Brzezinski warns of coming conflict with Iran.
By on Feb 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Brzezinski warns of coming conflict with Iran.
“The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity,” former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said in prepared testimony for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq,” Brzezinski cautioned, “the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. … It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a significant change of direction.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Something needs to be done NOW…if not, there will be missiles raining down on Tehran before the end of the month.
Mark my words.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:06 pmNow is the time to call:
These are the people to contact that are at the front – leading the resolutions against the war. We need action, not symbolism. I just called. They are counting the number of calls for cutting off funding.
Senator Russ Feingold:
Washington, DC _ (202) 224-5323
If anyone would like to voice their patriotic duty, I know I would:) :
Speaker Pelosi:
Washington, D.C. – (202) 225-4965
Senator Carl Levin:
Washington, DC
Phone (202) 224-6221
Senator John Warner:
February 1st, 2007 at 3:06 pm(202) 224-2023
The Bush Death Machine marches on…
February 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pmGood thing Congress will never, ever allow Bush to do this.
Probably the biggest gain in getting Democrats in power in Congress is that Bush won’t be allowed to get away with any funny business with Iran.
If the Rethuglicans were still in power, Iran would be attacked before the year’s end. This House will not vote war, much to the disappointment of AIPAC slave Joe Lieberman.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:14 pmEXCELLENT: on the madness of provoking Iran.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117030984348531361
February 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm…under NEW leadership…
February 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pmComment by All-American Hero — February 1, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
AAH,
Don’t be so sure. He will likely declare that all Congressional oversight is “advisory” and is superseded by his authority as Comander-in-Chief.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pmRobert Parry’s piece on truthout is equally disturbing… “Iran Clock is Ticking”
While it is encouraging that people are actually beginning to recognize this situation, I cannot help but worry.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pmI have called my senators plus those above today. If you haven’t called, call now and demand that funding for Iraq be cut off as well as the passing of a resolution demanding that the Congress must vote before any attack on Iran.
These calls are something concrete and constructive you can do today.
Senator Russ Feingold:
Washington, DC _ (202) 224-5323
Speaker Pelosi:
Washington, D.C. – (202) 225-4965
Senator Carl Levin:
Washington, DC
Phone (202) 224-6221
Senator John Warner:
February 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pm(202) 224-2023
All-American Hero sez:
You’re kidding, right?
All it takes for Congress to cave in and do exactly what the neocons want is a suitable sacrificial lamb…and we’ve got quite a few deployed in the Gulf right now.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pmI think folks are jumping the gun as usual. Don’t worry, your beloved Iranian President is probably safe. Thanks to the hateful left, we can’t go to war with Iran. At least I can say I told you so when we get nuked.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:25 pm#12 – wanna bet? Democrats are true cowards. They will NEVER stand up to Bush on the war. They’ll kick and scream and aid the enemy, but they won’t end the war.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:28 pmWe will not have a new direction with Bush still in the White House. Until a sufficient number of Americans – particularly in the congress – accept that Bush will take us further down a road of no return with dire consequences for us and the world, not much will change. Bush must be removed from office.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:29 pmIf you believe Bush, that his headlong approach toward further disaster is done through a sense of protection of the nation, of if, like most Americans, you believe it it to be because it is a messianic, egocentric stubborn course of action, in either case, Bush has to go.
Its coming.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:31 pm“Incursions” into Iran, raids in Irbil (read: provocation)… one GI gets killed and its Gulf of Tonkin all over again. Or Remember The Maine or WMD…
The little dork got slapped in the mid-terms so he’s taking his bombs and starting a new game.
This one won’t be a cakewalk.
At least I can say I told you so when we get nuked.
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 1, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
You think dead people can converse?
LOL!
February 1st, 2007 at 3:32 pmZbigi pulls no punches with that one!!! How absolutely crystal clear he makes it that Congress needs to stop this administration and stop it now before all hell breaks loose.
