El Baradei Fights Off Drumbeat For Iran War, Warns Pre-War Iraq Failures Are Being Repeated
El Baradei Fights Off Drumbeat For Iran War, Warns Pre-War Iraq Failures Are Being Repeated
By all accounts, there is an increasing clamor in recent weeks from the right-wing for military action against Iran. U.S. News writes that calls for “stronger actions are intensifying, including among some U.S. officials.” Last week, Fox News reported that German officials were giving up on new sanctions against Iran, helping push the U.S. closer to a decision on a military strike.
Even French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner is now warning the world to prepare for a war against Iran, arguing that an atomic weapon in that country’s hands would represent “a real danger for the whole world.” The leading voice of restraint thus far has been Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.
Today, Baradei chastised Kouchner, saying “I would not talk about any use of force” except as a last resort. Recall, Baradei was one of the largely-ignored voices in the lead-up to the Iraq war. He warned there was “no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq.” He was later smeared by the administration, but ultimately vindicated as the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize for getting it right.
Now, Baradei is sounding the alarms about an impending Iran war based on false intelligence. Here are some statements he has made in recent days that have been largely ignored in the U.S. media:
“I have made it very clear that I don’t see today a clear and present danger in regard to the Iran nuclear programme. [Link]”
“We haven’t received any smoking gun,” ElBaradei said. … ElBaradei said the talk of bombing made him “shudder” because the rhetoric was reminiscent of the period before the Iraq war. [Link]
“Based on the evidence we have, we do not see … a clear and present danger that requires that you go beyond diplomacy.” … [H]e called for an end to the pounding of the “war drums from those who are basically saying ‘the solution is bomb Iran.’” [Link]
To compound matters for Baradei, he is again having to fight off false intelligence reports. The BBC reports that the IAEA is calling a congressional report on Iran’s nuclear activity “erroneous” and “misleading” for asserting Iran was further ahead in its development that it really is. “There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 70,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons,” he said.
If Baradei is able to stave off U.S. attempts to make the sale for war against Iran on nuclear grounds, the administration appears ready to claim that Iran’s cross-border activity in Iraq may justify military action. The Guardian reports, “The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months.”
UPDATE: On Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) sent a letter to President Bush on Iran telling him that the 9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force does not cover any military actions against Iran. Dodd called on Bush to appoint a special envoy to Iran to invigorate US diplomacy.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Russia Set to Ship Nuclear Fuel to Iran
DUBAI: After months of wrangling, Russia is set to ship nuclear fuel to Iran’s Bushehr facility, Iranian official media said.
Iran state television quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying, “Nuclear fuel for this power plant, inspected and sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, is ready.†He added that cooperation between Russia and Iran for the Bushehr power plant is now “moving.â€
http://www.hindu.com/ 2007/ 09/ 17/ stories/ 2007091755991400.htm
September 17th, 2007 at 11:41 amIran’s Ahmadinejad wants Bush debate, ‘global referendum’
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday proposed holding a public debate with his US counterpart George W. Bush at the United Nations this month and a “global referendum” to decide who was right.
Ahmadinejad confirmed in an interview with Iranian television he would be visiting Iran’s arch enemy the United States for the third time to take part in the General Assembly next week.
“I proposed it last year. I will go to New York. Let’s sit down and talk. But not behind closed doors.
“I propose discussing international questions at the UN General Assembly in order to solve them,” he added.
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ afp/ 20070916/ wl_mideast_afp/ iranusdiplomacyun
September 17th, 2007 at 11:44 amUnder any other circumstances, the US could lead a broad-based coalition to work with and, if necessary, force Iran to address the issues involved with its nuclear programs and any arms supplies to Iraq.
However, Bush has so bankrupt the United States’ standing in the world that even in a situation where the World needs leadership, no one looks to the United States anymore.
We’re a superpower with a 9 volt battery for a President.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:50 amIn my opinion Mohammed El Baradei would like to see Iran aquire nuclear weapons and he is willing to use his position to help Iran achieve that goal.
I don’t trust a word he says.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:50 amIt’d sure be a shame if Iran was also really trying to get their nuclear program going to use for energy generation. The US should commend them for this, but I guess you can’t expect too much from the US when they don’t use nuclear enough for energy generation.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:51 amrepublicans are such chickenshits.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:52 amthe administration appears ready to claim that Iran’s cross-border activity in Iraq may justify military action.
and what about SAUDI ARABIA’s cross-border activity in Iraq???
September 17th, 2007 at 11:53 amwhy is this seldom mentioned? …
Iran (or any other nation) will be able to acquire nuclear weapons if it wants to. Iran will probably have them within 5 years. It won’t be as dangerous as bush co. wants us to think though, because Iran knows that they will be destroyed too if they ever launch a nuclear attack. It’s a status symbol for them.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:53 amToby,
Bush won’t enter a fight without the cards in his favor. He would never agree to a debate at the UN with the Iranian President.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:56 amIn my opinion Mohammed El Baradei would like to see Iran aquire nuclear weapons and he is willing to use his position to help Iran achieve that goal.
I don’t trust a word he says.
Comment by Ringo — September 17, 2007 @ 11:50 am
El Baradei has been 100% correct all along, but you don’t trust him? I’m sure he feels the same way about you, but he has good reason. You’re a brainless tool, and he’s a nobel Prize winner.
