Ron Paul is doing well in Iowa. That is significant because of how poorly he did there in his 2008 run. And it is obvious he is striking a cord with some voters because of his isolationist and small government stances.
That being said there will probably only be about 120k Iowans involved in the caucuses and the majority will likely be hard core conservatives. The state is kind of an aberration, low unemployment, high corn and cattle prices, few budget problems. They have few of the problems facing much of the rest of the country.
Iowa is just not representative of the US. I forget the way T put it but the caucuses are kind of a joke.
I believe New Hamshire has a lot of similarities to Iowa.
Paul may do well initially but I expect he will eventually fade rather precipitously.
A lot of this trouble began with Saddam invading Kuwait. He shouldn't have done that. It wasn't polite. And 29 democratic Senators voted freely to authorize George W. Bush, so talk of a coup is a little overblown. I don't see American soldiers in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia or the other places he mentioned.
Wesley Clark was a favorite with KGO Radio out of San Francisco when I used to listen to them. They were always talking PNAC.
Midnight Radio Network (Midnight Truckers Radio) is now going to be RedEyeRadio, for you trucking fans.
Wesley Clark called it a coup. He did that at a time when the implications of what it meant were not accepted by most Republicans. He was exceedingly well connected in the Pentagon. IMO it is stunning to hear him . It would be interesting to see his talk juxtaposed with the Politburo getting instructions from Netanyahu. What an amazing political ad that would make.
One prominent ayatollah, Mesbah Yazdi, one of Iran's leading advocates of Islamic end times' ideology, has stated that Khamenei ascends to the sky every year for five hours to meet with Imam Mahdi and to consult about what action to take next. It is said that Khamenei has been told by Imam Mahdi to continue full speed with the Iranian nuclear program and not to fear anyone or any threats.
"Ten days after 9/11," Rumsfeld said "nobody's going to tell us who we can bomb, nobody."
So? It was ten days after 9/11! The WTC was still burning. So what if Rumsfeld was hot. Who wasn't?
"We're going to attack seven countries in five years."
We did not do that did we?
"We had a policy coup."
Clark is a political hack. This was political rhetoric. Our policy towards the middle east goes back to the Cold war. We made some expedient but bad alliances against the Soviets. We're now paying the price while those old diplomatic ties unravel Our strained relations with Arab countries and Islam predate the formation of modern Israel. During WWII most Arab and Mediterranean countries supported Italy and the NAZIS. This did not exactly endear them to us.
Our relationship with Saudi Arabia has been based on oil. They had it, we wanted it.
In order to hem in the Soviet Union we got too involved in Iran and supported the Shah who BTW successfully brought that country into the 20th century. Russia had a large hand and many agents involved in the Iranian revolution. Unfortunately for them and the US, the Mullahs came out on top and have ever since been shaking their fists at the US and taking Iran back in time. To make things worse, they (Iran) and most other Islamic regimes and the Arabs have used Israel as a focal point to distract their own people from the failures of their own institutions. Didn't we learn from the Holocaust how dangerous this unchecked, unchallenged rhetoric and mentality is?
During the cold war, Islamic fundamentalism was held at bay, mostly by a ruthless, atheistic policy of the Communists. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was mostly ignored by a free world seeking to enjoy the social democracy peace dividends. The wakeup call came on 9/11 when suicide missions conducted by mostly Saudi nationals but more importantly, Islamic radicals, declared their global jihad.
So yes, Wesley Clark may have been correct in saying that at the time of 9/11 we had no policy for dealing with this but his premise that the NeoCons ruled the White House has shown to be false. It is a mistake to conflate Neocon policy with our current policy toward Iran. We are not going to become involved in a land war with the Mullahs. After just getting out of one tarpit, Iraq, and trying to shake loose from Afghanistan, who in their right mind would commit troops to fighting in Iran? Unfortunately for the decent Iranians, the Powell Doctrine is dead and if we're forced to "bomb them to rubble" then that is what they will be left with.
What Clark seeks to do is gain political advantage by isolating strategic decisions without regard to overall history. If one looks carefully at the whole of the 19th century - The Bolshevik revolution, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, Cuba, the cold war, you can begin to understand the complexities as history and evil runs in repeating cycles.
When you see and hear who is running our country it is easy to understand the mess we are in.The "Eternal War Party” wants to cut off Iranian oil (and start yet another war). And, how many wars has Iran been in in the last 50 years, and how many wars has America been in in the last 50 years . . . ? I remember that crazy SOB Ross Perot on Larry King with charts and diagrams about how NAFTA was going to slowly destroy this country by taking manufacturing out of the hands of US workers and no one listened to him. WE let this happen to US. When someone stands up and punches us between the eyes with the truth, we need to listen. The US with NATO are sabotaging and creating violent revolutions in the middle east to create takeovers.. and who gets control? Always it is international banker friendly pawns ... it s nothing but power grabbing for world government. I listened to Ross Perot but did not pay attention.and now I am listening to Ron Paul.
If you're conspiracy minded, there are unlimited dots to connect.
For instance, we also need to go back to the anarchists during the Gilded Age, the Colonial powers, the Spanish Armada, the fall of the Roman Empire, etc etc, etc.
It's a continuum with one decision and event leading to another and another.
You can blame the idealistic NeoCons for some things but you can't blame them for current US policy towards Iran. If you're tired of war and who isn't, I'm sorry, I hate to tell you, given our history, the news is bad.
Obviously not, nor on Golden Plates either. Those are un-islamic really quite pagan ways of communicating with the divine, not the purity of Khamenei and Mahdi, mind to mind.
The US with NATO are sabotaging and creating violent revolutions in the middle east
Non-sense. We had nothing to do with Egypt, or Libya, though we finally chose a side there, and haven't done anything in Syria, at least yet. Maybe we should be doing something in Iran but we are doing nothing much even there.
How can you ignore our history with Egypt and Iran? Perhaps you do not know.
We were involved with Egypt during the fifties trying to shore up the gaps left by the collapse of the British empire and provide a bulwark against communism. The western economy was hostage to oil and the Suez Canal. John Foster Dulles’ policy was containment and establishing friendly authoritarian regimes that would prevent communist expansion and control of the canal and oil fields. That was in our interest but not in the interests of Egyptians that had a field day playing off both superpowers. The Egyptians did what they could to enhance their position.
The US through the CIA encouraged the 1952 coup that brought in Nasser. We were going to give them aid and then we weren’t, then we did. Nasser was our guy before he wasn’t.
We promised to fund the Aswan Dam but changed our mind because Nasser would not play ball. The Soviets jumped in our place and Nasser opened relations with China. Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal which had been owned by the British and the French and the Brits and French along with Israel attacked Egypt and retook the canal. Eisenhower told the Brits he was going to dump their bonds and ruin them financially and the canal was returned to Egypt.
Regardless of the wisdom or lack of it, we have been deeply involved with Egypt. The same is true in Iran. We may not remember but they do.
So yes, Wesley Clark may have been correct in saying that at the time of 9/11 we had no policy for dealing with this but his premise that the NeoCons ruled the White House has shown to be false.
The Israelis shot down a plane carrying senior Egyptian military commanders killing all on board. The French and the English attack Egypt and killed around 700 Egyptians but were forced to back down by the US. The result was that Nasser became a hero standing up to Israel, France and England. What would they do in Idaho if something similar happened here? Love England, France and Israel?
Wes had lots of friends in high places: they just weren't in the military.
"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart." ___General Hugh Shelton commenting on his firing of Clark
"I think the greatest condemnation against him . . . came from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he was a NATO commander. I mean, he was fired as a NATO commander.” ___General Norman Schwarzkopf
When asked if Clark would make a good president, “Absolutely not!” ___General Tommy Franks
Republican, General Rick Santorum, says that if he's elected president, he will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities unless they are opened for international arms inspectors.
Non-sense. We had nothing to do with Egypt, or Libya, though we finally chose a side there, and haven't done anything in Syria, at least yet. Maybe we should be doing something in Iran but we are doing nothing much even there.
You are as misguided as the rat. Yours merely the opposite side of rat's argument that all that has happened over the last year is part of some grand plan orchestrated by the US.
For the past year, US foreign policy in the ME has been completely ad hoc, blown with the wind, trying to adjust to changes they just don't get, one week praising a despot they have supported for years and the next as the wind changes demanding first that he change all his policies immediately and in the next moment as things got hotter that he leave.
Through it all, all the US has proven is that is an incompetant opportunist. The US views the ME as a land of opportunity. A place to buy oil and sell weapons. They will do what it takes to keep that going even if it makes this country look like a cheap whore.This is also shown by its different policies policies toward the various countries of the MW. It has proven to its 'allies' that it will sell them out in a minute if the wind changes.
One thing that can be said of the neocons is that they had principles they were willing to stand up for. Unfortunately, the fact that most of the ME didn't believe in those principles or want them never seemed to occur to them.
Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal which had been owned by the British and the French and the Brits and French along with Israel attacked Egypt and retook the canal.
Since you are attempting to learn history (which is good) might you expand on Egypt's constant use of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai as launching zones for "irregular" war against israel.
Long before there was anything called a "palestinian" Egyptian controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan was in complete control of the West Bank and the jewish Quarter of Jerusalem
From the Gaza Strip, Egypt launched thousands of attacks into Israel, (1948 lines) using the local arabs.
This is why Israel got involved in 1956, to stop the constant attacks of it's CIVILIANS by arab "irregulars".
Back then "irregulars" was the term for terrorists.
Interesting, the Arabs always selected civilians to target as part of their war plans.
I was responding to a comment that I thought referred to very recent events. Yes, I know something of the former history, but in the case of Egypt may have forgotten some of it.
The recent business in Egypt had little to do with us directly. They were mad at Mubarak, not down with USA.
It is relevant in that if the Neocons ruled the White House , according to Clark's account, we would have invaded those countries.
Mine and your posts argued over whether the neocons ruled the White House under Bush. Clark's account had nothing to do with the reality of that fact.
Arguing about whether his account is true is another matter. No way of confirming it but I tend to think it might be true because it reflects the general thinking of the neocons well back into the nineties.
To say the plan didn't exist merely because it never happened ignores the complete disaster they managed to bring about when they invaded the first country. Through arrrogance and incompetance they overstepped the bounderies the country was willing to accept on their very first try.
We didn't create any of it in Libya. You know that. It only goes back to 500B.C. or something. After it got going we hee-d and haw-d and finally decided to throw in with the French and British.
Whole thing worked out wonderfully, the savages are at each others throats and the oil flows.
Iran is particularly interesting. You can start with the Soviet and British invasion of Iran in 1941. Two years later at the Tehran Conference, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were singing kumbaya with the new Shah. The Soviets stayed in Iran long enough to slice and dice some borders. So from an Iranian point of view they have been attacked and occupied by two nuclear powers and threatened by two others. Why on earth would they want a nuclear bomb of their own?
Then Iraq was invaded by Saddam. After the invasion of Iraq, like the Clark video states, the Iranians knew that they were next on the hit list. What would they do in Idaho?
You may have a point but on the other hand Poland has been invaded many a time. Should they have nuclear weapons? What about Finland? etc etc going on around the earth. And most people that could be mentioned are sane.
What about Afghanistan, they've been invaded a lot, they need nukes too.
Any rational person knows what they would do. You can’t escape the contradiction so then you change the argument and make the claim that the Iranians are irrational and will in incinerate themselves and their 6000 year old civilization in order to damage Israel. Total nonsense. Looking at Iran’s history, their not wanting a nuclear deterrence is irrational. It is wishful thinking. Any American politician that would accept such thinking would have a very short career as would any Israeli politician.
The man behind the curtain does not want you to think about it.
I don't know whether they are rational, or irrational. Time will tell. I believe they will get, or already have, their bomb.
Their statements are irrational.
At least, from our point of view, of course.
When Khomeni came back from Paris at the revolution he said we are not Persians we are muslims and if this land must burn to further the victory of islam in the world, let it burn.
I think he meant it, whether the current crop does, or likes their luxury who knows?
We didn't create any of it in Libya. You know that.
Look at the facts. Hillary representing the US pushed the no-fly zone resolution through the UN. The US runs NATO. At one point, the British and French were actually running out of ammo. Any ideas on who resupplied them. Without US logistics, planning, and coordination, there would have been no no-fly zone.
Obama says we got involved because of 'humanitarian' reasons. If you believe that, I'd like to sell you some ocean front property in Moscow.
{My personal opinion is that they looked like such amateurs in Egypt and in dealing with the Arab Spring that they were looking for any opportunity to try to appear as being 'back in the game'.]
Friday, Dec. 23: GAO Releases its Consolidated Financial Report: The nation’s top watchdog said it once again couldn’t render an opinion on the government’s overall financial condition thanks to incomplete data. The departments of Defense and Homeland Security are withholding the most relevant information, according to the report. (For more, read Bryan R. Lawrence’s brilliant summation of the situation as published in The Post last week.)
Quirk, we didn't create the tribalism. That's the cause of it. That's what I mean. Hillary and Obama mouthed around a bit after the thing got going. A lot of folks were sick of Qaddafi, and it showed, finally.
Quirk, we didn't create the tribalism. That's the cause of it.
That's right. But we also didn't need to get involved.
A lot of folks were sick of Qaddafi, and it showed, finally.
True enough, but if you fail to see that the commercial interests of the British and French were key factors in this you are naive. Dislike of Qaddafi merely meant that no one gave a shit when NATO took him down.
Mister deuce sir, can you expand on your dissertation to explain how the "neocons" are currently in control of the Obama administration actions concerning Libya, Syria, and Iran?
You are aware that a democrat has been in office for three years?
The Iranians are their own worst enemy in a way. If they would make their case in the way deuce has made it, we want nukes to defend ourselves, they'd be better off.
But no, they go and say we look forward to a world without the United States of America, we look forward to a world without the Zionist Entity, etc.
Some folks find it off putting, and remember times in history where folks have even written out what they are going to do, and then do it, all the while no one had paid any attention to what they had written.
People find it off putting being told they are going to cease to exist.
And then, to top it all off, they periodically slaughter their own people, and, once in a while hang sexual deviators of one kind or another as they see it, from cranes.
Anonobob:And then, to top it all off, they periodically slaughter their own people, and, once in a while hang sexual deviators of one kind or another as they see it, from cranes.
They do the same crap in Pakistan, but aren't making plans to invade them, because they got nukes. And that same lightbulb went off in Ahmedinajad's head.
Those are not Iranians delivering arms to the Assad regime.