I’m glad that people like Zbigi are finally speaking out and spelling it out for these waffling congressmen and women exactly what a disaster Bush has created…but will they act??? Do they have the nerve to stop taking safe positions (non-binding resolutions) and do what is necessary?? Unless they start seriously talking impeachment, Bush and Cheney will continue to ignore anything Congress does.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:32 pmAll American citizens should be asking themselves “Do I really want to be led into World War III by George W. Bush? Do we need to do this and can he and his team prevail?”
February 1st, 2007 at 3:32 pmAt least I can say I told you so when we get nuked.
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists
Geez, you Neocon weirdos really can’t stop thinking about “doomsday“, can you?
Your positive attitude REALLY creeps me out, like a brainwashed member of a suicide cult.
And don’t forget all the oil we get access too (see Exxon thread).
February 1st, 2007 at 3:34 pmThey’ll kick and scream and aid the enemy
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — February 1, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Donald Rumsfeld was a Republican when he shook hands with Saddam. This occured while working for Republican George Bush I.
Reagan, another Republican, funded the contras through Republican Oliver North.
Shall we keep going, or you get the point?
February 1st, 2007 at 3:34 pm“the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. … It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a significant change of direction.â€
Says the man who, as National Security Adviser, helped preside over the Iranian hostage crisis and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East….
I’m not saying there doesn’t need to be a change of direction and policy in Iraq. But it is hard to take seriously advice from a man whose failures in office back in the 1970s helped bring about the current world situation.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pmIf you want to read something to give you some hope:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/1/151831/4719
February 1st, 2007 at 3:39 pmSays the man who, as National Security Adviser, helped preside over the Iranian hostage crisis and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East….
Comment by Exley
The hostage crisis was not the beginning of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the ME. The CIA operation that led to the overthrow of the Iraninan government would be a closer “cause” for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran. As for the ME, I would include the formation of Israel and the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets as of causes.
The hostage crisis was just an effect.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:43 pmIf you want to read something to give you some hope:
http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2007/ 2/ 1/ 151831/ 4719
Comment by s — February 1, 2007
—–
Hope? I guess if you’re stupid enough to think that Democrats are any better that Republicans. LOL!
Any candidate, that has any hope of getting into office, in this day and age, needs the support of AIPAC for their campaigns. Democrat, or Republican. The system is broken and there is no fixing it.
The US is headed on a disastrous course, and unfortunately, there is no stopping it. The country will have to collapse, like the former Soviet Union, before we can fix it.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:49 pmIran won’t do sh!t with a nuclear bomb other than assure their own complete annihilation.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pmNow is the time to call:
These are the people to contact that are at the front – leading the resolutions against the war. We need action, not symbolism. I just called. They are counting the number of calls for cutting off funding.
Senator Russ Feingold:
Washington, DC _ (202) 224-5323
If anyone would like to voice their patriotic duty, I know I would:) :
Speaker Pelosi:
Washington, D.C. – (202) 225-4965
Senator Carl Levin:
Washington, DC
Phone (202) 224-6221
Senator John Warner:
February 1st, 2007 at 3:52 pm(202) 224-2023
#22,
Idealistically, you are correct. However, consider this:
- Bush already has broad “war powers” granted him by a republican led congress that allows him to attack anybody that he can tie to either 9/11 or the war on terror (tactic, emotion – ie; piece of cake to do – eg; Iraq)
- The war machine is already there. Carrier groups in the Gulf, troops in Afghanistan, troops in Iraq (gee, why a build-up when everybody wants withdrawal?)
- So far the most that the new democratic “leadership” of congress has been able to even get into the works is a potential non-binding resolution. In other words, it’s like holding up a sign that says “we prefer you stay†as you open the door for someone and then hail and pay for their cab. And their plane flight. And their vacation. Etc…
If congress wanted to reign in Bush, it can be done simply by revoking the “special” powers that they, congress, granted the president in the wake of 9/11 and prior to the Iraq crusade. This is both achievable and would work easily and effectively. Makes me wonder why nobody even discusses it.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:54 pmBush plans on attacking Iran within the next couple of months, so the chance to stop him is now, and not after he has launched the attack!