Wow, you sure are stupid.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:57 amWorse case scenario, Iran obtains nukes, whether they make them, buy from Pakistan, whatever. What next? They can’t use them for the same reason Pakistan cannot use theirs. The US has numerous nukes. So does Israel. So do many other countries. Regardless of whether or not they are trying to obtain nuclear weaponry, that is no reason to bomb them, invade their country, overthrow their government, and spend the next ten years there.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:58 amGlenn Greenwald did a good post on the smearing of ElBaradei. It’s the usual chickenhacks - Hiatt, Ledeen etc - rolling out the same apocalyptic propaganda.
http://www.salon.com/ opinion/ greenwald/ 2007/ 09/ 05/ hiatt_ledeen/ index.html?source=rss&aim=yahoo-salon
September 17th, 2007 at 11:58 amproblem is
America dont want Iran enriching Uranium at all ever, Even to levels of 3% used for nuclear power
Iran stopped Uranium enrichment for 3 years but that was stall tactics
personaly I dont give a shit if Iran does have a bomb in 5 years to protect itself
September 17th, 2007 at 11:59 amBush has never won a debate, even with an earpiece, so it’s a foregone conclusion that his cowardice will keep him away. How did such a coward end up in his position? Simple: affirmative action for rich, white, lazy fools.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:59 amand what about SAUDI ARABIA’s cross-border activity in Iraq???
why is this seldom mentioned? …
Comment by katy — September 17, 2007 @ 11:53 am
#
Good question, must be that liberal media ;>)
On a side note, Iran has been sending government representatives here to try to work this out diplomatically. How many times have we sent representatives from our government there? Are we truly not interested in a diplomatic solution?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:00 pmIts about time America sat down with Iran and started by saying Sorry for the past
September 17th, 2007 at 12:01 pmWhat false premise is Bush cooking up in order to justify bombing Iran?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:01 pmRemember his plan to paint an American plane in U.N. colors, then fly it over Iraq, hoping Saddam would shoot at it, as an excuse to invade Iraq?
Saudi Arabia ‘buys 72 Eurofighters’
September 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pmAre the same reich-wing zealots willing to actually enlist to fight in any war against Iran?
Didn’t think so.
Cowardly chickenhawks all.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:04 pmRingo, why do you think that?
What’s your reasoning?
And Ben, remember a Nobel doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a good guy. I seem to remember some Palestinian murderer winning one a few years back. Sometimes they get it wrong. (I am in NO WAY suggesting they did with Baradei, though. I think he’s right, like most others here.)
September 17th, 2007 at 12:04 pmBush’s trigger finger is itching, he has lost interest in Iraq, too much of bummer for him….he likes new wars, not old ones. ADD presnut.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:05 pmnothing will ever justify an attack on Iran without talking first
what is America hidding by not talking how immature, OH i forget America is immature - 250 years old
September 17th, 2007 at 12:05 pm250 years old - - And finished
September 17th, 2007 at 12:06 pmmore evidence - if women ruled the world:
Austria condemns France’s ‘martial rhetoric’ on Iran
09.17.07, 10:04 AM ET
VIENNA (Thomson Financial) - Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik on Monday condemned comments by her French counterpart Bernard Kouchner that the world should prepare for war over the Iranian nuclear crisis.
[…]
http://www.forbes.com/ markets/ feeds/ afx/ 2007/ 09/ 17/ afx4123927.html
…
France ups ante in war of words with Iran
AFP - 30 minutes ago
PARIS (AFP) - France took the first steps Monday to set up a European sanctions regime against the Islamic government in Tehran, after warning that Iran’s failure to renounce nuclear weapons could lead to war.
Iran scorns French warning of war BBC News
Austria condemns France’s ‘martial rhetoric’ on Iran Forbes
Voice of America - New York Times - The Sunday Times - Ha’aretz
all 208 news articles »
http://news.google.com/ ?ncl=1120875438&hl=en&topic=w
seems the french just may be trying to ditch that “pussy” label
September 17th, 2007 at 12:08 pmunjustly and stupidly applied to them…
.
In my opinion Mohammed El Baradei would like to see Iran aquire nuclear weapons and he is willing to use his position to help Iran achieve that goal.
I don’t trust a word he says.
Comment by Ringo — September 17, 2007 @ 11:50 am
You’re entitled to your opinion, but how about a little substantiation?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:09 pmCould I be so bold as to point out Pakistan already has nukes? I’d be alot more worried in the moment about that than Iran, if I were Bush.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:11 pm#
Could I be so bold as to point out Pakistan already has nukes? I’d be alot more worried in the moment about that than Iran, if I were Bush.
Comment by TheRepublicofStupidity — September 17, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
#
As well as many other former Soviet, predominately Muslim nation-states.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pm#
Could I be so bold as to point out Pakistan already has nukes? I’d be alot more worried in the moment about that than Iran, if I were Bush.
Comment by TheRepublicofStupidity — September 17, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
#
Also, could I be so bold as to point out that Iran has agreed to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which Israel refuses to sign.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:15 pmIran has 300,000 troops and another 125,000 in the Republican Guard. They will not be the same push overs that the Iraqi military was. We could strategically bomb for weeks but would still need boots on the ground (as so well pointed out in the previous clusterf#ck in Iraq).
Just where will these troops come from? We were sold the last conflict on fear alone. I doubt the american public would fall for a second missadventure.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:17 pmKouchner is as bad as our own chickenhawks. Even IF Iran had a nuclear device, they couldn’t use it. If they did, it would trigger retaliation from the United States that would vaporize their whole country. Surely Iran must know that.
Kouchner is either dimwitted or he wants to goad the U.S. into another unwinnable war.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:19 pmWhere are the Dems to counter Bushco’s push to war?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:20 pmIt’s not so much Bush, but the guy with his hand up Bush’s ass (no, not Gannon) Dick Cheney who has a huge hard-on for starting conflict with Iran. He’s been pushing this for some time now. Anyone wonder where he’s been lately? Working behind the scenes like the sneeky c@cksucker he’s been since the Nixon Administration. Stirring up shit and pulling his political muscle. Anyone else wonder where the hell Condi has been? Some foreign relations person she’s been, huh? There was a time when Condi and Cheney strongly disagreed on what to do w/ Iran. Rice preferred diplomacy but Deadeye Dick simply wants to drop more bombs. What a f@ckin statesman!
September 17th, 2007 at 12:20 pmEven French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner is now warning the world to prepare for a war against Iran, arguing that an atomic weapon in that country’s hands would represent “a real danger for the whole world.â€
So please tell me why Iran having an atomic weapon is a danger to the world and our having numerous nuclear weapons (five now sitting at the base that is the staging area for the middle east) is not a danger to the world? Or why is Iran a danger but Israel, Pakistan and India are not a danger to the world. Any country possessing a nuclear weapon is a danger to the world. And I still don’t know how the world can demand that Iran not have a nuclear weapon while all the above mentioned countries do. I personally believe that Israel or the US is more apt to use a nuclear weapon than Iran would be (in the 10 years experts think it will take for them to have a weapon).
