Iran: America's Latest Drive for War
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
This week, two oil tankers exploded in the Persian Gulf, reportedly as a result of a limpet mine attack . Neither tanker flew a US flag. One was Panama-flagged, and the other was Marshall Islands-flagged. No one was killed.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo immediately accused the Iranian regime of being responsible for the attack. Pompeo told reporters that the accusation was “based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping.”
It's unclear yet what course of action the administration will opt for in coming days. But, it's likely to include calls for new sanctions at the very least. But it may also include calls for invasions, bombings, and yet another US-involved war.
Needless to say, we've all seen this movie before, and we know how it works: the US government claims that something a foreign country has done poses a grave threat both to the international order and to the United States directly. Or we may be told the foreign regime in question is perpetrating horrific human rights violations against its own people. The US then insists it must launch new airstrikes, enact new economic sanctions, or even orchestrate a new invasion and occupation of a foreign country.
The administration will claim that it has special "intelligence" that the foreign culprit has "weapons of mass destruction." The US government may offer some grainy video or some still photos purporting to show the enemy in flagrante delicto , or at least a gruesome aftermath.
The US media will enthusiastically assist the administration in spreading whatever images and bullet points the administration wants it to.
If the US government succeeds in getting what it wants, it will send naval vessels and troops to the selected battlefield, and spend trillions of dollars on a long, protracted "war of attrition" which we'll be repeatedly assured is absolutely necessary to maintain the security of the United States.
What exactly this has to do with the defense of the US is unclear. For example, even if the Iranians are responsible for the explosions, how is an attack on two non-US oil tankers a threat to the United States? In the wake of the US's (failed) drive for an invasion of Syria, Tucker Carlson asked the obvious question : how will the proposed war "make the US safer"?
The question naturally applies to any proposed war against Iran as well.
As far as the case for Iran as any sort of threat to the US "homeland," the administration and its pro-war backers do not appear to even be bothering themselves with such trivialities.
The Iranian regime's tiny air force and navy pose no threat to a country with a navy many times larger than any other navy , and which spends more on military projects than the next eight most militarized regimes combined . As President Dwight Eisenhower understood — as he cut military spending in the face of a resurgent Soviet Union — the US's huge nuclear arsenal is a deterrent countries like Iran have no hope of sidestepping.
But even if the Iranians potentially posed a true threat to the US — which, again, they do not — the burden of proof is still on the US government to affirmatively demonstrate that in this instance, the Iranian regime somehow endangers the United States, its borders, and its population.
This will not happen, however, because that's not how foreign policy is made in the US. There will be no meaningful debate in Congress, and little more than accusations and innuendo will be issued from the administration and other organs of the executive branch. "Trust us, we wouldn't lie" will be the central claim of the American war promoters. Americans will, yet again, be told to sacrifice both treasure and freedoms to satisfy the latest schemes of the American military establishment.
Given that only a portion of the population will buy any claims that Americans are in danger, we'll hear vague platitudes about humanitarian missions, and how the Iranian regime must be stopped for the sake of decency and human rights. We heard the same thing in both Iraq and Libya before regime change was effected there in the name of humanitarianism. In both cases, however, the region was only made less stable, and more prone to radical Islamism. The result has been anything but humanitarian or decent.
[RELATED: " The Unseen Costs of Humanitarian Intervention " by Ryan McMaken]
Nor can advocates for war supply any answer to the question of what would replace the Iranian regime were the US to carry out regime change there. The most likely candidates are radical Islamists of the type we saw rise up in the wake of the Iraq and Libya invasions.
Moreover, so long as the US continues to ignore the humanitarian disaster in Yemen being perpetrated by American ally Saudi Arabia, any claims of "humanitarian" intent are not credible.
Indeed, any alliance with Saudi Arabia makes a mockery of American claims to be supporting human rights. The Saudi regime, a brutal, terrorism-sponsoring dictatorship, tolerates no religious group outside the state-sponsored brand of fanatical Wahhabism. Christianity is essentially outlawed in the country. Judaism has been completely banished. The regime tolerates no political dissent, as was illustrated in 2017 when Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman rounded up and tortured his rivals. While Iran is hardly a beacon of religious freedom, it looks downright tolerant compared to Saudi Arabia. Both synagogues and Christian churches function openly in Iran.
I don't note these facts to claim that Iran is a liberal and freedom-loving place. The fact that Iran compares favorably to Saudi Arabia is quite relevant, however, because the Saudi regime stands to benefit the most from regime change in Iran. The collapse of Iran would produce a power vacuum in the Gulf region allowing the Saudi regime to further spread its brand of radical Islamism. Thus, US claims that it is fighting terrorism or radicalism by opposing Iran are dubious at best.
More astute observers, of course, know the US drive for yet another war in the Persian Gulf region has nothing to do with human rights or defense of the United States.
The real motivation behind the latest drive for war might be found by employing a strategy recently suggested by Lew Rockwell in regards to the proposed Syria war. Rockwell writes :
When you hear the words "national security" or "national interest" used by people in Washington, I think it's important to substitute "imperial" for "national." So is it in the national interest of the United States to bomb Syria? No. Is it in the imperial interest of the American Empire to do so? Yes.
In other words, the US state and many of its allies stand to benefit significantly from war with Iran.
As Randolf Bourne pointed out a century ago, "war is the health of the state," and yet another war will help the American regime justify larger budgets , larger deficits, more taxes, and more state power in general.
