Red-Handed
Iran may just been caught red-handed shipping high-tech IEDs into Iraq:
U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border. They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor. What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory. "The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Berry. "So it's the same make and model." U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October. "I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."I am not a legal expert, but I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war. If these munitions can be tied to the Iranian government—and the article seems to strongly suggest just that—then we have the clear legal and moral justification to disrupt Iran's intentions to wound or kill American soldiers. We have been trying to settle our differences with Iran with non-military means, but by their actions, their intent is clear. The mullahs of Iran would wage war upon America, and in doing so, have determined freedom for their enslaved pro-western people sooner, rather than later. Update: Cox & Forkum weigh in:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:46 PM
Comments
1
This has probably been going on all along, I'm glad we finally caught them in the act. Now we just have to ask, "What Would Reagan Do?" The answer is clear. Retaliatory bomings against military targets within Iran. They have violated their rights as a neutral with this and it's time to bring it home to the Ayatollah.
Posted by: Thrill at March 06, 2006 07:47 PM (+E47Q)
2
I've been in no hurry to attack Iran. My thought was if we do, they will make Iraq even more of a problem for us. Now it looks like that reasoning is gone. They already are. If that is the case, if they are sending substantial aid to the insurgents, it's time to bomb the crap out of them. Maybe we can send some former embassy hostages over to flip the switches to fire the Tomahawks.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 06, 2006 08:21 PM (4joLu)
Posted by: Marvin at March 06, 2006 08:53 PM (8cEPU)
4
It's an act of war.
Condi should immediately warn them continuing this one second longer will buy them some serious shock and awe.
We owe it to the troops.
Condi should immediately warn them continuing this one second longer will buy them some serious shock and awe.
We owe it to the troops.
Posted by: TallDave at March 06, 2006 09:52 PM (H8Wgl)
5
A bunch of AC130's just arrived...thay can put a world of hurt on scum trying to infiltrate the border.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 07, 2006 01:20 AM (TbnUR)
6
Time to take the gloves off. Iran has been helping the insurgents all along. They just got caught with their collective pants down. Now we need to stick it to them. Syria is doing the same thing. We have the people in place to get the job done. They were warned at the outset of hostilaties to stay out of it. They chose not to so, they need to pay the price. First Cut off there fuel supplies. They have alot of oil but can't refine it. Get word to the moderate pro western folks tell them to get the hell out of the way. Send in the Tomahawks and B2's. AIRPOWER BABY!!!!!!!!
P.S.
Expect no help from the U.N.
P.S.
Expect no help from the U.N.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 07, 2006 07:55 AM (JYeBJ)
7
And why should we take richard clarkes word on anything, he also said Iraq had wmd's. Also the only proof they offer is that the bombs have similar tool marks...they are not stamped Made in Iran!!!! So it looks like once again the war mongering right wants to start bombing brown people for no honest reason....keep in mind, the day we do that is the day before gas goes to $8.00 a gallon.
Posted by: madmatt at March 07, 2006 09:21 AM (J8hqn)
8
Did you guys actually read the original report? They were caught doing this last October by the Brits, and the Brits were quite embarrassed because the fuses on the weaspons were British ones the IRA had stolen and sold. In other words, this is old news. Sorry to harsh your frenzy.
Posted by: zen_less at March 07, 2006 09:21 AM (BkYcc)
9
PS Isn't it ironic you quote Richard Clarke NOW, when you heaped nothing but abuse on him before when he criticized the President's do thing actions against terror prior to 9/11? I guess that was then, and now he's your boy again!
Posted by: zen_less at March 07, 2006 09:24 AM (BkYcc)
10
"I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war."
Hoisting youself on your own petard, are you?
Hoisting youself on your own petard, are you?
Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 07, 2006 09:33 AM (a0KXj)
11
hey zen_less, nobody here cares about Richard Clarke. This is not old news, it is a new find. It has been suspected, but the article makes clear that the new find demonstrates mass production of the devices so it unequivically demonstrates Iranian government complicity. As I said, I have not supported attacking Iran before. It is not a reflexive desire to bomb brown skins, but based on new evidence that the Iranians are already at war with us, moron.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 09:40 AM (4joLu)
12
The preceding "reality-based" comments are brought to you courtesy of Peter Daou, emissary to the land of groupthink. Expect more outraged comments, but not anything coherent. It’s the emotion that counts, not any sort of reason or rationale.
Come on, little liberals. Tell us why American soldiers should die because of bombs built by Iranian hands. Tell us why they deserve it.
Come on, little liberals. Tell us why American soldiers should die because of bombs built by Iranian hands. Tell us why they deserve it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 07, 2006 09:45 AM (g5Nba)
13
Libs, okay, you define for us exactly what point at which you think it is acceptable for a nation to defend its people. Go ahead, give us a "go to war" scenario you would support. And tell us what you would say to the mothers of all the soldiers who have been killed by Iran to explian how their deaths are not worth a war. Go ahead blameocrats, we are waiting...
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 09:49 AM (4joLu)
14
...and Syria is hiding the WMDs. We KNOW they are, because Georges Sada told us they are.
So let's start a massive bombing campaign against Iraq and Syria today!
Then the insurgency in Iraq will REALLY be in "it's last throes!"
Do you kool aid drinkers really think we have the means to wage a 3 front war in the middle east right now?
Confederate Yank - Tell us why the troops shouldn't have better, and more body armor?
There must be a recruiting office nearby. Go sign up, buddy. If you're too old, convince your kids to go. It's your patriotic duty, tough guy.
So let's start a massive bombing campaign against Iraq and Syria today!
Then the insurgency in Iraq will REALLY be in "it's last throes!"
Do you kool aid drinkers really think we have the means to wage a 3 front war in the middle east right now?
Confederate Yank - Tell us why the troops shouldn't have better, and more body armor?
There must be a recruiting office nearby. Go sign up, buddy. If you're too old, convince your kids to go. It's your patriotic duty, tough guy.
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 10:18 AM (CIj8S)
15
From the article:
"U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October."
Actually, as the article makes clear, this is NOT a new story. It seems they have been aware since October that Iran was producing these weapons and smuggling them into Iraq.
We've apparently known about this for some time, so why haven't we invaded Iran yet? What's the hold up? Frankly I'm getting bored with this whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" thing. We don't use the cool weapons any more... I keep hearing about lame shit like new schools and power infrastructure.
Let's embed some reporters, fire up the cruise missles and get to work. I especially like those missle-camera shots so I can see the bomb as it slams into some filthy village full of brown people. Can we get a camera on an A-10? They're great for shredding anyone stupid enough to be standing around.
"U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October."
Actually, as the article makes clear, this is NOT a new story. It seems they have been aware since October that Iran was producing these weapons and smuggling them into Iraq.
We've apparently known about this for some time, so why haven't we invaded Iran yet? What's the hold up? Frankly I'm getting bored with this whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" thing. We don't use the cool weapons any more... I keep hearing about lame shit like new schools and power infrastructure.
Let's embed some reporters, fire up the cruise missles and get to work. I especially like those missle-camera shots so I can see the bomb as it slams into some filthy village full of brown people. Can we get a camera on an A-10? They're great for shredding anyone stupid enough to be standing around.
Posted by: Bob at March 07, 2006 10:33 AM (673ys)
16
"I am not a legal expert, but I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war."
So when the US provided weapons to the Mujahadeen during the Afghan-Soviet War, was that politics, or war? Giving weapons to your political allies is old news. The US sold cheap destroyers to Britain in WWII, China sold tanks to Vietnam, the USSR gave SAMs to Egypt, I could keep listing things for days. No one likes Iran, but this isn't cassus belli.
So when the US provided weapons to the Mujahadeen during the Afghan-Soviet War, was that politics, or war? Giving weapons to your political allies is old news. The US sold cheap destroyers to Britain in WWII, China sold tanks to Vietnam, the USSR gave SAMs to Egypt, I could keep listing things for days. No one likes Iran, but this isn't cassus belli.
Posted by: abx at March 07, 2006 10:34 AM (A5ppj)
17
So then the Soviet Union would have been justified in invading or bombing the United States in the 1980's for supplying arms and training to the Muhjadeen in Afganistan?
Posted by: J at March 07, 2006 10:35 AM (XK3OX)
18
It's time to go into Tehran. I doubt that a prolonged occupation would be necessary. The Iranian people are famously pro-western (the recent election, which I think was a one-off, notwithstanding). Maybe some things haven't gone perfectly in Iraq (though they're going a lot better than the MSM claims, for sure), but we can apply whatever lessons we learned there to the invasion of Iran.
Freedom is on the march.
Freedom is on the march.
Posted by: Leonidas at March 07, 2006 10:37 AM (Xu9JJ)
19
I’m shocked that our long stated enemy is trying to undermine us in Iraqi. Imagine the nerve, don’t they realize that our mismanaged invasions of Afghanistan and Iraqi are costing us so much in lives, money and security not to mention international credibility and respect that their meddling is complicating our efforts to invade them? What about Syria and North Korea? Their on the plate too, how are we going to invade them if our hands are so tied in Nation Building in Iraqi? I gotta give the administration and the Republicans a lot of credit; thank God we have the Party that protects America running the show. I feel much safer now knowing that the whole world roots against us, and doesn’t believe a word we say, that our military recruiting is down even while we lower the standards to get in, that there is whole sale turnover of senior staff in our intelligence agencies that we depend on the French Foreign Intelligence for the bulk of our own intelligence, that the defense department is nothing short of dysfunctional, that we can’t even get busses to evacuate a major American city when we need to. I love the Patriot Act, I love the war powers act that gives our President essentially monarchical powers for a war he say will last for decades, I love the fact whenever someone questions the White House the documents they need can’t be seen because they are considered National Security secrets, I love that the President says one thing, but the reality is something else. Thank God Kerry wasn’t elected; I would have nothing to love…
Posted by: Joe at March 07, 2006 10:52 AM (jfbXj)
20
"It's time to go into Tehran. I doubt that a prolonged occupation would be necessary. The Iranian people are famously pro-western (the recent election, which I think was a one-off, notwithstanding)"
Why don't you start up a militia and go on in. I'm sure they'll welcome you with roses and serenade you with American songs as you march by.