Why are Germany and France beating the drums of war. Could it be that they want to get their hands on the middle eastern oil too?
This is becoming a very scary world to live in.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:23 pmKouchner is either dimwitted or he wants to goad the U.S. into another unwinnable war.
Comment by missmolly — September 17, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Right. I don’t really think a country, that can’t run off and hide safely, is going to start a nuclear war. The thing that really, really frightens me is, what happens when one group, not affiliated w/ a country, gets a nuke and decides to bring it to the US?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:23 pmWorse case scenario, Iran obtains nukes…They can’t use them for the same reason Pakistan cannot use theirs. The US has numerous nukes. So does Israel.
Comment by Chris L — September 17, 2007 @ 11:58 am
I don’t think anyone believes Iran would launch a nuclear tipped missile at anyone. However, they have so many proxies - Hizbollah, Hamas, Al-Sadr prominent among them - that it would be possible to use a nuke and not have a clear return address.
Iran is arming Shiite militias in Iraq who in turn are killing our guys. Ditto with the Taliban, a huge arms shipment was just interdicted last week. Their desire to use violence is manifest. And yes, I know we use violence too, this is the tale of history.
Never forget, Iran is ruled by apocalyptic theocrats who really believe the return of the 12th Imam is the ultimate goal of their brand of Islam. Ascribing rational calculations to Khameni and Achmadindajad is risky.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:24 pmComment by NoOneYouKnow — September 17, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
That’s been the question for some time now.
It’s sad when catch words like “victory” push the public without a clear meaning of what “victory” is, or how will we achieve it.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:24 pmAre we truly not interested in a diplomatic solution?
Comment by Chris L
That is a joke, right. Bush has never been nor will he ever be interested in a diplomatic solution to anything.
Take a look at Condi Rice. How many diplomatic successes does she have? Zero at this point in time. Now compare her to Madeline Albright.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:26 pm“all options are on the table”.
Then surely talking to Iran should come first then
September 17th, 2007 at 12:29 pmwhich Israel refuses to sign.
Comment by Chris L — September 17, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Israel’s had its nukes for quite some time. it probably would not have survived w/out them, but I’m belaboring the obvious here.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:30 pmLet’s let France and Germany handle this one. We don’t know much about these things or how to handle them. We’ve proven that!
September 17th, 2007 at 12:30 pmJust where will these troops come from? …
Comment by hellinabucket — September 17, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
i hear there may be some blackwater people looking for “work”…
ugh…
September 17th, 2007 at 12:31 pmTake a look at Condi Rice. How many diplomatic successes does she have? Zero at this point in time. Now compare her to Madeline Albright.
Comment by bilbobaggins — September 17, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Ummm…non UN approved bombing campaign lasting weeks against Serbia, anyone? Which I thought was necessary to stop Serbian genocide against the Muslim Kosovars, but Albright/Clinton didn’t shy away from using force when they thought it necessary.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:32 pmugh…
Comment by katy — September 17, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Naah… they’ll never work for so little money.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:32 pmTake a look at Condi Rice. How many diplomatic successes does she have? Zero at this point in time. Now compare her to Madeline Albright
Dont ask me to take a look at Abright, I like my vision intact.
Anyhoo, I believe Albright kept as a memento the champagne flute she used to toast the North Korean ‘no-nukes’ agreement she brokered with Kim Jong. North Korea has nukes now, doesnt it? Yessir, diplomatic success at its finest.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:34 pmIn my opinion Mohammed El Baradei would like to see Iran aquire nuclear weapons and he is willing to use his position to help Iran achieve that goal.
I don’t trust a word he says.
Comment by Ringo — September 17, 2007 @ 11:50 am
And what information are you basing this opinion on?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:34 pmGood (scary) call katy. I wonder who will fill the void of Blackwater? Anyone have the numbers of Blackwater employees in Iraq?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pmKeltoi — @ 12:24 pm
what do you think about this statement?, to paraphrase your own words:
SAUDI ARABIA is arming SUNNI militias in Iraq who in turn are killing our guys.
just curious…
September 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pmAlso, could I be so bold as to point out that Iran has agreed to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which Israel refuses to sign.
Comment by Chris L — September 17, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Iran signed on to the NPT decades ago and the UN has been in country monitering their program lo these many years. Unlike Pakistan, India and Isreal who have no such inspections or agreements. But oddly, Iran is the only country our current admn seems worried about. Face it, they are just looking for an excuse.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pmArafat won a Nobel too. Yay, Nobel as proof of vindication.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pmComment by bilbobaggins — September 17, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Anyone at TP willing to do a comparison between Algright and Rice?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pmIran is arming Shiite militias in Iraq who in turn are killing our guys. Ditto with the Taliban, a huge arms shipment was just interdicted last week. Their desire to use violence is manifest. And yes, I know we use violence too, this is the tale of history.
Comment by Keltoi
And don’t you forget that our “friends” the Saudis are arming Sunni militias in Iraq and that 13 out of the 14 911 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
Iran is no more of an aggressive nation than Israel is. Actually I would argue that Israel is much more aggressive than Iran.
And yet we are friends with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Why is that? Pick your poison.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:39 pmNever forget, Iran is ruled by apocalyptic theocrats who really believe the return of the 12th Imam is the ultimate goal of their brand of Islam. Ascribing rational calculations to Khameni and Achmadindajad is risky.
Comment by Keltoi — September 17, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
No different from the apocalyptic theocrats running this country who really believe the rapture is coming as soon as Israel controls all of Jerusalem. And we know the words “rational” and “calculations” aren’t even in their vocabulary.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:39 pmBut oddly, Iran is the only country our current admn seems worried about.
