Although the Washington Post would like to portray the entire world as having a thrill up its leg over Barack Obama’s historic achievement in becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, a close reading of the story also shows anxiety among countries from Israel to Iraq and China (largely due to trade concerns likely echoed in South America), indifference in Russia and happiness among the mullocracy in Iran.
Today’s L.A. Times op-ed by former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton — undoubtedly with much input from Regis — should give the excited Europeans (and Americans) pause for thought. Bolton correctly notes that many of the struggles of the Cold War were waged in and by the sort of “tiny countries” Obama recently dismissed as threats to US interests, adding that asymmetric threats to the US can be existential threats to its friends in Europe and elsewhere. Further:
What is implicit in Obama’s reference to “tiny” threats is that they are sufficiently insignificant that negotiations alone can resolve them. Indeed, he has gone even further, arguing that the lack of negotiations with Iran caused the threats: “And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah.”
This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran’s own perceived ambitions and interests. That would be news to the mullahs in Tehran, not to mention the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Indeed, while Bolton correctly notes that focusing solely on direct threats to the US is ironically unilateralist, the Left view of world events revolving entirely around US policy is also supremely narcissistic. That may reflect a general Boomer assumption that everything is about themselves, but it is larger than that as well. It rests on the premise that if the US would accede to the demands of the rest of the world — regardless of whether those demands are consistent with American values — our problems would recede. It is a comforting myth because it suggests that our fate is uniquely within our control, and allows them to blame their domestic opponents for our woes, rather than having to confront foreign threats.
Within the past week or so, we have been given a classic example of how the attitudes that generate excitement for Obama in Europe and elsewhere fare when they run smack into the reality of the threats posed by “tiny countries” like Iran:
After challenging Iran’s atomic efforts with everything from diplomatic crusades to shows of military force, the Americans backed off late last year, based on a new intelligence finding that Tehran had suspended work in late 2003 on the design of nuclear arms…
But early this year, Washington also turned over a trove of its own intelligence to the atomic investigators in Vienna, who put it together with clues gathered from many foreign capitals and findings from their own long years of inquiries.
On the basis of that combination of new and old evidence, over the last few months, the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have come to worry that Iran  before suspending its work nearly five years ago  may have made real progress toward designing a deadly weapon.
Indeed, even developing nations joined the West on Wednesday in support of the IAEA’s attempt to get Iran to clarify intelligence alleging that it secretly researched ways of making atom bombs.
In short, without the blindness induced by Bush Derangement Syndrome, the world recognizes that Iran is indeed a threat that must be addressed – except that without the implicit threat of military action by the widely unpopular US and Israel, international efforts to even constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be impotent, and seen as such by Tehran.
The Islamic mullocracy of Iran, enriching uranium and developing missile technologies, poses a more immediate threat to its neighbors in the Mideast and to Europe than it does the US. People living in those regions might want to spend more time thinking about how little Obama cares about those more immediate threats to them and less time in childish exultation over the inevitable conclusion of the Bush administration.  Americans might want to consider how much weight to give to world opinion that wallows in the latter while ignoring the potential consequences of the former.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Karl,
From the distorted lens the WP is looking through, the entire world IS cheering O!’s victory. Sitting here across the pond listening to the Organization for Democrats Abroad/BBC, we all appear to be waving flags in the air and making like Thor. The MSM in Europe has the same, if not more extreme, bias as in the US; indeed it is hard to find any heritage media that doesn’t sound like Jaques Chirac on a bad day. Bolton’s analysis wouldn’t even get the time of day here. It is easy to despair, but not even the most publicly craven administration in the EU would accept O!’s “tiny state” position. I hope.
Silver Whistle,
Believe me, I know what Euromedia is like. The problem is that the EU will have little to say if an Obama-led US shrugs and leaves them to their own ineffectual diplomacy and inadequate military options. Except to complain about the US, natch.
Jeff, regardless of how cogent John Bolton criticisms are, he’ll just be dismissed as a right-wing, warmongering zealot, who couldn’t get confirmed as the US Ambassador to the UN, therfore Bush granted him a recess appointment. It’s truly shameful how the Senate Borked his nomination.
Karl,
The important thing to remember is that, for all of their bluster and anti-Bolton weaseling in public, even les Crapauds will do what has to be done when no-one is looking. Especially if it is a tiny country.