Then the new "democratically elected" government will shake your hand and pat you on the back as you leave the newly constructed American embassy in the Green Zone with a free trade agreement in your cheeto stained hands, just 5 months later.
Let us know how it goes.
Why don't you start up a militia and go on in. I'm sure they'll welcome you with roses and serenade you with American songs as you march by.
Then the new "democratically elected" government will shake your hand and pat you on the back as you leave the newly constructed American embassy in the Green Zone with a free trade agreement in your cheeto stained hands, just 5 months later.
Let us know how it goes.
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 11:13 AM (c+6Oi)
21
CY:
American soldiers do not "deserve" to die because of alleged Iranian land mines. But sadly, they should expect to die because of alleged Iranian land mines. And it is not their fault (the US soldiers that is).
Flashback to the 1980s when the USSR invaded Afghanistan and installed a puppet regime. Who supplied the Mujahadeen (spelling?) with training and Stinger anti-aircraft missles to shoot down the Hind helicopters that were plagueing them so. We did. And we all felt so righteous doing it. Technically speaking, we were assisting the Afghan rebels, the predecessors of Al Qaida, in killing Russian soldiers. Some would call that a causus belli. They would be right. Russia could have declared war on the United States, but that would have been foolish for obvious reasons. And they probably could have proved it because they had folks like Aldrich Ames feeding them intel.
Which goes to show, just because you CAN declare war on another country, legally that is, does not mean it is wise to do so. History may one day demonstrate that if we had to wage war on either Iran or Iraq, we should have chosen the former and not the latter, and certainly not both. Iran took our embassy hostage, waged war against out onetime ally at the time Iraq, is governed by a fundamentalist regime that despises us, has a grudge against us for shooting down one of its airliners, and now is more allied than ever with the new Iraqi government.
Could we bomb some of their military targets? Sure. With spectacular accuracy and minimal loss of civilian life no doubt. Except for that pesky nuclear fallout. And great video for Faux News. Then what. If Iran doesn't stop sending alleged Iranian made land mines? Do we invade? Would we win? For a while. And then what. We will be tryinig to stabilize Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, simultaneously. I doubt our Old World Chocolate Making European allies will be much help. We would be surrounded by Turkey, a foe of the Kurds in the Northwest. Russia, a longtime ally of Iran in the North. (Oh, and Russia was accused by Rumsfeld early in the Iraq invasion of supplying night vision goggles to the insurgents. That made me laugh. Payback's a bitch. Don't get me wrong. I supported supplying Stingers to Afghan rebels, I am just old enough to understand that there may be some folks in Russia that hold a grudge) A bunch of former former Soviet republics in the Northwest that are fighting insurgents themselves. An unstable dictatorship in Pakistan (with Nukes) in the East and Southeast. India, a nominal ally that thinks we are completely off our rocker (also with Nukes) in the South (and fighting with Pakistan over a decades old border dispute). Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of most of the 9/11 attackers and primary bank of madrassas teaching their children that we are infidels in the Southwest. Jordan, a nominal ally (sort of like Switzerland) in the East with no real ability to help us except for that hottie of a wife. And finally, Syria, alleged to have WMD smuggled in from Iraq, also in the East.
Not that it is not bad already, but if you want a meat grinder for US soldiers, that is what you will get. If you think Gen. Shinseki's estimate that we needed 300,000 soldiers to stabilize Iraq was high, we will need a cool million to stabilize Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, at least. Put them all together and you have Oceana.
Note: I keep saying "alleged Iranian made land mines." Why? Because we were told with absolute certainty that Iraq had WMD's. Rumsfeld said we had pictures of them. Buzzz. Not so much. There are cross allegations the bombs were made or partly made in Ireland. Payback for the British. They could be Russian, Pakistani, Afghani, Syrian, Lebanese, PA, Saudi, Eqyptian, or just plain Iraqi. And IED's? Please. They are land mines. You stick them in the ground and they go boom. That is a land mine.
American soldiers do not "deserve" to die because of alleged Iranian land mines. But sadly, they should expect to die because of alleged Iranian land mines. And it is not their fault (the US soldiers that is).
Flashback to the 1980s when the USSR invaded Afghanistan and installed a puppet regime. Who supplied the Mujahadeen (spelling?) with training and Stinger anti-aircraft missles to shoot down the Hind helicopters that were plagueing them so. We did. And we all felt so righteous doing it. Technically speaking, we were assisting the Afghan rebels, the predecessors of Al Qaida, in killing Russian soldiers. Some would call that a causus belli. They would be right. Russia could have declared war on the United States, but that would have been foolish for obvious reasons. And they probably could have proved it because they had folks like Aldrich Ames feeding them intel.
Which goes to show, just because you CAN declare war on another country, legally that is, does not mean it is wise to do so. History may one day demonstrate that if we had to wage war on either Iran or Iraq, we should have chosen the former and not the latter, and certainly not both. Iran took our embassy hostage, waged war against out onetime ally at the time Iraq, is governed by a fundamentalist regime that despises us, has a grudge against us for shooting down one of its airliners, and now is more allied than ever with the new Iraqi government.
Could we bomb some of their military targets? Sure. With spectacular accuracy and minimal loss of civilian life no doubt. Except for that pesky nuclear fallout. And great video for Faux News. Then what. If Iran doesn't stop sending alleged Iranian made land mines? Do we invade? Would we win? For a while. And then what. We will be tryinig to stabilize Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, simultaneously. I doubt our Old World Chocolate Making European allies will be much help. We would be surrounded by Turkey, a foe of the Kurds in the Northwest. Russia, a longtime ally of Iran in the North. (Oh, and Russia was accused by Rumsfeld early in the Iraq invasion of supplying night vision goggles to the insurgents. That made me laugh. Payback's a bitch. Don't get me wrong. I supported supplying Stingers to Afghan rebels, I am just old enough to understand that there may be some folks in Russia that hold a grudge) A bunch of former former Soviet republics in the Northwest that are fighting insurgents themselves. An unstable dictatorship in Pakistan (with Nukes) in the East and Southeast. India, a nominal ally that thinks we are completely off our rocker (also with Nukes) in the South (and fighting with Pakistan over a decades old border dispute). Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of most of the 9/11 attackers and primary bank of madrassas teaching their children that we are infidels in the Southwest. Jordan, a nominal ally (sort of like Switzerland) in the East with no real ability to help us except for that hottie of a wife. And finally, Syria, alleged to have WMD smuggled in from Iraq, also in the East.
Not that it is not bad already, but if you want a meat grinder for US soldiers, that is what you will get. If you think Gen. Shinseki's estimate that we needed 300,000 soldiers to stabilize Iraq was high, we will need a cool million to stabilize Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, at least. Put them all together and you have Oceana.
Note: I keep saying "alleged Iranian made land mines." Why? Because we were told with absolute certainty that Iraq had WMD's. Rumsfeld said we had pictures of them. Buzzz. Not so much. There are cross allegations the bombs were made or partly made in Ireland. Payback for the British. They could be Russian, Pakistani, Afghani, Syrian, Lebanese, PA, Saudi, Eqyptian, or just plain Iraqi. And IED's? Please. They are land mines. You stick them in the ground and they go boom. That is a land mine.
Posted by: Coltergeist at March 07, 2006 11:15 AM (/HJxW)
22
ABX,
Let's not forget that the U.S. provided arms to Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war. Hussein was our ally then...
Check out the video of Rummy and Hussein on the Internet. I tried to post the link but CY did not allow me to do so. Just google it, it comes up easily.
Let's not forget that the U.S. provided arms to Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war. Hussein was our ally then...
Check out the video of Rummy and Hussein on the Internet. I tried to post the link but CY did not allow me to do so. Just google it, it comes up easily.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 07, 2006 11:19 AM (fY4fP)
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 07, 2006 11:28 AM (fY4fP)
24
Confederate Yankee has a bad case of the kool-aid. Let's look at his comments in a little detail.
A few of the hallmarks of the cultist: they use 'code words' and phrases to short cut rational analysis to dismiss 'the enemy', assuming they're right and unable to really ask the hard questions.
For example, the little cult that thought they'd get a ride on the comet after drinking poison, I'm betting they had names to call the "reality-based" people - they probably quoted that, too - who tried to get them to ask the rational things about their assumption.
"The preceding "reality-based" comments"
And there we go - quoting "reality-based" as if that were an argument proving it wrong. But I'll cut him some slack if he proved the term was unwarranted; he doesn't, his argument is just to repeat the claim.
"are brought to you courtesy of Peter Daou, emissary to the land of groupthink."
More name-calling, and of the richly ironic kind.
"Expect more outraged comments, but not anything coherent. It’s the emotion that counts, not any sort of reason or rationale."
The irony meter is off the scale.
The left is the rational group generally, and the right the emotional gorup generally. Sure, there are exceptions - but you tend to see the left arguing the 'facts' of things like deficit reduction and other policies, while the right is all about the 'emotions', the mandatory flags on the lapel (not to mention the flag burning amendment to the constitution), yellow ribbons (made in China) on the cars, and so on, which makes them so richly manipulatable - and the manipulators are mostly on the right currently.
See the post following CY from the 'liberal' and ask who has more rational analysis.
"Come on, little liberals."
As predicted, the typical right-wing name-calling substituting contempt for reason.
And you have the gall to accuse the left of not aguing rationally.
"Tell us why American soldiers should die because of bombs built by Iranian hands. Tell us why they deserve it."
Ah, finally, the speck of attempt, at the end of the post, at some argument.
Too bad that it, predictably, is utterly flawed in its poor logic.
Let's consider an analogy.
Let's say a liberal who opposes the Iraq war framed the same question: they asked you to explain why, instead of the soldiers being safe at home, they deserved to be killed in Iraq. And they repeated for emphasis, as you do - repitition in lieu of logic - tell them why they DESERVE that.