For this reason, there has always been a close connection between the ideology of laissez-faire liberalism, and the ideology of peace. In the 19th century, it was free-market liberals like Richard Cobden and his friend Frédéric Bastiat who regarded economic intervention, slavery, and war as all part of one authoritarian package. This mantle was later picked up by the great liberal economist Ludwig von Mises, and then by his student Murray Rothbard.
Even in the cases where defensive war might have been justified, the costs of war, the liberals understood, have been far more grave than our rulers would have us believe. War is always a disaster for life, for liberty, and for the quality of life for those who survive. The only exception, it seems, are those organs of the state that benefit so handsomely from armed conflict.
But, on the matter of war, the position of the liberals — those we now know as "libertarians" — have long been firmly on the side of peace whenever possible:
But wars are not made by common folk, scratching for livings in the heat of the day; they are made by demagogues infesting palaces. It is not necessary for these demagogues to complete the sale of a war before they send the goods home, as a storekeeper must complete the sale of, say, a suit of clothes. They send the goods home first, then convince the customer that he wants them. ... But the main reason why it is easy to sell war to peaceful people is that the demagogues who act as salesmen quickly acquire a monopoly of both public information and public instruction. ... The dead are still dead, the fellows who lost legs still lack them, war widows go on suffering the orneriness of their second husbands, and taxpayers continue to pay, pay, pay. In the schools children are taught that the war was fought for freedom, the home and God. — H.L. Mencken
Modern war is merciless, it does not spare pregnant women or infants; it is indiscriminate killing and destroying. It does not respect the rights of neutrals. Millions are killed, enslaved, or expelled from the dwelling places in which their ancestors lived for centuries. Nobody can foretell what will happen in the next chapter of this endless struggle. This has little to do with the atomic bomb. The root of the evil is not the construction of new, more dreadful weapons. It is the spirit of conquest. It is probable that scientists will discover some methods of defense against the atomic bomb. But this will not alter things, it will merely prolong for a short time the process of the complete destruction of civilization. — Ludwig von Mises
Public opinion must undergo a change; our ministers must no longer be held responsible for the everyday political quarrels all over Europe; nor, when an opposition journalist wishes to assail a foreign secretary, must he be suffered to taunt him with the neglect of the honor of Great Britain, if he should prudently abstain from involving her in the dissensions that afflict distant communities. — Richard Cobden
England, by calmly directing her undivided energies to the purifying of her own internal institutions, to the emancipation of her commerce … would, by thus serving as it were for the beacon of other nations, aid more effectually the cause of political progression all over the continent than she could possibly do by plunging herself into the strife of European wars. — Richard Cobden
The libertarian's basic attitude toward war must then be: it is legitimate to use violence against criminals in defense of one's rights of person and property; it is completely impermissible to violate the rights of other innocent people. War, then, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion. ... If classical international law limited and checked warfare, and kept it from spreading, modern international law, in an attempt to stamp out "aggression" and to abolish war, only insures, as the great historian Charles Beard put it, a futile policy of "perpetual war for perpetual peace." — Murray Rothbard
The second Wilsonian excuse for perpetual war ... is even more utopian: the idea that it is the moral obligation of America and of all other nations to impose "democracy" and "human rights" throughout the globe. In short, in a world where "democracy" is generally meaningless, and "human rights" of any genuine sort virtually nonexistent, that we are obligated to take up the sword and wage a perpetual war to force utopia on the entire world by guns, tanks, and bombs. — Murray Rothbard
Tags
Who is online
37 visitors
If only there was some way we could keep an eye on Iran, a way for the US to keep close tabs on what Iran is doing behind closed doors.....a deal of some kind. Oh well. Not having the ability to see what they are up to is probably a far better way to keep them under control than some silly...deal.
.
.
.
.
/s
Please, the Iranians have already violated the deal Obama worked out. Did the snap back sanctions take affect? The Russians, Chinese, and our supposed NATO allies in the security council will never let that happen.
The genie out of the bottle. But it is up to the ME to deal with Iran. We have done more than enough by giving Iran Iraq and Yemen.
They did so after trump pulled out of the deal.
Wrong again. They were violating it during the Obama administration as well. Obama just turned a blind eye to it.
So when are those snap back sanctions coming?
Your article conflates UN resolutions regarding missile testing with the altogether different multi-party international uranium enrichment deal. The way we can tell is that the link in that last paragraph of the article excerpt that you provided doesn't have anything to do with either ballistic missile testing or the PCPOA. It's author is, of course, an Iranian in exile who also hopes for a war with Iran. I can understand his feelings but that's not a reason for the U.S. to gin up phony reasons to attack Iran.
Here's a summary of the main elements of the JCPOA and ballistic missile testing is not among them:
And this one points out that Shitbag, himself, certified that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA (until he decided they weren't on the basis of bullshit):
I think that's strike 3 on this at-bat for you
Lots of conjecture there Ronin absolutely no facts.
Bolton has long been pushing for confrontation and now it seems Pompeo is too.
Actually this is one thing I don't think trump is dumb enough to do.
At least until after re-election.
Meh, he was dumb enough to attempt negotiations with NK.....twice.
True that. And he does seem to be ramping up deployments.
By negotiate, you must mean cave in. NK is testing nuclear weaponry and the vehicles to carry it at an even faster pace now.
Exactly.
Iran is attacking neutral shipping.
They are beating the war drums...
....Iran is attacking neutral shipping.
Like you love to say.... "GOT PROOF ?"
