Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
fishin wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Now, you are resulting to mendacity.
The vote in the Senate didn't authorize nor call for armed attack of Iran, yet that is exactly what the leaders of the NeoConservative movement are arguing for, and have been for some time. And yes, Lieberman is a Neocon.
The Neocon idiots are on a march to a futile and useless attack on Iran. The politicians in the Senate lose nothing with their vote on the last bill, as it didn't have anything to do with actually attacking Iran.
You're all wet on this one and really should give in, before it gets embarrassing.
Cycloptichorn
That's fine. You've already embarrassed yourself.
If the "March" is on you can't honestly claim that the vote isn't a part of it.
You can try and tuck your tail between your legs and pretend that your party isn't responsible but the fact remains that they all voted for it. Yeah, the bill wasn't an approval to attack Iran. But it does ratchet up the noise level. They are just as complicit in "the march as Cheney, Kristol, Lieberman, etc...
Bull sh*t. This is nothing more than a crappy attempt to excuse the group who are pushing matters, by blaming those who are acting out of political expedience.
I agree that I would have rather seen the Senators vote against the bill. But, as it was essentially meaningless, I can understand why they voted for it. What I can't understand is why the NeoCons are pushing this so hard, this foolish attack on Iran.
Do you count yourself amongst their number, thinking it would be a good thing to bomb and attack Iran? Or is this just one of the rare opportunities the Republicans on A2K have to snipe at those who are currently more politically ascendant?
I call on you to either support or repudiate the idea of attacking Iran at this time - so that we can know whether to label you a warmongering fool, or just another disaffected Republican.
Cycloptichorn
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
Cycloptichorn wrote:Bull sh*t. This is nothing more than a crappy attempt to excuse the group who are pushing matters, by blaming those who are acting out of political expedience.
Bull sh*t yourself. Why shouldn't people who are acting out of political expedience be held accountable for thei ractions? What was so urgent and pressing that they all voted to pass this amendment to clear it out of the way for?
Quote:
I agree that I would have rather seen the Senators vote against the bill. But, as it was essentially meaningless, I can understand why they voted for it. What I can't understand is why the NeoCons are pushing this so hard, this foolish attack on Iran.
I can understand why they voted for it too. They have no backbone.
They talk a lot but when it comes to actually voting they set aside all their professed beliefs and do what is, in your own words, "politically expedient" - even where there is nothing that creates a need for expediency.
Quote:Do you count yourself amongst their number, thinking it would be a good thing to bomb and attack Iran? Or is this just one of the rare opportunities the Republicans on A2K have to snipe at those who are currently more politically ascendant?
I call on you to either support or repudiate the idea of attacking Iran at this time - so that we can know whether to label you a warmongering fool, or just another disaffected Republican.
Cycloptichorn
And I call on you to cram it up your *ss. First of all, I'm not a Republican and never have been - but that's just one more of your arrogant and foolish assumptions. Secondly, I really don't give a flying rats *ss what any of them - or you - do any more. The entire lot of them in D.C are nothing but lying thieves and you do nothing but provide cover for them to continue with their nonsense. I guess I'll just label you as a dissaffected Democratic Party lackey.
Quote:
And I call on you to cram it up your *ss. First of all, I'm not a Republican and never have been - but that's just one more of your arrogant and foolish assumptions. Secondly, I really don't give a flying rats *ss what any of them - or you - do any more. The entire lot of them in D.C are nothing but lying thieves and you do nothing but provide cover for them to continue with their nonsense. I guess I'll just label you as a dissaffected Democratic Party lackey.
Nothing like a calm and soundly reasoned answer to a question. You certainly seem upset for someone who doesn't care.
The need for expediency is created by Republicans who use votes such as these as political attacks going into election time. There's not much downside voting for it, and potentially more political downside voting against it. One side, no significant consequences. The other side, potential consequences, perhaps even career ending. Do the f*cking math before spouting such foolishness. It's not the same thing as beating the war drums for years as the Neocons have.
Cycloptichorn
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
In the first place; Charley Reese is the idiot. Iran never threatened Israel?
Is there a single person here unfamiliar with Ahmadinejad's World Without Zionism speech?
Anyone?
5 or 6 modern (and by modern I mean 50 year old technology) Nukes doesn't constitute a threat?
(A single H-Bomb can easily be 1,000 times more powerful than those dropped over Japan.) As I understand it; the "big one" was unofficially capped at around 100 Mega Tons (equivalent to 200 Billion pounds of TNT), not because of any technological barrier... simply because there was no conceivable use for a more powerful weapon. Imagine Manhattan, not destroyed, but
vaporized (as in
vapor) while New York City was destroyed. Meanwhile; Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been training and arming terrorists for as long as I can remember
(Nukes + Terrorists = Danger to most rational thinkers
including the Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 nomination.)
