancient gripes.

    The welfare and safety of 315 million Americans plus one are my concern, not the paranoia of a minority in a country with a population 25% of Mexico City. Israel is surrounded by several hundred million religious fanatics. That is their historic hard luck. Israel attacking Iran is a choice, In my opinion a bad one, but it is an Israeli affair. If you want to dig out your old military battle fatigues, which I am sure are still hanging in your closet, jump on a plane and sign up. Use your resources and the resources of your kin and friends as you see fit.

    I would prefer to take a pass and American politicians had better think about American interests for a change. The US has buried enough dead and enough treasure in the Middle East.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The decision to abruptly end having boots on the ground in Iraq is preparation for having boots on the ground in Iran. Having three simultaneous wars would be too much for the Nobel Prize committee, after all, and they would revoke Obama's Peace Prize faster than they revoked Milli Vanilli's Grammy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deuce said...
    All humans have the same instincts to survive and at the expense of others if necessary.


    You may want to rethink and rephrase.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Deuce said...
    The US should not get involved in doing the dirty work for a paranoid and manipulating second rate Israeli politician, Bibi Netanyahu.


    You may be right on the "second rate", but you are certainly wrong on the "paranoid".

    ReplyDelete
  10. Deuce said...
    If Obama wants to do something useful, slip 500,000 SIG P226's into Iran and play some more golf while Syria falls off the edge.

    Fri Nov 04, 05:38:00 AM EDT


    Despite Congressional authorization to destabilize Iran, three administrations have failed to heed either that authorization or your suggestion above. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Deuce,

    With respect, it is the Iranians threatening the US if Israel attacks. I repeat: the threats to the US come from Iran. Would you have the United States ignore those threats ala DR or pretend, ala DR, that they have not been made? Just yesterday, the Iranians made the same threats.

    Of course by pretending that Iran has not made death threats against the US should war with Israel come, you lay the blame for any consequences at the feet of Netanyahu. That may make you feel better, but it is not true. And that lack of truth is not an accident of geography.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry Deuce, but I think all Islamic countries have to be dealt a death blow. The sooner the better, IMHO.

    I'd rather deal with a rational enemy but we deal with them as we let them grow.

    The Islamic chant over the years has varied one bit.
    "Death to Israel. Death to America"

    Remember, it took a Minnesotan to bust one of the 911 hijackers before it happened. (Something in the water I suppose)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can appreciate your disagreement with my point of view. If someone wants to kill Ahmadinejad and a few dozen ayatollahs, most of the World will quitely applaud. The risk reward ratio in assaulting Iranian nuclear facilities will work about as well as the projected pay-off to the US in Iraqi oil after the US attack on Iraq did.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Remember the "Ayatollah Bomb" that Iranians were going to build by 1988? That was predicted in 1984.

    Viscerally any reasonable person would wish away an Iranian nuclear program. I would prefer that Pakistan an North Korea were not nuclear powers, but I am a pragmatist. Predicting military outcomes is a fool's dream. They rarely go according to plan and mostly to disastrous consequences. Nuclear deterrence is one of the most successful military and political strategies ever developed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Israel is walking into a trap. If I were AQ today, I would do anything to convince the Israelis that a terrorist attack against Israeli was based in Iran. I would pick five easily accessible Israeli consulates and embassies and hit them simultaneously claiming Iranian authority. Fanciful?

    The Israeli Embassy in Costa Rica is on the 11th floor of a high rise mixed office building on Paseo Colón in San Jose. The corridors are open from at least three streets. Any deliveryman can deliver anything to a hotel and various shops and offices. There are two sleepy guards at the only elevators in the building. San Jose is loaded with illegals from Venezuela, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Palestine.

    If Israel wants to get serious about its own security it had better start in San Jose, CR.

    ReplyDelete
  16. WiO: Fucking losers....

    I live for the day when WiO comes right out and calls Deuce an anti-Semitic Nazi for not toeing the Likud party line.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I will go with a 16 word statement:

    Any Nuclear Attack Against Israel Will Be Treated As A Nuclear Attack Against The United States.

    Such an attack would necessarily mean the deaths of All Ayatollahs in Qom, all Generals on all military bases, and all Government workers (as well as everyone else) in Tehran.


    Other than that, "Have a Nice Day."

    It can, in now way, be in the interest of the United States to be "at war" with 75 Million Persians.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That was a decent "employment report" this morning. Things didn't get a whole lot better, BUT they didn't get any worse.