No, not at all
WorldTribune.com - Nov 27, 2011 – Arab diplomatic sources said the Russian Navy arrived in the Syrian port of Tartous in late November and brought weapons and supplies to the regime of President Bashar Assad.
Reuters: Russia is sending a flotilla of warships to its naval base in Syria in a show of force which suggests Moscow is willing to defend its interests in the strife-torn country as international pressure mounts on President Bashar al-Assad's government.
...
Russia, which has a naval maintenance base in Syria and whose weapons trade with Damascus is worth millions of dollars annually, joined China last month to veto a Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Assad's government. . . .
The US-based intelligence-gathering firm Stratfor says most of the claims by the Syrian opposition about the seriousness of the country's crisis are untrue. The company insists protesters are exaggerating, to win support from powers like the US.
The US does not want a Russian naval presence in Syria.
Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. Roberts has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Saw a Newt Gingrich interview on CNN. The press was asking how he felt about his recent drop in the polls.
He said he feels great given that his campaign has been sandbagged twice since the summer, the first by the press and now by $3 million in Romney attack adds. You could see he was building and just about to explode from some of the questions when he cut off the news conference.
Rufus is right. It would be a hoot having Gindrich as the GOP nominee. He kept repeating that he was the only candidate capable of debating with Obama. However, for anyone familiar with his volitile personality it would be child's play to goad him into a meltdown.
Reference the story of Mr Chalabi, the CIA and the intertwining lies from Iraq.
That's how the US both supports the destabilization of these countries, while having "plausible deniability" throughout the escapade.
The CIA black ops division undertakes dangerous and usually what would be considered illegal missions that are not officially sanctioned by the US administration so that the administration, which usually benefits from such missions, can safely dissavow any knowledge of them in the event of their publically uncovered success or failure.
One can believe reports from the folks at Stratfor, or not.
But there is no doubt that the US sought to create a cultural shift, through the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
When the tribalism of that country overwhelmed the US capacity to create meaningful societal change, time for Plan B.
The objective, still, to neuter those regimes considered dangerous to US interests.
First the Russian navy builds a maintenance bay in port of Tartous, and gained some attention. Then the Russians publicly committed to basing their carrier in Syria, on the Mediterranean, well, that straw broke our camel's back. While NATO can expand to the Russian border, in Poland, the Russians must remain bottled up, either on the Black Sea or in the Arctic.
Turn about is not only not fair play, it's not allowed.
So, will those 20,000 Libyan trained revolutionaries be at the Syrian dance, soon?
Would Qatar field that mercenary force without the US being on board?
Deuce said... Any rational person knows what they would do. You can’t escape the contradiction so then you change the argument and make the claim that the Iranians are irrational and will in incinerate themselves and their 6000 year old civilization in order to damage Israel. Total nonsense. Looking at Iran’s history, their not wanting a nuclear deterrence is irrational. It is wishful thinking. Any American politician that would accept such thinking would have a very short career as would any Israeli politician.
The Mullahs in charge of Iran do not think of themselves as "Persian"
To think they are is nonsense.
They view the world as "Islamic" or not.
Rational, western views are not germane.
As for Islamic irrational behavior in their blood lust to destroy Israel?
They show that OVER AND OVER again.
Just HOW many times have the Palestinians been OFFERED a STATE?
That "Defense Pact" not worth the paper it's written on.
The Russians are there, in uniform, with man-o-war, the Iranians are not.
Sorry wannabe sniper, you missed.
There are no Iranian military units overtly in Syria. There are Russian military units overtly in Syria.
Get a clue to the real whirled, rather than your Israelicentric perspective to everything.
The US is being propagandized as to the true anti-Sunni Muslim nature of the Assad regime, while the real whirled positioning of Russian ships on the Med is unacceptable to the US, but never mentioned by US politicos.
That is the "real" motivator behind the current actions, part of the quid pro que both to and from the Saudis.
Libya’s leader, Colonel Gaddafi, is currently visiting Moscow to finalize energy and arms deals. This is the first visit by Gaddafi to a post-soviet era Russia. This visit follows on from a Putin trip to Libya in April. Sources are saying that part of the arrangements under discussion include a new Russian Naval base in Libya. Russia only has one other foreign Naval base and that is in the Ukraine. However, the Ukrainian President has already indicated he will not renew the lease on the base when it expires in 2017. Russia has been actively soliciting further foreign bases, and its Navy recently visited Venezuela and Libya to start those negotiations.
Russia is the World's Largest Oil Producer, and is neck and neck with Saudi Arabia to be the world's largest oil exporter. They would Love a Major War in the Middleeast. Mucho more bucks in their pocket.
Libya 'ready to host Russian naval base' NICO - Oct 31, 08
MOSCOW, October 31 (RIA Novosti) - Libya is willing to host a Russian naval base as a means of security against any possible U.S. attack, a Russian business daily said on Friday.Russian fleet
Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi will pay an official visit to Russia at the invitation of President Dmitry Medvedev from October 31 to November 2.
The Kommersant newspaper cited a source close to the preparations for the visit as saying that the Libyan leader was planning to raise the naval base issue during talks with the Russian leadership.
"The Libyan leader believes that a Russian military presence in the country would prevent possible attacks by the United States, which despite numerous Libyan attempts to amend bilateral relations is not in a hurry to embrace Colonel Qaddafi," the paper said.
The israelicentric position of the current admin? The current admin has stated: - the Assad regime needs to go - Iranian nukes are not acceptable - the strait will stay open
Why do Assad's need to go, to be replaced by the Wahhabi?
The port of Tartous, not for any "Human Rights" violation, or shooting a few Muslims to maintain political control.
The Assad regime did far worse at Hama, in 1982, if measured by body count. That after 6 years of civil strife, yet there was no foreign military intervention.
Turkey was not "alarmed".
The Soviet navy was not at the Syrian port of Tartous.
Desert Rat states: The Russians are there, in uniform, with man-o-war, the Iranians are not. Sorry wannabe sniper, you missed. There are no Iranian military units overtly in Syria. There are Russian military units overtly in Syria. Get a clue to the real whirled, rather than your Israelicentric perspective to everything.
From the UJ Telegraph: Desert Rat is Full of Shit:
My attention has been drawn to an intriguing piece of footage that has been posted on Youtube in which a pair of hooded Syrian rebels are displaying the identity card of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard killed during the recent unrest – see video above. There have been many reports in recent months that Iran has deployed elite Revolutionary Guard units to Syria to support the efforts of President Bashir al-Assad to suppress anti-government protests. The Revolutionary Guards, of course, have a great deal of expertise in this area after the role they played in crushing Iran's pro-democracy movement in the wake of the controversial 2009 presidential election. But this clip provides deeply embarrassing evidence of just how involved the Iranians are in helping the Assad regime to suppress the opposition, as it shows the identity card of a Revolutionary Guards officer who was caught by Syrian rebels and killed. The clip has certainly caused some consternation in Iran, where I'm told the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has convened an emergency summit of Revolutionary Guard commanders in Tehran to improve the security of Iranian agents working in Syria to ensure there are no further embarrassing revelations.
The U.S. deployed two missile-interceptor ships from South Korea on Monday, days ahead of a North Korean rocket launch seen by many as a test of its longest-range missile.
The two U.S. destroyers were on a mission believed to monitor the North's rocket launch. The ships are equipped with Aegis radar, a system that enables the vessels to locate, track and shoot down missiles.
The European Union on Wednesday expanded Syria sanctions to target the elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guard for its role in helping Syrian security forces crush the five-month-old uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.
An EU statement said Iran's elite Quds Force has provided "technical assistance, equipment and other support to the Syrian security forces to repress civilian protest movements."
I stick to the US standard for overt. That'd be members of the armed forces, in uniform. On missions directed and sponsored by the DoD.
US not seeking overt military action in Fata, says Clinton
From the Newspaper | Back Page | By Anwar Iqbal October 25, 2011
In two interviews to US media outlets, released by the State Department on Monday, Secretary Clinton indicated that the US was not planning to send ground troops into Fata to target terrorist hideouts.
“There’s a lot going on that is aimed at these safe havens, and we will continue to work with them on that,”
she said when asked if during her meetings with Pakistani leaders in Islamabad last week she had told them that the US might have to launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan.
“There are different ways of fighting besides overt military action, and I think this is an important point of clarification,”
said when asked if the US wanted Pakistan to launch another military operation against the militants.
It's not politically expedient for "either" side to mention this, but the Obama Administration, and the Europeans have begun quietly installing anti-missile defenses in Southern Europe.
Of course, Israel is becoming downright prickly with anti-missile batteries.
Those Shahab (formerly called "Scud") missiles aren't going to hurt anyone.
Iran's IRGC attacks anti-Assad protesters in Syria LONDON — Iran's elite military units have been deployed to attack protesters of the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Opposition sources said Iran has sent units of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to attack thousands of anti-Assad protesters in the city of Dera. They said IRGC transported hundreds of commandos via helicopter in what could mark the prelude to massive bloodshed.
"The IRGC landed before the killings, which means this is an intentional operation to massacre wholesale the people of Dera," the Reform Party of Syria said. "If true, the Syrian security in Dera has been penetrated."
Rufus II said... Those Shahab (formerly called "Scud") missiles aren't going to hurt anyone
Three Isrealis killed as Scuds hit Tel Aviv
By Reuven M. Lerner
Three people were killed and at least 70 wounded when an Iraqi Scud missile landed in a heavily residential neighborhood of Tel Aviv, Israel, yesterday afternoon, according to officials from the Israel Defense Forces.
Rufus: Those Shahab (formerly called "Scud") missiles aren't going to HURT anyone.
Altogether, Iraq fired 39 missiles at Israel on 17 separate days between Jan. 18 and Feb. 25, 1991. Because of fears that they might be carrying chemical warheads, Israelis put on gas masks when alarms were sounded and went to specially protected "sealed" rooms.
The fears of chemical warfare proved to be unfounded, and as the weeks wore on, many Israelis got so used to the situation that they did not bother putting on masks. Most Scuds missed their targets or landed ineffectually. And while there were more than 1,000 recorded injuries, nearly half of them from flying glass, only two Israelis were killed by direct hits during the six weeks.
But many others apparently died from stress, most conspicuously on the first day, when no one knew what kind of payload the missiles would carry.
This is an example of overt military cooperation ...
December 12, 2011
Russia is reinforcing its opposition to international efforts to tighten the economic embargo on Syria by sending a Russian battle group of three vessels led by an aircraft carrier to the eastern Mediterranean. The flotilla, expected in the region at the end of this week, is likely to dock in the Syrian port of Tartus, Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean, before the end of the month, according to Russian defence officials. The arrival of the flotilla comes on the heels of the delivery to Syria of supersonic anti-ship Yakhont cruise missiles as part of an agreement signed in 2007 and a Russian promise to go ahead with the training of Syrian personnel in the use the state-of-the-art weapons.
As Syria teeters on the brink of civil war, Russia, in sending a flotilla to the eastern Mediterranean and maintaining arms supplies to Syria, is in effect bolstering President Bashar Al Assad’s resolve not to give in to international demands that he halts his brutal eight-month-old crackdown on anti-government protesters.
That corner of the Mediterranean is already being patrolled by US 6th Fleet warships led by an aircraft carrier. By raising the bar, Russia is signalling its determination to foil attempts to strangle the Syrian leader’s regime and also hopes to reduce the chances of a military intervention in Syria, possibly spearheaded by Turkey.
It's infinitely harder to guard a hundred cities against small, short range rockets than to guard a country against high-flying, Medium, and Long-Range Rockets.
The last I read the Israelis only had 4 Cities protected by the Iron Dome system.
I Have studied this a bit.
Enough to bet the ranch that the Iranians won't try to smuggle Nukes, And a Delivery System, into Gaza.
I'm also aware that most, if not All, of the Mullahs at Qom are Millionaires, with some Billionaires sprinkled in the mix.
The thought that they would commit suicide on such an ill-fated venture makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm sure the Iranians have a Covert presence there. As do we. As do the Israelis. As do the Sauds, and all other Gulf States.
Every mother's son in the ME has a vested interest in Us going to war with the Iranians. As does every Russian Oil Oligarch (otherwise known as the "leadership.")
Obama supported departure of both leaders in Libya and Egypt. That the Wahabis filled the void; well perhaps you should write a letter to the administration about their foreign policy.
Also, let the admin. know that the Iranians can't project force beyond their border.
Actually, the Europeans are the most interesting component in all this. The only thing I can figure is they think that if they can get us to "take" Iran they can get that Iranian oil flowing back to Europe.
Yes, the US supported those actions, why so huffy?
Neo-cons are bi-partisan. Not limited to the GOP.
Whatever gave you that idea?
The interventionist policies of the Bush/Obama are inseparable. All that has changed is the size of the footprints.
But the cause is the same, US military and economic domination of the Med and Middle East.
All that changed was the technique, adaptations through lesson's learned.
Getting it "right".
But do not believe, for a moment that the "Cause" is a new threat from Iran. Neither in Libya nor Syria. Iran is window dressing for the propagandists.
Leave them alone and let them settle their own problems. I am far more interested in the Americas as are the Chinese. Let Israel be Israel, do what it wants, make its own treaties and rely on its own resources and have it quit interfering in US politics.
We reciprocate. Leave them alone and they let us alone. It is not that difficult to understand. We have enough problems with our own shit bird politicians without having to listen to second rate hacks like Bibi Netanyahu and the other crazies throughout the Islamic arc.
Fuck with us and you pay the price. Leave us alone and everything is endaxi.
Russia’s economic stakes in Syria are equally high. Russia has concluded US$4 billion worth of arms contracts with Syria and has invested some $20 billion in Syrian infrastructure, energy and tourism. Russia’s Stroitransgaz is building a natural gas processing plant and supporting an Arab gas pipeline while Tatneft, which is already pumping Syrian oil, announced earlier this year that it would invest $12.8m in oil exploration near the Iraqi border.
If the economic and strategic stakes are high, they pale from Russia’s perspective compared to the potential fallout if Assad’s opponents prevail in the face of a crackdown that has so far cost 4,000 lives, wounded thousands, and led to the arrest of even greater numbers. Russian forces have this year killed some 300 militants in the northern Caucus, a patchwork of ethnic and religious groups where Islamists regularly attack Russian targets. They could well be encouraged by the toppling of Assad. Alternatively, a Syria that disintegrates as a result of civil war could equally inspire militants in Russian republics like Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia.
Syrian acceptance of Arab League observers offers Russia the opportunity to align support for Assad with Arab efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis peacefully.
(Bloomberg) -- Manufacturing in India and China improved in December, a sign the world’s fastest-growing major economies are withstanding Europe’s debt crisis.