Oh no, you would protest, they don't deserve to be killed, that's not a fair way to discuss the issue; you would go on and on about the rest of the story the question doesn't include about the benefits of the war and why it was an unfortunate but justified price for a larger good.
But do you argue the same way you demand? No, you put out the garbage about asking why your opponents think the soldiers should be killed. And in a post where you attack the LEFT for not being logical in their posts.
Look, the right has major issues with their lack of rationality. The left isn't out to hurt them, the left is out to help them. For democracy to succeeed, the people cannot afford to be manipulated by well-funded campaigns for wrong, selfish, immoral policies (I'm speaking generally - this is a formula for how politics works today, selfish interests invest large sums which dominate our political process, in exchange for concessions out of the public good, whether in money, or the right to pollute, or whatever other public trust is violated; in exchane, their money pays for the propaganda to paint the crooks as flag-waving great Americans and gets them re-elected).
Get a clue, CY. For your own sake and the country's.
Your post had no 'facts' while you demand facts.
Let the grownups handle policy if you can't be bothered to grow up.
There are legitimate arguments on both sides much of the time to consider, but your infantile approach of trying to use big arguments about the left not arguing logically are only harmful to the public debate and you embarrass yourself.
A few of the hallmarks of the cultist: they use 'code words' and phrases to short cut rational analysis to dismiss 'the enemy', assuming they're right and unable to really ask the hard questions.
For example, the little cult that thought they'd get a ride on the comet after drinking poison, I'm betting they had names to call the "reality-based" people - they probably quoted that, too - who tried to get them to ask the rational things about their assumption.
"The preceding "reality-based" comments"
And there we go - quoting "reality-based" as if that were an argument proving it wrong. But I'll cut him some slack if he proved the term was unwarranted; he doesn't, his argument is just to repeat the claim.
"are brought to you courtesy of Peter Daou, emissary to the land of groupthink."
More name-calling, and of the richly ironic kind.
"Expect more outraged comments, but not anything coherent. It’s the emotion that counts, not any sort of reason or rationale."
The irony meter is off the scale.
The left is the rational group generally, and the right the emotional gorup generally. Sure, there are exceptions - but you tend to see the left arguing the 'facts' of things like deficit reduction and other policies, while the right is all about the 'emotions', the mandatory flags on the lapel (not to mention the flag burning amendment to the constitution), yellow ribbons (made in China) on the cars, and so on, which makes them so richly manipulatable - and the manipulators are mostly on the right currently.
See the post following CY from the 'liberal' and ask who has more rational analysis.
"Come on, little liberals."
As predicted, the typical right-wing name-calling substituting contempt for reason.
And you have the gall to accuse the left of not aguing rationally.
"Tell us why American soldiers should die because of bombs built by Iranian hands. Tell us why they deserve it."
Ah, finally, the speck of attempt, at the end of the post, at some argument.
Too bad that it, predictably, is utterly flawed in its poor logic.
Let's consider an analogy.
Let's say a liberal who opposes the Iraq war framed the same question: they asked you to explain why, instead of the soldiers being safe at home, they deserved to be killed in Iraq. And they repeated for emphasis, as you do - repitition in lieu of logic - tell them why they DESERVE that.
Oh no, you would protest, they don't deserve to be killed, that's not a fair way to discuss the issue; you would go on and on about the rest of the story the question doesn't include about the benefits of the war and why it was an unfortunate but justified price for a larger good.
But do you argue the same way you demand? No, you put out the garbage about asking why your opponents think the soldiers should be killed. And in a post where you attack the LEFT for not being logical in their posts.
Look, the right has major issues with their lack of rationality. The left isn't out to hurt them, the left is out to help them. For democracy to succeeed, the people cannot afford to be manipulated by well-funded campaigns for wrong, selfish, immoral policies (I'm speaking generally - this is a formula for how politics works today, selfish interests invest large sums which dominate our political process, in exchange for concessions out of the public good, whether in money, or the right to pollute, or whatever other public trust is violated; in exchane, their money pays for the propaganda to paint the crooks as flag-waving great Americans and gets them re-elected).
Get a clue, CY. For your own sake and the country's.
Your post had no 'facts' while you demand facts.
Let the grownups handle policy if you can't be bothered to grow up.
There are legitimate arguments on both sides much of the time to consider, but your infantile approach of trying to use big arguments about the left not arguing logically are only harmful to the public debate and you embarrass yourself.
Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 12:13 PM (2LCIG)
25
The phrases "MAY just have" and "Red-handed" do not belong on the same sentence.
Either they HAVE been caught RED-HANDED or they "MAY just have been caught."
Either they HAVE been caught RED-HANDED or they "MAY just have been caught."
Posted by: O'Reilly at March 07, 2006 12:14 PM (l7fko)
26
Now, for the issue - not to mix my castigation of CY with the issue in Iran:
In 1953, Iran had a democratically elected president. The US had the CIA overthrow the president - and democracy - and install the Shah who rule in a dictatorship for 25 years.
Was that not an act of war far, far beyond what is alleged here?
I should just stop the post here and let the right chew on this fact and try to answer is, rather than go on to other examples from our assistance to Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran with hundreds of thousands killed, to our recent sending of special forces inside their borders to collect targetting information, another act of war, not to mention the aggressive plans for going after Iran in the Plan for a New American Century, whose architects are generally in power now - and in fact, that's what I'm going to do.
Imagine a country overthrowing our democracy, and putting a dictator friendly to them in place for 25 years, before we are able to retake our country, and then that country saying they have the right to invade our country because we did an act of war, while they take zero responsibility.
I look forward to the well-reasonsed responses from the right.
In 1953, Iran had a democratically elected president. The US had the CIA overthrow the president - and democracy - and install the Shah who rule in a dictatorship for 25 years.
Was that not an act of war far, far beyond what is alleged here?
I should just stop the post here and let the right chew on this fact and try to answer is, rather than go on to other examples from our assistance to Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran with hundreds of thousands killed, to our recent sending of special forces inside their borders to collect targetting information, another act of war, not to mention the aggressive plans for going after Iran in the Plan for a New American Century, whose architects are generally in power now - and in fact, that's what I'm going to do.
Imagine a country overthrowing our democracy, and putting a dictator friendly to them in place for 25 years, before we are able to retake our country, and then that country saying they have the right to invade our country because we did an act of war, while they take zero responsibility.
I look forward to the well-reasonsed responses from the right.
Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 12:20 PM (2LCIG)
27
O'Reilly, I'm going to disagree:
"The phrases "MAY just have" and "Red-handed" do not belong on the same sentence.
Either they HAVE been caught RED-HANDED or they "MAY just have been caught." "
The red-handed refers to the nature of the evidence.
red-handed is a reference to any time the evidence is very direct, rather than indirect. Catching Iraqi forces with the weapons handing them to Iraqi militants would be 'red-handed', while less direct evidence - say, confessions, or financial documents showing activities, would not be.
So, the phrase red-handed is useful in clarifying what the type of alleged evidence is.
The 'may have been' is a separate issue, showing that the truth of the evidence is in question. Saying that the reports of the evidence are still being verified is a different issue than saying whether the evidence is very direct or not so much.
So, 'may have been caught red-handed' would mean that there are reports that they were caught in a very directly incriminating act, and that the reports are yet to be strongly confirmed.
"The phrases "MAY just have" and "Red-handed" do not belong on the same sentence.
Either they HAVE been caught RED-HANDED or they "MAY just have been caught." "
The red-handed refers to the nature of the evidence.
red-handed is a reference to any time the evidence is very direct, rather than indirect. Catching Iraqi forces with the weapons handing them to Iraqi militants would be 'red-handed', while less direct evidence - say, confessions, or financial documents showing activities, would not be.
So, the phrase red-handed is useful in clarifying what the type of alleged evidence is.
The 'may have been' is a separate issue, showing that the truth of the evidence is in question. Saying that the reports of the evidence are still being verified is a different issue than saying whether the evidence is very direct or not so much.
So, 'may have been caught red-handed' would mean that there are reports that they were caught in a very directly incriminating act, and that the reports are yet to be strongly confirmed.
Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 12:28 PM (2LCIG)
28
What would Reagan do?
Cut and run (Lebanon 1983) or negotiate and cut deals with the terrorists (1980-198
.
Any other questions?
Cut and run (Lebanon 1983) or negotiate and cut deals with the terrorists (1980-198
.
Any other questions?
Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 12:58 PM (ByaZN)
29
Reagan did not "cut and run" from Lebanon. He was forced to withdraw troops thanks to the Treason Party-uh, I mean the Democrats-majorityj in the Senate. They were preparing a joint resolution to insist on immediate withdrawal of the troops after the suicide bombing of the Marines' barracks. They only backed off because they understood that it would make them look bad. Reagan pulled the troops out and also bombed into the Syrian occupied areas whenever they fired at our soldiers and Marines. Naturally, the Democrats also objected to that. When terrorists bombed a West Berlin nightclub and killed some of our troops partying there, Reagan traced the attacks back to the Libyans and bombed that country. We even targeted Khaddafi's home. Didn't hear much out of him for awhile after that. In this case, Iran could be responsible for hundreds of American casualties and they will inflict more if action isn't taken.
I'm always astounded by those on the left who try to criticize Reagan or W.'s foreign policies. A serious look at the record shows that the Democrats are and always have been weak on national security and sometimes actively worked against it.
I'm always astounded by those on the left who try to criticize Reagan or W.'s foreign policies. A serious look at the record shows that the Democrats are and always have been weak on national security and sometimes actively worked against it.
Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 01:18 PM (+E47Q)
30
So Reagan pulled the troops out of Lebanon because the Dems were too scared to force the action because they might look bad?
I stand corrected. Reagan was being resolute when he cut and ran from Lebanon.
I stand corrected. Reagan was being resolute when he cut and ran from Lebanon.
Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 01:24 PM (ByaZN)
31
Almost forgot to answer your second accusation. Reagan never negotiated with terrorists. It was the stated policy of his Administration not to, though the defendants in Iran-Contra did so without his knowledge. They were fired and indicted. Maybe now we can talk about Carter allowing our embassy in Iran to be seized without any consequence whatsoever or Bill Clinton refusing to accept offers to arrest or kill bin Laden even after he was implicated in the first WTC attack, the Khobar Towers, the Cole, and the Embassy Bombings?
Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 01:26 PM (+E47Q)
32
How do you think those hostages in Iran got released?
Or are you saying Reagan himself (personally) didn't negotiate with terrorists? Like Ike didn't really pour the concrete when he built the National Highway system.
And I know what his stated policy was. Big deal.
GW's stated policy is to protect all americans, but that doesn't mean the Katrina aftermath didn't happen.
Or are you saying Reagan himself (personally) didn't negotiate with terrorists? Like Ike didn't really pour the concrete when he built the National Highway system.
And I know what his stated policy was. Big deal.
GW's stated policy is to protect all americans, but that doesn't mean the Katrina aftermath didn't happen.
Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 01:32 PM (ByaZN)
33
Why don't we see this on the front page of every mewspaper? I suppose our troops are forgotten by the media, unless they've already died.
It's a crime to see them killed, a tragedy to let it continue unanswered.
It's a crime to see them killed, a tragedy to let it continue unanswered.
Posted by: Marshall Neal at March 07, 2006 01:56 PM (Qa0tQ)
34
John said
"Tell us why the troops shouldn't have better, and more body armor?"
John, let me clear up a few things for you. We are talking about bombing IRAN not Syria. We are talking about BOMBING Iran, not invading. Are you capable of understanding the distinction. We don't need to send in divisions in Iran. We can punish them from the air and we have plent of assets to do it. Hell, we can launch the bombers from Nebraska numb nuts. Look at factcheck.org. They have a nice article about body armor and how even the troops don't want anymore. As they quoted a soldier in Iraq "some people want to encase us in concrete to protect us, but we can't do the mission like that." Get a clue bobblehead.
John said
"Tell us why the troops shouldn't have better, and more body armor?"
John, let me clear up a few things for you. We are talking about bombing IRAN not Syria. We are talking about BOMBING Iran, not invading. Are you capable of understanding the distinction. We don't need to send in divisions in Iran. We can punish them from the air and we have plent of assets to do it. Hell, we can launch the bombers from Nebraska numb nuts. Look at factcheck.org. They have a nice article about body armor and how even the troops don't want anymore. As they quoted a soldier in Iraq "some people want to encase us in concrete to protect us, but we can't do the mission like that." Get a clue bobblehead.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:16 PM (CdK5b)
35
So when the US provided weapons to the Mujahadeen during the Afghan-Soviet War, was that politics, or war? Giving weapons to your political allies is old news. The US sold cheap destroyers to Britain in WWII, China sold tanks to Vietnam, the USSR gave SAMs to Egypt, I could keep listing things for days. No one likes Iran, but this isn't cassus belli.
Posted by abx at March 7, 2006 10:34 AM
where do you people get your history, cereal boxes? The soviet union gave fighters to Korea and soviet pilots even flew them in Korea and Vietnam against Americans long before Afghanistan. Afghanistan was our chance to return the favor for USSR acts during the not so cold war which is only called the cold war cause we didn't nuke each other. We were definately in combat with the USSR in many theaters. The only reason it wasn't in the open is because it could have gone nuclear so the war was clandestine. We don't have that problem with Iran and we can kick the crap out of them now. get your facts straight bobblehead.
Posted by abx at March 7, 2006 10:34 AM
where do you people get your history, cereal boxes? The soviet union gave fighters to Korea and soviet pilots even flew them in Korea and Vietnam against Americans long before Afghanistan. Afghanistan was our chance to return the favor for USSR acts during the not so cold war which is only called the cold war cause we didn't nuke each other. We were definately in combat with the USSR in many theaters. The only reason it wasn't in the open is because it could have gone nuclear so the war was clandestine. We don't have that problem with Iran and we can kick the crap out of them now. get your facts straight bobblehead.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:24 PM (CdK5b)
36
loanitus, I would like to see where you came to the conclusion that Iranians would welcome us. Sorry to tell you this, I think this is absolutely incorrect and would lead to tens of thousands of US casualties if we invaded. Iran is not Iraq, 75% ot the Iraqis wanted liberation, it would be more like 10% to 20% in Iran.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:27 PM (CdK5b)
37
Devils advocate said
"ABX,
Let's not forget that the U.S. provided arms to Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war. Hussein was our ally then..."
The reason we supported Iraq over Iran is because Iran invaded our embassy and held embassy staff hostage for over a year. Funny how you bobbleheads always miss that little detail. Don't forget to say how you hate America on the way out, moron
"ABX,
Let's not forget that the U.S. provided arms to Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war. Hussein was our ally then..."
The reason we supported Iraq over Iran is because Iran invaded our embassy and held embassy staff hostage for over a year. Funny how you bobbleheads always miss that little detail. Don't forget to say how you hate America on the way out, moron
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:31 PM (CdK5b)
38
"The reason we supported Iraq over Iran is because Iran invaded our embassy and held embassy staff hostage for over a year. Funny how you bobbleheads always miss that little detail. Don't forget to say how you hate America on the way out, moron"
And I guess that explains why Reagan was secretly selling weapons to Iran and channeling the money to the Contras.
What about that, bobblehead?
And I guess that explains why Reagan was secretly selling weapons to Iran and channeling the money to the Contras.
What about that, bobblehead?
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 02:46 PM (c+6Oi)
39
The reason we supported Hussein was he was doing what was in the US's best interest.
The reason we don't support Hussein now is because he gassed his own people.
NOT.
It's because he stopped doing everything we wanted him to do.
BTW, that's the same reason we supported the Shah.
The whole "democratically elected leader thing" is a huge lie. It's not how you got to be the leader, it's what you do (for us) once you're there.
BTW< I don't hate America, but I'm not blind to our faults either.
The reason we don't support Hussein now is because he gassed his own people.
NOT.
It's because he stopped doing everything we wanted him to do.
BTW, that's the same reason we supported the Shah.
The whole "democratically elected leader thing" is a huge lie. It's not how you got to be the leader, it's what you do (for us) once you're there.
BTW< I don't hate America, but I'm not blind to our faults either.
Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 02:50 PM (ByaZN)
40
"They have a nice article about body armor and how even the troops don't want anymore. As they quoted a soldier in Iraq "some people want to encase us in concrete to protect us, but we can't do the mission like that."
That's greay, Ray. But we're talking about IED's here, aren't we? These generally kill troops as they are driving or being transported on a vehicle. It has been shown that up to 80% of this type of casualty would be avoided if more body armor was employed.
How hard would it be for the troops to remove body armor as they leave their vehicles to engage in combat or searches on the ground, assuming that it was REALLY that restrictive, that is?
Facts is facts, bobblehead.
That's greay, Ray. But we're talking about IED's here, aren't we? These generally kill troops as they are driving or being transported on a vehicle. It has been shown that up to 80% of this type of casualty would be avoided if more body armor was employed.
How hard would it be for the troops to remove body armor as they leave their vehicles to engage in combat or searches on the ground, assuming that it was REALLY that restrictive, that is?
Facts is facts, bobblehead.
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 02:54 PM (c+6Oi)
41
"loanitus, I would like to see where you came to the conclusion that Iranians would welcome us. Sorry to tell you this, I think this is absolutely incorrect and would lead to tens of thousands of US casualties if we invaded. Iran is not Iraq, 75% ot the Iraqis wanted liberation, it would be more like 10% to 20% in Iran."
If you are addressing LEONIDAS, he was being sarcastic. I didn't see that at first either, so I guess I'm a "bobblehead" too.
If you are addressing LEONIDAS, he was being sarcastic. I didn't see that at first either, so I guess I'm a "bobblehead" too.
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 02:56 PM (c+6Oi)
42
Craig mentioned the overthrow of the Iranian president but fails to mention this:
Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh
"Mossadegh became aware of the plots against him and grew increasingly wary of conspirators acting within his government. He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. Some purport that the vote was rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side. Allegations that Mossadegh was resorting to dictatorial tactics to stay in power were in turn cited by US- and British-supported opposition press as a reason to remove Mossadegh from power. Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mossadegh's emergency powers were extended.
Inside Iran, Mossadegh's popularity was eroding as promised reforms failed to materialize and the economy continued to suffer due to heavy British sanctions. The Tudeh Party abandoned its alliance with Mossadegh, as did the conservative clerical factions.
To remain in power Mossadegh knew he would have to continue consolidating his power. Since Iran's monarch was the only person who constitutionally outranked him, he perceived Iran's 33-year-old king to be his biggest threat. In August of 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused, and formally dismissed the Prime Minister, in accordance with the foreign intelligence plan. Mossadegh refused to quit, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure foreseen by the British/American plan, flew to Baghdad and on from there to Rome, Italy.
Commentators assumed it was only a matter of time before Mossadegh declared Iran a republic and made himself president. This would have made him the head of state, something Mossadegh had promised he would never do.
Once again, massive protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. Funded with money from the U.S. CIA and the British MI6, the pro-monarchy forces quickly gained the upper hand. The military intervened as the pro-Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and bombarded the prime minister's official residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953.
One of the leaders of the coup, General Fazlollah Zahedi, was proclaimed Prime Minister. The Shah himself, after a brief exile in Italy, was rushed back to Iran and returned to the throne. His attempted overthrow and subsequent restoration to power had all occurred within a week."
Oh, so the elected President of Iran got 99.9% of the vote. Sounds just like Saddam's election. Yup, we sure screwed over the Iranians there. (nevermind there own army and king forced him to resign, it was all about the US screwing the poor dictator who disolved the parliment)...way to go Craig....clap....clap....clap
Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh
"Mossadegh became aware of the plots against him and grew increasingly wary of conspirators acting within his government. He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. Some purport that the vote was rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side. Allegations that Mossadegh was resorting to dictatorial tactics to stay in power were in turn cited by US- and British-supported opposition press as a reason to remove Mossadegh from power. Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mossadegh's emergency powers were extended.