February 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pmScott Ritter: How to Stop this War
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/ritter
February 1st, 2007 at 4:01 pm#22 dlet….You are correct. The hostage crisis was an effect of the rise of Isalmic fundamentalism. I did not mean to sound like I was saying otherwise. That’s why I put an “and” between hostage crisis and the rise of fundamentalism. It would have been clearer to reverse the order. My mistake.
As I wrote yesterday, I agree the U.S. aquiesence to the British-staged coup in Iran in 1953 was a huge mistake. But that does not absolve the Carter administration of their grevious errors in not responding more forcefully to the taking of U.S. hostages in 1979. That was the first confrontation between the United States and radical Islamic fundamentalism and the U.S. lost and showed no resolve and willingnress to defend itself. Carter’s (and Brzezinski’s) lack of action (aside from his disastrous rescue attempt) helped convince the Iranians and other Islamic fundamentalists that they could attack the U.S. with impunity. This lack of willingness to respond or offer more than token responses to Islamist terrorist attacks continued into the Reagan administration (attack onour Marines in Beirut) and Clinton administrations (USS Cole, Khobar Towers, first WTC attack).
February 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pmSays the man who, as National Security Adviser, helped preside over the Iranian hostage crisis and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East….
I’m not saying there doesn’t need to be a change of direction and policy in Iraq. But it is hard to take seriously advice from a man whose failures in office back in the 1970s helped bring about the current world situation.
Zbigi is a very smart man. He was the one that formulated the plan to support the Afghan insurgents to trap and defeat the USSR. It is no wonder the Russian’s still to this day go out of their way to smear him. He is most despised by the Russians because his strategy was so successful.
That Bin Laden later morphed into America’s enemy is not his fault. Not directly anyway. The larger American foreign policy in the Middle East of unconditional support for Israel and military bases in Saudi Arabia drove that.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:15 pm#29,
I see you need some help with world history, I will assist.
- Revolutionary Iranians took American embassy staff hostage in response, according to the revolutionaries, to the US’s support of the oppressive (and largely foreign) regime in Iran (anyone remember the Shah…anyone?), and demanded that the support end.
- Carter did not successfully negotiate a release and even attempted, unsuccessfully, a rescue.
- Reagan administration negotiated a release by providing weapons (and funding) to the revolutionaries, aka Iran/Contra.
- Hostages released. Well armed and supported revolutionaries take over country. Shah runs from Iran and seeks asylum in US (I believe Dallas).
So, as this current “crisis” is caused by the revolutionaries who came to power thanks to Reagan, by your own logic Reagan is to blame.
Of course, all of this is moot because none of it has to do with the real reason Bush and the neocons want to attack Iran anyway. But your historical review was so flawed that I figured you needed some assistance.
Glad to help.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm#30 Bo,
Actually, you are right…Zbig was a hawk and staunch anti-communist in the very dovish Carter administration. His 1986 book “Game Plan: How to Conduct the U.S.-Soviet Contest” was actually pretty good…
I was a little hard on him. The Carter administration did screw up in Iran…But that wasn’t Brzezinski’s doing.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:23 pmTHE TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ
The human community must wake up. The sufferings of the Iraqi people are tragic and criminal. Whole cities are under siege: Fallujah, Sammara, Kirkuk, Haditha, Hit, Ramadi. Latifiyah, Tarmiyah, Baaquba, Moqdadiyah, Buhruz, Madaen, Abualkhasib, Al-Zubeir, Fahamma, Tel Afar, Husaiba …
The attacks aim to stop the spreading resistance to occupation. Now the resistance is everywhere: in the north, middle and the south. It encompasses all the Iraqi populations: Arabs, Shias, Sunnis, Turkomen, seculars, Kurds, Assyrians and other Christians, and Sabbits and Yaziids.