    In fact, that slight downtick in the unemployment rate was, as far as I can see (on my first cup of coffee) for real.

    It's time to cut our expenses in the Mideast, and try to salvage what's left of our economy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Unfortunately, Islam is the enemy. It needs to be eradicated or we are just pissing in the wind. It matters not how many "Top commanders" or imans we kill as there will always be a dumbshit to take thier place. The Iranian regime needs to be taken down by it's own people. We and Israel must help the secularist people of the world in any way possible.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A Good Country can handle One "Crisis." A Really Strong Country "May" be able to handle Two. I don't think that even the United States can handle "Three."

    "Four" has to sink ANY country.

    We have a "Housing/Construction" Crisis.

    We have a "Trade/Currency" Crisis with China.

    We have an "Oil Crisis."


    "Boots on the Ground" in Persia has to be off the board.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A threat, allen, without the capacity to complete it, is no threat at all.

    Just more hyperbole.

    Just as comparing Iran to Japan, prior to 1941, is beyond ludicrous.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Over a Billion people, worldwide, "Believe" in Islam. We Can't be at war with the beliefs of One Billion People.

    The good news is, out of that billion, only a handful of nutcakes actually want to "war with the U.S." We need to worry with that handful, and leave that other billion people alone.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, whether it is unfortunate, or not ...

    Islam is an ally of the United States.

    While there are proponents of Islam with whom the US is in conflict, the US has founded two Islamic Republics in the last decade, at the cost of over a trillion USD and 5,000 or so US lives.

    Islam is not the enemy, it is an ally in controlling the populations of those countries that own "our" oil.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Halliburton, Transocean, Exxon, Shell, General Dynamics, Boeing, etc, want very much for us to engage in endless wars in the Middleeast.

    The people of Tunica County, Ms, just want a job, and an affordable method of "getting along."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Comparing Iran to Germany of the 1930's, only works for those ignorant of history and full of post WWII propaganda.

    The allied powers of that day, promoting the environment of economic malaise in the Wiemar Republic, from which the radicals arose.

    A scenario which we are certainly attempting to duplicate, in Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't think that even the United States can handle "Three."

    "Four" has to sink ANY country.


    Louis XIV's military adventures laid the groundwork for bankruptcy and the violent overthrow of the French monarchy.


    It has always been my stated preference that the US or any ally kill specific bad guys rather than engage in wholesale destruction. Had Reagan followed through on Colonel Q and and on the Iranians following the Marine Barracks bombing, how much different the world would be today. Why is it so hard for policy makers to understand that bad guys have a difficult time directing organizations when they are forever looking up for that precious drone with the Hellfire aboard?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I still marvel at the change in opinion by many on the 'right' regarding Iran and war in general for that matter. I remember when I first suggested at The Belmont Club that war with Iran over the nuclear program would probably not occur and would be mistake if it did - my my the howls of derision.

    Folk also seem perplexed that so many in the middle east equate the US and Israel. It seems logical to me. A recent example would be the US current reaction to Palestinian admittance to UNESCO.



    On a completely different note many folk noticed how Canadian banks were more stable through the last financial crisis. I remember when the Banks here, per-crisis, wanted to merge so they could increase their heft and better compete internationally. The government said no.

    A similar thing is happening in the Insurance business. The following article might prove interesting to some highlighting other potential financial problems lurking below the main stream surface:

    "How a Canadian address turned Manulife’s $2.2-billion profit into a $1.28-billion loss"

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/how-a-canadian-address-turned-manuliafes-22-billion-profit-into-a-128-billion-loss/article2223793/

    ReplyDelete
  28. DR said...
    Just as comparing Iran to Japan, prior to 1941, is beyond ludicrous.

    Fri Nov 04, 09:51:00 AM EDT


    This may come as a shock: Prior to 7 Dec 1941 many, many Americans took the same hands off approach to Japan as you take with Iran. (The same was true of Germany) Even after 7 Dec 1941 there were some Americans arguing for a "reasonable" settlement of differences in foreign policy.

    Iran has been directly responsible for or an accomplice in the murders of thousands of Americans - some of them while traveling in Israel.

    All that said, I subscribe to the MacArthur method: Hit'em where they ain't. In the instance, the Syrian regime makes as especially juicy target.