Yeah, that is odd. We should have no reason to fear a theocratic regime that murders homosexuals and rape victims, punishes muslim apostates, refers to Israel as an ‘entity’ rather than a nation and elected a president who advocates wiping Israel of the map and believes time stood still during his last visit to the U.N.
No problem, Iran is similar to Canada, have no fear.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:41 pmEl Baradei Fights Off Drumbeat For Iran War, Warns Of Repeat Of Pre-War Iraq Failures
It’s nice to know that there is one sane person in this crazy world of ours. Why Germany, France and the US want to start WWIII is beyond me.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:44 pmIran is no more of an aggressive nation than Israel is. Actually I would argue that Israel is much more aggressive than Iran.
You might be aggressive too if your neighbors spent their time trying to kill you and attempted more than once to invade your home with the intent of slaughtering everyone in the house.
But hey, keep siding with the mullahs, it worked for Carter.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:46 pmelected a president who advocates wiping Israel of the map and believes time stood still during his last visit to the U.N.
No problem, Iran is similar to Canada, have no fear.
Comment by Crunch Rock
As usual, a Republic troll with their talking points. What he did say was:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.
You will note that he was talking about the “regime”, not the country. There is a nuanced difference that is lost on people with no critical thinking skills like most Republic trolls.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:48 pmNaah… they’ll never work for so little money.
Comment by TheRepublicofStupidity — September 17, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
i wouldn’t think so either… why do you think it would be anything other
than mercenary?… that way, there is no “jurisdiction” problems…
just a thought…
September 17th, 2007 at 12:48 pmWhy Germany, France and the US want to start WWIII is beyond me.
Beyond me too, we should just let the Iranians have the bomb and deal with the consequences later.
Nothing like a little nuclear blackmail over most of the world’s oil supply to make things really interesting. Im looking forward to riding my bike to work in a Minnesota winter.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pm“In my opinion Mohammed El Baradei would like to see Iran aquire nuclear weapons and he is willing to use his position to help Iran achieve that goal.
I don’t trust a word he says.
Comment by Ringo”
Typical right wing crap ringo. Of course it’s your “opinion” you don’t offer any fact or logic in your statement. The fact that he was right about WMD in Iraq must be why you don’t trust him now. He has a much better track record than bush does on countries that have WMD Iraq didnt’ have WMD, couldn’t make WMD, yet we invaded Iraq N Korea, didn’t have WMD, could make WMD bush bullied and pushed them into making bombs. The people you shouldn’t trust is bush and his pals.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:50 pmYou might be aggressive too if your neighbors spent their time trying to kill you and attempted more than once to invade your home with the intent of slaughtering everyone in the house.
But hey, keep siding with the mullahs, it worked for Carter.
Comment by Valandiaous Mardoloniap
You are 100% right. Israel has been spending their time trying to kill Palestinians and has invaded the Palestinians homes with the intent of slaughtering everyone in the house. Wow, I am impressed. A true statement coming out of the mouth of a Republic troll.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:50 pmAnyone have the numbers of Blackwater employees in Iraq?
Comment by hellinabucket
According to Wikipedia 20-30,000 but could be up to 100,000 because no one will say how many Blackwater people are in Iraq. I wonder why that is?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pmBeyond me too, we should just let the Iranians have the bomb and deal with the consequences later.
Nothing like a little nuclear blackmail over most of the world’s oil supply to make things really interesting. Im looking forward to riding my bike to work in a Minnesota winter.
Comment by Valandiaous Mardoloniap
Most experts agree that Iran is 7-10 years away from having a bomb. And you don’t think that there is time for a little diplomacy.
As far as nuclear blackmail over most of the world’s oil supply is concerned, it seems to me that Bush is much more guilty of that than Iran is. In case you don’t understand, Iran owns the oil under their soil and Iraq owns the oil under their soil. IT BELONGS TO THEM! We have no right to try and steal it from them.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:54 pmBeyond me too, we should just let the Iranians have the bomb and deal with the consequences later.
Nothing like a little nuclear blackmail over most of the world’s oil supply to make things really interesting. Im looking forward to riding my bike to work in a Minnesota winter.
Comment by Valandiaous Mardoloniap — September 17, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 12:55 pmYour statement would be valid if Iran had any intent of building a nuclear weapon. However, the only bomb the Iranians want to build is an economic one. And THAT’s the reason the U.S. is beating the war drums.
Yeah, that is odd. We should have no reason to fear a theocratic regime that murders homosexuals and rape victims, punishes muslim apostates, refers to Israel as an ‘entity’ rather than a nation and elected a president who advocates wiping Israel of the map and believes time stood still during his last visit to the U.N.
No problem, Iran is similar to Canada, have no fear.
Comment by Crunch Rock — September 17, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
No, they aren’t like Canada. Neither is Saudi Arabia. I suspect you’d be better off in Iran than Saudi as a woman or homosexual. And yet does our government threaten Saudi? What have you, sitting a world away, have to fear from Iran?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:55 pmYeah, that is odd. We should have no reason to fear a theocratic regime that murders homosexuals and rape victims, punishes muslim apostates, refers to Israel as an ‘entity’ rather than a nation and elected a president who advocates wiping Israel of the map and believes time stood still during his last visit to the U.N.
No problem, Iran is similar to Canada, have no fear.
Comment by Crunch Rock — September 17, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Why should we fear them? By your description, they sound like a lot of the other regimes we prop up around the world. Except for the bit about “wiping Israel off the map,” which Ahmedinejad never said.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pmYou will note that he was talking about the “regimeâ€, not the country. There is a nuanced difference that is lost on people with no critical thinking skills like most Republic trolls.
Ah, I see, and in your nuanced interpretation you somehow believe that?
Ahmageddonajad’s own website referenced “wiping Israel off the map” (official translations done by Iranian government officials) as well as the Iranian state-owned IRI Broadcasting interpreted it the same way.
His spokesman said they werent referring to the country of Israel, just the “regime”, i.e. the democratically elected government of Israel. The land stays, the government gets wiped away and presumably the free people with it.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:00 pmThe land stays, the government gets wiped away and presumably the free people with it.