The occupation has no future in Iraq. Though defeated, the occupation refuses to accept its defeat until it has tried all. It seems the US administration thinks a civil war will save its reputation and plans.
So Lets attack Iran …… Spins the Blame for Bushes failure as a HUMAN BEING
February 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pmTuber,
Your chronology is quite confused and your facts inaccurate. The Shah left Iran in January, 1979. The Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to Iran in Feb. 1979. The American hostages were taken in November 1979 after the Shah, who had been living in exile since Jan. checked into a New York (not Dallas) hospital in October 1979.
The deal to release the hostages was made by the Carter administration. The plane did not leave Iran until after noon EST on Jan. 20, 1981 in order to deny Carter the privilege of being president when the hostages were released (Reagan had been sworn in at noon).
February 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pmAs I wrote yesterday, I agree the U.S. aquiesence to the British-staged coup in Iran in 1953 was a huge mistake.
– Exley
The coup and installation of the Shah was a US CIA black bag job through and through. The US was behind it, not just aquiesence to it.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pmJust like the US was the force behind the coup that put Pinochet in power.
Wayne,
You are mistaken on both counts. The 1953 coup in Iran was a British conceived operation. The U.S. initially turned down the British request for assistance, but later relented and participated in the the operation.
As for Chile, the CIA did not have a role in the 1973 downfall of Allende. That was an indigenous revolution against a nascent communist dictatorship. The U.S. was doubtless happy to see Allende’s communist government fall, but the U.S. played no role in the revolution that overthrew Allende.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pmBring them Iranian heathens on. We got a war President at the helm. Why so worried?
No worries here.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pmComment by Exley
Care to share the associated links?
Cause, I got one.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:55 pmThis guy is BRILLIANT!
February 1st, 2007 at 4:58 pmAll Bush knows how to do is destroy lives and treasure. Thanks Congress for acting like you will stop him.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pm#31 – Tuber,
February 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pmThe Iran hostages were released the moment Reagan took the oath of office. The Shah fled Iran before the hostage crisis arose. Reagan’s only skin in the action was to do a backdoor negotiation with the Iranis to retain the hostages until he took office. This served to make Carter look weak an him look strong.
Wake-n-bake….
Sure:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/booknotes-All.shtml
February 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pm#34 Exley,
I understand your confusion regarding the chronology, it’s not uncommon. When the Shah came to New York it was under the pretenses of getting medical treatment, but everyone knew that he was fleeing the region to save his neck. However, he was still recognized (as was his “administrationâ€) by the world political body as the leader of Iran. Once the revolutionaries took over he had to seek asylum here, which we gave him, and I believe that he then set up residence in Dallas, but who knows for sure.
And Carter did not negotiate the release of the hostages. But you are correct in that nor did Reagan. However, it was Reagan’s co-conspirators (and those who are the neocon heroes of today) that did negotiate the release of the hostages and the arms/drug deal that was at the core of it. Are you arguing that fact from a desire to change established history, or are you just ignorant to it? Have you heard of Iran/Contra? Do you know what it was? I can assist you with any of these questions.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pmTuber, When you discuss Iran / Contra and hostages, you are confused.
The hostages that were released as a result of the Iran/Contra operation in the mid-1980s were not the Embassy employees being held hostage in Teheran. They were released in 1981 on Jan. 20.
The hostages released as a result of Iran/Contra were Americans held hostage (at least one was killed) in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a terrorist group believed to be funded and greatly influenced by the Iranian government.
As I said, you are confusing two separate groups of hostages and two separate incidents.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pmduh ex,
Your link proves MY POINT, that the CIA sponsered the coup which returned the Shah to power. Way to argue against yourself.
(from your link:)
Why don’t you bother to READ?????
