WRONG TIME, WRONG PLACE, WRONG WAR

And to those who are suggesting bombing them into submission. I would remind them that a good part of the worlds oil supply comes from Iran. There is a hardly enough oil being pumped at the present time to supply the worlds need. Imagine what the effect the loss of the Iranian oil, even it were for a short time, would be.

McG wrote



What makes you think so? What action on the part of the Iranians would, do you suppose,provoke them into doing so?

au1929


I've been very concerned about what the Israelis might do to Iran. They have a pattern of preventative action. If they do, welcome to World War III.

WWII won't be fought by reserve units. So all those chicken hawk armchair warriors who urge military action had better start studying up on their draft-evation skills.

BBB

Israel seems, at the moment anyway, to be occupied with it's own internal conflicts

I think the idea of WW3 is inevitable whether Israel does something or not. No it is not a particularly opptimistic view but it is a fact.

What an interesting way to bring democracy to the middle east. Bomb them to smitherines.

You mean besides continuously threatening every jew that lives in Israel with death since Israel's creation?

Do you suppose Israel will sit idly by while Iran makes nukes?

....and the penile tissue of every right wing male is being filled with blood.
It's go time
<drool>

Being postive you've read it in the other post Rayban....how about a tangible, sensible solution to the Iran question?
Or is it just easier to criticize those who don't endorse the "jest bomb the begeezus outta 'em" philosophy.

This article by Krugman is not only about SS. It's about Bush's threat to Iran, but more importantly, about deception.


August 15, 2005
Social Security Lessons
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Social Security turned 70 yesterday. And to almost everyone's surprise, the nation's most successful government program is still intact.

Just a few months ago the conventional wisdom was that President Bush would get his way on Social Security. Instead, Mr. Bush's privatization drive flopped so badly that the topic has almost disappeared from national discussion.

But I'd like to revisit Social Security for a moment, because it's important to remember what Mr. Bush tried to get away with.

Many pundits and editorial boards still give Mr. Bush credit for trying to "reform" Social Security. In fact, Mr. Bush came to bury Social Security, not to save it. Over time, the Bush plan would have transformed Social Security from a social insurance program into a mutual fund, with nothing except a name in common with the system F.D.R. created.

In addition to misrepresenting his goals, Mr. Bush repeatedly lied about the current system. Oh, I'm sorry - was that a rude thing to say? Still, the fact is that Mr. Bush repeatedly said things that were demonstrably false and that his staff must have known were false. The falsehoods ranged from his claim that Social Security is unfair to African-Americans to his claim that "waiting just one year adds $600 billion to the cost of fixing Social Security."

Meanwhile, the administration politicized the Social Security Administration and used taxpayer money to promote a partisan agenda. Social Security officials participated in what were in effect taxpayer- financed political rallies, from which skeptical members of the public were excluded.

I'm writing about this in the past tense, but some of it is still going on. Last week Jo Anne Barnhart, the commissioner of Social Security, published an op-ed article claiming that Social Security as we know it was designed for a society in which people didn't live long enough to collect a lot of benefits. "The number of older Americans living now," wrote Ms. Barnhart, "is greater than anyone could have imagined in 1935."

Now, it turns out that an article on the Social Security Administration's Web site, "Life Expectancy for Social Security," specifically rejects the idea the Social Security was originally "designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits," and the related idea that the system faces problems from "a supposed dramatic increase in life expectancy in recent years."

And the current number of older Americans as a share of the population is just about what the founders of Social Security expected. The 1934 report of F.D.R.'s Commission on Economic Security, which laid the groundwork for the Social Security Act, projected that 12.7 percent of Americans would be 65 or older by the year 2000. The actual number was 12.4 percent.

Despite Ms. Barnhart's efforts, however, privatization seems to be dead for the time being. The Democratic leadership in Congress defied the punditocracy - which was very much in favor of privatization - by refusing to cave in, and the American people made it clear that they like Social Security the way it is.

But the campaign for privatization provided an object lesson in how the administration sells its policies: by misrepresenting its goals, lying about the facts and abusing its control of government agencies. These were the same tactics used to sell both tax cuts and the Iraq war.

And there are two reasons to study that lesson. One is to be prepared for whatever comes next on Mr. Bush's agenda. Despite the tough talk about Iran, I don't think he can propose another war - there aren't enough troops to fight the wars we already have. But there's still room for another big domestic initiative, probably tax reform.

Forewarned is forearmed: the real goals of reform won't be as advertised, the administration will say things about the current system that aren't true, and the Treasury Department will function in a purely partisan capacity.