[…] Protein Wisdom – John Bolton lays out some inconvenient truths [Karl] […]
You need to work in the phrase “Regis bristled at the sophomoric questions” somewhere…
I constantly go back to the notion that liberals think evil must be created rather than it just is. Most of the realists among us know that man is not necessarily inherently good and inclined to good things. Christian conservatives know that man was born into sin and has the capacity for both good and evil and each person is given a choice as to which path they’ll walk and how consistently they’ll walk it. I think liberals typically reject the concept of good and evil in some ways because they don’t acknowledge a higher system of morals, besides that which man creates for himself. As such, they can’t understand why the Mullahs in Iran could possibly hate THEM (ie the liberals, who do “good” pursuant to their own value systems) and so must create a cause of the hatred towards them – of course, the cause is their enemies, the conservative republican, who believes in black and white ,right and wrong and lack the moral flexibility to appreciate other cultures view of right and wrong. So when a conservative says radical Islam’s treatment of woman is appalling, in the liberals mind, we are failing to appreciate and tolerate the other’s culture and thus, creating hostility towards americans as a whole.
Its baffling, the twisted logic necessary to come up with a value system in which we are supposed to tolerate the abuse of woman, or, for that matter, the killing of homosexuals in many Islamic contries.
What are you wingnuts all in a later about? It’s just some silly apocalyptic death-worshippers wanting to get their mitts on these things. And don’t you know how small a nuclear warhead is? Just a few kilograms of yellow metal, that’s all…far tinier than even the tiny little countries. Calm down.
“lather”…dammit
“This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran’s own perceived ambitions and interests.”
Please stop dissing the Community Organizer™.
In short, without the blindness induced by Bush Derangement Syndrome, the world recognizes that Iran is indeed a threat that must be addressed…
In September of last year BDS-addled Glenn Greenwald introduced one of his Salon posts on the controversy over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speaking at Columbia University with a tidy little summary of the problems that those of us on the right supposedly have with Iran:
“…it is all rather transparently motivated by exactly what Juan Cole says: “The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.”
There you go. there is no objective, rational reason to be concerned about Iran. Anyone who expresses such concern is, according to Cole and Greenwald, transparently motivated by a dsire for another war.
I remember Mona complaining about Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s long-distance diagnosis of Terry Schiavo. Indeed, she wrote an entire manifesto around this incident at Q and O, in which she declard her break with the libertarian right. Yet Frist’s long-distance diagnosis skills don’t hold a candle to Greenwald’s, who is able to minimize and excuse any bad behavior on the part of the Mullahcratic regime as the product of (quoting from the same Greenwald post), “..hysteria…rooted in the fantasy world they occupy in which Iran is our Enemy at War.”
This reminds me of all the times Iran attacked other countries over the last 30 years. And its not like there are 170,000 American troops on its western border and 40,000 on its eastern border, with the largest warships every created in the history the world regularly patrolling the only method of transport available for the single largest element of their economy. We must bomb them before they kill us all.
Like the embassy they sacked, La Rana? And IIRC, there was a community center in Argentina that was bombed. What did Argentina ever do to Iran?
Oh, wait – there was also that time Iran mined international shipping lanes. You know that nautical mines don’t check flags before they go off, don’t you?
The embassy was attacked by a group of students unaffiliated with the government. The embassy had been overrun by a similar mob a few months prior, and in the early 80s had been bombed at least twice. The government of Iran is certainly culpable for not acting to expel the students, as found by the ICJ.
The community center is thought to be the work of either Hezbollah or another shiite terrorist group, affiliated with Iran, or not. It has been resolved. This would certainly be a serious charge against the government of Iran if they were involved, but is diminished somewhat by the hundreds of similar actions taken by the US over the last 50 years.
During the war between Iraq and Iran, both countries mined the waters surrounding the strait of Hormuz and otherwise attacked a number of ships. No one has ever been able to show that the mine that blew a hole in the USS Samuel Roberts came from Iran, but Iran was placing mines and engaging in other activities in stark violation of International Law. Again, any moral indignation at those events is diminished by the fact that the US had been supporting Iraq in the war, including supplying them with chemical weapons (remember those?), and attacked Iranian oil platforms and ships in blatant violation of international law.
And the mines we laid around Nicaragua didn’t check flags either.
In any event, my comment still stands, much to apparent chagrin.
correction: “early 70s”
is Bolton familiar with this?