Comment by Crunch Rock
Kind of like what we did in Iraq? The citizens of Iraq are oh so grateful for our having wiped away a government that had stabilized the country and one that provided food, electricity, clean water and education. And please don’t give me any clap-trap about Saddam killing his citizens. We have killed many more Iraqi’s than Saddam every even dreamed of killing.
Have a little hypocracy for lunch today Rockhead?
September 17th, 2007 at 1:03 pmAhmageddonajad’s own website referenced “wiping Israel off the map†(official translations done by Iranian government officials) as well as the Iranian state-owned IRI Broadcasting interpreted it the same way.
His spokesman said they werent referring to the country of Israel, just the “regimeâ€, i.e. the democratically elected government of Israel. The land stays, the government gets wiped away and presumably the free people with it.
Comment by Crunch Rock — September 17, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
There is no idiom in Farsi that translates as “wiping something off the map.” What he said, quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, was that the regime occupying Jerusalem would someday disappear from the pages of history. They were both referring to the occupation of Palestine, not the Israeli government.
IRI interpreted the quote incorrectly at first and later retracted the translation, but by that time it was too late.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:04 pmKeltoi — @ 12:24 pm
what do you think about this statement?, to paraphrase your own words:
SAUDI ARABIA is arming SUNNI militias in Iraq who in turn are killing our guys.
Comment by katy — September 17, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Elements within Saudi Arabia are funding Sunni militias - but I have not heard about the Saudis sending EFPs into Iraq as Iran is doing. I also do not think official Saudi policy is nearly as belligerant as Irans, but even discussing Saudi Arabia in terms of an actual country is perilous. That is basically true of all the Middle East, there is such a patchwork of tribal and sectarian alliances half the time you don’t know who is doing what - geography is at times irrelevant, making for a very confusing millieu.
I do know this - the Royal Family that rules Saudi Arabia is Al-Qaedas second favorite target after us. You can trust the House of Saud to look after its own interests, and I don’t think us losing in Iraq fits that description.
That said, katy, I totally share your distrust of many elements of Salafism/Wahhabism in the Kingdom in the same way I distrust all religious fanatics, yes, including the radical Christian right in America.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:05 pm“Ahmageddonajad’s own website referenced “wiping Israel off the map†(official translations done by Iranian government officials) as well as the Iranian state-owned IRI Broadcasting interpreted it the same way.”
Link for that please.
So pray tell what of our own talk, and dollars and meddling to that effect, of changing the regime of Iran. What of our own talk, as well as Israel’s, of bombing the living crap out of their country. Are those threats equal or worse than some illusion to Israel disappearing from the sands of time?
September 17th, 2007 at 1:06 pmNow we’re talking about that translation - AGAIN!
Are we going to sacrifice this country’s remaining bank account and remaining military because Israel feels threatened? And why is that again?
September 17th, 2007 at 1:07 pmNo, they aren’t like Canada. Neither is Saudi Arabia. I suspect you’d be better off in Iran than Saudi as a woman or homosexual. And yet does our government threaten Saudi? What have you, sitting a world away, have to fear from Iran?
I doubt you would enjoy your life as a homosexual in either country; either you lose your head or get hanged from a crane.
We are friends with SA, a country which is just about as despicable as Iran, but such is the nature of international expediency; SA isnt yet pursuing nukes so I guess we do what we have to do while we can. Once upon a time we allied with Stalin’s Russia too, based on our necessary, if tenuous, need for an alliance.
In an increasingly global post 911 world, we have plenty to fear from rogue nations on the other side of the world.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:07 pmThe Actual Quote:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “regime.” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh” is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s president threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” despite never having uttered the words “map.” “wipe out” or even “Israel.”
The Proof:
The full quote translated directly to English:
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad’s web site
September 17th, 2007 at 1:07 pmAnd Israel feels threatened while sitting on 200 nukes? C’mon.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:07 pmCrunch Rock sez:
I’ll join the other commenters here and call bullsh!t on this pernicious lie as well.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:09 pmwe all look forward to seeing Ahmadinejad in New York next week ….. and see Bush ducking and diving in the corridors of the UN building AGAIN
September 17th, 2007 at 1:10 pmKind of like what we did in Iraq? The citizens of Iraq are oh so grateful for our having wiped away a government that had stabilized the country and one that provided food, electricity, clean water and education. And please don’t give me any clap-trap about Saddam killing his citizens. We have killed many more Iraqi’s than Saddam every even dreamed of killing.
Have a little hypocracy for lunch today Rockhead?
Comment by bilbobaggins — September 17, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Oh, Bilbo! Bad Hobbit! Saddam was a BEAST, defending him in any way shape or form is beneath you (I like your posts, BTW). I am not sure whose numbers you are using - El Baradei himself said 70,000 have died since the invasion, and that is nothing compared to Saddam’s tally. And why do you say “we” have killed all those Iraqis? It is car bombers and death squads that kill the vast majority of the Iraqis civilians WHO THEY ARE DELIBERATELY TARGETING.
Yes, by removing Saddam we unleashed Chaos because we - Bush and Rummy, actually - TOTALLY blew the post war planning, as in they didn’t do any. But the “stability” Saddam provided is kinda like the Russians yearining for the stability Stalin provided.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:13 pmTobey Tall, I am impressed, do you speak Farsi or is that linguistic breakdown from research?
September 17th, 2007 at 1:17 pmWhat he said, quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, was that the regime occupying Jerusalem would someday disappear from the pages of history. They were both referring to the occupation of Palestine, not the Israeli government.
The control of Jerusalem is a policy of every Israeli government since the Six Day War, the democratically elected government, or “regime” in Ahmadinnerjacket’s words.
Regime = government. When referring the “regime occupying Jerusalem”, how could he NOT mean the Israeli government?
September 17th, 2007 at 1:18 pmIf I might be so bold as to simply use the old saying: “Follow the money”. Who profits from the US going to war? It can be argued that France and Germany profits by goading the big bully to finally bite off more than he can chew. It profits a lot of industry to expand the war. It profits a lot of oil execs when a large oil producer is taken over. It also profits the administration IF, by some miracle, they are right about Iran supplying Iraq insurgents and suddenly Iraq quiets down.