The other is that the public's visceral rejection of privatization, together with growing dismay over the debacle in Iraq, offers Democrats an opportunity to make an issue of the administration's pattern of deception. The question is whether they will dare to seize that opportunity, when for some of them it means admitting that they, too, were fooled.

E-mail: [email protected]

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

I agree -- but I thought the same thing before he invaded Iraq. Hey, he's a war president, not a sense-making, on-a-map-looking, reason-and-logic kind of president. Thanks, Setanta, for doing the map work for us. That was interesting.

Cheers, Boss . . . it was kind of slow to take off, but its drawing the interest i think people ought to take in this subject . . .

This administration uses the same tactic with the American People; fear.

It's also similar to a sucker punch . . .

Hey, look over there ! ! !

POW ! ! !

Where do you see the Iran issue going Set?
Unlike some, I await your perspectives.

I think that realistically, only engagement with the Iranians would be likely to yield positive results. I also believe, however, that the Persians are unlikely to back away from the opportunity to produce nuclear weapons, if that is indeed what they plan to do. I think it highly likely that they have gotten aid from Pakistan, at least in the form of knowledgable individuals, and if not, i would not be surprised to learn that they were seeking such expertise. There is little reason for the Iranians to abandon such a program, if it is in fact a goal of theirs. We cannot realistically threaten them with a boycott, because their major export commodity is in too great demand. Specifically in regard to the United States, the Shrub has squandered anything which might once have passed for moral authority, so even were one to attempt to establish an embargo, i doubt we have the leverage to achieve it. Military threats are ludicrous and self-defeating, and i believe i've outlined why i think the military option is not in fact an option. Despite the vile spew of one of our members, the infantry are obliged to go into any territory which we hope to control, in any war short of nuclear attack. We don't have a hope in hell of pulling off a successful invasion as things stand right now, for the reasons i've given. It is possible that this latest bit of Crawford lunacy was a trial balloon to test public reaction to something the neo-cons would dearly love to attempt.

It is not impossible for the United States to successfully invade and hold Iran. It is highly improbable in the current circumstances. To accomplish it, we'd need at least a half-million troops and all the attendant resources to commit, and that would be in the Rummy "fight a war on a shoestring" manner. For a reasonable chance of success in both invading and holding the country, we'd need nothing less than one million troops and their attendant resources. If you will look back at Intrepid's post, you can see that the Persians are no pikers in terms of their military commitment. The resources listed for the United States are spread out across the globe. The Persians have all of their military concentrated in Iran.

The Idiot from Crawford is only interested in what the history books will say as the "War President." Logistics, logic, and limited resources are not Bushco's concern. Our military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are still not completely equipped properly, and to start another war is pure insanity. I wouldn't put it past this president.

that's what i was getting at on the other thread, c.i.

bush has one goal. his legacy. what ever or who ever he has to feed into the furnace to stoke it, well, that's just the way the cowpie crumbles.

in his arrogance, he really believes that history has nothing to teach him, about anything.

he and his adoring neophytes would never admit it, but the long drawn out occupation of afghanistan was one of the larger things that helped to bankrupt and bring down the soviet union. using much less kinder methods than the u.s would ever use, they never were able to fully cow and control the afghanis. those people have been living in the stone age for so long, they have nothing left to lose but their pride and land.

they had nothing. but they still managed to throw the invaders out.


iraq, while somewhat better off, mostly left over amenities from the pre saddam days, had maybe something more to lose, but not that much in the way of actually giving a fig about who told them what to do. i say that with the idea that the few iraqis i've met here tell me that saddam had really very little in the way of loyal support, and the army was largely conscripts who would have been happy to turn on him if only someone had had the nerve to put it together.

we know that the iraqis didn't put up much of a fight initially. they knew< the insurgents or whatever you want to call them, that they could never beat american military power going toe to toe. so they just melted away and quietly gathered up materials and manpower waiting for the right time to launch gueriila warfare.

and so, we still don't control iraq fully. the new iraqi government doesn't either. who does ? dunno. but the insurgents are the bunch that has everybody else running around, so make of that what you will.

iran, on the other hand is a fairly modern country. the people are pretty well educated, proud of their history and maintain a functioning army, as opposed to just having a whole bunch of guys in uniform.

they certainly would not be happy to see the u.s. or anybody else roll in uninvited.

unlike the afghanis, they have more than rocks to throw at our people.

unlike the iraqis, they would not be hoping for their current government to be taken down.

i believe, based on conversations with persians i know and have met, that they'd put up as big a fight as they could, including military and citizens pitching in. no matter who it was knocking down the front door.

but that's just my opinion.

Source

Good post, Walter. I'm sure the spin doctors promptly filled their shorts when they heard the Shrub come out with that one.