1-2. Globalization will continue to affect global prosperity positively but is also believed to export terror worldwide. Interdependent economies have enabled great wealth. The benefits of this wealth remain concentrated in the hands of a few while the risks of failure are borne by many. This unequal distribution of wealth often creates “have†and “have-not†conditions that can spawn conflict. This dichotomy is evidentbetween developed nations in the northern hemisphere and developing nations to their south and in thesouthern hemisphere. By 2015, experts project that up to 2.8 billion peopleâ€â€almost exclusively in economic“have-not†areas in developing nationsâ€â€will live below the poverty level. These people are morevulnerable to recruitment by extremist groups. Globalization has also contributed to the rise of nonstate actors to economic, informational, and even military and diplomatic positions rivaling or exceeding those of states. The decline in state power and influence makes diplomatic interaction more difficult and complex. Globalization has already left several states behind, and more nations will lag in the increasing tempo of globalization. As a result, their populations will both suffer and become more apt to embrace radical ideologies to express their frustration and increase their desire, if not ability, to share in global prosperity.
1-3. Technology will be another double-edged sword. Often, innovations that improve the quality of life and livelihood are also used by adversaries to destroy those lives. It would seem as though technology is an asymmetric advantage of developed nations. They have greater access to research facilities to develop and innovate. Technology also gives nations access to the industrial base. These nations can then mass-produce advanced products and widely distribute them at relatively low costs. The low cost of products, their userfriendly design, and their availability in a global economy makes advanced technology accessible to unstable states as well as extremist organizations. The revolution and proliferation of benefits derived from integrating multidisciplinary nano- and bio-technologies and smart materials potentially promises to improve living conditions. However, these products will not always be available at the pace and in the quantities necessary to make them and their benefits as universally available as desired. This disparity can create another source of friction between the haves and have-nots. Moreover, the proliferation, falling costs, and availability of technologically advanced productsâ€â€especially expanded information technologies using mobile networks and expanded use of wireless and global fiber-optic networksâ€â€enable nonstate adversaries to acquire them.
1-4. Population growth in the developing world will increase opportunities for instability, radicalism, and extremism. Populations of some less-developed countries will almost double by 2020, most notably in Africa, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia. The “youth bulge†created by this growth will be vulnerable to antigovernment and radical ideologies, worsening governance challenges. Middle class populations will grow as well. They will demand improved quality-of-life benefits and more resources to go with their increased wealth. The middle class population of India already exceeds the entire population of the United States. Inability or inequity to distribute wealth will intensify tensions between haves and havenots. It will likely escalate calls for changes in how to share wealth globally.
1-5. Urbanization will characterize well over half the world’s population by 2015. By 2030, up to 60 percent will be urban-dwellers. Many cities are already huge; 15 have populations in excess of 10 million. Eight of the megacities lie near known geological fault lines that threaten natural disaster. These megacities increasingly assume the significance of nation-states, posing similar governance and security concerns. Their urban growth is much more pronounced in developing regions where states are already more prone to failure. Organized crime and extremist ideological and cultural enclaves will flourish in urban terrain, overwhelming and supplanting local governance apparatus. Chronic unemployment, over-crowding, pollution, uneven resource distribution, and poor sanitation, health, and other basic services will add to population dissatisfaction and increase the destructive allure of radical ideologies.
1-6. Demand for energy, water, and food for growing populations will increase competition and, potentially, conflict. Resourcesâ€â€especially water, gas, and oilâ€â€are finite. By 2030, energy consumption will probably exceed production. Current sources, investment, and development of alternatives will not bridge the gap, according to the best estimates. A shift to cleaner fuels such as natural gas will find about 60 percent of known reserves concentrated in Russia, Iran, and Qatar. Demand for water doubles every 20 years. By 2015, 40 percent of the world’s population will live in “water-stressed†countries, increasing the potential for competition over a resource that has already led to conflict in the past.
1-7. Climate change and natural disasters will compound already difficult conditions in developing countries. They will cause humanitarian crises, driving regionally destabilizing population migrations and raising potential for epidemic diseases. Desertification is occurring at nearly 50–70 thousand square miles per year. Over 15 million people die each year from communicable diseases; these numbers may grow exponentially as urban densities increase. Increased consumption of resources, especially in densely populated areas, will increase air, water, land, and potentially even space pollution. Depletion of resources will also compound this problem. Depletion reduces natural replenishment sources as well as intensifies the effects of natural disasters, having increasingly greater impacts on more densely populated areas.