Fortunately the Iranians aren't nearly as stupid as you make them out to be Sean. Ask yourself the question...... Who benefits most if the US gets involved in a shooting war with Iran. I suggest you take a strong look at MBS and the Saudi's.
I'd like to say the Mossad (they've done these "false flag" operations in an attempt to provoke a military confrontation between the USA and Iran before- multiple times.) but they are much smarter than MBF. The Israelis stick to business and the actual threats that they face, without any desire to destabilize the middle east. The judgement of the Israelis is far better that that of the loose cannon MBS.
Looking at the type of damage to the tankers, there is much that doesn't make sense. (Photos taken by USS Bainbridge) If this had been torpedo's launched by Iranian submarines (all of which use 533mm diameter Russian made torpedoes 400-1000 pound HE Torpex equivalent) the ships would be on the bottom. The holes are above the waterline! Torps nor Limpet mines do not jump out of the water. Exocets would have caused more damage.
Why don't you just wait for "the fact" AKA..."proof" to come out Sean rather than beating Bolton's war drum.....
Based on what evidence? The same kind of evidence that there were WMD in Iraq, Sean?
What is Japan going to do about it ?
Call the U.S. for help ?
I have to wonder, why can't Saudi Arabia use the soon to be acquired new weapons sold to them by trump?
What is the point of selling them all of these weapons if we end up in a confrontation.
I say let them handle it with their new toys.
Same with Israel. We supply them with a massive amount of weapons yet we end up the ones in conflict.
Let others handle it for once.
Have to agree. We have spent far more than our share of our militaries blood in giant sand trap. Let the local regional powers sort their own mess out.
1) Saudi Arabia doesn't have the stomach for full on war with Iran. But you are correct it is their responsibility to deal with Iran.
2) Israel will never risk war with Iran. About the only thing the Saudis and Iranians can agree on is that they both hate Israel more. Want the ME united against a common enemy- get Israel involved in a full scale war with Iran.
I agree with the sentiment- it is well past time we let the ME handle their own affairs. Outside of keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons (too late for that), and starting a cold war race in the ME- there is nothing the US can do. Again, it is too late for that. Nothing is stopping the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons. It will only be a matter of time after that the Saudi Arabia and Egypt acquire them; maybe even from the US.
I will say, don't be so sure, but not in an active aggressive manner, rather, if it comes to it, an all out defensive manner. No holds barred.
There was a time when folks around the world would volunteer to defend Israel in all all out attack, myself included, but I would say the dupes in western media who have fallen for the propaganda who wish all of Israel pushed into the sea have put a kibosh to that. I am just too old these days and not able to do the things I could 45 years ago.
Israel has the capability to attack Iran, and other ME countries might turn a blind eye to it; but it would have to be a one offer. It would take a sustained military offensive to cripple Iran's nuclear capabilities. Israel has proven they are not against preemptive strikes when they feel threatened. They also have no problem crossing into other countries' territory.
Times have changed. Israel is not the struggling country beset by massive Arab military might anymore. They are the strongest, and meanest, bully on the block. Outside of proxy militia/terrorist groups no ME country is willing to face Israel in direct military conflict.
Israel has earned some of their bad reputation. Neither side is completely innocent or free of blame. Innocents on both sides are being hurt by governments that refuse to negotiate a true end to hostilities.
I would be 7. I would take being able to do things I could just 12 years ago.
Excepting for our foreign enemies (Especially China and Russia), John Bolton and the goddamn Gatestone Institutue exactly nobody American should be going all gungho for war between the US and Iran. I, for one, am greatly sceptical of the two minor incidents being used to excuse escalating the situation. Both Iran and the tanker's owners deny Iran was responsible. Now is time to slow down and communicate. The USA has sacrificed enough already. We do not need ME oil enough anymore to sacrifice even one more young American soul on Allah's messed up middle eastern alter of burning oil. Let the damn Sunnis and the damn Shiites fight it out amongst themselves... for just this once. This is just a good estimate butt a war with Iran would result in hundreds of thousands dead and trillions and trillions spent and with absolutely no good ever coming out of it to our own selves, ever...
I know Iran has denied responsibility, but where did you see that the tankers owners also deny that Iran is responsible? I have not found that. All I am able to find anywhere close to that is that most involved don't feel there is sufficient evidence to definitely pin this on Iran.
These big tankers need to mount a couple sea wizzers, hire a few retire navy weapons guys to operate em and enforce a reasonable cordon around their ships.
Let R2-D2 sort it out.
Shall we add Prarie Masker and Nixies to the CWIZ installation?
Hell yes if they can afford em
.... that said, i bet R2D2 will do the trick .... a few boats get shredded and the word will get out. They could save some money using the cheaper HE rounds as well. No need for armor piercing with most of the dingleberry puddle pirates they'll be dealing with.
McMakem is arguing against American intervention on many fronts, from the minor significance of tanker bombings to what regime change in the Iranian theocracy might look like. He seems to have left out one - the democrats in congress and the msm will not support this President going to war, at any time or for any reason! I myself, have not formed an opinion on what should be done with Iran, but I firmly believe, as I always have, that once the US military is committed - the US must prevail! I believed that during the Vietnam War and I believe it now.
I agree; but with the caveat that the US military must never be deployed in an unwinnable situation. Nation building first and foremost (Vietnam certainly was); which is what Iran would become. Afghanistan and Iraq are other prime examples.
Vietnam was unwinnable because we placed restrictions on the US military and the enemy hung on because they saw all the protests taking place in the US. The legacy of the US leaving Vietnam the way we did is that every little anti-American group challenged the US thereafter.