Inside Iran, Mossadegh's popularity was eroding as promised reforms failed to materialize and the economy continued to suffer due to heavy British sanctions. The Tudeh Party abandoned its alliance with Mossadegh, as did the conservative clerical factions.
To remain in power Mossadegh knew he would have to continue consolidating his power. Since Iran's monarch was the only person who constitutionally outranked him, he perceived Iran's 33-year-old king to be his biggest threat. In August of 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused, and formally dismissed the Prime Minister, in accordance with the foreign intelligence plan. Mossadegh refused to quit, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure foreseen by the British/American plan, flew to Baghdad and on from there to Rome, Italy.
Commentators assumed it was only a matter of time before Mossadegh declared Iran a republic and made himself president. This would have made him the head of state, something Mossadegh had promised he would never do.
Once again, massive protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. Funded with money from the U.S. CIA and the British MI6, the pro-monarchy forces quickly gained the upper hand. The military intervened as the pro-Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and bombarded the prime minister's official residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953.
One of the leaders of the coup, General Fazlollah Zahedi, was proclaimed Prime Minister. The Shah himself, after a brief exile in Italy, was rushed back to Iran and returned to the throne. His attempted overthrow and subsequent restoration to power had all occurred within a week."
Oh, so the elected President of Iran got 99.9% of the vote. Sounds just like Saddam's election. Yup, we sure screwed over the Iranians there. (nevermind there own army and king forced him to resign, it was all about the US screwing the poor dictator who disolved the parliment)...way to go Craig....clap....clap....clap
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:59 PM (CdK5b)
43
Look, let's stop all the crazy talk about bombing and invasion. We need to take a page from the "Reagan-North Playbook." Our alternative solution?
1. Begin trafficking arms to the Iranians as a bribe to stop sending IEDs into Iraq.
2. With the money we'll get, we put Pat Robertson's plan into action and fund a right wing group in Venezuela to oust Hugo Chavez - that is, between dodging the storms that God is hurling our way for tolerating gay marraige and abortion.
Simple and effective, with only the minor illegality that the Bush administration has proven rather adept at nullifying.
1. Begin trafficking arms to the Iranians as a bribe to stop sending IEDs into Iraq.
2. With the money we'll get, we put Pat Robertson's plan into action and fund a right wing group in Venezuela to oust Hugo Chavez - that is, between dodging the storms that God is hurling our way for tolerating gay marraige and abortion.
Simple and effective, with only the minor illegality that the Bush administration has proven rather adept at nullifying.
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 03:30 PM (c+6Oi)
44
Ray Robinson, you fail to attribute the source of your post - Wikipedia - and to quote relevant facts.
As one of the reference links on the page you quote from explains the history of the 'king':
It shows that in decades before 1953, the British had set up a company to control Iran's oil, over which Iran had no say, not even to see the books, and a company which sent more money to Britain than to the government of Iran. It was the old system of colonialism/theft.
"To guarantee themselves such control over Iran the British had installed their own man in power in a coup in 1921. This man’s name was originally Reza Khan, but he later had himself crowned monarch and became Reza Shah... He was the father of Mohammed Reza Shah, the man whom the CIA later installed in power in 1953 when the democratic and progressive government of Mohammed Mossadeq, an Iranian patriot, tried to stop the plunder of Iran...
The man whom the 1953 CIA coup installed in power after deposing the popular and democratic Mohammed Mossadeq was the shah (king) Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. This man was a brutal thug. To keep himself in power, he made use of “SAVAK, the secret police force” which the CIA had created for him, and which was “the largest force of its kind outside the Communist bloc.” This iron-fisted dictator resorted to “torture...of political prisoners... and military courts,” the better to quash all opposition and ensure a steady flow of Iranian wealth to the United States."
(The post would not allow the URL to be posted, it's the first external link on the Wiki page).
Now let's look at your selective quoting of the article; the text immediately preceding yours:
"The government of Britain had grown increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's reforms and were especially bitter over the loss of their control on the Iranian oil industry. Despite Mossadegh's repeated attempts to negotiate a reasonable settlement with them they refused outright the same terms, and later total control over Iranian oil.
Unable to resolve the issue singlehandedly due to its post second world war problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high cold war fears.
Acting on the fears created by Britain the United States and Britain began to publicly denounce Mossadegh's policies for Iran as harmful to the country...
The [CIA] plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier. But the Shah was uncooperative, and it would take much persuasion and many meetings to successfully execute the plan. Meanwhile, the CIA stepped up its operations. According to Dr. Donald N. Wilber, who was involved in the plot to remove Mossadegh from power, in early August, Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists and nationalists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," thereby giving the impression that Mossadegh was cracking down on dissent, and stirring anti-Mossadegh sentiments within the religious community."
That's the plot it refers to: Mossadegh 'cracking down' in part fabrication by the CIA and in part response to the real plot to overthrow him from elected office, to put back in power puppets who would export Iran's assets to Britain and the US.
As the article notes, the coutnry had a feudel land system terrible for the people, and Mossadegh was taking steps to improve that, and to keep the coutnry's assets from being controlled and exported to Britain and the US.
And for good measure, as we now condemn the people who bomb for political causes there:
The NY Times report on Iran included, as part of the overthrow of the elected government:
"Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government."
Anyway, clap clap clap yourself for your support of selfish evil.
And the point isn't whether the guy was ideal - it's that he was a lot more democratically elected than the puppet we put into power, along with his brutal secret police the US created for him, the billions in weapons we sold him.
The US has no business undermining democracy.
As one of the reference links on the page you quote from explains the history of the 'king':
It shows that in decades before 1953, the British had set up a company to control Iran's oil, over which Iran had no say, not even to see the books, and a company which sent more money to Britain than to the government of Iran. It was the old system of colonialism/theft.
"To guarantee themselves such control over Iran the British had installed their own man in power in a coup in 1921. This man’s name was originally Reza Khan, but he later had himself crowned monarch and became Reza Shah... He was the father of Mohammed Reza Shah, the man whom the CIA later installed in power in 1953 when the democratic and progressive government of Mohammed Mossadeq, an Iranian patriot, tried to stop the plunder of Iran...
The man whom the 1953 CIA coup installed in power after deposing the popular and democratic Mohammed Mossadeq was the shah (king) Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. This man was a brutal thug. To keep himself in power, he made use of “SAVAK, the secret police force” which the CIA had created for him, and which was “the largest force of its kind outside the Communist bloc.” This iron-fisted dictator resorted to “torture...of political prisoners... and military courts,” the better to quash all opposition and ensure a steady flow of Iranian wealth to the United States."
(The post would not allow the URL to be posted, it's the first external link on the Wiki page).
Now let's look at your selective quoting of the article; the text immediately preceding yours:
"The government of Britain had grown increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's reforms and were especially bitter over the loss of their control on the Iranian oil industry. Despite Mossadegh's repeated attempts to negotiate a reasonable settlement with them they refused outright the same terms, and later total control over Iranian oil.
Unable to resolve the issue singlehandedly due to its post second world war problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high cold war fears.
Acting on the fears created by Britain the United States and Britain began to publicly denounce Mossadegh's policies for Iran as harmful to the country...
The [CIA] plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier. But the Shah was uncooperative, and it would take much persuasion and many meetings to successfully execute the plan. Meanwhile, the CIA stepped up its operations. According to Dr. Donald N. Wilber, who was involved in the plot to remove Mossadegh from power, in early August, Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists and nationalists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," thereby giving the impression that Mossadegh was cracking down on dissent, and stirring anti-Mossadegh sentiments within the religious community."
That's the plot it refers to: Mossadegh 'cracking down' in part fabrication by the CIA and in part response to the real plot to overthrow him from elected office, to put back in power puppets who would export Iran's assets to Britain and the US.
As the article notes, the coutnry had a feudel land system terrible for the people, and Mossadegh was taking steps to improve that, and to keep the coutnry's assets from being controlled and exported to Britain and the US.
And for good measure, as we now condemn the people who bomb for political causes there:
The NY Times report on Iran included, as part of the overthrow of the elected government:
"Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government."
Anyway, clap clap clap yourself for your support of selfish evil.
And the point isn't whether the guy was ideal - it's that he was a lot more democratically elected than the puppet we put into power, along with his brutal secret police the US created for him, the billions in weapons we sold him.
The US has no business undermining democracy.
Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 04:03 PM (2LCIG)
45
"where do you people get your history, cereal boxes? The soviet union gave fighters to Korea and soviet pilots even flew them in Korea and Vietnam against Americans long before Afghanistan. Afghanistan was our chance to return the favor for USSR acts during the not so cold war which is only called the cold war cause we didn't nuke each other. We were definately in combat with the USSR in many theaters. The only reason it wasn't in the open is because it could have gone nuclear so the war was clandestine. We don't have that problem with Iran and we can kick the crap out of them now. get your facts straight bobblehead."
"bobblehead". That's funny.
There's no disagreement here with any of the facts I presented. Not only have the US, USSR and China long and rich histories of arming the enemies of their enemies, but it goes back to the days of Persian interference in the Peloponnesian Wars and probably further. It's just another political tool, and the US should suck it up, and look for a more subtle form of payback. Unless you're sure you can punch that tarbaby without getting stuck, or making a sticky mess all over the Middle East.
-Bobblehead
"bobblehead". That's funny.
There's no disagreement here with any of the facts I presented. Not only have the US, USSR and China long and rich histories of arming the enemies of their enemies, but it goes back to the days of Persian interference in the Peloponnesian Wars and probably further. It's just another political tool, and the US should suck it up, and look for a more subtle form of payback. Unless you're sure you can punch that tarbaby without getting stuck, or making a sticky mess all over the Middle East.