    ReplyDelete
  29. There is no Krupp Arms Works, in Iran.
    No Messerschmidt.
    No Mercedes.
    No Porsche.
    No Luger.
    No Walther.

    There is no industrial base, to even begin to create a military threat, in Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Why empower the Muslm Brotherhood, in Syria?

    What is the long term gain, for the US in taking that course?

    Allowing radical Sunnis, those were the ones that attacked the US in September of 2001, to take control of Syria and its' Army ...

    Explain how that benefits US.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Just leave Syria alone, to stew in its' own juices.

    They are certainly pose no threat to the US.

    Especially while they are embroiled in civil strife, as they are now.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Japanese, allen, had a long history of military aggression, prior to 1941.

    Where is the history of Iran military aggression?

    The Iranians have been the target of "Western" aggression, since the Brits first took military action there, in 1856.

    We could, of course, go further back and discuss Persia, Athens and Macedonia, in a historical cultural content, but that is frivolous.

    ReplyDelete
  33. They are certainly posing no threat to the US.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Just leave Syria alone, to stew in its' own juices."

    I agree.

    "We could, of course, go further back and discuss Persia, Athens and Macedonia, in a historical cultural content, but that is frivolous."

    Islam has been at war since it's unholy birth. With plenty of military as well as civilian deaths to it's credit.

    ReplyDelete
  35. What I forgot to say was Islam is at war with Truth & Reason.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. DR,

    I have no idea what the industrial potential of Iran is, although I suspect it to be quite limited. With that, there are the industrial bases of Russia, France, Germany, China and the US. All of whom have supported the Iranians logistically, even if involunarily on occasion.

    The Thirteen Colonies defeated the UK, I take it we can agree. Those colonies had no industrial base to speak of, but got by using the aid supplied by others. Indeed, it was the fear of outside assistance to the Confederacy by Europeans that prompted Mr. Lincoln to publish his Emancipation Proclamation when he did.

    For more than a half-century, the US has fought the Chinese and Russians/USSR. Although no nuclear exchange has taken place, it is likely that several hundred million humans have died either directly or indirectly (starvation, disease etc) nonetheless. That you did not happen to be one does not make the math incorrect.

    The former Senator from Georgia, Zell Miller, when making a defense against Islamic fascism, asked, "What would you do if you discovered a nest of copperheads under your porch?" Now, those copperheads have hurt no one, thus far; however, are you willing to put yourself and your loved ones at risk of the potential?

    You conflate action with motivated potential. I am well aware of the value of the economic bases that supported both the Japanese and Germans. Why, I am even aware that the best wartime production year for Germany was 1944, despite unrelenting "strategic" bombing at great loss to the Allies.

    ReplyDelete
  38. All religion that is miraculous at its' core, defies "Truth and Reason".

    The "West", dougman, has been embroiled in Persia and Northern Africa, since well before there was an Islam.

    Well prior to Christianity, tambien.

    The Philistines, being Greeks, before there was a "Greece".

    The lands of the Levant, a battlefield of empires and cultures, well before the Tribes of Israel ever left Egypt.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The American colonists, allen, beat a foreign army, on their own turf.
    With an alliance from a Primary Power, one that supplied the naval blockade that was necessary for a military victory, by the colonists.

    The colonists were not projecting power.

    Neither are the Iranians.

    The colonists were fighting for their homes.
    So too will the Iranians.

    You avoid the question of past military aggression by Iran, in the historical accuracy of your claims of their equivalency with the Axis Powers of WWII.

    You avoid discussion of their capacity to present a military threat. Their complete lack of capacity, really.

    ReplyDelete
  40. It has always been my stated preference that the US or any ally kill specific bad guys rather than engage in wholesale destruction. Had Reagan followed through on Colonel Q and and on the Iranians following the Marine Barracks bombing, how much different the world would be today. Why is it so hard for policy makers to understand that bad guys have a difficult time directing organizations when they are forever looking up for that precious drone with the Hellfire aboard?

    Oh, come to me brother Allen!

    ReplyDelete
  41. US reins in drones over diplomatic concerns: report

    “The changes reportedly include granting the State Department greater sway in strike decisions, giving Pakistani leaders advance warning of more operations and suspending operations when Pakistani officials visit the United States.

    ‘It's not like they took the car keys away from the CIA,’ the Journal quoted a senior official as saying. ‘There are just more people in the car.’"

    This is kinda, sorta like we were on 10 Sep 2001, isn’t it?