In the second place; when estimating the size of a March; I think it's rather commonplace to include all of the marchers; not just the organizers.
Re: Neocon Idiots on the March toward Iran
OCCOM BILL wrote: In the first place; Charley Reese is the idiot. Iran never threatened Israel?
Is there a single person here unfamiliar with Ahmadinejad's World Without Zionism speech?
Anyone?
5 or 6 modern (and by modern I mean 50 year old technology) Nukes doesn't constitute a threat?
(A single H-Bomb can easily be 1,000 times more powerful than those dropped over Japan.) As I understand it; the "big one" was unofficially capped at around 100 Mega Tons (equivalent to 200 Billion pounds of TNT), not because of any technological barrier... simply because there was no conceivable use for a more powerful weapon. Imagine Manhattan, not destroyed, but
vaporized (as in
vapor) while New York City was destroyed. Meanwhile; Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been training and arming terrorists for as long as I can remember
(Nukes + Terrorists = Danger to most rational thinkers
including the Democratic frontrunner for the 2008 nomination.)
In the second place; when estimating the size of a March; I think it's rather commonplace to include all of the marchers; not just the organizers.
I don't understand how it logically follows that the above information leads to going to war with Iran. The situation is more complicated then nuclear scare stories. I mean, you're basically describing Iraq part 2.
When Kristol says 'I hope we do bomb Iran,' you think he's really thought out the consequences of this?
Cycloptichorn
Ease up on the JoeFC impersonation; it aint working. My response "directly follows" Charley Reese's idiotic conclusions by illuminating 2 of his more idiotic points (if you can call utter nonsense points). Iran's President quoted his "Supreme leader" as saying Israel should be wiped from the map... meanwhile, they're taking steps that may eventually accomplish just that. I'm too tired for this nonsense today...
Charley Reese is, as Bill has ably pointed out, an idiot of the first degree.
Take it a step further; beyond the nasty rhetoic of Iran's president --- Iran, without a doubt, is arming Hezbollah. Hezbollah launched Iranian rockets into Israel. Ergo, Iran is clearly an enemy of Israel, wishing the latter great harm.
Iran is also clearly an enemy of the US.
It amazes me that anyone would argue the contrary.
Assuming the Bill Kristol quote is accurate, I agree with him. I would be happy to see us bomb Iran.
We won't, of course, and Iran will secure nuclear weapons. it will be interesting then to see how the Charlie Reeses of the world backtrack on their foolish statements of the present.
Nimh is scared that the US might flex its muscles. Not so scared that tyranical theocrats will have nuclear weapons?
There was no shortage of Roman intellectuals declaring that the barbarians at the gates were pure of nature and that Rome deserved to fall to their cleansing way.
It is the perverse extension of some educated minds.
Do you think the Roman intellectuals felt vindicated or betrayed when the Huns and Goths raped their wives and daughters and tied their intestines to the saddle of one of their horses?
Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack
Maybe these sources would be more acceptable to the deniars than Charlie Reese. There are many more if you want them ---BBB
April 14, 2006
Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack
by Jim Lobe
Inter Press Service
Led by a familiar clutch of neoconservative hawks, major right-wing publications are calling on the administration of President George W. Bush to urgently plan for military strikes - and possibly a wider war - against Iran in the wake of its announcement this week that it has successfully enriched uranium to a purity necessary to fuel nuclear reactors.
In a veritable blitz of editorials and opinion pieces published Wednesday and Thursday, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and National Review warned that Tehran had passed a significant benchmark in what they declared was its quest for nuclear weapons and that the administration must now plan in earnest to destroy Iran's known nuclear facilities, as well as possible military targets, to prevent it from retaliating.
Comparing Iran's alleged push to gain a nuclear weapon to Adolf Hitler's 1936 march on the Rhineland, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol called for undertaking "serious preparation for possible military action - including real and urgent operational planning for bombing strikes and for the consequences of such strikes."
"[A] great nation has to be serious about its responsibilities," according to Kristol, a leading neoconservative champion of the Iraq war and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, "even if executing other responsibilities has been more difficult than one would have hoped."
National Review, another prominent right-wing weekly, echoed the call. "Any air campaign should
be coupled with aggressive and persistent efforts to topple the regime from within," advised its lead editorial, entitled "Iran, Now," and almost certainly written by Michael Ledeen of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
"Accordingly, it should hit not just the nuclear facilities, but also the symbols of state oppression: the intelligence ministry, the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard, the guard towers of the notorious Evin Prison."