-Bobblehead
Posted by: abx at March 07, 2006 04:32 PM (A5ppj)
46
Wow, the Lefties in here are exactly like their elected leaders in Congress. I've read plenty of bitching about Reagan and W and how the US is so evil because it does things that all nations have done historically to defend their own interests but not a single alternative to the very sensible proposal made by most of us to begin firing cruise missiles at Iranian military targets. What would you suggest the US do? What would you have your beloved Hillary do if she were President? Maybe she would help the Iranians finish their nuclear program, just like her husband did for the North Koreans just to show them that we mean well so they will like us? Or start allowing them to acquire our latest military technology and supercomputers as her husband's Administration did. One thing is for sure, if I were an Iranian mullah, I'd start donating to the Hillary '08 campaign NOW!
Let's hear it from the Left: If it is demonstrated that the Iranians have been producing explosive devices of such power that none of our armor can resist it and smuggling those devices into Iraq to cause American casualties, how would you want John Kerry to handle it if he had won (God help us)?
Let's hear it from the Left: If it is demonstrated that the Iranians have been producing explosive devices of such power that none of our armor can resist it and smuggling those devices into Iraq to cause American casualties, how would you want John Kerry to handle it if he had won (God help us)?
Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 05:07 PM (+E47Q)
47
Clarification: Bill Clinton allowed the CHINESE to acquire our latest military technology in exchange for campaign contributions.
Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 05:10 PM (+E47Q)
48
john,
would you mind quoting your sources on armor? I've read lots of reports, but I've never seen anything like that. Unless of course you are talking about the study that showed that of the service people who died, there might have been armor problems. Of course that study wasn't quite up to proving the facts about body armor one way or another because it failed to find out how many people had been saved by the same body armor. At any rate, rather than just spew number, post your sources. Anybody can make stuff up....
would you mind quoting your sources on armor? I've read lots of reports, but I've never seen anything like that. Unless of course you are talking about the study that showed that of the service people who died, there might have been armor problems. Of course that study wasn't quite up to proving the facts about body armor one way or another because it failed to find out how many people had been saved by the same body armor. At any rate, rather than just spew number, post your sources. Anybody can make stuff up....
Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 05:28 PM (ybfXM)
49
craig said
"And the point isn't whether the guy was ideal - it's that he was a lot more democratically elected than the puppet we put into power, along with his brutal secret police the US created for him, the billions in weapons we sold him."
your key points then:
Mohammed Mossadeq was democraticly elected.
Does it sound reasonable that 99.9% of the Iranians voted for him? Are you really going to hang your hat on that argument, that he was democratically elected? You are so far and that is why you are a bobblehead.
The CIA overthrew him.
The CIA certainly played a hand, but it was the Iranian military that bombed his headquarters until he surrendered. Was that CIA agents in those tanks? You going to hang your hat on that one?
We replaced him with a puppet.
The Shaw, who replaced him, was already senior to the President according to Iranian law. Therefor he had the legal authority to demand Mossadeq resign. We didn't replace the President, Iranian law did.
Mossadeq dissolved the Iranian Parliment which is about as far away as you can get from democracy. Yet you still want to say we overthew a democraticly elected prsident and replace him with a puppet. You are a bobblehead.
"And the point isn't whether the guy was ideal - it's that he was a lot more democratically elected than the puppet we put into power, along with his brutal secret police the US created for him, the billions in weapons we sold him."
your key points then:
Mohammed Mossadeq was democraticly elected.
Does it sound reasonable that 99.9% of the Iranians voted for him? Are you really going to hang your hat on that argument, that he was democratically elected? You are so far and that is why you are a bobblehead.
The CIA overthrew him.
The CIA certainly played a hand, but it was the Iranian military that bombed his headquarters until he surrendered. Was that CIA agents in those tanks? You going to hang your hat on that one?
We replaced him with a puppet.
The Shaw, who replaced him, was already senior to the President according to Iranian law. Therefor he had the legal authority to demand Mossadeq resign. We didn't replace the President, Iranian law did.
Mossadeq dissolved the Iranian Parliment which is about as far away as you can get from democracy. Yet you still want to say we overthew a democraticly elected prsident and replace him with a puppet. You are a bobblehead.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 05:38 PM (CdK5b)
50
That's greay, Ray. But we're talking about IED's here, aren't we? These generally kill troops as they are driving or being transported on a vehicle. It has been shown that up to 80% of this type of casualty would be avoided if more body armor was employed.
How hard would it be for the troops to remove body armor as they leave their vehicles to engage in combat or searches on the ground, assuming that it was REALLY that restrictive, that is?
Facts is facts, bobblehead.
First off, your comment shows you have no understanding of the use of body armor in a tactical situation. Let me help you.
If an IED can penetrate the vehicle armor, there is near zero chance body armor will protect you. When a vehicle is ambushed, in a react to contact scenario, you don't have time to fiddle with armor, you get out of the vehicle and seek cover and try to locate a target. When you are in 100 degree weather inside an armored vehicle, it is hell with the body armor they wear now.
That 80% you quote is from a medical study, not a trade off study. It simply showed that it is possible to reduce casualties with more body armor, not how that will affect the soldier in any other way. The soldiers themselves are saying no more armor, are you going to argue with them? You need me to post a link? I can find it...bobblehead
BTW, the reason I like the confederate yankee is because most of the regulars are vets like me, so you can take your lectures on anything about the military and shove them in your pie hole
How hard would it be for the troops to remove body armor as they leave their vehicles to engage in combat or searches on the ground, assuming that it was REALLY that restrictive, that is?
Facts is facts, bobblehead.
First off, your comment shows you have no understanding of the use of body armor in a tactical situation. Let me help you.
If an IED can penetrate the vehicle armor, there is near zero chance body armor will protect you. When a vehicle is ambushed, in a react to contact scenario, you don't have time to fiddle with armor, you get out of the vehicle and seek cover and try to locate a target. When you are in 100 degree weather inside an armored vehicle, it is hell with the body armor they wear now.
That 80% you quote is from a medical study, not a trade off study. It simply showed that it is possible to reduce casualties with more body armor, not how that will affect the soldier in any other way. The soldiers themselves are saying no more armor, are you going to argue with them? You need me to post a link? I can find it...bobblehead
BTW, the reason I like the confederate yankee is because most of the regulars are vets like me, so you can take your lectures on anything about the military and shove them in your pie hole
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 05:48 PM (CdK5b)
51
Ray Robinson:
You're misrepresenting the situation.
When I mention that Mossadeq was an elected leader, you fail to note the fact that he was, and you instead mention the activities he did *after* the US and Britain began the campaign to overthrow him. His actions were *in response* to that campaign.
Again and again this happens; when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar in Russia, soon after you had foreign 'interests' sending troops to attack them, including the United States. The new government had to take steps to defend itself; gee whiz, now you can point at the terrible police state.
Castro overthrows Batista, the US is in there doing terrorism and trying to assassinate him.
A left president, Allende, is elected in Chile, Nixon orders him overthrown (democracy gone).
The Sandinistas put democracy into Nicaragua to replace the brutal Somozas; the US hires a terrorist army to blackmail the people to vote them out of power.
Chavez wins in Venezuela and makes changes to relieve some of the overwhelming contentration of wealth (largely in the hands of a few hundred families), and the US takes all kinds of steps to try to remove him from power, including supporting a coup.
Many of these people have their own flaws, but again, it's not up to the United States to undermine democracy, and to cause problems to be worse.
If you had a foreign power strong enough to overthrow our president doing so, do you think for a moment that our president would not move towards a 'police state' to crack down on the threat to his power from abroad?
As for the absurd argument that the US is simply doing things that have been done by others, as if that's any defense, I'll point out that that logic would support, say, ending demoracy in the US. After all, all through mankind nations have not had democracy, so there's nothing wrong with it?
Let's bring back slavery - it's been used by nations forever, so that makes it ok.
Just because something has been done does not mean it's ok to do the wrong again.
Those of us who believe in a truly great America have a problem with the bastards who would let our country be as evil as it likes as long as they can say "at least Hitler was worse". We're for the real principles of the United States, and expanding its good to the world as possible.
The world leadership build over decades of democratic rule from FDR to Kennedy are being squandered by the right (and yes, I excluded LBJ from the 'good' side for his mistake in Viet Nam).
The left does not want a weak America - they want a strong America and realize that the only way to get that that makes any sense morally and usually practically is by being a good nation, not an aggressive empire which rationalizes evil.
The right is too often too ignorant to know any more than 'make weapons, use weapons'.
The right has the US in huge decline, with only our military might left - and that greatly weakened because of the world losing its desire to ally with the US, and increasing the threats to the US.
You're misrepresenting the situation.
When I mention that Mossadeq was an elected leader, you fail to note the fact that he was, and you instead mention the activities he did *after* the US and Britain began the campaign to overthrow him. His actions were *in response* to that campaign.
Again and again this happens; when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar in Russia, soon after you had foreign 'interests' sending troops to attack them, including the United States. The new government had to take steps to defend itself; gee whiz, now you can point at the terrible police state.
Castro overthrows Batista, the US is in there doing terrorism and trying to assassinate him.
A left president, Allende, is elected in Chile, Nixon orders him overthrown (democracy gone).
The Sandinistas put democracy into Nicaragua to replace the brutal Somozas; the US hires a terrorist army to blackmail the people to vote them out of power.
Chavez wins in Venezuela and makes changes to relieve some of the overwhelming contentration of wealth (largely in the hands of a few hundred families), and the US takes all kinds of steps to try to remove him from power, including supporting a coup.
Many of these people have their own flaws, but again, it's not up to the United States to undermine democracy, and to cause problems to be worse.
If you had a foreign power strong enough to overthrow our president doing so, do you think for a moment that our president would not move towards a 'police state' to crack down on the threat to his power from abroad?
As for the absurd argument that the US is simply doing things that have been done by others, as if that's any defense, I'll point out that that logic would support, say, ending demoracy in the US. After all, all through mankind nations have not had democracy, so there's nothing wrong with it?
Let's bring back slavery - it's been used by nations forever, so that makes it ok.
Just because something has been done does not mean it's ok to do the wrong again.