Well, it's established that Obama's neocon foreign policy is similar to Bush and the non-Paul repub candidates.
Guess the Repub candidate that understands that u can't spend ur way out of debt and how to create jobs should get the vote - foreign policy being the same.
Deuce said... Leave them alone and let them settle their own problems. I am far more interested in the Americas as are the Chinese. Let Israel be Israel, do what it wants, make its own treaties and rely on its own resources and have it quit interfering in US politics.
But Deuce, like it or not America has been fucking with israeli politics since before they were a state..
As for their "own" problems?
America has been at war with the islamic nations of the middle east SINCE BEFORE we were a NATION.
Stop trying to shift blame to Israel.
Hell if America had not helped create the concept of NATION with regards to the Egyptians, Lebanon and Syria think how the world would have been different.
Rufus II said... I'm sure the Iranians have a Covert presence there. As do we. As do the Israelis. As do the Sauds, and all other Gulf States.
Every mother's son in the ME has a vested interest in Us going to war with the Iranians. As does every Russian Oil Oligarch (otherwise known as the "leadership.")
Every Arms Merchant, and every Israeli.
But, it would be devastating for us, and ours.
Ah the numbnut speakith out his ass again...
As for "Israel" to be pleased with a hot war against Iran? That would cause the death and injury of about 600,000 israelis.
Guess geo-politics aint your strong suite....
And guess who BENEFITS from a hot war with Iran?
American ENERGY COMPANIES..
Can you see West Texas Crude jumping to 300 a barrel?
Yep last I checked America getting into a hot war with Iran makes America money on oil and weapon sales...
Creates JOBS....
but keep feeding that diminished thing you call a brain...
Your source is suspect Your source admits the story may not be true
The insertion mission requires flying 36 helos over enemy airspace. Airspace defended with the most advanced radar systems in the whirled, aimed at the country that is launching the insertion.
The entire story is untenable. A fraud and deception. Disingenuous, in the extreme, to even bring it to the Bar.
Fairly weak effort from the rat and deuce today. U fellas need some sterner material. Israel, neocons, blah, blah, blah Weak ass material Now get me a beer
But Deuce, like it or not America has been fucking with israeli politics since before they were a state..
I agree with you. It is time to adjust. China has gone from mud and straw huts in 25 years to become a power to be be reckoned with. The US has 17 million unemployed and 50 million on food stamps. Our dance card runneth over. It is time to go home, recalibrate, quit fucking with everyone and get rich. Last year alone we were at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan an Uganda. The Chinese were making money with business deals in every country from Alaska down through Tierra del Fuego.
Fairly weak effort from the rat and deuce today. U fellas need some sterner material. Israel, neocons, blah, blah, blah Weak ass material Now get me a beer
I’ll have to re-read everything. I seemed to have missed your best stuff.
Rufus, thought all the missiles could be shot down. Perhaps consistency isn't a strong attribute in Mississippi. Either all the missiles can be shot down or they cannot, and Israelis are at risk. Which is it champ?
I am pretty much anti-Muslim, but not to the extent that I want my clan to suffer just so my government can pick some kind of needless fight with them.
Those of you who warned that the Islamoids were going to be marching out of Libya, to cry havoc and loose the dogs of war, in further religious wars, may be proven correct.
They will be marching, towards Syria, with Qatar then as now, acting as paymaster to the Muslim mercenaries.
Marching against the second to last non-Islamic regime in the Islamic Arc, in Syria.
After the Alawais fall, the only country not firmly in the Islamic fold, will be Israel, standing alone on the shores of the Med.
With the Wahhabi surrounding the walls and within their camp, tambien.
All of them hoping Uncle Sam is still standing overwatch, over the horizon.
There are two schools of thought on Israel. One is emotional and sentimental, Bible School, Old Testament stuff and Jesus. The other is more analytical and pragmatic. Neither side really understands the other side and the emotional side is deeply suspicious of the the analytically inclined. They automatically suspect some deep dark anti-jewish or anti-religious motive. All the region’s religions love the term infidel. All are chosen by some god and rejected by other gods. The rejected are infidels and unworthy.
Then you have superimposed on that the scam artists, con men and political opportunists, Bibi Netanyahu comes to mind. He is the master. All you have to do is watch him in front of the Politburo of the Potomac. It was a sight to see. Loaves and fishes, water to wine, burning bushes was nothing compared to Bibi’s ability to keep the entire US Congress airborne and roaring. It was sheer Barnum and Bailey in the big tent.
The point is the gods and emotional benders will get you killed generationally, time and time again. Look at the facts and the Middle East is a very bad deal for the US. It is a disproportionate use of resources, misplaced priorities and comes with huge opportunity costs. The Iranian bogeyman is just the latest, but the most dangerous for the US and to the unfortunate future generations in Israel that will have to endure the results of madness if Netanyahu successfully completes his magic show.
Many of the Rufii Clan have died defending the United States, T.
We live here, and we swore allegiance, here.
We have never, ever sworn allegiance to another country.
We wish the Israelis well, but we did not tell those Europeans to "go try your luck in the Levant, and we'll watch your back." It never happened. And, it never will.
If some bible-thumpers in the United States think that a Mideast Armageddon will bring on the "rapture," then I think they should load up their sons, and daughters, and go over there and get the ball rolling.
But, I don't desire to have myself, or mine, wrapped up in such foolishness.
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Obama administration is engaged in a full-court press to persuade Israel that Iran’s nuclear threat can be contained short of war.
The U.S. lobbying has received a mixed reception from Israel, where the Netanyahu government has not ruled out a unilateral strike on Iran.
Iran, meanwhile, is taking an aggressive stance in response to mounting sanctions.
Last week the Iranian naval chief, Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if Western sanctions intensified. The threat to close the strait -- the passageway for oil from the Persian Gulf states -- could presage a war, experts said.
“We may be further along the road to war than most people believe,” said Michael Adler, an Iran scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Experts are divided as to the seriousness of the threat to cut off the strait and whether it will lead to war.
But Deuce, like it or not America has been fucking with israeli politics since before they were a state..
Anonymo, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Both countries have been meddling in each others politics since day one.
The only difference, Israel has completely ignored America interests.
Over the past 60 years, the US has gotten shit from Israel. Anyone but a moron or an Israeliphile would see that Israel has benefitted more from this relationship than the US has.
Your Israelicentric view of history is astounding.
The Suez Canal? Countries nationalize key industry and infrastructure all the time. That's why there is usually a risk premium associated with investments in unstable or developing countries. It doesn't have to lead to war. Saudi Arabia nationailed their oil industry as did Venezuela.
When Egypt nationalized the canal (took possession of the money coming in from it not closing it), Israel for her own purposes chose to attack Egypt. Britain and France followed in order to maintain their colonial possessions, purely commercial. Egypt didn't close the canal until after it was already defeated.
It wasn't the US that turned the situation around. It was the world that said nyet. Your views on the US screwing Israel in the '67 war are likewise ludicrous.
The US and Israel may have a strategic relationship but Israel is not a member of NATO. As far as I know, the US and Israel have no bilateral mutual defensive treaties.
If you've got proof I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.
The US owes Israel nothing. Your lack of gratitude for what the US has done for Israel to date is to be expected but it still is gauling.
Stop trying to shift blame to Israel.
:)
I think you have the market cornered on the blame game.
Deuce: Then you have superimposed on that the scam artists, con men and political opportunists, Bibi Netanyahu comes to mind. He is the master. All you have to do is watch him in front of the Politburo of the Potomac. It was a sight to see. Loaves and fishes, water to wine, burning bushes was nothing compared to Bibi’s ability to keep the entire US Congress airborne and roaring. It was sheer Barnum and Bailey in the big tent.
Spoken like a complete retarded moron.
Here is the link for both his speech and the transcript.
Why not put your money where your mouth is and do a POST on the speech?
When Egypt nationalized the canal (took possession of the money coming in from it not closing it), Israel for her own purposes chose to attack Egypt. Britain and France followed in order to maintain their colonial possessions, purely commercial. Egypt didn't close the canal until after it was already defeated.
Your source is suspect Your source admits the story may not be true
The insertion mission requires flying 36 helos over enemy airspace. Airspace defended with the most advanced radar systems in the whirled, aimed at the country that is launching the insertion.
The entire story is untenable. A fraud and deception. Disingenuous, in the extreme, to even bring it to the Bar.
The question, just whose interests was Mr Chalabi fronting for?
Stratfor provides an answer.
Iran wanted the United States to invade Iraq. The Iranians hated Saddam Hussein more than anyone did, and they feared him. Iran and Iraq had fought a war in the 1980s that devastated a generation of Iranians. More than Hussein, Iraq represented an historical threat to Iran going back millennia. The destruction of the Iraqi regime and army was at the heart of Iranian national interest. The collapse of the Soviet Union had for the first time in a century secured Iran’s northern frontiers. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan secured the Shiite regions of Afghanistan as a buffer. If the western frontier could be secured, Iran would achieve a level of national security it had not known in centuries.
What Iran Wanted
Iran knew it could not invade Iraq and win by itself. Another power had to do it. The failure of the United States to invade and occupy Iraq in 1991 was a tremendous disappointment to Iran. Indeed, the primary reason the United States did not invade Iraq was because it knew the destruction of the Iraqi army would leave Iran the dominant power native to the Persian Gulf. Invading Iraq would have destroyed the Iraq-Iran balance of power that was the only basis for what passed for stability in the region.
The United States would leave Iraq in the long run, and Iran would be waiting patiently to reap the rewards. In the short run, should the United States run into trouble in Iraq, it would become extremely dependent on the Iranians and their Shiite clients. If the Shiite south rose, the U.S. position would become untenable. Therefore if there was trouble — and Iranian intelligence was pretty sure there would be — Shiite influence would rise well before the Americans left.
Chalabi’s job was to give the Americans a reason to invade, which he did with stories of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But he had another job, which was to shield two critical pieces of information from the Americans: First, he was to shield the extent to which the Iranians had organized the Shiite south of Iraq. Second, he was to shield any information about Hussein’s plans for a guerrilla campaign after the fall of Baghdad. These were the critical things — taken together, they would create the dependency the Iranians badly wanted.
What the United States Wanted
The Americans were focused on another issue. The balance of power in the Persian Gulf was not a trivial matter to them, but it had taken on a new cast after Sept. 11. For the United States, the central problem in the Persian Gulf — and a matter of urgent national security — was the unwillingness of Saudi intelligence and security services to move aggressively against al Qaeda inside the kingdom.
From the U.S. viewpoint, forcing Saudi Arabia to change its behavior was the overriding consideration; without that, no progress against al Qaeda was possible.
The United States did not see itself as having many levers for manipulating the situation in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were convinced that ultimately the United States would not be able to take decisive action against the Saudis, and the Saudi government was more concerned about the internal political consequences of a crackdown on al Qaeda than it was about the United States. It felt confident it could manage the United States as it had in the past.
The United States did not want to invade Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud was the foundation of Saudi stability, and the United States did not want it to fall. It wanted to change the Saudi strategy. Invading Saudi Arabia could have led to global economic disaster if oil shipments were disrupted. Finally, the invasion of Saudi Arabia, given its size, terrain and U.S. resources, was a difficult if not impossible task. The direct route would not work. The United States would take an indirect route.
If you wanted to frighten Saudi Arabia into changing its behavior without actually launching military operations against it, the way to do that would be: (a) demonstrate your will by staging an effective military campaign; and (b) wind up the campaign in a position to actually invade and take Saudi oil fields if they did not cooperate. The Saudis doubted U.S. will and military capacity to do them harm (since Kuwait would never permit its territory to be used to invade Saudi Arabia). The solution: an invasion of Iraq.
The strategic planners in the administration were old enough to remember when Richard Nixon began the process that broke the back of the Soviet Union — his alliance with China against the Soviets. During World War II, the United States allied with Stalin against Hitler, preventing a potential peace agreement by Stalin. The United States had a known policy of using fault lines among potential enemies to split them apart, allying with the weaker against the stronger. If the United States allying with Stalin or Mao was not considered beyond the pale, then the Bush administration planners had another alliance in mind.
The fault line in the Islamic world is between Sunni and Shia. The Sunni are a much larger group than the Shia, but only if you include countries such as Indonesia. Within the Persian Gulf region, the two groups are highly competitive. Al Qaeda was a Sunni movement. Following U.S. grand strategy, logic held that the solution to the problem was entering into an alliance of sorts with the Shia. The key to the Shia was the major Shiite power — Iran.
The United States worked with Iranian intelligence during the invasion of Afghanistan, when the Iranians arranged relationships with Shiite warlords like Ahmed Khan. The United States and Iran had cooperated on a number of levels for years when it concerned Iraq. Therefore there were channels open for collaboration.
The United States was interested not only in frightening Saudi Arabia, but also in increasing its dependence on the United States. The United States needed a lever strong enough to break the gridlock in Riyadh. An invasion of Iraq would achieve the goal of fear. An alliance with Iran would create the dependency that was needed. The Saudis would do anything to keep the Iranians out of their oil fields and their country. After the invasion of Iraq, only the United States could stop them. The Saudis were trapped by the United States.
Iran has not attacked another country in 250 years. Results of a new poll commissioned by the European Commission show that Israel is believed by Europeans in 15 countries to be the greatest threat to world peace.
I said Israel attacked Egypt and the canal for her own reasons.
Why you blame the US for Israel's inability to keep her gains rather than blaming Russia or I would imagine most of the other countries in the UN, is the part I don't get.
Sympathy for Zionism is one thing, misguided but to a degree understandable. Advocacy of an aggressive war on Iran is little short of criminal.
Israel is willng to see American blood and treasure spilled on its behalf. Given the leading candidates, who will put America´s interest first. Certainly not the Republicans, with the possible exception of Ron Paul.
How can we believe anything the neocons are saying?
The last time we listen to them, it turned out they had lied, bullied and fabricated intelligence to get their perverse message. across.
The final result was an enormous cost in treasury and lives for the nation, all on the back of the middle class, and ultimately one more Shiite theocracy in the middle east.
America will do what it chooses to do for it'sself.
To blame "neocons" or the "israel lobby" is ridiculous.
America does as America chooses to do.
Jews do not "RUN" America.
Israel and her supporters do not "run" America.
To keep pointing the finger at Israel and the Jews as the secret puppet masters actually speaks volumes to how stupid and inept you think Americans actually are....
Iran is a global threat. Ignore her at your own peril.