It does not profit the average joe (american and otherwise) when oil spikes past $100 a barrel and inflation kicks into the double digits (never mind what the feds might claim for an inflation rate). The only winners are the powers that be.
So instead of saying how terrible it all is, what if we spent as much effort trying to do something about it? As a libertarian I would suggest putting some effort getting involved and getting organized locally. If we all start making a difference locally, the national level will simply follow. Put your efforts where they can count and do something.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:18 pmKeltoi sez:
Don’t be too impressed, Keltoi…it’s neither native linguistic ability nor rersearch…he’s plagiarizing someone else’s work.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:20 pmKeltoi sez:
Actually, that figure is a little off…
September 17th, 2007 at 1:22 pmJust days after highlighting his own foreign policy inexperience in a boomerang attack on his Democratic opponents, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is at it again. Returning to his favorite bogeyman in Tehran, Romney called on the United Nations to ban Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from speaking to the world body next week and instead indict him for genocide.
For the details, see:
September 17th, 2007 at 1:23 pm“Romney to UN: Indict Iran’s Ahmadinejad.”
Hehe, you see, my attention span on Iraq is all used up, hehe, it’s an albacore around my neck, you see….I can use my new nukes there….hehe….lots of targets…hehe….I can watch from my office and eat pretzels….Dick will love the show too, hehehe. Then the people will love me, and my daddy will show me some respect then, hehehe. (fart) Hehe, I love doing that…here pull my finger.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pmDon’t be too impressed, Keltoi…it’s neither native linguistic ability nor rersearch…he’s plagiarizing someone else’s work.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 17, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Oh. Hm. Well, the argument is a semantic one which apparently confused even the official Iranian news agency. I don’t think anyone can seriously doubt that Iran wants Israel gone - Hamas and Hezbollah speak more loudly than any saber rattling from Achmadindajad.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:28 pmThe control of Jerusalem is a policy of every Israeli government since the Six Day War, the democratically elected government, or “regime†in Ahmadinnerjacket’s words.
Regime = government. When referring the “regime occupying Jerusalemâ€, how could he NOT mean the Israeli government?
Comment by Crunch Rock — September 17, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Actually, regime = administration. If someone refers to the “regime occupying Washington” we’re talking about the Bush administration, not the entire U.S. government.
The fact that Israeli regimes have, with U.S. backing, considered the illegal occupation of Palestine part of their policy is a topic for another thread.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:31 pmOh. Hm. Well, the argument is a semantic one which apparently confused even the official Iranian news agency. I don’t think anyone can seriously doubt that Iran wants Israel gone - Hamas and Hezbollah speak more loudly than any saber rattling from Achmadindajad.
Comment by Keltoi — September 17, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Bullmierda. Iran needs Israel as a boogeyman to distract the public from their internal economic sisuation just as much as Israel needs Iran. Hamas and Hezbollah have their own objectives and don’t need Iran’s help.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pmKind of like what we did in Iraq? The citizens of Iraq are oh so grateful for our having wiped away a government that had stabilized the country and one that provided food, electricity, clean water and education.
And Hitler kept the trains running on time.
So Saddam’s regime gassed people, destroyed the Marsh Arabs, created children’s prisons, ran torture chambers, threw people off buildings, persecuted the shiites and the kurds, stole the nations’s wealth to build gold toilets, etc…..he kept the trains running on time!
You do understand that the reason there are electricity and water problems in Iraq now is because the infrastructure was falling apart under Saddam (due to lack of adequate funding) and because most of the supply was shunted to the sunni neighborhoods, and now it is being shared more equitably and trying to fulfill a burgeoning demand?
Have a little hypocracy for lunch today Rockhead?
Feeling bested arent you? Such adolescense as this usually occurs when that happens.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:40 pmThis is a little off-color because its humor talking about a serious issue - but did anyone see the end of this Daily Show clip where Lieberman asks Petraeus about Iran?
VIDEO
September 17th, 2007 at 1:40 pmhttp://beta.redlasso.com/ Community/ ClipPlayer.aspx?i=70904a14-3ef0-4bc9-97bb-771ccb2a06ff
You might be aggressive too if your neighbors spent their time trying to kill you and attempted more than once to invade your home with the intent of slaughtering everyone in the house.
But hey, keep siding with the mullahs, it worked for Carter.
Comment by Valandiaous Mardoloniap — September 17, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
They’re only trying to get back the land that Israel took from them.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:41 pmBush Nominates 9-11 Zionist Judge as Attorney General : BUSH NOMINATES ZIONIST JUDGE TO SERVE AS U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=109925
September 17th, 2007 at 1:41 pmUS Iran report branded dishonest : The UN nuclear watchdog has protested to the US government over a report on Iran’s nuclear programme, calling it “erroneous” and “misleading”. In a leaked letter, the IAEA said a congressional report contained serious distortions of the agency’s own findings on Iran’s nuclear activity. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm
September 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pmIs it ok for Iran to continune its attacks on us in Iraq?
September 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pmAnd Hitler kept the trains running on time.
Comment by Crunch Rock — September 17, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
The world is full of horrible, nasty dictators who brutalize indigenous people, stomp on human rights, relocate people by force, and steal their nation’s wealth. Quite a number of them were installed and are propped up by the U.S. How many of these countries would you like us to invade and occupy?
September 17th, 2007 at 1:47 pmKeltoi sez:
El Baradei himself said 70,000 have died since the invasion
Actually, that figure is a little off…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 17, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Well, I went to your site claiming over 1 million Iraqi dead and am unimpressed. I note Julian Bond and Tom Hayden are on the Board of Directors; I am going to go out on a limb and suggest their agenda is to make it look as bad as possible to satisfy their own political goals.
El-Baradei is the aforementioned Noble Prize winning genius who was oh-so-right about WMD in Iraq. If he is going with the 70,000 estimate, which is the UN’s number, I am going to take his word over Julian Bond’s.