Vietnam was unwinnable because we were not disposed to slaughter the natives. The only way to win a guerilla war, when the peasantry is hostile or even neutral, is to kill and kill and kill... to waste village after village, just because they don't tell you where the guerillas are... until the natives are too afraid of you to not betray the guerillas.
The Brits did it in Burma, and won.
They backed off in East Africa... and were ejected.
Unwinnable because we couldn't invade the north or go into other countries and close down those supply & invasion routes used by the North Vietnamese. We fought with both hands behind our backs and they used every tactic they pleased. And don't forget the fuckin' protesters - that kept the North fighting despite the destruction of the Viet Cong during the Tet Offensive!
"By the end of 1969, there was little communist-held territory, or "liberated zones", in South Vietnam, according to the official communist military history. [78] There were no predominantly southern units left and 70 percent of communist troops in the South were northerners. [79]"
We invaded Cambodia, and made a mess worse than Vietnam. Invading the North would have been more of the same.
To win a guerilla war, one must be murderous. We were not, and that is a good thing.
We eventually & reluctantly went into Cambodia to lose down that supply line. The media called it "widening the war". We should have won that war. Easily.
We hav "eventually & reluctantly gone into" lots of countries over the last fifty or sixty years. In general, we have made messes.
Then don't go in. All I say is that if we do we must prevail!
The U.S. military should never be sent into any war the civilian politicians do not have the stomach or will to win...
Oh, some revisionist BS there. The protests had no effect until it was clear the the war was unwinnable.
If I'm not mistaken...wasn't Viet-Nam the first war the U.S. lost?
You can't still be under the delusion that we "prevailed" in Iraq.
Not to forget Nixon's illegal carpet bombing of Laos which deterred neither the NV army nor the Viet Cong in the slightest.
Perhaps it was confusion with our great success in Afghanistan...
So your answer is just to have U.S. military bodies laying around
At any time...for any reason?
Well, by now I've become quite used to the prevailing ignorance of history amongst the vast majority NT users...and that lack of knowlegde of the actual facts is usually no impediment to shootin off their mouths...
Since when is knowledge of a subject a prerequisite for having an opinion about it?
Don't be ridiculous.
What will you want next? That we listen to experts? Silly idea.
Like it or not without US intervention the middle east, as we know it today, would be gone. One can debate whether we should just let that happen or not but one can not debate the overall stabilizing effect we and others have had over there.
Much out this has occurred because of our national guilt trip over what we allowed to happen during WW-2. Not so much with todays kinder/gentler "washed" history generation. Heck, many of them couldn't even tell you what Auschwitz was.
That said, i guess i fall more in the let them burn it down group than not. We've pretty much proven over the years that there is nothing we can do to stop them from hating each other. Maybe if the middle east glows for the next ten thousand or so years they might figure it out. Too bad the dumb-asses will be gone.
If the UK hadn't decided to create random countries by combining enemy tribes, I wonder what the Middle East would look like now.
Unfortunately, whether we intervene or not, things are always bad over there. There is no good answer.
Imagine what the middle east would look like today without everyone finding oil reserves under that sand.
Very good point.
It goes back much further than that. The feuds go back to biblical times.
True, but forcing these warring tribes into countries didn't work out too well after WWI. You can't force people with a tribal mentality into a nation mentality, it would seem.
I agree.
The Treaty of Versailles and its extensions may just have ended up being the most destructive document/rulings in history.
No argument there.
Yep, the ME has been a battle field for 15, 1600 years. One of the reasons I always laugh when I hear a politician say they are going to bring peace to the Middle East.
Don't forget France's roll in that process.
Balfour Declaration:
There's the source, well-meaning as it may have been, that ended up being the slow burning fuse that exploded in 1948. I'm not sure how a homeland for European Jews could otherwise have come about and it seems that this declaration didn't really result in much migration from Europe to Palestine until the massive inflow of refugees following WWII. Clearly, the existing Arab Palestinian population had not been given any consideration in the matter so its response was understandable.
I think the Great Mr. Newman sang it best:
Or the United States' role in the Western Hemisphere.
Actually the bulk of "The British Mandate of Palestine" went to the Arabs. (Well over 60 % of it went to the Arabs in 1946-- an area that still has Arab self-government. (Currently its called Jordan-- an independent self-ruled Arab country.).
The smaller remaining part was supposed to become 2 smaller new countries-- one a Jewish state, one yet another Arab state. However on what was supposed to be the eve of independence for those 2, several Arab countries attacked. When the dust settled, the Jews survived and Israel was created.
But why wasn't that other Arab state created? Because the Egyptians and Jordanians occupied it and refused to have a new independent Arab country ("Palestine") to be formed.(Egypt continued to occupy part of it-- Gaza-- and Jordan occupied the other part of what was supposed to become "Palestine"--i.e. "the West Bank").
So the reason another Arab country-- to be called "Psalestine"-- was never created was because those areas were occupied by Egypt and Jordan-- both of whom refused to allow the creation of "Palestine"
Israel was not meant to be a homeland only for European Jews (as your comment implied). It was meant to be a homeland for all Jews who had for the most part been conquered and kikced out (by the Romans, IIRC that was 72 AD).
Jews have lived in that area continuously since ancient times-- in fact that was their homeland long before the first Muslim ever sert foot in the area.
"European Jews" were those who fled to Europe and lived there when the Romans conquered their ancient homeland, but others thed to Asia-- even as far away as India and China.