- the Assad regime needs to go - Iranian nukes are not acceptable - the strait will stay open
too bad the EB bartenders can't blame it away on those rascals the Israelis, er neocons, er Saudis
now, if its ok with the bartenders, i'd like to buy a shot for everyone following the use of zionis or zionists, per legos and rat's extensive and exquisite vocabulary
It was a sight to see. Loaves and fishes, water to wine, burning bushes was nothing compared to Bibi’s ability to keep the entire US Congress airborne and roaring. It was sheer Barnum and Bailey in the big tent.
I don't get this. First, there are two misplaced New Testament references to a Jewish speech, which seem out of place, and, second, what's wrong with a hell of a good speech. Most people like a good speech, Bibi's a good speaker, and most Americans like the guy. And, most Americans seem to like a David over a Goliath. Israel seems the continually put on underdog to them, fanning a flame of a little freedom and sanity in the area.
Trying to out people on the blog may cause the blog to be suspended.
Mon Jan 02, 05:57:00 PM EST
No one has been outed on this blog. There have been a couple of attempts and the offending comments were removed. The only instance that comes to mind is one blogger that made no secret about his location and published his name. I still removed it and made the policy clear. You are losing the argument big time and are in a state of shock because decent people are sick of the farce that has been going on and the false hyping of a threat trying to drag this country into another war. Make your argument or is this part of a strategy to silence the critics that you cannot cower?
“ was a sight to see. Loaves and fishes, water to wine, burning bushes was nothing compared to Bibi’s ability to keep the entire US Congress airborne and roaring. It was sheer Barnum and Bailey in the big tent.
I don't get this. First, there are two misplaced New Testament references to a Jewish speech, which seem out of place, and, second, what's wrong with a hell of a good speech.
I was being inclusive and know the difference. Most good con-men can deliver a good speech as well as can most demagogues. As to the sanity of a preemptive attack on a country of 80 million, the concept is a bizarre oxymoron.
Countries that are examples of freedom and countries that proclaim they are either a Muslin state or a Jewish state or any other religious are not examples to be emulated, thankfully. Such a claim is antithetical to freedom and is forbidden by your own constitution.
I agree with your point bobbo at least with the part about how most Americans view Israel.
I also agree with Anonymo's post at
Mon Jan 02, 05:49:00 PM EST
A clear point of view, stated succinctly. I have no problem with him stating that point of view although some here would disagree with it.
I also have no problem with him saying the 'Israeli Lobby' is not the problem. I have no problem with the Israeli Lobby. My problem is with those that let support of that lobby unduly influence their decisions when it comes to US policy.
However, my main objections where to his rewriting (IMO) history to somehow paint the US as in continuous opposition to the state of Israel, that we have somehow stuck them in the back, that we 'owe' Israel something.
We might have owed France something once when they helped us out in the early days of this country (although it should be pointed out that what help they provided was also in their own self-interest). There are others too some would say we 'owe', but I would suggest most of our debts were pretty much wiped out during the World Wars.
Strictly my opinion, but one could say that we owe those who came to our aid during time of war based on promises and assurances and then were left to take it in the ass when we said "Well, enough of that." The Hmong and the Kurds come to mind. Not our finest hour, at least in my opinion.
However, the Israeli's act in their own self interest. God bless em. Unlike Ash, I don't feel they need to be held "to a higher standard". That doesn't mean we need to support everything they do or propose.
"The Iranians deserve the same amount of "Implausible Deniability" that the US reserves for itself"
sounds like Irat is aiding and abetting the enemy which is either Iran or the US according to him. the thought process of "everything will be fine" when iran goes into the nuke proliferation arena (why would they even think of stopping with just one nuke?) is not meant to sound stupid, from the likes of IRat and the once respectable duece. it's basic deception meant to put doubt into the obvious conclusions that their goal is not simply MAD. why the deception? answer: read the tattoo on the back of the Mt. Rainier gunman (pride, greed, envy, at least 3 of 7)
The fact is that the Iranians were intimidated by 190 kilograms of HE, intimidated enough to stop targeting Iraqi cities, once Tehran was struck with a "long" range Scud.
That is a historical fact. Neither conjecture nor fear mongering.
No one has been outed on this blog. There have been a couple of attempts and the offending comments were removed.
as usuall for "me now" generation offenses are relative depending on who is doing the offending and who is being offended.
"Gotta bring proof, anoni from Cleveland."
yours truely, Irat.
also, war is bad, no shit sherlock. but so is not believing when someone states multiple times they want to end you.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. (William S. Burroughs)
A paranoid is someone who has all the facts. (William S. Burroughs)
My old man is a hard-core, card-carrying, long-as-I-have-been alive, dyed-in-the-wool, kool-aid-swilling, establishment Republican.
ReplyDeleteHe is voting for Ron Paul, and is staying home if Ron doesn't get the nom.
That should be scaring the mother-loving fuck-all out of the RNC cardinals. Seriously.
.
ReplyDeleteThe Top 10 Astrophysics Stories of 2011
.
.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is doing well in Iowa. That is significant because of how poorly he did there in his 2008 run. And it is obvious he is striking a cord with some voters because of his isolationist and small government stances.
That being said there will probably only be about 120k Iowans involved in the caucuses and the majority will likely be hard core conservatives. The state is kind of an aberration, low unemployment, high corn and cattle prices, few budget problems. They have few of the problems facing much of the rest of the country.
Iowa is just not representative of the US. I forget the way T put it but the caucuses are kind of a joke.
I believe New Hamshire has a lot of similarities to Iowa.
Paul may do well initially but I expect he will eventually fade rather precipitously.
.
A lot of this trouble began with Saddam invading Kuwait. He shouldn't have done that. It wasn't polite. And 29 democratic Senators voted freely to authorize George W. Bush, so talk of a coup is a little overblown. I don't see American soldiers in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia or the other places he mentioned.
ReplyDeleteWesley Clark was a favorite with KGO Radio out of San Francisco when I used to listen to them. They were always talking PNAC.
Midnight Radio Network (Midnight Truckers Radio) is now going to be RedEyeRadio, for you trucking fans.
Top Ten Horse Stories Of All Time
b
Here Is Something Else To Be Concerned About And Ron Paul Is Right On This Issue
ReplyDeleteb
Occupy 101 Offered at Columbia
ReplyDeleteCamp out, soak up the rhetoric, get extra credit.....
b
Paul/Soros Gut The National Defense Plan
ReplyDeleteb
The General is echoing the report on RT television that I posted a couple of days ago.
ReplyDeleteThough the US has modified "The Plan", from using the US military to using proxies to destabilize those countries.
Which, if the US is going to pursue an interventionist policy, in the Islamic Arc, better to use proxies than to do it with US troops.
Santorum's kids in the sand box?
That joke is on US.!
Good to that Bro's dad is on the bus.
ReplyDeleteHe and millions more.
The DC elites that call themselves Republicans are going to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory, one more time.
As if it were part of a plan.
Wesley Clark called it a coup. He did that at a time when the implications of what it meant were not accepted by most Republicans. He was exceedingly well connected in the Pentagon. IMO it is stunning to hear him . It would be interesting to see his talk juxtaposed with the Politburo getting instructions from Netanyahu. What an amazing political ad that would make.
ReplyDeleteOne prominent ayatollah, Mesbah Yazdi, one of Iran's leading advocates of Islamic end times' ideology, has stated that Khamenei ascends to the sky every year for five hours to meet with Imam Mahdi and to consult about what action to take next. It is said that Khamenei has been told by Imam Mahdi to continue full speed with the Iranian nuclear program and not to fear anyone or any threats.
ReplyDeleteMahdi Says Nothing To Fear, Don't Be Deterred, Allah Will Prevail
From The Mahdi, his very self.
O, humanity....
b
Did he get that in writing on two tablets?
ReplyDeleteOMG. I have to listen to Clark's drek again.
ReplyDelete"Ten days after 9/11," Rumsfeld said "nobody's going to tell us who we can bomb, nobody."
So? It was ten days after 9/11! The WTC was still burning. So what if Rumsfeld was hot. Who wasn't?
"We're going to attack seven countries in five years."
We did not do that did we?
"We had a policy coup."
Clark is a political hack. This was political rhetoric. Our policy towards the middle east goes back to the Cold war. We made some expedient but bad alliances against the Soviets. We're now paying the price while those old diplomatic ties unravel
Our strained relations with Arab countries and Islam predate the formation of modern Israel. During WWII most Arab and Mediterranean countries supported Italy and the NAZIS. This did not exactly endear them to us.
Our relationship with Saudi Arabia has been based on oil. They had it, we wanted it.
In order to hem in the Soviet Union we got too involved in Iran and supported the Shah who BTW successfully brought that country into the 20th century. Russia had a large hand and many agents involved in the Iranian revolution. Unfortunately for them and the US, the Mullahs came out on top and have ever since been shaking their fists at the US and taking Iran back in time. To make things worse, they (Iran) and most other Islamic regimes and the Arabs have used Israel as a focal point to distract their own people from the failures of their own institutions. Didn't we learn from the Holocaust how dangerous this unchecked, unchallenged rhetoric and mentality is?
During the cold war, Islamic fundamentalism was held at bay, mostly by a ruthless, atheistic policy of the Communists. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was mostly ignored by a free world seeking to enjoy the social democracy peace dividends. The wakeup call came on 9/11 when suicide missions conducted by mostly Saudi nationals but more importantly, Islamic radicals, declared their global jihad.
So yes, Wesley Clark may have been correct in saying that at the time of 9/11 we had no policy for dealing with this but his premise that the NeoCons ruled the White House has shown to be false. It is a mistake to conflate Neocon policy with our current policy toward Iran. We are not going to become involved in a land war with the Mullahs. After just getting out of one tarpit, Iraq, and trying to shake loose from Afghanistan, who in their right mind would commit troops to fighting in Iran? Unfortunately for the decent Iranians, the Powell Doctrine is dead and if we're forced to "bomb them to rubble" then that is what they will be left with.
What Clark seeks to do is gain political advantage by isolating strategic decisions without regard to overall history. If one looks carefully at the whole of the 19th century - The Bolshevik revolution, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, Cuba, the cold war, you can begin to understand the complexities as history and evil runs in repeating cycles.
When you see and hear who is running our country it is easy to understand the mess we are in.The "Eternal War Party” wants to cut off Iranian oil (and start yet another war). And, how many wars has Iran been in in the last 50 years, and how many wars has America been in in the last 50 years . . . ?
ReplyDeleteI remember that crazy SOB Ross Perot on Larry King with charts and diagrams about how NAFTA was going to slowly destroy this country by taking manufacturing out of the hands of US workers and no one listened to him. WE let this happen to US. When someone stands up and punches us between the eyes with the truth, we need to listen. The US with NATO are sabotaging and creating violent revolutions in the middle east to create takeovers.. and who gets control? Always it is international banker friendly pawns ... it s nothing but power grabbing for world government. I listened to Ross Perot but did not pay attention.and now I am listening to Ron Paul.
If you're conspiracy minded, there are unlimited dots to connect.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, we also need to go back to the anarchists during the Gilded Age, the Colonial powers, the Spanish Armada, the fall of the Roman Empire, etc etc, etc.
It's a continuum with one decision and event leading to another and another.
You can blame the idealistic NeoCons for some things but you can't blame them for current US policy towards Iran. If you're tired of war and who isn't, I'm sorry, I hate to tell you, given our history, the news is bad.
Deuce said...
ReplyDeleteDid he get that in writing on two tablets?
Mon Jan 02, 06:57:00 AM EST
Obviously not, nor on Golden Plates either. Those are un-islamic really quite pagan ways of communicating with the divine, not the purity of Khamenei and Mahdi, mind to mind.
b
The US with NATO are sabotaging and creating violent revolutions in the middle east
ReplyDeleteNon-sense. We had nothing to do with Egypt, or Libya, though we finally chose a side there, and haven't done anything in Syria, at least yet. Maybe we should be doing something in Iran but we are doing nothing much even there.
b
How can you ignore our history with Egypt and Iran? Perhaps you do not know.
ReplyDeleteWe were involved with Egypt during the fifties trying to shore up the gaps left by the collapse of the British empire and provide a bulwark against communism. The western economy was hostage to oil and the Suez Canal. John Foster Dulles’ policy was containment and establishing friendly authoritarian regimes that would prevent communist expansion and control of the canal and oil fields. That was in our interest but not in the interests of Egyptians that had a field day playing off both superpowers. The Egyptians did what they could to enhance their position.
The US through the CIA encouraged the 1952 coup that brought in Nasser. We were going to give them aid and then we weren’t, then we did. Nasser was our guy before he wasn’t.
We promised to fund the Aswan Dam but changed our mind because Nasser would not play ball. The Soviets jumped in our place and Nasser opened relations with China. Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal which had been owned by the British and the French and the Brits and French along with Israel attacked Egypt and retook the canal. Eisenhower told the Brits he was going to dump their bonds and ruin them financially and the canal was returned to Egypt.
Regardless of the wisdom or lack of it, we have been deeply involved with Egypt. The same is true in Iran. We may not remember but they do.
.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, Wesley Clark may have been correct in saying that at the time of 9/11 we had no policy for dealing with this but his premise that the NeoCons ruled the White House has shown to be false.
Obviously, not true.
.
I didn't say that there were no Neocons in the Bush Administration. I said that they did not rule.
ReplyDeleteObviously, we did not invade all those countries which the Neocons wanted to invade.
The Israelis shot down a plane carrying senior Egyptian military commanders killing all on board. The French and the English attack Egypt and killed around 700 Egyptians but were forced to back down by the US. The result was that Nasser became a hero standing up to Israel, France and England. What would they do in Idaho if something similar happened here? Love England, France and Israel?
ReplyDeleteWes had lots of friends in high places: they just weren't in the military.
ReplyDelete"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart."
___General Hugh Shelton commenting on his firing of Clark
"I think the greatest condemnation against him . . . came from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he was a NATO commander. I mean, he was fired as a NATO commander.”
___General Norman Schwarzkopf
When asked if Clark would make a good president, “Absolutely not!”
___General Tommy Franks
Take care Jubal Early, Quirk is the "dick" man :-)
ReplyDeleteHe says it so often, one wonders if he has lost his.
Republican, General Rick Santorum, says that if he's elected president, he will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities unless they are opened for international arms inspectors.
ReplyDeleteScratch that asshole.
.
ReplyDeleteNon-sense. We had nothing to do with Egypt, or Libya, though we finally chose a side there, and haven't done anything in Syria, at least yet. Maybe we should be doing something in Iran but we are doing nothing much even there.
You are as misguided as the rat. Yours merely the opposite side of rat's argument that all that has happened over the last year is part of some grand plan orchestrated by the US.