1-8. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and effects will increase the potential for catastrophic attacks. These attacks will be destabilizing globally and undercut the confidence that spurs economic development. The threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction is as real as it is deadly. Over 1,100 identified terrorist organizations exist. Some of them, most notably Al Qaeda, actively seek weapons of mass destruction. In nuclear proliferation, there were 662 reported incidents of unauthorized activities surrounding nuclear and radioactive materials since 1993. These involved quantities of enriched uranium from military and civilian reactors in excess of 3,700 tons, enough to produce thousands of nuclear weapons. Additionally, some nuclear nations are sharing technology as a means to earn money and secure influence. For small countries and terrorist organizations, biological weapons convey a similar status as nuclear weapons. Many biological and chemical agents are produced easily and cheaply. Wider Internet access has made the technologies and processes of developing weapons of mass destruction and effects readily available to potential adversaries. Further, some states may pursue these programs to assure their security and prevent forced regime change.
1-9. Governments of nation-states are facing increasingly greater challenges in providing effective support to their growing populations. Security, economic prosperity, basic services, and access to resources strain systems designed in an industrial age. Additionally, these governments are unprepared to increase openness intellectually or culturally to deal with an information age. Compounding this inability to adapt, state governments find themselves pitted against those that have made the shift and are already exploiting it to gain support of local populaces. These adversaries can include criminal organizations, extremist networks, private corporate enterprises, and increasingly powerful megacities. Stability will be paramount, not the form of governance. The problem of failed or failing states can result in the formation of safe havens in which adversaries can thrive.
It is the opening page to the US Army’s new capstone manual, Operations. What it is describing is called the Operational Environment.
I got it from my friend in US army(major, just came back from Iraq)
“Aaand, so, that bomb that blew up LA wasn’t that big, didn’t think it would do much, uh, damage, because it was so small, I expected a big bomb, which we, uh, would have no problems handling.”
I pictured Barry dealing with the results of a city getting bombed and I couldn’t get a desirable image.
He’s so fuckin weak.
I have often heard the specious charge that “the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons” but have never seen anyone offer evidence to support it. I’d be glad to look at anything you’ve got to back it up. Otherwise, I’ll just take you for a malicious liar.
Funny, Bolton referred to the “Blame America Firsters,” and one shows up. A little disappointed the troll didn’t drag the Shah into it.
You call it blame American first, I call it the historical record. Read what I wrote. If you believe that is blaming America (other than stating demonstrable facts), that says something about you, not me – after all, I said quite plainly that Iran has done a number of horrible things. If you think what I wrote is not the truth, then say so. Otherwise its called, dun dun dun, ad hominem!
I overstated the charge on chemical weapons. What I have been able to confirm from a number of sources is that the United States supplied Iraq with many of the components to make chemical weapons (in addition to intelligence, components for Iraq’s nuclear program, more traditional weapons, and other war-related assistance). The US MAY have provided actual chemical weapons, but I cannot provide a reputable source for that claim. For “back it up” I recommend you read (off the top of my head, I can look up the specifics if you’d like): Kenneth Pollack, The Persian Puzzle; Ali Ansari, Confronting Iran; James Bill, The Eagle and the Lion.
Why don’t you list them, or at least the most troubling ones? You didn’t overstate the case, you lied about it, and I’ll be happy to demonstrate that if you’ll get a bit more specific.
But hey, RUMSFELD SHOOK HANDS WITH SADDAM!!!eleventy!! You’ll always have that.
I did list them. It’s in the part you deliberately left out of the quote, oh master of intellectual honesty.
I can look up the pages, but its quite clear that you have never taken the time to educate yourself about the things on which you offer an opinion, so where’s my motivation? Read something. It works.
What’s documented is precursors. You haven’t listed materiel, you’ve only namedropped. Tell us what you think you have, and I’ll read and respond to it. Thus far, you’ve offered nothing but your opinion and the threat of presenting evidence. Have you anything more than that?
And what, exactly, is it that you think I’ve “deliberately left out of the quote” from the post directly above the one containing said quote? Please be specific.
What nuclear program components? What chemical weapons components? What traditional weapons?
This the information you ought to easily provide. TIA.
I’d like.
“Kenneth Pollack, The Persian Puzzle; Ali Ansari, Confronting Iran; James Bill, The Eagle and the Lion.”
If you have reading comprehension problems, there are remedies.
The only book I have sitting near me (I am not an Iranian scholar, I’ve simply read more than you) is Pollack’s “The Persian Puzzle.” Looking to page 208, we find “Saddam was acquiring vast amounts of equipment, know-how, and supplies for weapons of mass destruction from America’s allies (particularly Germany) and even some from America itself.”
I can find some more, but honestly, if your opinion is as it is, it simply means that you have no education in the matter. Read something yourself – I’m not here to fix your deficiency. This is an accepted conclusion among scholars, even by Pollack, one of the most influential policy voices in favor of invading Iraq.
The community center is thought to be the work of either Hezbollah or another shiite terrorist group, affiliated with Iran, or not. It has been resolved.
