The USA has declared war on Iran and Syria

But there will be music and wonderful roses,.... wait, you said "just so you can buy me dinner", ain't going to happen. Besides there are many interesting things to do here and cultjah too. Dere's plays where the actors sing songs and, you may be very interested in this, all kinds of restaurants which, if the food they are serving is any sign, need new ownership.

Anyway, I've got to go sit on my couch and read the article in this week's TIME that apparently argues that we shouldn't be at all concerned with Iran.

Joe(thank goodness for that. Now I know I'm right)Nation

We'd love to see ya, Bill. Your name comes up often during discussions we have on the Pan...and sometimes in a favorable way! But come up it does! (Actually, almost always in a favorable way!)

Bill- If you ever decide to come to NY, come in July. I make my yearly foray then, and would love to meet you.

I'll buy you dinner too.

Now where the hell IS the pan now? It took me awhile to figure out where it was in the first place, and now they are moving it on me!

Gonna move about 10 - 15 blocks north on the river. You won't have any problem finding it. Just follow the noise once you get on the west side.

Not if I live to be 100! :wink: I would very much like to meet you guys and July does seem as good of time as any. Two dinners... getting warmer.

In this morning Washington Post at the end of a long article about the Bush Administration urging military commanders to kill or capture any Iranian operatives found in Iraq there is this:



Joe(nudge )Nation

Well, let's see here Joe. The Revolutionary guard set up, trained, funded, continues to train and fund Hezbollah and other known Terrorist organizations. Is it unfair to suggest that they set up, train and fund Terrorist organizations? It is no secret they are the supplier for the best roadside bombs used to blow American Soldiers to pieces. Should we pretend this isn't so? Should we pretend that Iran has not openly, willingly and intentionally put their military in battle against our own? How many times should the giant that is the United States turn the other cheek while Iran continues to be complicit in the killing of American Soldiers? That they EVER thought they could get away with it in the first place is the shame and the tragedy and is what very much NEEDS to be corrected. Would be murderous agitators of this kind should KNOW that there will ALWAYS be a heavy price to pay for killing Americans. I'd rather by you dinner than have the United States continue to send out the message that you can kill Americans with impunity.

That point of view ignores that Americans have been put in harm's way by the invasion of Iraq by the Loose Cannon Crew. The Revolutionary Guards couldn't get at Americans so easily if they were not right next door on a futile mission to accomplish the impossible. Your point of view O'Bill, reminds me of a bar fight in which i was once reluctantly involved. One of my "friends" got into it with some other drunken clown, and i stepped in to try to separate them. Yet another clown came from the end of the bar, and blind-sided me with a round house punch about the time i got between the first two idiots. When the dust settled, i went into the back of the bar, and this last clown came in to shake my hand, and tell me no hard feelings. I told him i had plenty of hard feelings, and he said he only hit me because he felt threatened. I pointed out to him that he had been obliged to walk from the other end of the bar, to stand behind my shoulder (where he could get a good shot at me, unseen) in order to feel threatened.

I'm not saying that the two situations are exactly analogous. But the United States had to invade Iraq in order for the Revolutionary Guard to put American GIs in harm's way. Reagan's crew had to put Marines in an apartment building at Beirut airport (ah, the joys of military micro-management by civilian idiots) in order for Hezbollah to get a shot at them.

Absent the invasion of Iraq, the Revolutionary Guard had no shot at us, just as Hezbollah had no shot at Americans until some overpaid, overrated, under-qualified politicos put Marines at the airport in Beirut. We had to walk from the other end of the bar in order to be threatened.

Bush is sending 21,500 more troops into Iraq on a string. Where is he supposed to get additional forces for the attack on Iran? Bush is a war monger without the military to support his war-mongering. Will impeachment be next?

Sorry Set... that's kinda like blaming the rape victim for dressing too sexy, and going to the wrong part of town. No matter how careless or foolish her actions may be; they absolve the rapist of guilt not at all. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been and continues to be complicit in killing Americans, seemingly with impunity. NOT a good precedent. Whether war is the answer, or not, our legislators on both sides of the aisle should be screaming bloody murder and demanding something be done.

Another thing about the proximity argument: If we learn only one lesson from the tragedy of 9-11, it should be that the oceans can no longer be relied upon to keep us safe. We become more touchable every day.

Horseshit, O'Bill. First of all, my remarks were not concerned with guilt, so you can put your morality soapbox away. I haven't commented on whether or not the Revolutionary Guard are guilty of anything. But to use your tortured analogy of the rape victim, the rape victim would not have been raped (by that particular individual) had she not gone to the part of town which you specified. How she were dressed is irrelevant for the analogy, unless you want to discuss whether or not the Loose Cannon Crew are guilty of a failure to provide adequate body armor and armored vehicles.

My point is not about relative guilt, but precisely about proximity. Your argument seems to rest on a assertion that United States forces can go anywhere in the world the sitting administration decrees, and no one better attempt to dispute it. That is arrogance (and hubris) on a monumental scale. After the debacle at Beirut airport, the Marines were withdrawn from the Lebanon, because at least Ray-gun's crew had sense enough to see that nothing positive was being accomplished.