For the past year, US foreign policy in the ME has been completely ad hoc, blown with the wind, trying to adjust to changes they just don't get, one week praising a despot they have supported for years and the next as the wind changes demanding first that he change all his policies immediately and in the next moment as things got hotter that he leave.
Through it all, all the US has proven is that is an incompetant opportunist. The US views the ME as a land of opportunity. A place to buy oil and sell weapons. They will do what it takes to keep that going even if it makes this country look like a cheap whore.This is also shown by its different policies policies toward the various countries of the MW. It has proven to its 'allies' that it will sell them out in a minute if the wind changes.
One thing that can be said of the neocons is that they had principles they were willing to stand up for. Unfortunately, the fact that most of the ME didn't believe in those principles or want them never seemed to occur to them.
.
.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that there were no Neocons in the Bush Administration. I said that they did not rule.
More stuff and nonsense.
Obviously, we did not invade all those countries which the Neocons wanted to invade.
Irrelevant to the issue of whose policy ruled the White House.
Besides, it's hard to tell what would have happened if the neocons hadn't proved so utterly incompetant in implementing the Iraqi fiasco.
.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant to the issue of whose policy ruled the White House.
It is relevant in that if the Neocons ruled the White House , according to Clark's account, we would have invaded those countries.
Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal which had been owned by the British and the French and the Brits and French along with Israel attacked Egypt and retook the canal.
ReplyDeleteSince you are attempting to learn history (which is good) might you expand on Egypt's constant use of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai as launching zones for "irregular" war against israel.
Long before there was anything called a "palestinian" Egyptian controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan was in complete control of the West Bank and the jewish Quarter of Jerusalem
From the Gaza Strip, Egypt launched thousands of attacks into Israel, (1948 lines) using the local arabs.
This is why Israel got involved in 1956, to stop the constant attacks of it's CIVILIANS by arab "irregulars".
Back then "irregulars" was the term for terrorists.
Interesting, the Arabs always selected civilians to target as part of their war plans.
I was responding to a comment that I thought referred to very recent events. Yes, I know something of the former history, but in the case of Egypt may have forgotten some of it.
ReplyDeleteThe recent business in Egypt had little to do with us directly. They were mad at Mubarak, not down with USA.
b
Tell us how we have controlled events in Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iran, Quirk. Throw in Tunisia too.
ReplyDeleteb
.
ReplyDeleteIt is relevant in that if the Neocons ruled the White House , according to Clark's account, we would have invaded those countries.
Mine and your posts argued over whether the neocons ruled the White House under Bush. Clark's account had nothing to do with the reality of that fact.
Arguing about whether his account is true is another matter. No way of confirming it but I tend to think it might be true because it reflects the general thinking of the neocons well back into the nineties.
To say the plan didn't exist merely because it never happened ignores the complete disaster they managed to bring about when they invaded the first country. Through arrrogance and incompetance they overstepped the bounderies the country was willing to accept on their very first try.
.
Is there any way we can take down the Mahdi directly? And not deal with the earthly imams?
ReplyDeleteb
Bush 1 should have gone to Baghdad.
ReplyDeleteb
.
ReplyDeleteThe US with NATO are sabotaging and creating violent revolutions in the middle east
You object to this thought, yet what do you call the US actions in Libya where we intervened in a civil war.
.
We didn't create any of it in Libya. You know that. It only goes back to 500B.C. or something. After it got going we hee-d and haw-d and finally decided to throw in with the French and British.
ReplyDeleteWhole thing worked out wonderfully, the savages are at each others throats and the oil flows.
b
Iran is particularly interesting. You can start with the Soviet and British invasion of Iran in 1941. Two years later at the Tehran Conference, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were singing kumbaya with the new Shah. The Soviets stayed in Iran long enough to slice and dice some borders. So from an Iranian point of view they have been attacked and occupied by two nuclear powers and threatened by two others. Why on earth would they want a nuclear bomb of their own?
ReplyDeleteAnd here I thought Mohammad had come to end all this tribalism.
ReplyDeleteDidn't work.
b
Qaddafi's son wants a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteb
Then Iraq was invaded by Saddam. After the invasion of Iraq, like the Clark video states, the Iranians knew that they were next on the hit list. What would they do in Idaho?
ReplyDeleteTo bring in the Mahdi, of course.
ReplyDeleteBlow shit up, and the Mahdi comes.
You may have a point but on the other hand Poland has been invaded many a time. Should they have nuclear weapons? What about Finland? etc etc going on around the earth. And most people that could be mentioned are sane.
What about Afghanistan, they've been invaded a lot, they need nukes too.
It's a nightmare.
b
Saddam invaded Kuwait, he shouldn't have done that.
ReplyDeleteIn Idaho, they could ski this time of year.
Drive down to Jackpot, Nevada, and gamble.
b
Any rational person knows what they would do. You can’t escape the contradiction so then you change the argument and make the claim that the Iranians are irrational and will in incinerate themselves and their 6000 year old civilization in order to damage Israel. Total nonsense. Looking at Iran’s history, their not wanting a nuclear deterrence is irrational. It is wishful thinking. Any American politician that would accept such thinking would have a very short career as would any Israeli politician.
ReplyDeleteThe man behind the curtain does not want you to think about it.
I don't know whether they are rational, or irrational. Time will tell. I believe they will get, or already have, their bomb.
ReplyDeleteTheir statements are irrational.
At least, from our point of view, of course.
When Khomeni came back from Paris at the revolution he said we are not Persians we are muslims and if this land must burn to further the victory of islam in the world, let it burn.
I think he meant it, whether the current crop does, or likes their luxury who knows?
b
.
ReplyDeleteWe didn't create any of it in Libya. You know that.
Look at the facts. Hillary representing the US pushed the no-fly zone resolution through the UN. The US runs NATO. At one point, the British and French were actually running out of ammo. Any ideas on who resupplied them. Without US logistics, planning, and coordination, there would have been no no-fly zone.
Obama says we got involved because of 'humanitarian' reasons. If you believe that, I'd like to sell you some ocean front property in Moscow.
{My personal opinion is that they looked like such amateurs in Egypt and in dealing with the Arab Spring that they were looking for any opportunity to try to appear as being 'back in the game'.]
.
In the middle of a knife fight you shouldn't get a pang conscience.
ReplyDeleteThe Iranians have been on the list since 1979 when they occupied our embassy and held hostages for 444 days.
Screw the mullahs, Hugo Chavez and
Fidel Castro. Bin laden, Saddam Hussein and Yassir Arafat can all burn in hell.
I'd struggle to try and imagine a more perfect setup where a bunch of irrationals would use a nuclear weapon insuring their own demise.
ReplyDeleteb
AnonoBob: You may have a point but on the other hand Poland has been invaded many a time. Should they have nuclear weapons? What about Finland?
ReplyDeleteSo you're talking about gun control with background checks.
.
ReplyDeleteHere's some surprising info from the WaPo:
Friday, Dec. 23: GAO Releases its Consolidated Financial Report: The nation’s top watchdog said it once again couldn’t render an opinion on the government’s overall financial condition thanks to incomplete data. The departments of Defense and Homeland Security are withholding the most relevant information, according to the report. (For more, read Bryan R. Lawrence’s brilliant summation of the situation as published in The Post last week.)
.
Quirk, we didn't create the tribalism. That's the cause of it. That's what I mean. Hillary and Obama mouthed around a bit after the thing got going. A lot of folks were sick of Qaddafi, and it showed, finally.
ReplyDeleteb
Yup, we need nuke control, with background checks.
ReplyDeleteMiss T has it right, and the Iranians fail, permit denied.
b
9-11, call the world cops.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteQuirk, we didn't create the tribalism. That's the cause of it.
That's right. But we also didn't need to get involved.
A lot of folks were sick of Qaddafi, and it showed, finally.
True enough, but if you fail to see that the commercial interests of the British and French were key factors in this you are naive. Dislike of Qaddafi merely meant that no one gave a shit when NATO took him down.
.
Mister deuce sir, can you expand on your dissertation to explain how the "neocons" are currently in control of the Obama administration actions concerning Libya, Syria, and Iran?
ReplyDeleteYou are aware that a democrat has been in office for three years?
Paul stated that POTUS has a new campaign theme to commiserate the "slip into tyranny"
ReplyDeleteHOPE -
You aren't indefinitely detained
Guess POTUS did sign the NDAA mister Bro D-Day.
Ash, where's the outrage?
The Iranians are their own worst enemy in a way. If they would make their case in the way deuce has made it, we want nukes to defend ourselves, they'd be better off.
ReplyDeleteBut no, they go and say we look forward to a world without the United States of America, we look forward to a world without the Zionist Entity, etc.
Some folks find it off putting, and remember times in history where folks have even written out what they are going to do, and then do it, all the while no one had paid any attention to what they had written.
People find it off putting being told they are going to cease to exist.
And then, to top it all off, they periodically slaughter their own people, and, once in a while hang sexual deviators of one kind or another as they see it, from cranes.
It's really bad p.r.
b
NATO did not start it Quirk.
ReplyDeleteb
Anonobob: And then, to top it all off, they periodically slaughter their own people, and, once in a while hang sexual deviators of one kind or another as they see it, from cranes.
ReplyDeleteThey do the same crap in Pakistan, but aren't making plans to invade them, because they got nukes. And that same lightbulb went off in Ahmedinajad's head.
.
ReplyDeleteon CNN, Rick Santorum, speaking to a crowd in Iowa says,
"I am not a swish."
.
I am not a crook.
ReplyDeleteI did not have sex with that woman.
The Pakis are like the rest of the Sunnis in the neighborhood. They are arming up because they recognize the threat posed by the Shias.
ReplyDeleteJust look at what the Tehran supported Assad regime is doing to those poor Sunni civilians in Syria.
Gloria Borger asked R. Paul about this statement:
ReplyDelete“If you’ve ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”
That is actually a funny, as in humorous, statement.
Those are not Iranians delivering arms to the Assad regime.
ReplyDeleteNo, not at all
WorldTribune.com - Nov 27, 2011 –
Arab diplomatic sources said the Russian Navy arrived in the Syrian
port of Tartous in late November and brought weapons and supplies to the regime of President Bashar Assad.
Reuters: Russia is sending a flotilla of warships to its naval base in Syria in a show of force which suggests Moscow is willing to defend its interests in the strife-torn country as international pressure mounts on President Bashar al-Assad's government.
ReplyDelete...
Russia, which has a naval maintenance base in Syria and whose weapons trade with Damascus is worth millions of dollars annually, joined China last month to veto a Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Assad's government. . . .
Iran is not the major player, in Syria. Russia is.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you've missed the target, again.
ReplyDelete21 December, 2011, 12:56
(RIA Novosti / Sergey Eshenko)
The US-based intelligence-gathering firm Stratfor says most of the claims by the Syrian opposition about the seriousness of the country's crisis are untrue. The company insists protesters are exaggerating, to win support from powers like the US.
ReplyDeleteThese are not spontaneous protests"
Doctor Craig Roberts
It's the Rusians, stupid
The US does not want a Russian naval presence in Syria.
Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate.
He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service.
Roberts has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.
The company insists protesters are exaggerating, to win support from powers like the US.
ReplyDeleteWhat??
Why would they have to do that, when we have been told the USA is behind everything??
b
While the Iranians cannot project military threats beyond their frontiers, those Russians ...
ReplyDeleteWell, they certainly can ...
... and have.
.
ReplyDeleteSaw a Newt Gingrich interview on CNN. The press was asking how he felt about his recent drop in the polls.
He said he feels great given that his campaign has been sandbagged twice since the summer, the first by the press and now by $3 million in Romney attack adds. You could see he was building and just about to explode from some of the questions when he cut off the news conference.
Rufus is right. It would be a hoot having Gindrich as the GOP nominee. He kept repeating that he was the only candidate capable of debating with Obama. However, for anyone familiar with his volitile personality it would be child's play to goad him into a meltdown.
Amusing? Naw, a laugh riot.
.
Reference the story of Mr Chalabi, the CIA and the intertwining lies from Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThat's how the US both supports the destabilization of these countries, while having "plausible deniability" throughout the escapade.
The CIA black ops division undertakes dangerous and usually what would be considered illegal missions that are not officially sanctioned by the US administration so that the administration, which usually benefits from such missions, can safely dissavow any knowledge of them in the event of their publically uncovered success or failure.
Mission Possible.
.
ReplyDeletePer CNN,
Michelle Bachman's tax policy.
1. There will be absolutely no tax increases under her administration.
2. Everyone will be forced to pay some minimum tax.
.
Yeah...and the Iranians can't project force beyond their border.
ReplyDeleteGoogle Iran Syria defense pact
Cause if google searches were scholarship, you'd be a masters in communication
Damn neocon administration
Now get me a beer
Gingrich wouldn't provide nearly the entertainment of Ron Paul.
ReplyDeleteb
2. Everyone will be forced to pay some minimum tax.
ReplyDeleteThere goes 50% of the vote.
b
.
ReplyDeleteReference the story of Mr Chalabi,...
What was black ops about Chalabi? The US was pretty much up front about publicly supporting him as I recall.
He supported all of their pretensions about reasons for invading Iraq. He told them whatever they wanted to hear.
His testimony was one more piece in the puzzle, one more excuse for the invasion
.
Iran test-fires more missiles in Gulf exercises
ReplyDeleteBBC says that the Iranian Shahab-3b has a range of 2,500km (1553 miles).
One can believe reports from the folks at Stratfor, or not.
ReplyDeleteBut there is no doubt that the US sought to create a cultural shift, through the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
When the tribalism of that country overwhelmed the US capacity to create meaningful societal change, time for Plan B.
The objective, still, to neuter those regimes considered dangerous to US interests.
First the Russian navy builds a maintenance bay in port of Tartous, and gained some attention. Then the Russians publicly committed to basing their carrier in Syria, on the Mediterranean, well, that straw broke our camel's back.
While NATO can expand to the Russian border, in Poland, the Russians must remain bottled up, either on the Black Sea or in the Arctic.
Turn about is not only not fair play, it's not allowed.
So, will those 20,000 Libyan trained revolutionaries be at the Syrian dance, soon?
Would Qatar field that mercenary force without the US being on board?
Especially if they are staging in Turkey.
Deuce said...
ReplyDeleteAny rational person knows what they would do. You can’t escape the contradiction so then you change the argument and make the claim that the Iranians are irrational and will in incinerate themselves and their 6000 year old civilization in order to damage Israel. Total nonsense. Looking at Iran’s history, their not wanting a nuclear deterrence is irrational. It is wishful thinking. Any American politician that would accept such thinking would have a very short career as would any Israeli politician.