Those of us who believe in a truly great America have a problem with the bastards who would let our country be as evil as it likes as long as they can say "at least Hitler was worse". We're for the real principles of the United States, and expanding its good to the world as possible.
The world leadership build over decades of democratic rule from FDR to Kennedy are being squandered by the right (and yes, I excluded LBJ from the 'good' side for his mistake in Viet Nam).
The left does not want a weak America - they want a strong America and realize that the only way to get that that makes any sense morally and usually practically is by being a good nation, not an aggressive empire which rationalizes evil.
The right is too often too ignorant to know any more than 'make weapons, use weapons'.
The right has the US in huge decline, with only our military might left - and that greatly weakened because of the world losing its desire to ally with the US, and increasing the threats to the US.
Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 07:10 PM (VmbVS)
52
craig,
You are good with history. That does not make you an expert on current events. Sorry - just another "conspiracy theorist" talking head. The "Great Decline". Objectives of any government change over time. Strategy is not static - it is dynamic and ever-changing depending on the situation. This is a changing world so strategies - i.e. who we support and who we don't - are going to be modified. Plain and simple fact.
You are good with history. That does not make you an expert on current events. Sorry - just another "conspiracy theorist" talking head. The "Great Decline". Objectives of any government change over time. Strategy is not static - it is dynamic and ever-changing depending on the situation. This is a changing world so strategies - i.e. who we support and who we don't - are going to be modified. Plain and simple fact.
Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 08:03 PM (ybfXM)
53
BTW Craig,
You brought up Hitler - you lose - Godwin's Law. If you are too young to know that law - look it up.
You brought up Hitler - you lose - Godwin's Law. If you are too young to know that law - look it up.
Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 08:05 PM (ybfXM)
54
So does that mean we should be at war with ourseleves due to the fact that american soldiers are dying through the use of US made weapons in both I and A?
I'm no defender of Iraq, but I refuse to allow the fact that US defnse contractors are the greatest source of death ever known on this planet. Remember how Rummy supplied Saddam and the Sunni's with weapons in the 80s, and remeber how those same weapons are now being used against American soldiers now? I do.
He came dancing across the water, George Bush George Bush. What a killer.
I'm no defender of Iraq, but I refuse to allow the fact that US defnse contractors are the greatest source of death ever known on this planet. Remember how Rummy supplied Saddam and the Sunni's with weapons in the 80s, and remeber how those same weapons are now being used against American soldiers now? I do.
He came dancing across the water, George Bush George Bush. What a killer.
Posted by: lazerlou at March 07, 2006 08:44 PM (pBKzg)
55
lazer,
Do you include Hitler, Khmer Rouge, and other nut cases in that category? Pol Pot did not buy weapons from us. And how many did Hitler kill? We supplied those weapons? Or is this just more empty rhetoric?
Do you include Hitler, Khmer Rouge, and other nut cases in that category? Pol Pot did not buy weapons from us. And how many did Hitler kill? We supplied those weapons? Or is this just more empty rhetoric?
Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 10:18 PM (ybfXM)
56
'm no defender of Iraq, but I refuse to allow the fact that US defnse contractors are the greatest source of death ever known on this planet. Remember how Rummy supplied Saddam and the Sunni's with weapons in the 80s, and remeber how those same weapons are now being used against American soldiers now? I do.
Well, you sure have a shitty memory then. Here's our massive number of weapons systems sold to Iraq (exclude the ones delivered in 2004): (See the link because this table doesn't cut and paste well)
USA (31)
Bell-214ST Helicopter 1985 1987-88 (31) Originally part of order for 45 for civilian use but
taken over by Air Force
4 C-130E Hercules Transport aircraft (2004) .. Ex-US; aid; delivery 2005
7 Comp Air-7SL Light aircraft 2004 2004 7 Financed by UAE
30 Hughes-300/TH-55 Light helicopter 1983 1984 (30) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over
by Air Force; Hughes-300C version
30 MD-500MD Defender Light helicopter 1983 1983 (30)
26 MD-530F Light helicopter 1985 1985-86 (26) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over
by Air Force
Yep, those insurgents sure are working us over with all those light helicopters. Oh, wait... And don't you find it strange that every picture and every video shows insurgents carrying AK-47s, RPGs, PKMs, and RPK-74s (which are all Russian made) and no M-16s, M-4s, SRAWs, or SAWs?
Well, you sure have a shitty memory then. Here's our massive number of weapons systems sold to Iraq (exclude the ones delivered in 2004): (See the link because this table doesn't cut and paste well)
USA (31)
Bell-214ST Helicopter 1985 1987-88 (31) Originally part of order for 45 for civilian use but
taken over by Air Force
4 C-130E Hercules Transport aircraft (2004) .. Ex-US; aid; delivery 2005
7 Comp Air-7SL Light aircraft 2004 2004 7 Financed by UAE
30 Hughes-300/TH-55 Light helicopter 1983 1984 (30) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over
by Air Force; Hughes-300C version
30 MD-500MD Defender Light helicopter 1983 1983 (30)
26 MD-530F Light helicopter 1985 1985-86 (26) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over
by Air Force
Yep, those insurgents sure are working us over with all those light helicopters. Oh, wait... And don't you find it strange that every picture and every video shows insurgents carrying AK-47s, RPGs, PKMs, and RPK-74s (which are all Russian made) and no M-16s, M-4s, SRAWs, or SAWs?
Posted by: Jordan at March 07, 2006 10:22 PM (pLJN7)
57
Here more:
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002
Country $MM USD 1990 % Total
USSR 25145 57.26
France 5595 12.74
China 5192 11.82
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56
Poland 1681 3.83
Brazil 724 1.65
Egypt 568 1.29
Romania 524 1.19
Denmark 226 0.51
Libya 200 0.46
USA 200 0.46
South Africa 192 0.44
Austria 190 0.43
Switzerland 151 0.34
Yugoslavia 107 0.24
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19
Italy 84 0.19
UK 79 0.18
Hungary 30 0.07
Spain 29 0.07
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06
Canada 7 0.02
Jordan 2 0.005
Total 43915 100.0
Yes, that's 0.46%
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002
Country $MM USD 1990 % Total
USSR 25145 57.26
France 5595 12.74
China 5192 11.82
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56
Poland 1681 3.83
Brazil 724 1.65
Egypt 568 1.29
Romania 524 1.19
Denmark 226 0.51
Libya 200 0.46
USA 200 0.46
South Africa 192 0.44
Austria 190 0.43
Switzerland 151 0.34
Yugoslavia 107 0.24
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19
Italy 84 0.19
UK 79 0.18
Hungary 30 0.07
Spain 29 0.07
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06
Canada 7 0.02
Jordan 2 0.005
Total 43915 100.0
Yes, that's 0.46%
Posted by: Jordan at March 07, 2006 10:35 PM (pLJN7)
58
Argh! It got all jumbled. See the updated table here.
Posted by: Jordan at March 07, 2006 10:57 PM (xEXsr)
59
Brown people?
"Since ancient times, Persians (Iranians) used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians. In fact, the name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and means "Land of the Aryans." "
"Since ancient times, Persians (Iranians) used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians. In fact, the name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and means "Land of the Aryans." "
Posted by: Leonard at March 07, 2006 11:48 PM (lPJXD)
60
If we're entitled to go to war against Iran because they supplied arms to Iraqi resisters, does this mean that Russia was entitled to attack American targets back when we sent Stinger surface-to-air missiles to the muhajjadin of Afghanistan?
Not that I'm crazy about the mullahs, but we have enough of a war on our hands at the moment. As Abraham Lincoln said during difficulties with Britain during the Civil War, one war at a time. And if the mullahs are wearing out their welcome with Iran's under-30 crowd, the WORST thing in the world we could do is take action against Iran and turn their young folks into sudden patriots. As Napoleon said, don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.
Not that I'm crazy about the mullahs, but we have enough of a war on our hands at the moment. As Abraham Lincoln said during difficulties with Britain during the Civil War, one war at a time. And if the mullahs are wearing out their welcome with Iran's under-30 crowd, the WORST thing in the world we could do is take action against Iran and turn their young folks into sudden patriots. As Napoleon said, don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.
Posted by: Middle Aged Artillery Veteran at March 08, 2006 12:32 PM (z2X7f)
61
Psychopaths? So what. Until NPR and the socialist Democrats say it's wise to as much as breathe a syllable of rhetoric, we should just placate. After all, terrorist states just need to be understood.
The left does not want a weak America - they want a strong America and realize that the only way to get that that makes any sense morally and usually practically is by being a good nation, not an aggressive empire which rationalizes evil.
Assuming you could even categorize evil in this context, and assuming you could similarly categorize morals and a strong America, if the Left wasn't all about weakening America, you wouldn't have to protest as you are. That Emperor has no clothes.
The left does not want a weak America - they want a strong America and realize that the only way to get that that makes any sense morally and usually practically is by being a good nation, not an aggressive empire which rationalizes evil.
Assuming you could even categorize evil in this context, and assuming you could similarly categorize morals and a strong America, if the Left wasn't all about weakening America, you wouldn't have to protest as you are. That Emperor has no clothes.
Posted by: 6Gun at March 08, 2006 05:24 PM (QEBMZ)
62
This has been going on all along. You cant invade another mans home and not expect the neighbors to help... well republicans wouldnt do that but most of America understands that concept.
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:30 PM (FohTw)
63
You cant invade another mans home and not expect the neighbors to help
So your definition of "helping" the Iraqis is blowing up mosques and trying to foment a civil war between them?
So your definition of "helping" the Iraqis is blowing up mosques and trying to foment a civil war between them?
Posted by: Jordan at March 08, 2006 06:23 PM (xEXsr)
64
Thrill: here is one reason to avoid bombing Iran:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40633
They might shoot back at us, or at Israel, with all kinds of ugly stuff.
Here is another: the population of Iran is about 66 million, 70% of whom are under the age of 30, prime fighting age. Which army units did you plan to send to keep them under control?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40633
They might shoot back at us, or at Israel, with all kinds of ugly stuff.