February 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pm#44,
Ah, I see where our roads fork. You see the Iran Hostage Crisis, Iran/Contra, Iran Revolution, Iran/Shia Islamic movemnt as all being seperate and unrelated events. I do not.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pmExley,
Looks like TP ate my first reply, trying again
on iran
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm
Chili
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/ChileCoup_USHand.html
There are many more
February 1st, 2007 at 5:18 pmExlax distorts again:
Iranian coup – staffed, financed and executed by the CIA, called Operation Ajax, led by Kermit Roosevelt. The British played a minimal role after requesting it. Overthrowing democratic governments proved to be such a hit, Guatemala was done next in 1954.
“Make the economy scream” Richard Nixon to CIA director Helms on the subject of new Chilean president Allende. In 2003 Colin Powell conceded that the US had played a role in the affair.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:20 pmUS must play now!!! its do or die thing…they should get on war with IRAN in the first place…lets finish the job!!!!
February 1st, 2007 at 5:38 pmUS should attacked IRAN in the first place…LETS FINISH THE JOB…kill the main terrorists in the world….nukem NOW!!!!
February 1st, 2007 at 5:42 pmAm I the only one who appreciates the irony of the handle and the content of posts #49 and #50?
February 1st, 2007 at 5:49 pm#45 Wake-n-Bake….
You really need to work on your reading skills. I never denied the CIA was involved in the Iran coup of 1953. In fact, I say above our involvement was a terrible mistake. What I did say — and which has you apparently confused — is that the coup plan was initiated by the British who then sought our aid and assistance which we gave. You might want to read the Harvard article again:
“The rigidly polarized worldview of John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles, both high-ranking figures in the Eisenhower administration, allowed the British to enlist American support for the coup. ”
So, as we see, I was right…again. I realize that you were unaware of the British role in the coup. But now you know. You are welcome.
By the way, here is another link for ya:
Iran, Past and Present: The US-British Coup
In the summer of 1953, the U.S. and British governments toppled the nationalist and popular government of Dr.
Mohammad Mossadegh through a military coup and brought Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi back into power.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/psa/events/2004-05/ipap/coup.utf8.html
February 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pmWrong, T-Cubed….I never said the CIA did not have activities in Chile in the 1970s. What I said, and which is correct, is that the CIA had no role in the 1973 revolution against Allende and his communist rule:
“It would be wrong, however, to blame Chile’s problems solely on
Washington’s harassment. Allende was no democrat. He began building a
Cuban-armed personal militia outside the military structure and
financing left-wing guerillas. He also helped destroy his country’s
economy with a large-scale nationalization of private industries.
Washington played no direct role in planning the military coup in 1973
that toppled Allende and led to his death. By then it had no need to:
Allende’s policies combined with the economic pressures applied by the
U.S. had created a climate that was ripe for an indigenous coup.”
Walter Isaacson
February 1st, 2007 at 6:08 pmTIME Magazine / CNN
#46 Tuber….All right, sir.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:13 pmOur Administrations’ stated reason for going to war with Iran is that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is vehemently anti-US and can support his anti-US views with a military strike against the U.S. and/or Israel, therefore posing a credible threat to that needs to be dealt with. The Administration concludes that we have to stop the threat by launching our own preemptive military strike. This is a terrible idea supported by flawed logic. Yes, Ahmadinejad hates the US. Yes, he is an Islamist. Yes, he opposes Israel’s right to exist. Nonetheless, he currently cannot do anything about it- yet, if we do invade, the political tide will likely turn and Ahmadinejad will then be able to do something about it. He’s all talk- at least for now. Anyone who at least knows anything about Iran’s internal political landscape knows this. I will attempt to explain:
The Iranian President is just a figurehead in Iran with no real authority. As President, Ahmadinejad cannot appoint his cabinet, he cannot appoint military or judicial leaders and most importantly, he is not even the Commander-in-Chief of Iran’s military (that constitutional authority lies with Iran’s Supreme Leader). Iranian President Ahmadinejad is increasingly under criticism from the Iranian Majlis, Iran’s parliament. Ahmadinejad is steadily becoming marginalized by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, who is in turn supervised by the Iranian Mujtahids (council of 86 Islamic legal experts), who are also critical of Ahmadinejad. Growing numbers of the rest of the Marjas (Grand Ayatollahs) of Iran are marginalizing Ahmadinejad. Parviz Davoodi, First Vice President to Ahmadinejad, also strongly disagrees with Ahmadinejad on some very big issues (there are 10 Vice Presidents in total). More and more Iranian citizens are becoming disenchanted with Ahmadinejad. Ali Larijani, the chairman of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), is progressively alienated by Ahmadinejad and shares Khamnei’s reservations of Ahmadinejad’s policies, especially his confrontational anti-US rhetoric on foreign policy (mind you that criticism of Ahmadinejad ranges from democratic reformers and dissidents within the majority of Iranian civil society to theocratic traditionalists among Iran’s clerics). This mounting criticism will probably dissipate if the US invades Iran, and the rising resentment towards Ahmadinejad will probably be redirected towards the US and a lengthy retaliation against the US will likely stem from a revitalized, consolidated coalition among Ahmadinejad, the Iranian Majlis, the Majras, the Mujtahids and Iranian civil society. They will likely put aside their differences and unite against any US invasion force, probably solidifying and even intensifying Iranian support for Ahmadinejad’s anti-US rhetoric. If we invade Iran, any hopes Iranian society has for democracy will likely be replaced with hatred and contempt for the US presence there. If we invade Iran, we can say goodbye to any hopes for a stable Iranian democracy for (at least) another decade, which in turn will further destabilize the already imperiled Middle East and upset the chances of peace in the region.
If we invade Iran, we will be hurting its chance at stability and democracy. We will also be giving the Iranians every reason to rally around Ahmadinejad and consolidate his anti-US rhetoric into actual policy. Specifically, we might cause the Supreme Leader to transfer his Commander-In-Chief responsibilities to Ahmadinejad, giving him the reigns of Iran’s military and thereby adding military strength to his anti-U.S and anti-Israel rhetoric. Iran’s military is significantly larger than Iraq’s, more experienced and better equipped for a war. Plus, there’s a real chance that Hizballah might come in to help their sponsors, brining in their extra firepower- in effect reinforcing Iran’s already powerful military. Our military is already stretched thin in the Middle East, currently in Iraq and Afghanistan and our generals and the NeoCons (notably Richard Perle and Francis Fukuyama) are already saying Iraq is a losing battle. In short, we will be making a disastrous mistake if we invade Iran. Considering Iran’s vastly superior military and intelligence capabilities compared to Iraq’s, we will be there longer than we’re spending in Iraq.
Alas, our President recently authorized the use of force against Iranian scientists in Iraq. So in the end, Bush might not have given the American public a choice. This pessimistic view is further cemented by foriegn policy experts who say Bush et al are trying to provoke Iran into a war (notably, Zbigniew Brzezinski holds this view). In effect, he’d be sending more of our men, women and children to die for a plan he should by now know will fail and that he will be recklessly adding more blood to the bloodbath that he helped create.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:18 pmExlax – you are putting words in my mouth – try arguing what is said not the strawman you would like to argue against.
I said you distorted on two counts:
1. the US was THE major player by far in the 1953 coup – not a mere ‘participant’ .
2. I never said you stated the CIA had a role in the revolution, but as you quote in your post – without the CIA and the US actively conducting overt and covert economic warfare against Allende, Pinochet would not have been able to mount his coup. And yet, Kissinger was in quick with Operation Condor right afterwards eh? Ever been to Chile Exlax? Your distortion is of course the impression you try to give that the US had nothing at all to do with the overthrow – when it actively sought to destabilize the country even before Allende took office and create the conditions for the coup.
Nice self-pantsing on post #42 by the way.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:20 pm#55 Comment by Daniel Buk
Very sad but true.