The Mullahs in charge of Iran do not think of themselves as "Persian"
To think they are is nonsense.
They view the world as "Islamic" or not.
Rational, western views are not germane.
As for Islamic irrational behavior in their blood lust to destroy Israel?
They show that OVER AND OVER again.
Just HOW many times have the Palestinians been OFFERED a STATE?
BBC says that the Iranian Shahab-3b has a range of 2,500km (1553 miles).
ReplyDeleteShit, that would hit Europe!
Now, that's force projection.
Put a nuke on top of that puppy, we'
re in business, eh, anon?
:)
b
That "Defense Pact" not worth the paper it's written on.
ReplyDeleteThe Russians are there, in uniform, with man-o-war, the Iranians are not.
Sorry wannabe sniper, you missed.
There are no Iranian military units overtly in Syria. There are Russian military units overtly in Syria.
Get a clue to the real whirled, rather than your Israelicentric perspective to everything.
The US is being propagandized as to the true anti-Sunni Muslim nature of the Assad regime, while the real whirled positioning of Russian ships on the Med is unacceptable to the US, but never mentioned by US politicos.
That is the "real" motivator behind the current actions, part of the quid pro que both to and from the Saudis.
All that being as it may, there are two, and only two, possible outcomes.
ReplyDelete1) Iran will have its nukes,
or
2) We instigate a War with Iran, and Occupy that country, Forever.
And, I agree with the anon at
ReplyDeleteMon Jan 02, 12:45:00 PM EST
b
From 2008:
ReplyDeleteLibya’s leader, Colonel Gaddafi, is currently visiting Moscow to finalize energy and arms deals. This is the first visit by Gaddafi to a post-soviet era Russia. This visit follows on from a Putin trip to Libya in April. Sources are saying that part of the arrangements under discussion include a new Russian Naval base in Libya. Russia only has one other foreign Naval base and that is in the Ukraine. However, the Ukrainian President has already indicated he will not renew the lease on the base when it expires in 2017. Russia has been actively soliciting further foreign bases, and its Navy recently visited Venezuela and Libya to start those negotiations.
Russia is the World's Largest Oil Producer, and is neck and neck with Saudi Arabia to be the world's largest oil exporter. They would Love a Major War in the Middleeast. Mucho more bucks in their pocket.
ReplyDeleteThe news from and by Russia, in October of 2008
ReplyDeleteLibya 'ready to host Russian naval base'
NICO - Oct 31, 08
MOSCOW, October 31 (RIA Novosti) - Libya is willing to host a Russian naval base as a means of security against any possible U.S. attack, a Russian business daily said on Friday.Russian fleet
Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi will pay an official visit to Russia at the invitation of President Dmitry Medvedev from October 31 to November 2.
The Kommersant newspaper cited a source close to the preparations for the visit as saying that the Libyan leader was planning to raise the naval base issue during talks with the Russian leadership.
"The Libyan leader believes that a Russian military presence in the country would prevent possible attacks by the United States, which despite numerous Libyan attempts to amend bilateral relations is not in a hurry to embrace Colonel Qaddafi," the paper said.
They put a nuke on that Shahab 3 they can project a lot of force right into Rome.
ReplyDeleteb
The israelicentric position of the current admin?
ReplyDeleteThe current admin has stated:
- the Assad regime needs to go
- Iranian nukes are not acceptable
- the strait will stay open
Now get me a beer, thought this was a bar
Funny how those countries that move to host the Russian navy, first they start to take on water, then sink.
ReplyDeleteWhile the military is still in charge, in Egypt.
We can, and will, shoot down every shahab that's shot at Europe.
ReplyDeleteAnd then Tehran becomes a glass parking lot.
Not a chance in hosanna.
Why do Assad's need to go, to be replaced by the Wahhabi?
ReplyDeleteThe port of Tartous, not for any "Human Rights" violation, or shooting a few Muslims to maintain political control.
The Assad regime did far worse at Hama, in 1982, if measured by body count. That after 6 years of civil strife, yet there was no foreign military intervention.
Turkey was not "alarmed".
The Soviet navy was not at the Syrian port of Tartous.
Gulf states, other nations, and u.s. bases well within range of those missiles.
ReplyDeleteDesert Rat states: The Russians are there, in uniform, with man-o-war, the Iranians are not.
ReplyDeleteSorry wannabe sniper, you missed.
There are no Iranian military units overtly in Syria. There are Russian military units overtly in Syria.
Get a clue to the real whirled, rather than your Israelicentric perspective to everything.
From the UJ Telegraph: Desert Rat is Full of Shit:
Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Death in Syria
My attention has been drawn to an intriguing piece of footage that has been posted on Youtube in which a pair of hooded Syrian rebels are displaying the identity card of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard killed during the recent unrest – see video above.
There have been many reports in recent months that Iran has deployed elite Revolutionary Guard units to Syria to support the efforts of President Bashir al-Assad to suppress anti-government protests. The Revolutionary Guards, of course, have a great deal of expertise in this area after the role they played in crushing Iran's pro-democracy movement in the wake of the controversial 2009 presidential election.
But this clip provides deeply embarrassing evidence of just how involved the Iranians are in helping the Assad regime to suppress the opposition, as it shows the identity card of a Revolutionary Guards officer who was caught by Syrian rebels and killed.
The clip has certainly caused some consternation in Iran, where I'm told the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has convened an emergency summit of Revolutionary Guard commanders in Tehran to improve the security of Iranian agents working in Syria to ensure there are no further embarrassing revelations.
Now let's watch Rat wiggle wiggle wiggle about the DEFINITION of "overtly"
ReplyDelete30MAR09
ReplyDeleteFOX News
The U.S. deployed two missile-interceptor ships from South Korea on Monday, days ahead of a North Korean rocket launch seen by many as a test of its longest-range missile.
The two U.S. destroyers were on a mission believed to monitor the North's rocket launch.
The ships are equipped with Aegis radar, a system that enables the vessels to locate, track and shoot down missiles.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511376,00.html#ixzz1iKGEz2tP
Go ahead blow hard...
ReplyDeletewe are all waiting...
wiggle wiggle wiggle
Desert Rat parses words more than Bill Clinton and the meaning of yes.
ReplyDeleteThe European Union on Wednesday expanded Syria sanctions to target the elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guard for its role in helping Syrian security forces crush the five-month-old uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.
ReplyDeleteAn EU statement said Iran's elite Quds Force has provided "technical assistance, equipment and other support to the Syrian security forces to repress civilian protest movements."
Of course the Iranians are entrenched in Syria and Lebanon. Imperialists
ReplyDeletewiggle
ReplyDeleteI stick to the US standard for overt.
ReplyDeleteThat'd be members of the armed forces, in uniform. On missions directed and sponsored by the DoD.
US not seeking overt military action in Fata, says Clinton
From the Newspaper | Back Page | By Anwar Iqbal
October 25, 2011
In two interviews to US media outlets, released by the State Department on Monday, Secretary Clinton indicated that the US was not planning to send ground troops into Fata to target terrorist hideouts.
“There’s a lot going on that is aimed at these safe havens, and we will continue to work with them on that,”
she said when asked if during her meetings with Pakistani leaders in Islamabad last week she had told them that the US might have to launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan.
“There are different ways of fighting besides overt military action, and I think this is an important point of clarification,”
said when asked if the US wanted Pakistan to launch another military operation against the militants.
It's not politically expedient for "either" side to mention this, but the Obama Administration, and the Europeans have begun quietly installing anti-missile defenses in Southern Europe.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Israel is becoming downright prickly with anti-missile batteries.
Those Shahab (formerly called "Scud") missiles aren't going to hurt anyone.
Monday, March 21, 2011 INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING
ReplyDeleteIran's IRGC attacks anti-Assad protesters in Syria
LONDON — Iran's elite military units have been deployed to attack protesters of the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Opposition sources said Iran has sent units of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to attack thousands of anti-Assad protesters in the city of Dera. They said IRGC transported hundreds of commandos via helicopter in what could mark the prelude to massive bloodshed.
"The IRGC landed before the killings, which means this is an intentional operation to massacre wholesale the people of Dera," the Reform Party of Syria said. "If true, the Syrian security in Dera has been penetrated."
Rufus II said...
ReplyDeleteThose Shahab (formerly called "Scud") missiles aren't going to hurt anyone
Three Isrealis killed as Scuds hit Tel Aviv
By Reuven M. Lerner
Three people were killed and at least 70 wounded when an Iraqi Scud missile landed in a heavily residential neighborhood of Tel Aviv, Israel, yesterday afternoon, according to officials from the Israel Defense Forces.
The Iranians deserve the same amount of "Implausible Deniability" that the US reserves for itself, when operating in the Islamic Arc.
ReplyDeleteYes, anonymi, and when was that?
ReplyDeleteRufus: Those Shahab (formerly called "Scud") missiles aren't going to HURT anyone.
ReplyDeleteAltogether, Iraq fired 39 missiles at Israel on 17 separate days between Jan. 18 and Feb. 25, 1991. Because of fears that they might be carrying chemical warheads, Israelis put on gas masks when alarms were sounded and went to specially protected "sealed" rooms.
The fears of chemical warfare proved to be unfounded, and as the weeks wore on, many Israelis got so used to the situation that they did not bother putting on masks. Most Scuds missed their targets or landed ineffectually. And while there were more than 1,000 recorded injuries, nearly half of them from flying glass, only two Israelis were killed by direct hits during the six weeks.
But many others apparently died from stress, most conspicuously on the first day, when no one knew what kind of payload the missiles would carry.
Rufus II said...
ReplyDeleteYes, anonymi, and when was that?
Why is the date important?
You stated that scud dont hurt anyone..
it has and could kill and hurts thousands
And the date of those 39 scuds was 20 years ago. technology has improved numbnuts.
They don't even need their new, superdooper Arrow Interceptors for those Shahab III's. The Patriot 3's that we have in Israel will do the job, nicely.
ReplyDeleteA whole bunch has changed in just the last couple of years, not to mention since 1991.
I speak of missile defense, and you put up something from 1991.
ReplyDeleteAnd you call me numbnuts.
When Alexander crossed the Bosphorus, he was then in the Persian Empire, was he not?
ReplyDeleteI think so, pretty sure.
The Persians have often ranged to the shores of the Med. Obviously they still maintain operatives, there.
But no man-o-war, like the Russians.
For forty years the US did not are what happened in Syria, until the Russian navy docked, there.
The same can be said of Libya.
This is an example of overt military cooperation ...
ReplyDeleteDecember 12, 2011
Russia is reinforcing its opposition to international efforts to tighten the economic embargo on Syria by sending a Russian battle group of three vessels led by an aircraft carrier to the eastern Mediterranean. The flotilla, expected in the region at the end of this week, is likely to dock in the Syrian port of Tartus, Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean, before the end of the month, according to Russian defence officials. The arrival of the flotilla comes on the heels of the delivery to Syria of supersonic anti-ship Yakhont cruise missiles as part of an agreement signed in 2007 and a Russian promise to go ahead with the training of Syrian personnel in the use the state-of-the-art weapons.
As Syria teeters on the brink of civil war, Russia, in sending a flotilla to the eastern Mediterranean and maintaining arms supplies to Syria, is in effect bolstering President Bashar Al Assad’s resolve not to give in to international demands that he halts his brutal eight-month-old crackdown on anti-government protesters.
That corner of the Mediterranean is already being patrolled by US 6th Fleet warships led by an aircraft carrier. By raising the bar, Russia is signalling its determination to foil attempts to strangle the Syrian leader’s regime and also hopes to reduce the chances of a military intervention in Syria, possibly spearheaded by Turkey.
Rufus II said...
ReplyDeleteI speak of missile defense, and you put up something from 1991.
And you call me numbnuts.
Yep, you talk of what you know nothing of...
When confronted with facts you change the argument.
Numbnuts.
OK Einstein, since the last time Israel USED missile defense was LAST week (google Iron Dome) it proved to be 40 % effective.
So I guess your denial about how bad missile defense works (nor argue the COST of such SYSTEMS) proves your are dumber than a rock.
Missile defense is not even CLOSE to providing MILLIONS of Israeli civilians with protection.
The scuds can and could be used by Iran AND hezbollah and HAMAS in a 3 front war.
So pull your head out of your ass and go and learn numb nuts...
Two things happened. Ghaddafi started making deals with the Chinese, and negotiating a Russian Port.
ReplyDeleteThat's more than the Europeans could stand.
Desert Rat:
ReplyDeleteBut no man-o-war, like the Russians.
For forty years the US did not are what happened in Syria, until the Russian navy docked, there.
The same can be said of Libya.
wiggle wiggle wiggle...
With all this wiggling? I bet the Rat is about to drop a load of shit somewhere else than here...
That was in 1996, rufus, before the US funded Israeli missile defenses to a tune approaching $1 billion dollars.
ReplyDeleteWhat once was a threat to Israel from Iraqi Scuds, no longer is.
Technology marches on.
On the US dime.
Was it '91, rufus?
ReplyDeleteI recall the Great Scud Hunt, the failure to "get one".
The year, it'd have to have been '91, when HW was at the helm.
It's infinitely harder to guard a hundred cities against small, short range rockets than to guard a country against high-flying, Medium, and Long-Range Rockets.
ReplyDeleteThe last I read the Israelis only had 4 Cities protected by the Iron Dome system.
I Have studied this a bit.
Enough to bet the ranch that the Iranians won't try to smuggle Nukes, And a Delivery System, into Gaza.
I'm also aware that most, if not All, of the Mullahs at Qom are Millionaires, with some Billionaires sprinkled in the mix.
The thought that they would commit suicide on such an ill-fated venture makes no sense whatsoever.
We are expected to take the word of Wahhabi agents?
ReplyDeleteNot a chance.
Need photos of those overt Iranians, in uniform, formed up on parade. Like the Russians do each morning.
Even anon's source cannot verify the story, it is so thin!
the Reform Party of Syria said. "If true,
the Syrian security in Dera has been penetrated."
Make me laugh, even more
Another misfired round.
Betcha those Iranians, IF they are Iranians and IF they are there, are not members of their military.
No mention of Iranian formations by the Arab League inspectors has been made.
There is no overt Iranian military presence in Syria.
anon now wants us to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood tells the truth, as long as they are telling tall tales about Israeli enemies.
ReplyDeleteWants us to believe Wahhabi rather than Stratfor.
I'm sure the Iranians have a Covert presence there. As do we. As do the Israelis. As do the Sauds, and all other Gulf States.