We are now mired in Iraq, and not only not accomplishing anything positive, we are rapidly and surely destabilizing the middle east. Confrontational posturing and rhetoric directed at Iran and Syria only make it worse.

As for September 11th--references to which are a favorite shameless cheap shot by conservatives--we had a reasonable and measured response to that, and that was to go after the perps, in their haven, Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? The war on terror. Too bad the Loose Cannon Crew forgot about their responsibilities in their rush to secure the nation in the world with the second largest proven reserves of light sweet crude.

I find it interesting that the White House has even allowed talk about it's "Blue Game Matrix" to leak out. The Middle East has turned out to be far more complicated than anyone in this administration ever dreamed.

Where the hell are those flower bearing crowds??

What you've got now is Shia militias, some of whom we initially supported in their post-invasion put-downs of Sunni Saddamists, turning to IRAN for training, weapons and munitions and shooting at US forces. Oops, we thought the Shia were going to turn out to be the good guys. Now what?

But the thrust of my earlier post, which I may not have made clear, is that the Bush Administration is happy about being able to shoot at Iranians or anybody else in order to keep this war going for two more years.

More mis-understanding on their part.

Joe(this war will go on and on and on)Nation

Joe(gotitrightonIraqwar)Nation seems more informed about the cause and effect of this war than Bushco. No big surprise.

Try to follow the two statements from the SAME State of the Union Speech
/2007





Oh... And I just about fell over when he said:


After years of sneering at any suggestions other than those of Cheney and Rumsfeld, he wants an advisory council. Hey they could call it something like THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP. He can ignore the new council as he has all of the others.

Joe(no open end? I thought this Iraq war was THE most important struggle...)Nation

Set, you got called precisely because your proximity argument is horse sh!t. This is absurd. The proximity of American Targets enters the debate on whether or not it's acceptable to attack them, not at all.

The United States has troops in half the countries in the world. Were your point valid; any neighboring country who isn't happy about a particular location could just start killing Americans there to demonstrate their displeasure; and you would blame America for being there, while holding the killers themselves unaccountable? This is precisely the problem I alluded to. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard intentionally kills American Soldiers, seemingly with impunity. My point is; doing so is an obvious Casus belli... and your proximity argument takes absolutely nothing away from that. How can one military's repeated, intentional, deadly, ongoing attack on another be considered anything but an act of war?

Feel free to argue the relative wrongs of our actions till the cows come home... but don't suggest it's OK to kill Americans with impunity simply because they are there. That is no argument at all.

Be that as it may (and you were perfectly clear); the FACT that the Iranians have engaged in Acts of War against the United States should be addressed in some fashion. Failure to address it continues to reinforce a horrendous precedent:
If you don't like an American presence near you; feel free to assist in killing a few of them to encourage them to go away... and you can do so with impunity.

Now, it doesn't much matter if you call this killing an "Act of War", an "Act of Terrorism" or an "Act of Murder"; if there are no consequences, the message you are sending is that it's OK, and you may as well be encouraging the strategy.

Now declaring War on Iran may well be considered a disproportionate response... but pretending the collusion doesn't exist most certainly is as well. No country should feel they may attack the United States with impunity and unfortunately that is precisely the message we send when we ignore the FACT of the collusion. One need not support a Military response, necessarily, but he damn sure should demand some kind of a response, if he hopes to dissuade countries from taking pot shots at Americans in the future. Failure to do so is tantamount to encouraging the killing of Americans whenever their proximity offends you. I can ill imagine how any American can be satisfied with this status quo. This horrendous precedent should never have been established in the first place and it is paramount that we take steps to eliminate it from the minds of our enemies if we don't wish to be targeted whenever we leave our borders.

I see no contradiction here. I wholeheartedly believe the vast majority of Iraqis wish to live in peace and the Iraqi government does need to take over the policing duties for their internal strife. At the same time, Iraq is hardly the only place terrorism needs to be addressed.

Iraq may very well prove to be the most important battle... but it is exceedingly unlikely to be the end of the war. Not until every regime on earth understands that the United States, if not international community at large, will make no distinction between the countries that harbor terrorists and the terrorists themselves… can we really expect the "war on terror" to be over.




I too disdain the use of "War on...this or that", but what term is more appropriate? I further understand that the role of "international community" in the above paragraph is mostly being played by the United States. But this shouldn't be. In the twentieth century; "war" essentially gave way to peacetime aggression carried out by supposedly third party representatives. The global community, abhorring the horrors of war, tended more and more towards turning the blind eye to atrocities committed by these third parties and left their respective sponsors free to operate with impunity. While some will say that countries like Iran are among the guiltiest of all parties, others will counter the United States has participated in this charade as much as anyone. Both would be correct.

True terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda, are exceedingly difficult to target directly… as they have no home turf in which they can be counter-attacked. There seemed and seems to be consensus among the world community that Afghanistan was sufficiently guilty of corroboration to warrant a direct counter-attack. Is Iran less guilty of this type of corroboration with terrorist entities? Really? Why? Is it because their well known ongoing support for terrorists hasn't yet yielded a spectacular success like the events of 9-11? Or is it because the consequences of action against a regime of Iran's relatively stronger ability to resist are that much more unpalatable?

A powerful argument could be made that Iran's Revolutionary Guard's complicity in any number of activities has wrought more overall damage than that of the Taliban's complicity in the actions of Al Qaeda. It is also true that the thorough A$$-whoopin perpetrated against Afghanistan in reprisal could hardly be considered a stunning success story. Perhaps "war" isn't the answer and the global community's support for the attack against Afghanistan was in actuality a misguided attempt at solution? Was it?

Or, is it possible that the reprisal against Afghanistan (for their complicity in the offenses of Al Qaeda), was deemed irrelevant by other supporters of terrorism, because of the unwillingness of the world community to commit to the strategy in a more comprehensive sense. Of what use is the example of Afghanistan; if in the very next breath the global community opposes the overall strategy, and more over makes it abundantly clear that it stands in opposition to it's implementation?

Conversely; if the global community were to stand in allegiance against all regimes who support such terrorists; how long would it take for even the Supreme Leader in Iran to get the message?

I think most people are in agreement that it is precisely the unilateral nature of the United State's actions that removes the legitimacy from same. Yes? I submit; the fact of this unilateral perception is also the biggest single factor resulting in the strategy's overall lack of success to date.

But, if the global community at large refuses to address the other State sponsors of terrorism, and more specifically the totalitarian regimes that promote terrorism, what choice does the United States have but to confront them in a more unilateral way?

If my community decided to turn the blind eye to street-rapists, that in no way would dissuade me from doing my part to protect my fellow citizens from same. To the extent a vigilante stepped up to provide the deterrence the proper authorities did not; he would receive my gratitude, not my disdain. To the extent the United States has stepped up to take on the supporters of terrorism, they too are worthy of my gratitude, not my disdain. In both cases; not only would support and allegiance by the proper authorities, or even a larger consensus of same, add credibility to the action; it would also compound the effectiveness of the deterrent.

Insofar as the global community opposes the chosen strategy of the United States; it has utterly failed to unite in a more appropriate strategy as well. Standing in opposition to the one entity that is trying to affect change, effectually emboldens the very enemies we should be united against. Show me a global community taking steps against the regimes who support terrorism, and I'll hear their arguments against the American strategy. Until then; I have little choice but to throw my vote at whomever is demonstrating a willingness to confront the regimes that support the enemies of mankind.

Show me a better strategy and I'll walk in lockstep with you in promoting it. You'll not convince me that no strategy is a better strategy.

Bill wrote:



The better strategy would be not to get into this war because if we do...we will end up faced with several alternatives each of which will be horrendous to even contemplate...and none of which will return us to where we would be if we didn't start a stupid, senseless war. In fact, each will more than likely lead to more and more chaos...and more and more danger for us...and our allies...and even our enemies.

Oh, wait...it is too late for that now.

But it felt good to say.

As George Dumbya Bush is probably thinking: ?The best strategery would be to stall for the next two years...let someone else make the move to disengage...and blame her for the horror and carnage that will follow. Hell there are still people out there who will back me no matter what."

Those who still back Bush are in the 28 to 30 percent range. Bush thinks that's a mandate; he's the leader and makes all the "hard" decisions. He can ignore the congress and the American People, because he knows best. Being president is hard work - as he so loves to repeat, but he fails to look at all the incompetent decisions he has saddled the American People and the world.

We are well past the days of battling state-sponsored terrorism. I think that is the point that is missed by the likes of Bush and Cheney. Which country sponsored the attacks of 9-11? Afghanistan? No, Afghanistan's Taliban were certainly complicit and that's why the attack to remove them was launched, but no one has ever linked anyone in the Afghanistan government to the actual planning, financing and carrying out of the attack.

Terrorism, and Islamic terrorism especially, is supported by non-governmental groups. Bush asks in the SOTU to increase the number of active troops in our armies when he should be asking for a thousandfold increase in the number of CIA operatives in the world. You might want to ask the British if increasing the troop levels in Belfast was as effective as inserting a number of informers into the Catholic Churchs in New York and Boston in neutralizing the IRA.

Until we are able to enlist thousands of Muslims who see terrorism as un-Islamic into revealing the who and how of the terrorists in their midsts, we are forced to use our own watchful, and less effective, eyes and ears.

Joe(it is not a hopeful situation)Nation

State sponsored Terrorism is NOT a thing of the past... though recognition of it seems to be.

Joe, I realize the truth isn't convenient to your position, but it is nonetheless the truth. Watch:

[b]Afghanistan>Taliban>Al Qaeda [size=24]Vs.[/size] Iran>Republican Guard>Hezbollah, etc.[/b]

Which government is more complicit in terrorism?

State sponsored Terrorism is NOT a thing of the past... though recognition of it seems to be.