The hawks' latest campaign appeared timed not only to exploit the alarm created by Iran's nuclear achievement and by a spate of reports last weekend regarding the advanced state of U.S. war plans, but also to counter new appeals by a number of prominent and more mainstream former policymakers for Washington to engage Iran in direct negotiations.
The Financial Times Wednesday published a column by Richard Haass, president of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations and a top adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell during Bush's first term, in which he called for Washington to make "a fair and generous diplomatic offer" to Iran that would permit it to retain a small uranium enrichment program, if for no other reason than to rally international opinion behind the U.S. in the event rejects it.
Arguing that the "likely costs of carrying out such an attack substantially outweigh probable benefits," Haass noted that "the most dangerous delusion [among those who support military action] is that a conflict would be either small or quick."
On Thursday, he was joined by Powell's deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, who, in an interview with the Financial Times, also called for direct talks.
"It merits talking to the Iranians about the full range of our relationship
everything from energy to terrorism to weapons to Iraq," said Armitage, who is considered a strong candidate to take over the Pentagon if Donald Rumsfeld resigns or is forced out.
"We can be diplomatically astute enough to do it without giving anything away," he added, noting that Washington could be patient "for a while" given the estimated five to 10 years the U.S. intelligence community believes it will take before Tehran can obtain a nuclear weapon.
Such statements are anathema to the hawks, who have long depicted any move to engage Iran as equivalent to the appeasement policies toward Hitler of France and Britain in the run-up to World War II.
"Is the America of 2006 more willing to thwart the unacceptable than the France of 1936?" asked the title of Kristol's editorial, which, despite the reports of advanced Pentagon planning that included even the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against hardened Iranian targets, asserted that the administration's policy had been "all carrots and no sticks."
His view echoed that of the neoconservative editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal, who said the administration's "alleged war fever is hard to credit, given that for three years the Bush Administration has deferred to Europe in pursuing a diplomatic track on Iran." The Journal said the government must give priority to developing "bunker buster" nuclear bombs.
While Kristol insisted that the "credible threat of force" should initially be used in support of diplomacy with Washington's European allies, he also called for "stepping up intelligence activities, covert operations, special operations, and the like," as well as "operational planning for possible military strikes."
What he had in mind was laid out in a companion article by ret. Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a member of the ultra-hawkish Iran Policy Committee (IPC), entitled "Target: Iran."
If Iran resists diplomatic pressure, according to McInerney, Washington should be prepared to carry out a "powerful air campaign" led by 60 stealth aircraft, and more than 400 non-stealth strike aircraft with roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft, 100 unmanned aerial vehicles, and 500 cruise missiles to take out some 1,500 nuclear-related and military targets.
Before or during such an attack, he wrote, "a major covert operation could be launched, utilizing Iranian exiles and dissident forces trained during the period of diplomacy." The IPC has long advocated support for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), an Iraq-based paramilitary group listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department.
In yet another op-ed published in Thursday's Washington Post, Mark Helprin, a novelist and Israeli military veteran, called for anticipating the possibility that U.S. forces in Iraq and its broader interests in the region could be imperiled by Iranian retaliation and popular outrage in the Arab Middle East.
To prepare for such an eventuality, "we would do well to strengthen - in numbers and mass as well as quality - the means with which we fight, to reinforce the fleet train with which to supply fighting lines, and to plan for a land route from the Mediterranean across Israel and Jordan to the Tigris and Euphrates."
Such concerns, counseled Reuel Marc Gerecht, a Gulf specialist at AEI, are overblown. In a lengthy analysis of the possible costs of a military attack that was also published in the Standard, he argued that Washington should "not be intimidated by threats of terrorism, oil-price spikes, or hostile world opinion."
"What we are dealing with is a politer, more refined, more cautious, vastly more mendacious version of bin Ladenism," according to the article, entitled "To Bomb, or Not to Bomb: That Is the Iran Question." "It is best that such men not have nukes, and that we do everything in our power, including preventive military strikes, to stop this from happening."
Harvard Study: Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
Harvard Study: Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
Re: Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Maybe these sources would be more acceptable to the deniars than Charlie Reese. There are many more if you want them ---BBB
Is there even the slightest chance of stopping you?
Re: Neocons Turn Up Heat for Iran Attack
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Maybe these sources would be more acceptable to the deniars than Charlie Reese. There are many more if you want them ---BBB
Charley Reese's credibility wasn't a problem until I read what he wrote. Nonsense is nonsense, no matter who writes it.
finn claims
Quote:There was no shortage of Roman intellectuals declaring that the barbarians at the gates were pure of nature and that Rome deserved to fall to their cleansing way.