ReplyDeleteEvery mother's son in the ME has a vested interest in Us going to war with the Iranians. As does every Russian Oil Oligarch (otherwise known as the "leadership.")
Every Arms Merchant, and every Israeli.
But, it would be devastating for us, and ours.
Deuce mentioned a Syria vs. NATO article.
ReplyDeleteObama admin via NATO (same as Libya) working to topple Syria.
U think Obama has a carrier group in the Med? Yep
Must be a Neocon plot Deuce.
Next he'll be telling us ...
ReplyDeleteIt's a SLAM DUNK!
Obama supported departure of both leaders in Libya and Egypt. That the Wahabis filled the void; well perhaps you should write a letter to the administration about their foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, let the admin. know that the Iranians can't project force beyond their border.
Of course there is a COVERT Iranian presence in Syria.
ReplyDeleteNever thought otherwise.
But overt military formations.
Not a one.
Wonder, when inserted by helicopter, did those supposed Iranians overfly Iraq, or did they go over through Turkey?
Does Iran possess stealth helicopter technologies?
Actually, the Europeans are the most interesting component in all this. The only thing I can figure is they think that if they can get us to "take" Iran they can get that Iranian oil flowing back to Europe.
ReplyDeleteOld "Colonial" thinking dies hard.
ReplyDeleteYes, the US supported those actions, why so huffy?
ReplyDeleteNeo-cons are bi-partisan.
Not limited to the GOP.
Whatever gave you that idea?
The interventionist policies of the Bush/Obama are inseparable. All that has changed is the size of the footprints.
But the cause is the same, US military and economic domination of the Med and Middle East.
All that changed was the technique, adaptations through lesson's learned.
Getting it "right".
But do not believe, for a moment that the "Cause" is a new threat from Iran.
Neither in Libya nor Syria.
Iran is window dressing for the propagandists.
The world pumped less oil last year than it did in 2005, and will probably produce less This year than last.
ReplyDeleteThrow a War with Iran into the mix, and . . . . .
Gasoline prices last year were the highest in history, and that was with Obama, and the IEA withdrawing 60 Million Barrels from "strategic" reserves.
ReplyDeletePrices are starting out this year $0.20/gal above last year.
Take over a third of all "exported" oil off the market, even for a couple of months, and there just isn't any telling how bad it could get.
The Iranian Air Force operates Bell 205's which it builds, domestically.
ReplyDeleteFor those that do not know, that is the Huey of Vietnam era fame.
Hauls eight men, combat loaded.
So, to deliver 100 men, a Company.
Takes 12 helicopters.
So, we are expected to believe the Iranians overflew Iraq or Turkey, in a flight of 36 Huey helos, undetected by US or Turkish radar?
Leave them alone and let them settle their own problems. I am far more interested in the Americas as are the Chinese. Let Israel be Israel, do what it wants, make its own treaties and rely on its own resources and have it quit interfering in US politics.
ReplyDeleteWe reciprocate. Leave them alone and they let us alone. It is not that difficult to understand. We have enough problems with our own shit bird politicians without having to listen to second rate hacks like Bibi Netanyahu and the other crazies throughout the Islamic arc.
Fuck with us and you pay the price. Leave us alone and everything is endaxi.
Listen to your father and avoid foreign entanglements.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteRussia’s economic stakes in Syria are equally high. Russia has concluded US$4 billion worth of arms contracts with Syria and has invested some $20 billion in Syrian infrastructure, energy and tourism. Russia’s Stroitransgaz is building a natural gas processing plant and supporting an Arab gas pipeline while Tatneft, which is already pumping Syrian oil, announced earlier this year that it would invest $12.8m in oil exploration near the Iraqi border.
If the economic and strategic stakes are high, they pale from Russia’s perspective compared to the potential fallout if Assad’s opponents prevail in the face of a crackdown that has so far cost 4,000 lives, wounded thousands, and led to the arrest of even greater numbers. Russian forces have this year killed some 300 militants in the northern Caucus, a patchwork of ethnic and religious groups where Islamists regularly attack Russian targets. They could well be encouraged by the toppling of Assad. Alternatively, a Syria that disintegrates as a result of civil war could equally inspire militants in Russian republics like Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia.
Syrian acceptance of Arab League observers offers Russia the opportunity to align support for Assad with Arab efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis peacefully.
(Bloomberg) -- Manufacturing in India and China improved in December, a sign the world’s fastest-growing major economies are withstanding Europe’s debt crisis.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's established that Obama's neocon foreign policy is similar to Bush and the non-Paul repub candidates.
ReplyDeleteGuess the Repub candidate that understands that u can't spend ur way out of debt and how to create jobs should get the vote - foreign policy being the same.
What a strange thought.
ReplyDeleteYour neighbor tells you his dog taking a shit in your front yard is in his interest.
ReplyDeleteChina and India (especially China) can thrive at oil prices that put the U.S. and Europe into Recession, and, possibly, even depression.
ReplyDeleteJust wryly amused u are now aware that a democrat is in office; as opposed to neocons
ReplyDeleteDeuce said...
ReplyDeleteLeave them alone and let them settle their own problems. I am far more interested in the Americas as are the Chinese. Let Israel be Israel, do what it wants, make its own treaties and rely on its own resources and have it quit interfering in US politics.
But Deuce, like it or not America has been fucking with israeli politics since before they were a state..
As for their "own" problems?
America has been at war with the islamic nations of the middle east SINCE BEFORE we were a NATION.
Stop trying to shift blame to Israel.
Hell if America had not helped create the concept of NATION with regards to the Egyptians, Lebanon and Syria think how the world would have been different.
desert rat said...
ReplyDeleteOf course there is a COVERT Iranian presence in Syria.
Never thought otherwise.
But overt military formations.
Not a one.
Wonder, when inserted by helicopter, did those supposed Iranians overfly Iraq, or did they go over through Turkey?
wiggle wiggle wiggle....
Rufus II said...
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the Iranians have a Covert presence there. As do we. As do the Israelis. As do the Sauds, and all other Gulf States.
Every mother's son in the ME has a vested interest in Us going to war with the Iranians. As does every Russian Oil Oligarch (otherwise known as the "leadership.")
Every Arms Merchant, and every Israeli.
But, it would be devastating for us, and ours.
Ah the numbnut speakith out his ass again...
As for "Israel" to be pleased with a hot war against Iran? That would cause the death and injury of about 600,000 israelis.
Guess geo-politics aint your strong suite....
And guess who BENEFITS from a hot war with Iran?
American ENERGY COMPANIES..
Can you see West Texas Crude jumping to 300 a barrel?
Yep last I checked America getting into a hot war with Iran makes America money on oil and weapon sales...
Creates JOBS....
but keep feeding that diminished thing you call a brain...
No need for wiggle, anon
ReplyDeleteYour source is suspect
Your source admits the story may not be true
The insertion mission requires flying 36 helos over enemy airspace.
Airspace defended with the most advanced radar systems in the whirled, aimed at the country that is launching the insertion.
The entire story is untenable.
A fraud and deception.
Disingenuous, in the extreme, to even bring it to the Bar.
Fairly weak effort from the rat and deuce today.
ReplyDeleteU fellas need some sterner material.
Israel, neocons, blah, blah, blah
Weak ass material
Now get me a beer
Sounds like you've already had a few of them beers, anon. Might be time for a little nap.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. goes to war with Iran, and 600,000 Israelis get "dead, or injured?"
really?
Might oughtta drop an email to Bibi.
But Deuce, like it or not America has been fucking with israeli politics since before they were a state..
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. It is time to adjust. China has gone from mud and straw huts in 25 years to become a power to be be reckoned with. The US has 17 million unemployed and 50 million on food stamps. Our dance card runneth over. It is time to go home, recalibrate, quit fucking with everyone and get rich. Last year alone we were at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan an Uganda. The Chinese were making money with business deals in every country from Alaska down through Tierra del Fuego.
Fairly weak effort from the rat and deuce today.
ReplyDeleteU fellas need some sterner material.
Israel, neocons, blah, blah, blah
Weak ass material
Now get me a beer
I’ll have to re-read everything. I seemed to have missed your best stuff.
Dept of Interior approve two more renewable energy projects. Total, now, 27
ReplyDeleteRufus, thought all the missiles could be shot down.
ReplyDeletePerhaps consistency isn't a strong attribute in Mississippi.
Either all the missiles can be shot down or they cannot, and Israelis are at risk. Which is it champ?
Anonymous, I really don't give a fuck.
ReplyDeleteAin't "My" problem.
ReplyDeleteAnd, no, I'm not anti-semitic. Nor am I anti-Rwandan, or anti-Sudanes, or anti-Bohemian. I'm not even, entirely, anti-Catholic, or anti-Pentecostal.
ReplyDeleteI AM anti-minding other people's business.
I am definitely anti-anything that causes pain and hardship to Clan Rufii.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty much anti-Muslim, but not to the extent that I want my clan to suffer just so my government can pick some kind of needless fight with them.
ReplyDeleteThose of you who warned that the Islamoids were going to be marching out of Libya, to cry havoc and loose the dogs of war, in further religious wars, may be proven correct.
ReplyDeleteThey will be marching, towards Syria, with Qatar then as now, acting as paymaster to the Muslim mercenaries.
Marching against the second to last non-Islamic regime in the Islamic Arc, in Syria.
After the Alawais fall, the only country not firmly in the Islamic fold, will be Israel, standing alone on the shores of the Med.
With the Wahhabi surrounding the walls and within their camp, tambien.
All of them hoping Uncle Sam is still standing overwatch, over the horizon.
Oh, Q ....
ReplyDeleteSenor Chalabi spoke to the general discontent in Iraq and how the US would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi peoples.
Much as we hear, today, from the Muslim Brotherhood mouthpieces, in London, referencing the situation in Syria.
He was accepted and embraced by the "Powers That Be", because he was telling the tale they needed told. Regardless of the truth on the ground.
That was the "meme" that I was trying to convey.
You can count Santorum in the winning circle - the Duggar family and the 19 kids are on the hustle for him right now.
ReplyDeleteOld man Duggar can deliver more votes than our Guv Rufus.
b
He volunteering "troops" to be trained, Training authorized and funded by Congress, but never carried out by the US military.
ReplyDeleteThey were a tad distrustful.
Last I read Mr Chalabi was still living high on the hog, in Iraq.
Rufus: I AM anti-minding other people's business.
ReplyDeleteIf Rufus gets his way, the Iranians will mount dozens of Katusha rockets in Juarez pointed right at the heart of Peoria, Illinois!
There are two schools of thought on Israel. One is emotional and sentimental, Bible School, Old Testament stuff and Jesus. The other is more analytical and pragmatic. Neither side really understands the other side and the emotional side is deeply suspicious of the the analytically inclined. They automatically suspect some deep dark anti-jewish or anti-religious motive. All the region’s religions love the term infidel. All are chosen by some god and rejected by other gods. The rejected are infidels and unworthy.
ReplyDeleteThen you have superimposed on that the scam artists, con men and political opportunists, Bibi Netanyahu comes to mind. He is the master. All you have to do is watch him in front of the Politburo of the Potomac. It was a sight to see. Loaves and fishes, water to wine, burning bushes was nothing compared to Bibi’s ability to keep the entire US Congress airborne and roaring. It was sheer Barnum and Bailey in the big tent.
The point is the gods and emotional benders will get you killed generationally, time and time again. Look at the facts and the Middle East is a very bad deal for the US. It is a disproportionate use of resources, misplaced priorities and comes with huge opportunity costs. The Iranian bogeyman is just the latest, but the most dangerous for the US and to the unfortunate future generations in Israel that will have to endure the results of madness if Netanyahu successfully completes his magic show.
Oil Minister, right?
ReplyDeleteWho could have guessed? :)
Many of the Rufii Clan have died defending the United States, T.
ReplyDeleteWe live here, and we swore allegiance, here.
We have never, ever sworn allegiance to another country.
We wish the Israelis well, but we did not tell those Europeans to "go try your luck in the Levant, and we'll watch your back." It never happened. And, it never will.
If some bible-thumpers in the United States think that a Mideast Armageddon will bring on the "rapture," then I think they should load up their sons, and daughters, and go over there and get the ball rolling.
ReplyDeleteBut, I don't desire to have myself, or mine, wrapped up in such foolishness.
Who are the "Duggar" family?
ReplyDeleteAnd, why do they have 19 kids?
I would not be the least bit surprised to see Rick Santorum win in Iowa. In fact, I half suspect it will happen.
ReplyDeleteIowa is usually about "which sane man will come in second."
Can Obama Hold the Line?
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Obama administration is engaged in a full-court press to persuade Israel that Iran’s nuclear threat can be contained short of war.
The U.S. lobbying has received a mixed reception from Israel, where the Netanyahu government has not ruled out a unilateral strike on Iran.
Iran, meanwhile, is taking an aggressive stance in response to mounting sanctions.
Last week the Iranian naval chief, Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if Western sanctions intensified. The threat to close the strait -- the passageway for oil from the Persian Gulf states -- could presage a war, experts said.
“We may be further along the road to war than most people believe,” said Michael Adler, an Iran scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Experts are divided as to the seriousness of the threat to cut off the strait and whether it will lead to war.
Call Netanyahu’s bluff.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteBut Deuce, like it or not America has been fucking with israeli politics since before they were a state..
Anonymo, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Both countries have been meddling in each others politics since day one.
The only difference, Israel has completely ignored America interests.
Over the past 60 years, the US has gotten shit from Israel. Anyone but a moron or an Israeliphile would see that Israel has benefitted more from this relationship than the US has.
Your Israelicentric view of history is astounding.
The Suez Canal? Countries nationalize key industry and infrastructure all the time. That's why there is usually a risk premium associated with investments in unstable or developing countries. It doesn't have to lead to war. Saudi Arabia nationailed their oil industry as did Venezuela.
When Egypt nationalized the canal (took possession of the money coming in from it not closing it), Israel for her own purposes chose to attack Egypt. Britain and France followed in order to maintain their colonial possessions, purely commercial. Egypt didn't close the canal until after it was already defeated.
It wasn't the US that turned the situation around. It was the world that said nyet. Your views on the US screwing Israel in the '67 war are likewise ludicrous.
The US and Israel may have a strategic relationship but Israel is not a member of NATO. As far as I know, the US and Israel have no bilateral mutual defensive treaties.
If you've got proof I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.
The US owes Israel nothing. Your lack of gratitude for what the US has done for Israel to date is to be expected but it still is gauling.
Stop trying to shift blame to Israel.