73%, to be precise.
Not incidentally, this was at independence "The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan". So named because it was composed of all of the Palestinian Mandate east of the Jordan River.
During the 1948 war against Israel, Transjordan occupied most of the regions of Judea and Samaria. (Yes... the first occupation of the "Occupied Territories", the event that gave that name to that area, was by an Arab army.) The Occupied Territories were formally annexed by Transjordan, which thus became "Jordan" in 1950.
I wonder how many people here are aware of that?
A new identity was created-- the "Palestinians". And then a new country for them was supposed to be created. But the reason it never came to be?
When it was supposed to come into being, Egypt and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan occupied it-- thus preventing its formation. (Yes-- it was the Arabs thsat prevented the creation of a "palestine"-- not the Israelis!).
And as you also pointed out, Jordan changed the status of its occupation. They ended the status of "occupied"-- and actually annexed what was supposed to be Palestine-- they made it part of Jordan. (The so-called "Palestinians" living there were then ruled by Jordanians...).
But in the aftermath of the Holocaust, it was the only place available for the survivors. This country wasn't about to accept all of the ones who wanted to come here (of course it wasn't because of anti-semitism but why should this country with that big statue claiming to welcome be expected to take so many of "these, the homeless, tempest tossed"?) /S And, of course, the Brits basically ignored the Balfour Declaration after the war when they actively prevented those survivors from entering the territory.
I'd forgotten the role other Arab and Muslim countries played in blocking the creation of the Palestinian state. Thanks for the reminder. What a mess.....from the beginning.
We kind of abstained in that whole Sykes-Picot process. If you want to blame us for allowing it to happen, I can't disagree. The main brunt of blame still falls on France and Britain.
America was in one of its isolationist phases at the time.
And, possibly, you and I along with them.
I'm afraid its only a matter of time before some pissed off radical or government touches off a nuc somewhere in the US or one of our allies
Good help the world when that happens. Until then i am all for whatever it takes to make sure pissed off radicals/governments don't get nucs.
Hard to understand how some can't fully embrace such a concept.
The most likely suspect for setting something like that into motion is your very own Shitbag of a "president" who--unbelievable for any other president* in memory--ordered and then cancelled a strike on Iran last night.
*oh, wait--except for Reagan when his dementia was beginning to be obvious and he hot-miked i an a order for a nuclear attack on Russia. It was "just a joke."
Oh wait, except for Johnson who started a war based on a fake attack that killed 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese. Not to mention even greater numbers of dead on both sides later as a direct result of it. I can't count the number of friends who died later of cancer related to their war exposure and they are still dying today.
Interestingly, in your rush to judge, you forgot to mention that one.
What a shocker!
I'm not following your reasoning, here. I hope.
You seem to be saying that we should hold current leaders to whatever was the worst behavior of previous leaders.
I didn't start that train of thought You need to ask Atheist that question since he did.
I was simply calling him on out on his partisan BS.
I understood you to be saying that Trump is entitled to doing the worst that Johnson did (or any other predecessor).
Do you agree that the misbehavior of predecessors cannot be used to justify misbehavior by incumbents?
Be happy to answer that. After you ask the person who started it.
Had he not started it, you and i wouldn't be having this conversation.
Oh, you are a rich source for self-mockery for that one. Let's go back to 1968 in the time machine, shall we? Tricky Dick campaigns on being the one to end the Vietnam War ("with honor") and his favorite slogan was "those who've had 4 years to end the war and couldn't should not be given another 4 years." Now fast forward to 1972 when Criminal Dick Nixon is running for re-election. The Vietnam War is nowhere near winding down despite Nixon's illegal invasion of Cambodia and the saturation bombing of Laos. Forward again three years: over 20,000 more US combat deaths during lying, fucking, criminal Nixon's soon to end in disgrace presidency. The US finally abandons Vietnam in a clusterfuck of chaos and leaves thousands of its partners in the war to the "mercy" of the victors.
Of course, that's not taking into account that the first US military commitment to Vietnam began in the 1950s under Eisenhower, increased by Kennedy and, of course, massively so by Johnson. But the most despicable player in the whole disastrous story is the one who promised victory and peace with honor and delivered the exact opposite of that--Richard Fucking POS Criminal Nixon.
You've answered quite clearly...
Actually I think of those politicians who are trying to convince Trump to start a war with Iran, the one who seems to have the most influence is John Bolton.
Good seed.
This is important.
There are no "good guys" in the Middle East. There are only "bad guys" and "less bad guys". Fifteen of nineteen 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Bin Laden was a Saudi. Saudi's human rights record is abysmal.
Iran's ayatollahs are not nice, but their record is vastly better than Saudi's. They are hostile to the US, of course. So is most of the Middle East. There's a solid argument that over the long haul, the US is the aggressor.
Anyone who tries to present the Middle East as black&white is a snake-oil-salesman.
There's a very good news-analysis program on French TV, in late afternoon. An animator who asks pertinent questions, and four or five specialists. Last week, they analyzed the Gulf situation.
Some conclusions:
- The US is behaving like a schoolyard bully. Breaking all the rules, including those the US created.
- Bolton wants war. Despite decades of Middle East failures, he still believes the US can impose itself.
- Pompeo wants war. Not clear why. Machism, maybe.
- Trump's signals are mixed . He may go off in any direction, depending on his mood, perhaps violently.