It’s not left wing-babble anymore to speak of Impeachment.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:49 pmExley:
Henry Kissinger remarks about Chile: “we cannot allow a country to go communist because of the irresponsibility of its peopleâ€
Yeah, buddy, US is a real democracy supporter.
February 1st, 2007 at 7:24 pmEver been to Chile Exlax?
February 1st, 2007 at 7:26 pmComment by TerrytheTurtle
No, never. Thats why he knows nothing about what happened there. Read all his sources. He hasnt been in Iraq, havent met a Muslim, havent go to Nicaragua or talk with a Nicaraguan.
I refuse to fight in a war started by people who refused to fight in a war.
February 1st, 2007 at 7:28 pmExley,
Newly declassified U.S. government records put Washington’s role in the Chilean coup in sharper focus than ever before. The papers also shed light on corners of the story that previously had been suspected, but not proven.
The documents describe how an angry Nixon demanded a coup, if necessary, to block the inauguration of Marxist Salvador Allende following his victory in the 1970 Chilean elections.
The documents reveal that an early coup plan — known as “Track II” — continued through the assassination of pro-constitutional Chilean Gen. Rene Schneider, who was gunned down by military plotters on Oct. 22, 1970. The fuller documentary record contradicts the long-standing claim by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that “Track II” was shut down a week before Schneider’s murder.
After Allende’s inauguration, Nixon did not give up. The documents detail what his administration did to make the Chilean economy “scream,” how the CIA spread “black” propaganda, and how Washington finally goaded the Chilean army into the coup of 1973.
The Chilean coup leader, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, held power for the next 17 years, relinquishing control in 1990 only after arranging immunity for himself and his top generals.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/ChileCoup_USHand.html
February 1st, 2007 at 8:03 pmTriple T,
I accept your apology. You were 100% wrong when you tried to claim that Britain played no role in the Iran 1953 coup and your ignorant and incorrect assertion that the CIA overthrew Allende when the fact is — as we now all know — that Allende’s downfall came about as an indigenous revolt by the Chilean people against his communist dictatorship.
Oops! How embarassing for you. Live and learn, Turtle-Boy. Go read yourself some history.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:27 pmExley > President Nixon wanted Allende overthrown in Chile. Pinochet was told by our CIA what to do and when to do it too.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 amIf the war in Iraq is a historical and moral calamity, why is Bush still running the world?!
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 amIf the war in Iraq is a historical and moral calamity, why is Bush still running the world?!
Comment by Jericho #65
…that’s what YOU think…
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 amI am amazed at the comments and by that I don’t mean to criticize. These comments from both sides seem to be well thought out although defensive of one’s cherished belief or political opinion. I believe anyone posting here would do just as well as those in charge now and in the past. And that is just it. It is all the same. We stumble and trip from one disaster to another and never solve problems we just delay them. Look at the world, study history, we are bumbling idiots. Pride of self, nationality, race are blinder that assist in our downward spiral and we are going down. I fear for my children and what life will be like for them. Believe me I don’t even think that I have the answers as all these politicians claim (I know what will work). Has anything that any politician has ever done worked? Watch the first TV debate between Kennedy and Nixion, we are still arguing about the same things. Sure there have been improvements; we don’t lynch black people anymore. But let an incident happen, (O.J. Simpson verdict) I have never heard such racist things from my friend who I would never have thought were racist. It just proved to me that we really haven’t solved that problem. We just muzzled the dogged. It seems that we don’t care about anything in the world, unless it can affect my enjoyment. Politics is just playground antics for adults. We sound like children; we need a sane grown up to come in and save us from ourselves. We just can’t govern ourselves successfully; it is like those drug commercials. They offer to cure us of one ailment and the cure brings on a ton of side effects even death. Believe me I am concerned about our world and the people in, but I don’t have the answers and I really believe no one does. But this is all we have. Believe it does no good for a father who just lost his daughter in a war zone to know what caused it, who started it 50 years ago, who is to blame. One person pulled the trigger or dropped the bomb regardless on anything you post here. One person.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pmGuys – the “Carter admin screwed up Iran” – because they were too hardline not because they were ‘doves’ The hostage crisis occured because we let the Shah into the US for ‘compassionate’ medical reasons. And, our ambassador in Iran WARNED the admin that something like the hostage taking would occur if we let the Shah in.