:)
I think you have the market cornered on the blame game.
.
.
Deuce: Then you have superimposed on that the scam artists, con men and political opportunists, Bibi Netanyahu comes to mind. He is the master. All you have to do is watch him in front of the Politburo of the Potomac. It was a sight to see. Loaves and fishes, water to wine, burning bushes was nothing compared to Bibi’s ability to keep the entire US Congress airborne and roaring. It was sheer Barnum and Bailey in the big tent.
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a complete retarded moron.
Here is the link for both his speech and the transcript.
Why not put your money where your mouth is and do a POST on the speech?
Bibi's
actual words. Go and read then and listen to them
Why not actually post his words and find fault with what he actually said?
Truth hurts dont it...
Fucking Cowards you are...
.
ReplyDeleteIowa is usually about "which sane man will come in second."
Maybe not this year. :)
.
When Egypt nationalized the canal (took possession of the money coming in from it not closing it), Israel for her own purposes chose to attack Egypt. Britain and France followed in order to maintain their colonial possessions, purely commercial. Egypt didn't close the canal until after it was already defeated.
ReplyDeleteEgypt was ATTACKING Israel from the Gaza Strip.
What part do you not understand?
desert rat said...
ReplyDeleteNo need for wiggle, anon
Your source is suspect
Your source admits the story may not be true
The insertion mission requires flying 36 helos over enemy airspace.
Airspace defended with the most advanced radar systems in the whirled, aimed at the country that is launching the insertion.
The entire story is untenable.
A fraud and deception.
Disingenuous, in the extreme, to even bring it to the Bar.
wiggle, wiggle, wiggle...
The question, just whose interests was Mr Chalabi fronting for?
ReplyDeleteStratfor provides an answer.
Iran wanted the United States to invade Iraq. The Iranians hated Saddam Hussein more than anyone did, and they feared him. Iran and Iraq had fought a war in the 1980s that devastated a generation of Iranians. More than Hussein, Iraq represented an historical threat to Iran going back millennia. The destruction of the Iraqi regime and army was at the heart of Iranian national interest. The collapse of the Soviet Union had for the first time in a century secured Iran’s northern frontiers. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan secured the Shiite regions of Afghanistan as a buffer. If the western frontier could be secured, Iran would achieve a level of national security it had not known in centuries.
What Iran Wanted
Iran knew it could not invade Iraq and win by itself. Another power had to do it. The failure of the United States to invade and occupy Iraq in 1991 was a tremendous disappointment to Iran. Indeed, the primary reason the United States did not invade Iraq was because it knew the destruction of the Iraqi army would leave Iran the dominant power native to the Persian Gulf. Invading Iraq would have destroyed the Iraq-Iran balance of power that was the only basis for what passed for stability in the region.
They continue ...
ReplyDeleteThe United States would leave Iraq in the long run, and Iran would be waiting patiently to reap the rewards. In the short run, should the United States run into trouble in Iraq, it would become extremely dependent on the Iranians and their Shiite clients. If the Shiite south rose, the U.S. position would become untenable. Therefore if there was trouble — and Iranian intelligence was pretty sure there would be — Shiite influence would rise well before the Americans left.
Chalabi’s job was to give the Americans a reason to invade, which he did with stories of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But he had another job, which was to shield two critical pieces of information from the Americans: First, he was to shield the extent to which the Iranians had organized the Shiite south of Iraq. Second, he was to shield any information about Hussein’s plans for a guerrilla campaign after the fall of Baghdad. These were the critical things — taken together, they would create the dependency the Iranians badly wanted.
What the United States Wanted
The Americans were focused on another issue. The balance of power in the Persian Gulf was not a trivial matter to them, but it had taken on a new cast after Sept. 11. For the United States, the central problem in the Persian Gulf — and a matter of urgent national security — was the unwillingness of Saudi intelligence and security services to move aggressively against al Qaeda inside the kingdom.
From the U.S. viewpoint, forcing Saudi Arabia to change its behavior was the overriding consideration; without that, no progress against al Qaeda was possible.
The United States did not see itself as having many levers for manipulating the situation in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were convinced that ultimately the United States would not be able to take decisive action against the Saudis, and the Saudi government was more concerned about the internal political consequences of a crackdown on al Qaeda than it was about the United States. It felt confident it could manage the United States as it had in the past.
ReplyDeleteThe United States did not want to invade Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud was the foundation of Saudi stability, and the United States did not want it to fall. It wanted to change the Saudi strategy. Invading Saudi Arabia could have led to global economic disaster if oil shipments were disrupted. Finally, the invasion of Saudi Arabia, given its size, terrain and U.S. resources, was a difficult if not impossible task. The direct route would not work. The United States would take an indirect route.
If you wanted to frighten Saudi Arabia into changing its behavior without actually launching military operations against it, the way to do that would be: (a) demonstrate your will by staging an effective military campaign; and (b) wind up the campaign in a position to actually invade and take Saudi oil fields if they did not cooperate. The Saudis doubted U.S. will and military capacity to do them harm (since Kuwait would never permit its territory to be used to invade Saudi Arabia). The solution: an invasion of Iraq.
The strategic planners in the administration were old enough to remember when Richard Nixon began the process that broke the back of the Soviet Union — his alliance with China against the Soviets. During World War II, the United States allied with Stalin against Hitler, preventing a potential peace agreement by Stalin. The United States had a known policy of using fault lines among potential enemies to split them apart, allying with the weaker against the stronger. If the United States allying with Stalin or Mao was not considered beyond the pale, then the Bush administration planners had another alliance in mind.
ReplyDeleteThe fault line in the Islamic world is between Sunni and Shia. The Sunni are a much larger group than the Shia, but only if you include countries such as Indonesia. Within the Persian Gulf region, the two groups are highly competitive. Al Qaeda was a Sunni movement. Following U.S. grand strategy, logic held that the solution to the problem was entering into an alliance of sorts with the Shia. The key to the Shia was the major Shiite power — Iran.
The United States worked with Iranian intelligence during the invasion of Afghanistan, when the Iranians arranged relationships with Shiite warlords like Ahmed Khan. The United States and Iran had cooperated on a number of levels for years when it concerned Iraq. Therefore there were channels open for collaboration.
The United States was interested not only in frightening Saudi Arabia, but also in increasing its dependence on the United States. The United States needed a lever strong enough to break the gridlock in Riyadh. An invasion of Iraq would achieve the goal of fear. An alliance with Iran would create the dependency that was needed. The Saudis would do anything to keep the Iranians out of their oil fields and their country. After the invasion of Iraq, only the United States could stop them. The Saudis were trapped by the United States.
We are surrounded by fools, and the Zionists duly make good use of them.
ReplyDeleteIran has not attacked another country in 250 years. Results of a new poll commissioned by the European Commission show that Israel is believed by Europeans in 15 countries to be the greatest threat to world peace.
ReplyDeleteThis new anoni is dumber than the past generations of Zioni here at the Bar ever were.
ReplyDeleteHe stands fast, in the quicksand.
Not even attempting the hard slog required to find a foothold in reality.
The best he can do is wiggle?
Lord have mercy on his unenlightened mind.
.
ReplyDeleteWhat part do you not understand?
I said Israel attacked Egypt and the canal for her own reasons.
Why you blame the US for Israel's inability to keep her gains rather than blaming Russia or I would imagine most of the other countries in the UN, is the part I don't get.
.
.
ReplyDeleteThe US acts in its own interests just as Israel does. Yet anonymo gets incensed when the US doesn't risk WWIII to support Israeli interests.
Clueless in Ohio.
.
He's part of that 'blame US first' crowd, Q.
ReplyDeleteSympathy for Zionism is one thing, misguided but to a degree understandable. Advocacy of an aggressive war on Iran is little short of criminal.
ReplyDeleteIsrael is willng to see American blood and treasure spilled on its behalf. Given the leading candidates, who will put America´s interest first. Certainly not the Republicans, with the possible exception of Ron Paul.
How can we believe anything the neocons are saying?
The last time we listen to them, it turned out they had lied, bullied and fabricated intelligence to get their perverse message. across.
The final result was an enormous cost in treasury and lives for the nation, all on the back of the middle class, and ultimately one more Shiite theocracy in the middle east.
Is that enough?
Enough people are opening their eyes. I hope Obama is the leader I thought he was.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of Israeli, to include the past Chief of the Mossad, that do not think that a war with Iran is in Israel's "Interest".
ReplyDeleteBest or otherwise.
America will do what it chooses to do for it'sself.
ReplyDeleteTo blame "neocons" or the "israel lobby" is ridiculous.
America does as America chooses to do.
Jews do not "RUN" America.
Israel and her supporters do not "run" America.
To keep pointing the finger at Israel and the Jews as the secret puppet masters actually speaks volumes to how stupid and inept you think Americans actually are....
Iran is a global threat. Ignore her at your own peril.
Iran is a poor excuse of a regional military threat, to claim otherwise, disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteThey fly Hueys and F4s.
To say they are stuck in the 60's, generous.
Quirk said...
ReplyDelete.
The US acts in its own interests just as Israel does. Yet anonymo gets incensed when the US doesn't risk WWIII to support Israeli interests.
Clueless in Ohio.
Trying to out people on the blog may cause the blog to be suspended.
The Obama administration has stated:
ReplyDelete- the Assad regime needs to go
- Iranian nukes are not acceptable
- the strait will stay open
too bad the EB bartenders can't blame it away on those rascals the Israelis, er neocons, er Saudis
now, if its ok with the bartenders, i'd like to buy a shot for everyone following the use of zionis or zionists, per legos and rat's extensive and exquisite vocabulary
Meet The Duggars - All Working For Santorum
ReplyDeleteb
Our All-American bible thumpin' family.
ReplyDeleteb
It was a sight to see. Loaves and fishes, water to wine, burning bushes was nothing compared to Bibi’s ability to keep the entire US Congress airborne and roaring. It was sheer Barnum and Bailey in the big tent.
ReplyDeleteI don't get this. First, there are two misplaced New Testament references to a Jewish speech, which seem out of place, and, second, what's wrong with a hell of a good speech. Most people like a good speech, Bibi's a good speaker, and most Americans like the guy. And, most Americans seem to like a David over a Goliath. Israel seems the continually put on underdog to them, fanning a flame of a little freedom and sanity in the area.
b
ReplyDeleteTrying to out people on the blog may cause the blog to be suspended.
Mon Jan 02, 05:57:00 PM EST
No one has been outed on this blog. There have been a couple of attempts and the offending comments were removed. The only instance that comes to mind is one blogger that made no secret about his location and published his name. I still removed it and made the policy clear. You are losing the argument big time and are in a state of shock because decent people are sick of the farce that has been going on and the false hyping of a threat trying to drag this country into another war. Make your argument or is this part of a strategy to silence the critics that you cannot cower?
“ was a sight to see. Loaves and fishes, water to wine, burning bushes was nothing compared to Bibi’s ability to keep the entire US Congress airborne and roaring. It was sheer Barnum and Bailey in the big tent.
ReplyDeleteI don't get this. First, there are two misplaced New Testament references to a Jewish speech, which seem out of place, and, second, what's wrong with a hell of a good speech.
I was being inclusive and know the difference. Most good con-men can deliver a good speech as well as can most demagogues. As to the sanity of a preemptive attack on a country of 80 million, the concept is a bizarre oxymoron.
Countries that are examples of freedom and countries that proclaim they are either a Muslin state or a Jewish state or any other religious are not examples to be emulated, thankfully. Such a claim is antithetical to freedom and is forbidden by your own constitution.
.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point bobbo at least with the part about how most Americans view Israel.
I also agree with Anonymo's post at
Mon Jan 02, 05:49:00 PM EST
A clear point of view, stated succinctly. I have no problem with him stating that point of view although some here would disagree with it.
I also have no problem with him saying the 'Israeli Lobby' is not the problem. I have no problem with the Israeli Lobby. My problem is with those that let support of that lobby unduly influence their decisions when it comes to US policy.
However, my main objections where to his rewriting (IMO) history to somehow paint the US as in continuous opposition to the state of Israel, that we have somehow stuck them in the back, that we 'owe' Israel something.
We might have owed France something once when they helped us out in the early days of this country (although it should be pointed out that what help they provided was also in their own self-interest). There are others too some would say we 'owe', but I would suggest most of our debts were pretty much wiped out during the World Wars.
Strictly my opinion, but one could say that we owe those who came to our aid during time of war based on promises and assurances and then were left to take it in the ass when we said "Well, enough of that." The Hmong and the Kurds come to mind. Not our finest hour, at least in my opinion.
However, the Israeli's act in their own self interest. God bless em. Unlike Ash, I don't feel they need to be held "to a higher standard". That doesn't mean we need to support everything they do or propose.
.
"The Iranians deserve the same amount of "Implausible Deniability" that the US reserves
ReplyDeletefor itself"
sounds like Irat is aiding and abetting the enemy which is either Iran or the US according to him.
the thought process of "everything will be fine" when iran goes into the nuke proliferation
arena (why would they even think of stopping with just one nuke?) is not meant to sound stupid, from
the likes of IRat and the once respectable duece. it's basic deception meant to put doubt into
the obvious conclusions that their goal is not simply MAD. why the deception? answer: read the tattoo on the back of the Mt. Rainier gunman (pride, greed, envy, at least 3 of 7)
The fact is that the Iranians were intimidated by 190 kilograms of HE, intimidated enough to stop targeting Iraqi cities, once Tehran was struck with a "long" range Scud.
ReplyDeleteThat is a historical fact.
Neither conjecture nor fear mongering.
Gotta bring proof, anoni from Cleveland.
Iran is not "the enemy", not of the United States.
ReplyDeleteUnless that Declaration of War was passed by Congress in the dead of night, without debate or public notification.
You are definitely the dumbest anoni we've have post here, in many moons.
ReplyDeleteDumbest supporter of Israel, too.
War with Iran will ring the death knell for Israel. Who the Israeli military takes down with them, unimportant, to the dead.
A least that is what the Chief of the Mossad said, upon his retirement from his government service.
Figure he'd know.
As I said, previously, you must be a Jen.
A PR man for Allah.
No one has been outed on this blog. There have been a couple of attempts
ReplyDeleteand the offending comments were removed.
as usuall for "me now" generation offenses are relative
depending on who is doing the offending and who is being
offended.
"Gotta bring proof, anoni from Cleveland."
yours truely, Irat.
also, war is bad, no shit sherlock. but so is not believing when someone states multiple times they want to end you.
I don't care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important
question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. (William S. Burroughs)
A paranoid is someone who has all the facts. (William S. Burroughs)