Really? Which Roman intellectuals are you referring to here? Apparently there was no shortage of them so some names ought to be on the tip of your tongue. Along with quotes from them, of course.
blatham wrote:finn claims
Quote:There was no shortage of Roman intellectuals declaring that the barbarians at the gates were pure of nature and that Rome deserved to fall to their cleansing way.
Really? Which Roman intellectuals are you referring to here? Apparently there was no shortage of them so some names ought to be on the tip of your tongue. Along with quotes from them, of course.
Good question.
I learned of this in a history class taught by a prof for whom I had great respect. Frankly the point made more of an impression on my memory thirty years ago than did any individual names or quotes. Perhaps he was lying to me. I assume that you would contend that he was, or are you just being cute?
I forgot we need footnotes on A2K. I guess I need to do some research.
Welcome back, by the way.
Thanks.
No, wasn't trying to be cute, though I have cuteness available at a moment's notice. It's just that 1) my limited familiarity with Latin writing at that period has never bumped into such commentary and 2) my familiarity with your writing demonstrates a dependably recurrent Finnish theme ("Intellectuals! Sometimes they poop, sometimes they speak and if they weren't constitutionally upside down then they might themselves know which one it is they are doing.")
Finn dAbuzz wrote:blatham wrote:finn claims
Quote:There was no shortage of Roman intellectuals declaring that the barbarians at the gates were pure of nature and that Rome deserved to fall to their cleansing way.
Really? Which Roman intellectuals are you referring to here? Apparently there was no shortage of them so some names ought to be on the tip of your tongue. Along with quotes from them, of course.
Good question.
I learned of this in a history class taught by a prof for whom I had great respect. Frankly the point made more of an impression on my memory thirty years ago than did any individual names or quotes. Perhaps he was lying to me. I assume that you would contend that he was, or are you just being cute?
I forgot we need footnotes on A2K. I guess I need to do some research.
Finn is correct, Bernie (big hug of welcome from me too, btw).
Quote:
Three times, in the 5th century, Italy is exposed to the barbarians. Alaric and the Visigoths reach Rome in 410; Attila and the Huns turn back from northern Italy in 452; Gaiseric and the Vandals reach Rome again, this time from Africa, in 455. But the decisive blow comes in 476.
.............................................
German mercenaries by now form an important part of any Roman army, and Roman armies play a major role in the making and breaking of emperors.The tribesmen elect one of their number, Odoacer, as their king. He leads them to a rapid victory, but immediately makes it clear that his intention is not to destroy the western empire. He wants to be part of it. He sends ambassadors to the emperor Zeno in Constantinople, acknowledging the emperor's rule but asking to be allowed to govern Italy as king of his own people. Zeno reluctantly agrees, subject to certain points of protocol.
The senate in Rome accepts the fait accompli with better grace, for Odoacer proves an effective ruler within the traditional Roman system. He even finds land for his German tribesmen without causing undue upheaval.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac52
This sequence of events isn't in doubt, and though historians (Roman or otherwise) may apply different interpretations to the causes of the fall of the Roman empire they all seem agreed on the date, 476.
Btw, the great poet (and classicist) Cavafy makes Finn's exact point in his poem "Waiting for the Barbarians" - perhaps someone can find a link.
Amazing - found the entire poem instantly:
Quote:Waiting for the Barbarians
By Constantine Cavafy (1864-1933), translated by Edmund Keeley
What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?
The barbarians are due here today.
Why isn't anything happening in the senate?
Why do the senators sit there without legislating?
Because the barbarians are coming today.
What laws can the senators make now?
Once the barbarians are here, they'll do the legislating.
Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting at the city's main gate
on his throne, in state, wearing the crown?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor is waiting to receive their leader.
He has even prepared a scroll to give him,
replete with titles, with imposing names.
Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
and rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.
Why don't our distinguished orators come forward as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and they're bored by rhetoric and public speaking.
Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?
(How serious people's faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home so lost in thought?
Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
And some who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.
And now, what's going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution.
Now here's a frightening thought: W is going to have a colonoscopy, and they've got to anesthetise him, so he's temporarily handing over the powers of the presidency to, yes, the loose cannon himself, Dick Cheney. I wish this were a joke. It's msn breaking news. Gods help us all.
There are some required logistical steps preventing the launch of a major new attack during the time (2,3 hours?) required for that medical procedure - panic isn't indicated. Not yet, at any rate:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9514293
username wrote:Now here's a frightening thought: W is going to have a colonoscopy, and they've got to anesthetise him, so he's temporarily handing over the powers of the presidency to, yes, the loose cannon himself, Dick Cheney. I wish this were a joke. It's msn breaking news. Gods help us all.
They'll have to do a colonoscopy on Cheney to find Bush first.