BUT - this debate is as pointless as how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Neither of us can prove which number is right, the situation is hellacious either way, it is a matter of HOW hellacious.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:47 pmOh, Bilbo! Bad Hobbit! Saddam was a BEAST, defending him in any way shape or form is beneath you (I like your posts, BTW).
How about asking the Iraqi people what they think. My bet is on a vast majority of them would say they would rather have their lives with Saddam as the leader back over what they have now. We have destroyed their country, their ability to make a living, their ability to have the basic necessities of life. If it were me, I would choose a dictator over the United States. We have given them nothing except for death and destruction. And we will not leave until we steal their oil, leaving them with no way to support themselves as a nation. As far as I am concerned, Bush and Company are far more evil than Saddam ever was.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:48 pmElements within Saudi Arabia are funding Sunni militias - but I have not heard about the Saudis sending EFPs into Iraq as Iran is doing.
You may be correct, they are not supplying weapons, they are simply providing the Sunni militias with the money to purchase weapons elsewhere (including from the US, BTW). I fail to see the difference.
Also, I don’t remember Iran being particularly belligerent until Bush and other countries started going after them about their nuclear program.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:51 pmHamas and Hezbollah have their own objectives and don’t need Iran’s help.
Other than a few hundred million bucks here and there, military training, weapons and bomb materials.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pmI asked at during the run-up to the Iraq fiasco and I’ll ask it again…
September 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pmWhat threat does IRAN pose to America and it’s citizens? Short answer…NONE! Aside from the tons of oil that Bush/Cheney and all their friends could make even BIGGER profits from. Remember that in these stressful times in the Mid East, their buddies are still reaping RECORD PROFITS! I’d like to here more in the MSM about Bush’s Texas oil buddy Ray Hunt who undercut the Iraq oil deal by striking a side deal with the Kurds. This man is an old Bush, a member of his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, is a board member at SMU (site of the future Bush Library) who donated 35 MILLION toward the library. This man gives Bush “objective, expert advice” on foreign matters which in turn gives him access to all levels of sensitive security knowlege. WHY ISN’T THIS THE HEADLINE ALL OVER THE NEWS? Bush’s close friend is undercutting our interests in Iraq for his own financial gain! I believe he is also on the board of Halliburton. Jeez, our president and vice-president are only out to make money for them and their friends. IS THIS WHY ALMOST 4,000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE DIED AND WILL CONTINUE TO DIE FOR YEARS TO COME? DOES ANYONE THINK IT WILL KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN? WHEN THE PRICE OF OIL GOES UP, THEY GET RICHER! WHAT INCENTIVE DO THEY HAVE TO KEEP PRICES DOWN?
Bullmierda. Iran needs Israel as a boogeyman to distract the public from their internal economic sisuation just as much as Israel needs Iran. Hamas and Hezbollah have their own objectives and don’t need Iran’s help.
Comment by toasterhead — September 17, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Are you saying Iran DOESN’T arm, fund and train Hamas and Hezbollah? And are you also saying Hezbollah and Hamas DON’T want to destroy Israel? Your boogeyman comment may be accurate as far as it goes, but I do think the endless Kassams flying out of Gaza into Israel are a pretty compelling argument that dead Jews are a priority for these groups.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pmIn March 2003, Halliburton stock was valued at $20.50 a share. In March 2007, a share went for $64.12. Why would Bush/Cheney want war to EVER end??
September 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pmRoger_Rhetoric sez:
Classic example of what we in the trade call a “loaded question”, class. Right up there with “have you stopped beating your wife?”.
RR, you’re going to have to present some proof of your insinuations before asking that question.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:01 pmAre you saying Iran DOESN’T arm, fund and train Hamas and Hezbollah? And are you also saying Hezbollah and Hamas DON’T want to destroy Israel? Your boogeyman comment may be accurate as far as it goes, but I do think the endless Kassams flying out of Gaza into Israel are a pretty compelling argument that dead Jews are a priority for these groups.
Comment by Keltoi — September 17, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
The priority for Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran, according to countless public statements, is ending the occupation of Palestine, not the extermination of Jews. If Iran really wanted to exterminate Jews, they’d start with the 50,000 who live in Tehran.
And Qassam rockets? Please. A little property damage can hardly compare to the virtual imprisonment and collective punishment of an entire city. Let’s have a sense of scale, please.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:01 pmKeltoi — @ 12:24 pm
what do you think about this statement?, to paraphrase your own words:
SAUDI ARABIA is arming SUNNI militias in Iraq who in turn are killing our guys. -Comment by katy —@ 12:36 pm
Elements within Saudi Arabia are funding Sunni militias - but I have not heard about the Saudis sending EFPs into Iraq as Iran is doing.
imagine that… do you wonder why?
I also do not think official Saudi policy is nearly as belligerant as Irans,
you may be misinformed… try Informed Comment at
http://www.juancole.com/
but even discussing Saudi Arabia in terms of an actual country is perilous. That is basically true of all the Middle East, there is such a patchwork of tribal and sectarian alliances half the time you don’t know who is doing what - geography is at times irrelevant, making for a very confusing millieu.
is that you, exley? or sexion? … but i understand what you say…
too bad dubby was clueless about all that…
I do know this - the Royal Family that rules Saudi Arabia is Al-Qaedas second favorite target after us. You can trust the House of Saud to look after its own interests, and I don’t think us losing in Iraq fits that description.
wow… you’d think we’d be hearing about all those alqaeda attacks on saudi arabia… and, losing what in iraq? …
That said, katy, I totally share your distrust of many elements of Salafism/Wahhabism in the Kingdom in the same way I distrust all religious fanatics, yes, including the radical Christian right in America.
Comment by Keltoi — September 17, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
well, that’s good to know… makes you somewhat logical, at least…
now, go back and apply all that fancy rhetoric to the notion of
diplomacy towards iran - starting with an apology for threatening
the country - and overthrowing their governement - so that the
rest of the world can rest easy, not worrying about another war…
and nukes, for heaven’s sake…
stop this madness…
September 17th, 2007 at 2:02 pm.