    ReplyDelete
  42. SaSaS



    Sabotage and Sanction are Sufficient

    ReplyDelete
  43. All religion that is miraculous at its' core, defies "Truth and Reason".

    Unless the miracle can be proven?

    (Hmmm, how to prove a miracle to someone who won't admit it even if it happens right before thier very eyes, because miracles just don't happen.)

    ReplyDelete
  44. .

    didnt hear about it did ya?


    Wouldn't have given a shit about it had I heard about it.


    Deuce laid out a succinct yet complete rationale for the position of those who oppose direct action in Iran by the US.

    I happen to agree with everything he said.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  45. DR said...

    The colonists were not projecting power.



    I think George III and his parliament would have disagreed. Without doubt so would the Canadians, who beat back Benedict Arnold a band of innocent colonial picknickers.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ash, The right prefers to be right especially after facts convince us that we were wrong.

    There is a broad opinion at the EB and all of them worthy of being challenged, an example being of my good friend Wio, who in his heart knows that I am guilty of many things, anti-semitism not being one of them. There is nothing I have posted at this blog that I would not say to my few Israeli colleagues. We all share the love for political argument, to our lasting shame.

    ReplyDelete
  47. We'll just have to disagree, about the colonists projecting power, outside their own continental landmass.

    The Persians, have oft been in control of the shores of the Eastern Med, historically.

    But they have no history of leaving their own region.

    Historically spanning from Afghanistan to Greece.

    ReplyDelete
  48. .

    (Hmmm, how to prove a miracle to someone who won't admit it even if it happens right before thier very eyes, because miracles just don't happen.)


    I would only suggest that perhaps we should not yield foreign policy decisions to those who are unable to distingish between 'provable facts' and 'faith'.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  49. ... but that attention was especially centred upon the great stone (ingens saxum)
    which was dragged into its place by magistrates and people together. Moreover
    ...

    www.newadvent.org/cathen/14303a.htm

    The word made flesh is the core of my belief. Nothing to do with religion :)

    ReplyDelete
  50. The miraculous, just that, dougman.

    The Muslims believe in theirs, as you do yours.

    They would tell you that your blinders are self-imposed, as well.

    Blinding you to the "Truth and Reason" which they espouse.

    Which you, of course, deny.

    Telling us of the blindness with which others suffer, when they refuse to see your version of the miraculous as "Truth and Reason".

    ReplyDelete
  51. Deuce said...
    Oh, come to me brother Allen!

    Fri Nov 04, 11:12:00 AM EDT


    :-)

    Consider Syria. What would happen if the Israelis took out the majority of the regime's air and armored power? Well, for starters, I sense that Dr. al Assad would be swinging from a lamppost within a week. That or he would be in Switzerland. Without a single American boot on the ground, Syria would explode into a bloody, prolonged civil war.

    As for the Iranians, their clients in Lebanon would soon be starved, without the Syrian depots. Of course, Hiz might launch massive quantities of rockets etc at Israel - at which point Israel would "plow" massive furrows along its northern border. Without hope of Iranian/Syrian reinforcement because Israel had simultaneously cut supply lines from the north and placed Syria in the position of having to fight a civil war, Hiz could be defeated in detail.

    The sole impediment to this scenario would be US meddling.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Deuce said...
    All humans have the same instincts to survive and at the expense of others if necessary.


    You may want to rethink and rephrase.


    Most humans… especially at the expense…[sic]

    ReplyDelete
  53. .

    Christ reportedly said, "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God's."

    Bringing religion into a foreign policy discussion lowers one to the level of the fundamentalists in the ME.

    The idea of launching an attack on Iran as part of a 'crusade' is...well... as you said

    :)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  54. So the Sunni radicals are, for Israel, safer than Shiite conservatives?

    The status que of the Assad regime poses more danger to Israel than does the Muslim Brotherhood controlling those weapons depots?

    That is an interesting revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Jon Corzine is sad. He’s also no longer the chief executive of MF Global, for whatever its worth. He won’t be seeking severance from the bankrupt trading firm.

    This sick MF rrr, former head of a the MF company named after him, former people's choice for Governor of New Jersey and US Senator, has just clipped the coupons of up to $600 million of his investor's money. Nothing could heal his inner pain probably picked up sometime after his thumb sucking in his mother's womb. He also should have announced that he is lawyering up to see if he can buy out of what he has bought into.

    Where is Bernie Madoff?