- The "evidence" is most definitely NOT trustworthy. America's credit was already bad, after the fake WMD "evidence", but now, with Trump... nothing America contends may be believed.
I could be wrong, but my guess is that basically his job is to support whatever policies Trump comes up with, ( not to give the best assessments available)...and he's doing his job quite well
(People like Mattis were more honorable-- they were under the illusion that Trump wanted to know the actual facts...so they are no longer advisors to Trump).
It pains me to say but I think ShitBAG is scared shitLESS about being in a war. Even he seems to see the political risks to his shot for a second term. And I think Putin has been in Shitbag's ear and doesn't like the idea of Americans dropping bombs so close to his border. Pompeo and Bolton really don't give a shit about Shitbag's political fate. Their loyalties lie elsewhere. They're both globalists in the sense they want the US to go back to trying to Cop to the World.
Or ...possibly.. a member of the (unfortunately) not so silent majority on most social media sites.
Yes. I should have said, "... either a snake-oil-salesman or a fool."
Well, maybe some of the Kurdish groups might be considered good guys-- or at least some of the least bad of the bads.
They really deserve to get their own homeland-- but they've constantly been screwed over by the major powers.
the media is against all things trump, but if they support the "admin" on this?
that only means the globalists want it to happen.
from chaos, a new order. / want a new order? cause chaos. (this game is older than civilization itself)
one problem with their plans... trump is not a globalist.
cheers
the media is against all things trump, but if they support the "admin" on this?
Just curious-- why do you not consider Fox News to be media?
(Or, for that matter, numerous "talk radio" news outlets?)
But everyone around him is, at least as throwing our military might everywhere they crudely, stupidly and now well-proven false that think we can "fix" to our advantage. And Trump is so ignorant and so lacking in judgment that they'll eventually manipulate him to do what they want. That's the Deep State that you rightwingers have been looking for in all the wrong places. They're the people you put into power.
they tried that with syria and north korea...
and now they have failed with iran as well.
cheers )
Re: the title of this seed:
Iran: America's Latest Drive For War
Probably unintentional, but it may be a bit misleading . . .
I'm wondering if "America" actually wants a war with Iran?
Or, for that matter, if "America" wants any additional war at this point???
Rather, a more accurate title might be:
Iran: Trump's Latest Drive For War
Republicans embrace war, they embrace tearing down the middle class with tax cuts for the wealthy, and they ignore any economic damage they do by embracing Trump with his ignorant tariffs. Add the way Republicans completely ignored the Bush economic collapse and the damage done from 8 years of war based on lies with no way to pay for it, and then add the way they completely ignore the deficit when they have political control and it is beyond clear they do not love America. They love power and lying to their constituents to bluster away their terrible, terrible policies. Enough with the shell game using our Veterans and causing more war and more loss of American lives.
Iran has attacked oil tankers and most recently has shot down a US Navy drone. How much does the US tolerate? Where is the line?
America has overthrown a legitimately elected Iranian government and supplied satellite intelligence to an enemy in wartime, causing tens or hundreds to thousands of Iranian casualties.
More recently, America has unilaterally imposed an embargo, outside of all international law, imposing hardship on the Iranian people.
How much does Iran tolerate? Where is the line?
Iran seem's to be doing the provoking, do you dispute that?
The question may be why?
The answer may be to lure the President into some military action that Iran can survive thru the 2020 election and might just get Trump defeated and produce another friendly democratic administration. That would solve their problems, wouldn't it? Then they can have their cozy deal back. (Kerry & Feinstein & co).
Trump has to play this just right. No boots on the ground and nice swift punishing air strikes on Iran's refineries and ports. Maybe wipe out it's little navy?
I certainly do....sending a drone even close to Iranian airspace was a blatant provocation. The US would have done the same thing the Iranians did. Shitbbag's trying to start a war so he can call himself "war president" and get public support for his re-election. He's one huge desperate piece of shit.
So far he's been a model of restraint. Keep in mind that a US Drone has been shot down - a clear act of war!
Acting unilaterally and excluding Congress is a recipe for disaster.
Sen Lindsey Graham may give the President some help in that regard
Hopefully the joint chiefs, who understand the human costs, can dissuade the hawks in trumps inner circle to show a modicum of restraint.
Suddenly, we want military control? What would Truman say? What would the old fashioned liberals say?
This is a but pissing match
This is not a pissing match...Iran is collapsing under severe sanctions and longs for the deal & status Obama once gave it. Iran is trying for an American regime change...That's the game being played here.
How soon they forget!
Of course.
The US has placed Iran under an embargo, with no justification other than President Trump's whim. That embargo is an act of war. It severely impacts the lives of the Iranian people.
The US has forbidden commerce with any entity that does commerce with Iran. Companies with long-standing partnerships, like auto manufacturers Renault and Peugeot, have been forced to cease operations in Iran.
Can you imagine how America would react?
It's at minimum, an economic war. It can be an act of war.
On top of the original embargo and sanctions this Administration expanded it's embargo on Iran to include any of our allies and trading partners, threatening to cut off trade with all of them.
The President is now weaponizing trade and threatening Germany over an undersea pipeline from Russia a decade in the making.
More pure BS from you as usual.
Senate Dems (21) who voted against AUF Iraq:
Akaka ( D - HI ), Bingaman ( D - NM ), Boxer ( D - CA ), Byrd ( D - WV ), Conrad ( D - ND ), Corzine ( D - NJ ), Dayton ( D - MN ), Durbin ( D - IL ), Feingold ( D - WI ), Graham ( D - FL ), Inouye ( D - HI ), Kennedy ( D - MA ), Leahy ( D - VT ), Levin ( D - MI ), Mikulski ( D - MD ), Murray ( D - WA ), Reed ( D - RI ), Sarbanes ( D - MD ), Stabenow ( D - MI ), Wellstone ( D - MN ), and Wyden ( D - OR ).