Here is another: the population of Iran is about 66 million, 70% of whom are under the age of 30, prime fighting age. Which army units did you plan to send to keep them under control?
Posted by: masaccio at March 08, 2006 06:41 PM (unNNA)
65
They might shoot back at us, or at Israel, with all kinds of ugly stuff.
Here is another: the population of Iran is about 66 million, 70% of whom are under the age of 30, prime fighting age.
Yeah, this sounds familiar... Where have I heard this? Oh yeah, remember Saddam's uber-elite Republican Guard? And how Baghdad was going to be the next Stalingrad?
Which army units did you plan to send to keep them under control?
Well, considering that only about 10% of our forces are in Iraq right now, that shouldn't be a problem. And there would be no occupation this time. Just a repeat of the thunder run, until the Mullahs crumble just like Saddam did.
Here is another: the population of Iran is about 66 million, 70% of whom are under the age of 30, prime fighting age.
Yeah, this sounds familiar... Where have I heard this? Oh yeah, remember Saddam's uber-elite Republican Guard? And how Baghdad was going to be the next Stalingrad?
Which army units did you plan to send to keep them under control?
Well, considering that only about 10% of our forces are in Iraq right now, that shouldn't be a problem. And there would be no occupation this time. Just a repeat of the thunder run, until the Mullahs crumble just like Saddam did.
Posted by: Jordan at March 08, 2006 06:53 PM (xEXsr)
66
There are plenty of arguments for why we should take action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The thing is, that wasn't the point of CY's post. He essentially said that if we are fighting an enemy, any country supplying that enemy with arms is de facto declaring war on us. This is unbelieveable. With the way international arms are traded, we could find ourselves at war with multiple countries at any given time. Are you seriously suggesting that once we start fighting someone, any country selling them arms has to immediately stop, or we declare war on them? Not pressure them to stop, but declare war? I'm sure you think we rule the world, but that's biting off a little more than we want to try and chew.
And trying to equate opposition to your point with thinking US soldiers deserve to die is childish demagoguery. Obviously, Bush sent them there, so he must think they deserve to die, as well. What foolishness.
And trying to equate opposition to your point with thinking US soldiers deserve to die is childish demagoguery. Obviously, Bush sent them there, so he must think they deserve to die, as well. What foolishness.
Posted by: Chris at March 08, 2006 09:01 PM (80Sf7)
67
And btw Specter
You might want to look up Godwin's Law before you get all smug. Godwin's Law states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." The idea that whoever brings up Nazis automatically loses the argument is not Godwin's Law, despite the many know-it-alls like you who continue to spread that misinformation.
You might want to look up Godwin's Law before you get all smug. Godwin's Law states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." The idea that whoever brings up Nazis automatically loses the argument is not Godwin's Law, despite the many know-it-alls like you who continue to spread that misinformation.
Posted by: Chris at March 08, 2006 09:15 PM (80Sf7)
68
one distinction missed here, The Iranians are not supplying "arms". They are supplying IEDs specifically built to kill US armor. Otherwise they would just be giving them AT weapons and RPGs. That is like slapping a "made in Iran to kill americans in Iraq" sticker on the devices. If you folks don't take that personal, there is something deeply wrong with you.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 08, 2006 11:43 PM (4joLu)
69
"If we're entitled to go to war against Iran because they supplied arms to Iraqi resisters, does this mean that Russia was entitled to attack American targets back when we sent Stinger surface-to-air missiles to the muhajjadin of Afghanistan?"
Yes. They chose not to (in a direct manner.) Is Iran mass producing weapons to kill American soldiers? Are they sending in special forces? In either case, we should respond vigorously and with the most effect to harm this enemy regime with as little damage to those people that are innocent as we can. Reduce the enemy and it's war making capacity to dust wherever it is found.
Yes. They chose not to (in a direct manner.) Is Iran mass producing weapons to kill American soldiers? Are they sending in special forces? In either case, we should respond vigorously and with the most effect to harm this enemy regime with as little damage to those people that are innocent as we can. Reduce the enemy and it's war making capacity to dust wherever it is found.
Posted by: ken anthony at March 09, 2006 04:56 AM (TvVjo)
70
Chris,
How long have you been on the internet? I've been playing with computers for over 35 years and I was one of the first people who debated on usenet when Godwin's Law was formed. Believe it or not it was used to end arguments there - the person who brought up Hitler actually lost the argument. Time honored tradition as opposed to the watered down Wiki explanation of it. I bet you call the WWW the Internet. LOL.
How long have you been on the internet? I've been playing with computers for over 35 years and I was one of the first people who debated on usenet when Godwin's Law was formed. Believe it or not it was used to end arguments there - the person who brought up Hitler actually lost the argument. Time honored tradition as opposed to the watered down Wiki explanation of it. I bet you call the WWW the Internet. LOL.
Posted by: Specter at March 09, 2006 08:59 AM (ybfXM)
71
Folks, I've just about had it with the name-calling. Debate over the substance of someone's comments, but enough profanity.
Chris, your comment was tossed for that reason.
Chris, your comment was tossed for that reason.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 09, 2006 09:39 AM (g5Nba)
72
First off, I want to apoloogize to CY for dropping his URL onto my post to hide my e-mail address.
I had to make this address after my old inbox got mail bombed to hell by people who didn't want to debate me. I really don't like it when people can't stick to the facts and have to resort to childish antics to "win" an argument. It sucked having to wade through a thousand spam e-mails to get the ones I wanted to read and I am not going to do that again.
Now, about the body armor debate. How many people here have ever worn body armor?
*Raises hand and looks around*
With full battle rattle and body armor, you are humping a good load and there is a tradeoff between mobility and armor. When I was wearing my armor, I was a believer in the "move fast enough to get out of the way when the bad guys shoot at you" theory of combat.
I am also a stone's throw away from the main gate of a major military base and the guys I know who have been over there have the same belief. Our vehicles can take the RPGs, land mines and IEDs (to a degree). Foreign made professionally manufactured bombs ARE a reason for us to make a parking lot, and I for one support the paving of that parking lot.
I had to make this address after my old inbox got mail bombed to hell by people who didn't want to debate me. I really don't like it when people can't stick to the facts and have to resort to childish antics to "win" an argument. It sucked having to wade through a thousand spam e-mails to get the ones I wanted to read and I am not going to do that again.
Now, about the body armor debate. How many people here have ever worn body armor?
*Raises hand and looks around*
With full battle rattle and body armor, you are humping a good load and there is a tradeoff between mobility and armor. When I was wearing my armor, I was a believer in the "move fast enough to get out of the way when the bad guys shoot at you" theory of combat.
I am also a stone's throw away from the main gate of a major military base and the guys I know who have been over there have the same belief. Our vehicles can take the RPGs, land mines and IEDs (to a degree). Foreign made professionally manufactured bombs ARE a reason for us to make a parking lot, and I for one support the paving of that parking lot.
Posted by: Jon The Mechanic at March 10, 2006 02:38 PM (8hHaL)
73
Hear Hear
Posted by: Specter at March 10, 2006 03:50 PM (ybfXM)
74
"Foreign made professionally manufactured bombs ARE a reason for us to make a parking lot, and I for one support the paving of that parking lot."
This is the voice of a war criminal. Why do I say that? Because it's a call for killing by someone using self-serving logic that is not applied equally to both sides.
The United States is the #1 arms merchant in the world; some more defensible and other less so.
Does everyone who is targetted by munitions supplied by the United States, from the Palastenians killed by Israelis using American weaponry, to the Saudi people held down by the Saudi regime using American weaponry (most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and had as much or more reason to 'turn the US into a parking lot' as Jon has to use violence against Iran using his own logic), to El Salvadorans or Chileans targetted by US-supported regimes using American weaponry?
If he'll say that they have every moral right to turn us into a parking lot for our supplying weapons to their attackers, then he can use that logic to justify his approval for attacking Iran.
But he won't. And that's why he's a war criminal, initating aggressive war, and then using the response to justify the violence, as if he raped a woman and then justified the father's murder because of the father striking back at him.
It's an illustration of the logic of arrogance and too much power.
Any resistance to the crimes of the powerful 'deserves' a harsh response.
You can see this anywhere in history - including the old south when blacks 'acting up' justified violence against them, including lynching, by a pepope drunk with their own power and unable to see the wrongs they were doing.
Those racists were not really any different than people today - the circumstances were different.
And we need to see the morality - and immorality - of this situation, lest we be a nation of evil.
And no, identifying the evil in other nations - and Iran has more than its share - is no excuse.
This is the voice of a war criminal. Why do I say that? Because it's a call for killing by someone using self-serving logic that is not applied equally to both sides.
The United States is the #1 arms merchant in the world; some more defensible and other less so.
Does everyone who is targetted by munitions supplied by the United States, from the Palastenians killed by Israelis using American weaponry, to the Saudi people held down by the Saudi regime using American weaponry (most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and had as much or more reason to 'turn the US into a parking lot' as Jon has to use violence against Iran using his own logic), to El Salvadorans or Chileans targetted by US-supported regimes using American weaponry?
If he'll say that they have every moral right to turn us into a parking lot for our supplying weapons to their attackers, then he can use that logic to justify his approval for attacking Iran.
But he won't. And that's why he's a war criminal, initating aggressive war, and then using the response to justify the violence, as if he raped a woman and then justified the father's murder because of the father striking back at him.
It's an illustration of the logic of arrogance and too much power.
Any resistance to the crimes of the powerful 'deserves' a harsh response.
You can see this anywhere in history - including the old south when blacks 'acting up' justified violence against them, including lynching, by a pepope drunk with their own power and unable to see the wrongs they were doing.
Those racists were not really any different than people today - the circumstances were different.
And we need to see the morality - and immorality - of this situation, lest we be a nation of evil.
And no, identifying the evil in other nations - and Iran has more than its share - is no excuse.
Posted by: Craig at March 12, 2006 10:45 PM (VmbVS)
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0296 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0171 seconds, 82 records returned.
Page size 77 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.