    ReplyDelete
  56. A revelation that provides confirmation.

    The conflict currently being advocated for, with Iran, is not part of the US "War on Terror", that which was authorized on 18SEP01.

    As those targeted by the authorization were sponsored by and a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Our enemies are attacking Assad.
    Assad has never attacked the US.

    We are authorized to use force, against the Muslim Brotherhood, in a liberal reading of the Authorization. Not so against the government of Dr Assad, in Syria.

    ReplyDelete
  57. He Is lawyering up; big time.

    You can get away with a lot, but I don't think even those worthless motherfuckers can get away with "Commingling" of customer's funds.

    ReplyDelete
  58. DR said...
    desert rat said...
    So the Sunni radicals are, for Israel, safer than Shiite conservatives?



    Again, you make a distinction without a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  59. If I come off as a fool, than I only discredit Christ and I shall take my leave.

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dougman, we'll got to war for your "right to practice" your religion; but, we won't go to war "for" your religion.

    ReplyDelete
  61. If there is no distinction, why should the US get involved?

    We are allied with Shiite in Iraq and Sunni in Bahrain.

    Let 'em stew.

    ReplyDelete
  62. .

    If I come off as a fool, than I only discredit Christ and I shall take my leave.



    Geez, Dougman, if you don't expect pushback, this is probably not the place for you.

    No one here dicredited Christ. No one here discredited your religion. No one here discredited you.

    The only thing anyone took objection to here was your rationale for going to war.

    If you can't stick around to fight for your position, you need to grow a thicker skin.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  63. Rufus: In fact, that slight downtick in the unemployment rate was, as far as I can see (on my first cup of coffee) for real.

    Bull crap. There's a bunch of people laid off for 99 weeks, every time they got a phone call they had to say they were looking for work, but now their 99 weeks are up and they don't. They dropped off the unemployment rolls, but they still ain't got jobs. Hence nine point zero. Keep going like that and we'll soon reach zero official unemployment.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dougman said...
    If I come off as a fool, than I only discredit Christ and I shall take my leave.

    Discredit the Prince of Peace? The one who taught us to present a second cheek for smackage when one cheek is smacked? Say it isn't so!

    ReplyDelete
  65. No Q.

    I was the only one accusing myself for doing the discrediting. Show me where anyone else did.

    The only thing anyone took objection to here was your rationale for going to war.

    I'm trying to get people to realize we are already at war. War has been waged on us and we aren't doing a damned thing to combat them.

    Rufus,
    My G-D is Truth. Nothing more than that. I do not call myself a Christian anymore.

    Rat,
    My own experience was indeed a miracle. Before it happened to me, I didn't believe or even want a a god in my life.
    Now, I can't deny there really is something to the Judeo-Christian chronology of events unfolded.

    Now I'm off for the week-end.
    Have a good one!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Discredit the Prince of Peace? The one who taught us to present a second cheek for smackage when one cheek is smacked? Say it isn't so!

    When my cheek gets smacked,(which I don't feel it was here), I usually show my other side. Which is my bad side ;-}

    ReplyDelete
  67. The Colonel, in Libya, had attacked US personnel in Germany and an airliner, headed for the US.

    He had threatened the US Navy and some US air assets, if my memory serves me correctly.

    Drew a line in the Med, as I recall.

    He was a thorn for a long time.
    Dr Assad, not so much.

    Not for US.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The idea that the US is engaged in a War with Islam was debated, then rejected, by the US leadership.

    Many times throughout our history.

    To promote such an idea, well, it serves the purposes of the radical Islamoids, and does a disservice to US policy and our military service members.

    But is well within your prerogatives, as a member of our free society.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Dougman, I certainly do not begrudge you your miracle, nor to attempt to deny it.

    It is not to my mind, though, any form of rational justification for going to war against 1 billion people, nor even just a military strike against Iran.

    ReplyDelete




  70. Sabotage and Sanctions are Sufficient

    ReplyDelete
  71. From the LA Times and video I just saw on the tellie:


    Herman Cain:
    'I am the Koch brothers' brother from another mother'

    ReplyDelete
  72. Teresita said...
    WiO: Fucking losers....

    I live for the day when WiO comes right out and calls Deuce an anti-Semitic Nazi for not toeing the Likud party line.


    No, but I will call you a anti-semite cunt

    ReplyDelete
  73. Thank you for this article, really useful material.

    ReplyDelete