House Dems (126) who voted against same:
More like weakness. Bolton and Pompeo are out there pounding the war drums and he's allegedly pleading with them to no avail to cool down their hawkishness. Why can't/doesn't he order them to stop it?
Talk about forgetting! The same people pushing lies to get us into Iraq are the same ones pushing to take on Iran. And they started as soon as the jackass took office, just like Bush did. Now we are supposed to believe a bunch of LIARS who push Trump lies and ignorance daily? F'n A. Lets not forget who starts the lies and false information in the fricken first place.
At the risk of sounding like Roy Cohn, "could I have their names?
No.
Second time you have said that second time you are wrong.
No, the US has threatened sanctions against countries doing business with Iran. The countries can still do business with Iran at their own risk. China is defying the sanctions and still doing business with Iran. So far no sanctions have brought against China for it.
It is Renault and Peugeot decision to cease operations in Iran. By the way, how did they ever get away with operating in Iran with the sanctions in place by Bush, Obama, and the coalition that was put together to drag Itan to the negotiating table? Europe was a part of those sanctions. Why weren't those sanctions an act of war?
This is still not an act of war no matter how you want to spin it.
We don't have to imagine. Just look at Libya, which was a war for oil. Britain and France didn't like China getting oil development contracts, or the threat of Libya nationalizing their oil fields. Regime change here we come. But that is different, the person in the White House had a D behind their name, was a NATO action, and a had bogus UN Security Council agreement to protect Libyan civilians (no regime change mentioned).
Love the Iranian apologists popping up all over the place. I am against war with Iran, but in no way are they the poor little innocent country that wants to coexist with their neighbors, that Trump just won't leave alone.
Perhaps by beginning operations there fifty years ago? Operations that they've now had to cease...
No one has said anything "nice" about Iran. The ayatollahs are not nice people.
But just as America "created" the Taliban in Afghanistan, during their fight against the USSR, we also "created" Muslim fundamentalists in Iran - the ayatollahs - by supporting a bloody police-state dictatorship, hated by all the Iranian people.
The important subject isn't Iran, which can never be more than a nuisance for the world's great powers. The important subject is the United States, imposing its will by force. The Imperial States of America.
No, but they are defending Iran to the hilt. There is no defense for Iran, period. I don't care who is in the White House.
You left out creation of ISIS/ISIL after deposing Saddam; and installation of a pro Iranian regime (Though that is not what we intended) in Iraq. The expansion of ISIS/ISIL into Syria with our efforts to destabilize that country; and their expansion into Libya with the chaos our regime change caused there. We have been stuck on stupid for a very long time.
You are right, unless they get nuclear weapons; even then it will be a long time before they could hope to get a missile with enough range to hit the US. The real danger is small portable nuclear weapons in the hands of their militia and terrorist groups. That is a threat to the whole world.
So what the hell else is new? Do you think the US imposing it's will by force is something new? Where the hell was everyone during the Obama administration? Seems the left took an eight year holiday after Bush Jr left office.
I will repeat this, I am against war with Iran. If they need to be taken care of there are plenty of countries in the ME capable of doing the job, and footing the bill themselves. But, when it comes to stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons that is an issue the US cannot avoid. Unless you want to see Saudi Arabia and Egypt with nukes shortly thereafter?
I called Iran a nuisance. I didn't give a single compliment.
Apologist?
I've seen this phenomenon before: you are so sure that you "know" my thinking that you do not actually read the words I write.
I condemn America's behavior in the Middle East. You presume that therefore I must praise someone else's behavior. I have praised no one.
I have repeatedly said that the ayatollahs are not nice, and are enemies of America. But Iran is a medium regional power. Not a big deal on the international scene.
America is a bully, imposing its will on the entire world.
There's no comparison.
So no attack needed, then. But, by the way, how many years now has this imminent "collapse" by predicted?
John Bolton. The Cheneys. The Hucklefucks. Guiliani. McConnell. Pompeo is currently attached at the hip with chicken hawks although he wasn't in office back in the Iraq war days. Rick Santorum. Marsha Blackburn. Lindsay Graham. Marco Rubio. Ted Cruz.
And Hillary Clinton and the democrats. Judith Miller is usually the one who gets left holding the bag.
Nope. She fully supported the Iranian nuke deal to avoid just the kind of clusterfuck that Shitbag has created.
Clinton also saber rattled against Iran & planned to funnel more arms to Syria in 2015 after the announcement of her candidacy for presidential nominee.
George Bush
DICK Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Colin Powell
Condoleeza Rice
John Bolton
All but 6 House and 1 Senate member of the entire Republican caucus at the time (you can look up their names yourself).
That just tells us what the company you keep is and that's no surprise. And, BTW, accusing someone of supporting Iran for calling out the horrible record Shitbag is piling up with the handling of the Iranians as well as all over the world also tells us what a weak case you've got.