Prior to that it was our alliance with a dictatorial ruler, the Shah, that caused problems. Anyone remember Carter praising him as a great friend?
Had we paid more attention to human rights before the Shah fell, the history of that region would be very different.
It is totally insane (that is to say, “typical conservative thought process”) to now contend that “Carter’s weakness” caused our problems there or that “Reagan knew how to deal with them.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 pmExley/Tuber,
No, The Shah did not set up residence in Dallas. He eventually, briefly set up residence in Mexico, Panama and eventually Cairo, Egypt.
“He (the Shah) was recognized by the ‘world political body’ as the leader of Iran”, this is apparently in October of 1979, 8 months after the return of Khomeni. No, wrong again. The Shah was roundly determined to be a gonner when he got on his plane in January of 1979. And what do you mean by the ‘world political body’. Please, please please, don’t make up crap.
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pmOperation Ajax, as explained by Kermit Roosevelt in his book, Countercoup, and Stephen Kinzer’s brilliant book, All The Shah’s Men, goes in to this in great details, almost hour by hour and describing the connections of American, British and Iranian players. There’s no doubt that it was an American operation. Whatever your little account from Harvard says is far from reality, “allowed the British to enlist…”. I have read several discredited accounts paid for by the CIA to reduce their exposure. I’m not impressed.
“Neo con mentors” did not negotiate the hostage release. This is a crazy assertion. Unless Warren Christopher, the two French lawyers and the Algerians are being confused as neo cons. Too funny. You have a talent for comedy my friend (not an expression of endearment). And, the negotiators were not involved with Arms/drugs. I advise you to stop watching too much TV.
Meanwhile I agree with Mr. Buk. Sleepwalking in to a conflict with Iran is nothing short of criminal.
Iran, by the way, has the RIGHT to enrich uranium. And Mr. Bush sitting in his comfy chair in Washington cannot speculate on Iran’s “nooculour ambitions”.
And I also agree that the Congress is indeed “broken” due to AIPAC’s influence. Nonetheless apartheid Israel is becoming more of a recognized reality to the American public, it cannot continue indefinitely.
Yogi & Boo Boo convert to Catholicism, the Pope shits in the woods & Zbigniew Brzezinski warns of grand strategy of tension atrocity to pave the way for Iran war.
All it needs now is for Ashteroth, Lord of all Darkness, to lead us in a chorus of `give peace a chance’ & the picture will be complete.
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmOur foreign policy is deeply flawed by our secrecy, greed, belief that we can get away with anything, and lastly, because we believe that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
Our country signed the Charter of the United Nations In S.F. 1946 to uphold, and protect the Human Rights among other clauses. These are the Human Rights;
Food and shelter
Medical help
Education
Job
Life
Free speech
So far all these rights were violated be it here, or abroad.
We do not guarantee anybody food and shelter, we have at any time between 2. 5 and 4 million homeless in the U.S.
Over 50,000,000 Americans are lacking medical insurance.
Education costs here more than in any Westwern democratic country.
We lie about the % of unemployed. We call 4% ‘full’ employment.
The real unemployment is at least two times greater than the ‘official’.
We still have the capital punishment. In our ‘democracy’ we have
yet to execute a single very rich person in more than 250 years of our so called Justice system.
As for the last right, the free speech, let us not forget all the repessive laws passed by the administrations to silence criticism, the Loyalty Oaths, and alike.
I do not expect our leaders to tell the truth, lest their election depended on it. We shall find the truth about the reasons for the war 50 yeras later when it does not matter since all the cuprits will be dead by then.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:24 pm