Classic example of what we in the trade call a “loaded questionâ€, class. Right up there with “have you stopped beating your wife?â€.
RR, you’re going to have to present some proof of your insinuations before asking that question.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Proof he does not have. His proof is because Bush says so. Anyone besides me find it interesting that our government has been unable to provide ANY proof that Iran is sending arms to Iraq or doing anything else nefarious? If there was proof, you can bet that Bush would be showing it to anyone who would look.
People who take Bush’s word for proof are idiots.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pmIf it were me, I would choose a dictator over the United States.
So says a citizen of a country whose citizenship grants such a plethora of freedoms and opportunities.
Mighty brave of you to advocate life under a dictatorship never having had to endure such an existence. You remind me of those college kids and aging hippies who rant about their desire for “REVOLUTION!”, content in the knowledge that it will never really happen but secretly afraid that it might.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:06 pmKeltoi-
You are so full of your own shit! Saddam may have been a beast, but what clear threat did he pose to Americans? NONE! No yellow cake uranium. No connection to Al Queda and 9/11. No weapons of mass destruction. All of THIS evidence was available to Bush. Apparently he had his own selfish reasons for risking American soldier’s lives and a distictly different set of justifications (re: lies) that were pushed down America and the MSM’s throats so we might, in a brief time of national unity, hope maybe he was doing the right thing (he should know better with that available intel, no?) Don’t you try to use the same lame justifications with Iran. They, like Iraq under Saddam Hussein pose NO THREAT to AMERICA! There was a time in this country when clear and present danger held some water and Congress had to approve of war. Bush with his almighty pre-emptive strike has set a sorry precedence for the future of this country and along with his puppet-master Dick Cheney there exists, sadly, more than enough time for them to truly turn the middle east into much more of a danger to America then they ever could have been without the help of this Administration, it’s lies to the American people and their neocon supporters throughout the world.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pmNo problem, Iran is similar to Canada, have no fear.
Comment by Crunch Rock
I don’t have any fear of Iran or Canada.
You should be afraid of the religious nuts running this country!!!!!!
September 17th, 2007 at 2:37 pmI do know this - the Royal Family that rules Saudi Arabia is Al-Qaedas second favorite target after us. You can trust the House of Saud to look after its own interests, and I don’t think us losing in Iraq fits that description.
wow… you’d think we’d be hearing about all those alqaeda attacks on saudi arabia… and, losing what in iraq? …
Comment by katy — September 17, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
There have been several major terrorist attacks inside Saudi Arabia by AQ since 9-11. There have also been multiple attacks that were thwarted. Saudi Arabia is a police state, I suspect AQ finds it difficult to operate inside the Kingdom. Once they did so with the blessings of several Royal princes, but I believe those days are gone. Their society is only slightly less opaque than North Korea, it is tough to know anything for certain.
Losing in Iraq means the US being driven out by domestic politics before something resembling a democratic, pluralistic society where people compromise and talk instead of blowing each other up can take root. And yes, the Saudis are probably threatened by the creation of a democracy on their doorstep, but are you suggesting we overthrow the monarchy? While leaving Iran’s theocracy in place? SA is an ally on paper, at least.
Stop the madness? It’d be great. There are no good options. Isolationism as a foreign policy died in WW II. Until we develop a reliable energy alternative to oil, we are stuck in the Middle East.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pmKeltoi-
You are so full of your own shit!
Comment by A Patriot Acting — September 17, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
I am overjoyed to report that the shit I am full of is indeed my own, and frankly, I would not have it any other way! :)
You raise many good points on war profiteering, Patriot (Nice work on the San Diego Chargers last night, BTW) I suspect you are a Howard Zinn fan.
I suggest to you all wars in history have had multiple causes, and almost all of them have had an economic aspect. To say Iraq is JUST about oil and Haliburton stock is, IMHO, as simplistic as to deny there is any connection at all. According to Alan Greenspan, he was more concerned about the oil angle than Bush was, and he thought removing Saddam a good and needful thing from an economic viewpoint. Greenspan is no neocon (whatever that word even means, Rummy and Cheney worked for Nixon, there was nothing “neo” about them, they are Ur-Cons if anything); there were and are realpolitik reasons for us to be in Iraq. Doesn’t mean its not ugly, but it isn’t JUST about war profiteering.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pmFeeling bested arent you? Such adolescense as this usually occurs when that happens.
Comment by Crunch Rock
You REALLY feel as though you “bested” someone? That your “opinions” are somehow better? You are a moron.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:36 pm“I propose discussing international questions at the UN General Assembly in order to solve them,” Ahmedinejad said. Why not? He’d remind Bush and Olmert that nukes is for everyone or no one. Simple as that. If every country gets nules than there’d be no war at least. Same can be said if nuclear non-proliferation is respected by everyone. Sounds odd? Yes, because it is about oil and not nukes. I am surprised hearing some anti-Bush talking about striking Iran or saying nonsense (ElBradai wants to see Iran with nukes). No nukes or nukes for all.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:31 pmWTF?! One would think the French, of all people would be among those most capable and happy to learn from America’s mistakes. Instead, the newish French government wants to duplicate Bush’s Follies? This isn’t a bunch of Jerry Lewis pratfalls here. This is Vietnam and Algiers all over again and rolled into one Frenchies.
Where are the French people on this? Surely they aren’t suddenly into wanton violations of the Nuremberg Principles too? Surely they haven’t become nutbag idiot neocon warmongers? WTF?!
September 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pmAnd Qassam rockets? Please. A little property damage can hardly compare to the virtual imprisonment and collective punishment of an entire city. Let’s have a sense of scale, please.
Heh. Estes rockets with a firecracker in the nose.
Maybe when Israel quits bulldozing peace activists to death, quits bulldozing other people’s homes so they can illegally plant new homes for people who have never ever lived their EVER before, and quits using illegal collective punishment against the Palestinians and actually embraces pluralism like a real free nation, then we can cut them slack. Until they quit violating international laws (including the NPT) then they pretty much reap what they sow.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pm#113
They are just lazy and they certainly aren’t capable.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:41 pm