We were right to go into Afghanistan and hunt down bin Laden and his cronies. Those who voted "yea" for the war in Iraq were wrong
You must not be aware that Iran is fighting ISIS/ISIL on behalf of Syria which is both a good thing and a problematic thing for the region and the U.S. You also seem to have forgotten, if you ever knew, that ISIS/ISIL was created out of the chaos caused by the incompetence of Bush/Cheney following our "GLORIOUS VICTORY" in Iraq. Elements of the disbanded Iraqi army (Sunnis) formed ISIS/ISIL because they were ignored and marginalized by the US provisional authority under the infamously stupid and incompetent Paul Bremer (who, of course, was just following if much more infamously stupid, lying and incompetent Bush/Cheney criminal enterprise).
But was not unforeseen. Shiites make up the majority of Iraqis and the removal of the Sunni dominated government and execution of Saddam opened the way for Shia control of the government. Opponents of the Iraq war made this case many times in hopes of heading it off but were dismissed. Unintended consequences are very often linked to poor decisions and rejection of facts and that was Bush/Cheney in spades.
Yes, but the the massive lying by and incompetence of the Bush/Cheney disaster is where it all began.
As we're already beginning to hear how easy it's going to be to topple Iran's government and how it's going to be a cakewalk and bring "peance and freeance" to the region from the usual sources, let's review some of the rosy predictions the Bush/Cheney Criminal Enterprise gave us before the Glorious Invasion of Iraq (which was a much weaker country militarily than Iran is), shall we:
I'm sure others will add to that list. The next few months will inform us if the American people can be foolled again so soon after the last time it got lead by the nose into a disastrous military, political and international clusterfuck like we're smelling right before our noses now.
I'm sure others will add to that list. The next few months will inform us if the American people can be foolled again so soon after the last time it got lead by the nose into a disastrous military, political and international clusterfuck like we're smelling right before our noses now.
I would imagine that the vast majority of the 37-40% of Americans who comprise Trump's base believe every word he says.
But the rest of the population? Probably no so much . . .
(Of course the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has great powers-- not subject to what the majority of Americans want
Nothing if we hit them hard enough they will be unable to respond.
Just like we did in Iraq!
(A great victory that one-- Wonderful war! Hopefully we can repeat that experience again ...this time in Iran!)
These numbskulls and their bullshit mythology never fail to lead to disaster.
Iran will surely gives better results than Iraq.
There are three times as many people... No problem!
Exactly.
But hey! That would be happening way over on the other side of the world. Two minutes per hour on cable news.
No big deal...
There are three times as many people... No problem!
Yes.
And there are other major differences re: Iraq and Iran.
One of them is the typography. Why?
Here's a clue-- a photo of Tehran (Iran's capital) I came across a while back:
Whoa-- wait a minute! A Middle eastern country-- aren't those supposed to consist of vast stretches of flat desert terrain? (Conducive to lightning fast strike by the tanks and armoured personnel carriers of any invading army)?
Ummmm... The next country to the east is Afghanistan.
There are hills.
Ummmm... The next country to the east is Afghanistan.
There are hills.
I just realized-- a map of the area would really make this clear.
All those areas in brown are mountains! Almost the entire country of Iran is mountainous, a small flatter lowlands in small areas (green) on the coasts. Also notice Iraq to the west-- basically a pretty flat lowland country, quite a difference. (Iraq has just a few very small mountainous areas in the North-- that's mainly where the Kurds live).
This map clearly indicates how mountainous Iran is-- it would be a nightmare to invade!
Well... not quite all mountains.
There's also a big desert.
Yes.
But I was thinking about what an invasion would be like. (It looks like that desert is mainly in the center of the country).
I'm not all that familiar with iranian topography , but looking at teh map, there looks like only two routes into the country that go through lower areas-- that yellow area to the East on the Afghani border, and the low lying area to the North of The Straits of Hormuz (separating the Persian Gulf from The Arabia Sea). But it looks like that only gives access to a relatively small low lying area-- which is also mostly surrounded by mountains).
What's the upland equivalent of "quagmire"?
Everyone is assuming we just don't bomb them into oblivion and then sit back and watch Iran collapse from within; like we did Libya. Not an ideal result, and would cause a massive refugee problem (Iraq, Syria, and Yemen seem to like Iran now- wonder how much they would like a massive influx of Iranians?) Bonus is we might end up with a pro western government; who would be just as bad to their own people in order to keep power.
Negative is unlike Libya, we don't have a ready pro western terrorist organization, militia, or even dissident group we can incite. Where is Hillary when you need her. I am sure she could find some low life Iranians somewhere that would be happy to take over. Her judgement was so good with the Libyan rebel groups she deserves a second shot.
To be honest, I don't think there is a good answer to the problems we have with the Middle East. And Trump certainly doesn't have a clue; he doesn't even listen to foreign policy advisors or our military folks.
I have noticed that there is a group of people-- who are often quite vocal on social media-- that attribute more power and influence to Hillary than she really has....
WHY???
That's not what caused the overthrow of Ghaddafi. Rather, it was the effect of the Arab Sprib which was sweeping the Arab world (discontent with Ghaddafi's corrupt regime finally boiled over).
They've already had a rebellion against their theocratic government (which was brutally repressed).
But the rebellion wasn't caused by us-- it was a spontaneous movement by the Iranian people. And the vast majority were not radicals, but rather ordinary pro-Democracy Iranins.
It was called "The green Movement" (or "The Persian Spring"). You can read about it HERE.
Let their neighbors figure it out for a change. Let Europe get involved. The Saudis hate them... let them earn their keep.
The only thing I care about is them getting the bomb. But of course, I am sure we will let the Israelis take care of that problem.
Right on!!!
Let nobody get involved. Let the locals figure it out.