Well. That’s a load off my mind!
RDub,
My bad. It should read “It has ‘not’ been resolved”
please tell me there’s a footnote.
Le Frog: I thought “Bush LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIED about WMD!!!!!!!”
So now you’re saying that Saddam, did, in fact, have WMD?
You folks can’t even keep your own screeches straight, can you?
This reminds me of all the times Iran attacked other countries over the last 30 years.
You mean like this time And this time? And this time? And this time? And this time? And all of these incidents? And dozens more that can be turned up with a cursory Google search?
Moron.
Second link is broken. Should go here.
Otherwise its called, dun dun dun, ad hominem!
Dudes got sound effects and shit. I ain’t arguing with fuckers got sound effects and shit.
I’m not here to fix your deficiency.
Translation: you have no evidence or references to back this up.
You made the claim, Le Frog. The burden of proof is on you.
um, and can anyone explain how FM 3-0 is relevant?
So, Iran sent 2,000 revolutionary guards to Lebanon in order to facilitate a rebellion to expel an illegally invading Israeli force, a random firefight told from the prospective of one side (a side, it should be noted, that has been authorized to pursue Iranians across the border – and thats the public line), some “alleged incidents,” the brief capture of foreign military suspiciously in territorial waters the Iranians have disputed ownership of (something the US has done repeatedly), and a vague, longstanding, but as yet unconfirmed accusation by the US that foreign agents are in Iraq (I direct you to the work of Seymour Hirsch for the opposing accusation).
I hate to ask, as it should be embarrassing, but do you simply believe everything the government tells you? The parts you like? The point you should (but won’t) take away from this lesson is that this is the worst of the Iranian “aggression.” A series of random incidents dramatically overshadowed by the number of similar incident carried out by the US.
These are not good people. They are quite clearly a bit nuts. But your impression of the history of the country and its interactions with the US, military and otherwise, is based on largely fictitious narratives fed to you by liars and/or those seeking political office. This site has an extraordinary trove of online information (http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/iran/index.html), if you don’t like books. Or wikipedia. Something. Anything.
ah, this explains much. but still, why no sources for your assertions?
I offered the few books that come to mind (I’ve probably read 15 books on Iran, and they are all consistent on the points I’ve made – I recommend anything and everything), but its not like there is a debate among people who have studied the matter. The only people who say “no this didn’t happen” are commenters on blogs.
we’re saying prove it in an internet argument way. there are many public documents available online. surely there must be one that supports your “facts”.
I hate to ask, as it should be embarrassing
Translation: you’ve got nothing.
this is the worst of the Iranian “aggression.â€Â
Evidence? You’ve got nothing.
The only people who say “no this didn’t happen†are commenters on blogs.
Who say WHAT didn’t happen? That Iran hasn’t been engaging in military adventurism, both overt and covert, in other countries for decades?
That would be you, Le Frog.
Of course, you’re also spouting the “US is just as bad as Iran” idiocy, which indicates that either a) you don’t believe your own bullshit or b) you’re terminally stupid.
Either we sent Kenneth Pollack, The Persian Puzzle; Ali Ansari, Confronting Iran; James Bill, The Eagle and the Lion to Iraq, and they are weapons or you have reading comprehension problems. The question is what did we send themn. The correct answer is not “There are books I’ve read.” If you’ve got the books, you’ve got the answer to the question.
I’d still like. And let’s stay away from the Free Form History and stick with the real one, shall we?
That’s good stuff, Froggy. But not today.
SBP, self-deluded is also a possibility. Storytelling as history, eh?
First, America’s allies such as Germany or France, are not America, and are not “we”. They’re big, grown up countries and they don’t check with us before they sell things to other countries. Second, “equipment, know-how and supplies” covers an awful lot of things. many, many of them have multiple uses. So what did we sell them? Beakers? Ventilation hoods? DMMP? Thiodiglycol? Acme Easy Bake WMD kits? Specifics, please.
Spies, evidence of worse Iranian aggression simply does not exist. I recognize that I’ve not proven my case, or even supplied much in the way of evidence, but it appears my battle is with rumor and innuendo, not a contrary factual assertion.
Maggie, tell me what you don’t believe (the objection changes with each post). I may have a link.
Pablo, Pollack makes clear that the US facilitated the transactions with other countries by lifting particular trade barriers with knowledge of what Iraq would buy. But you are correct, that is not the US. Regardless, Pollack was at NSC, and while I take his analysis with a grain of salt, he’s got no motivation to fabricate factual assertions of this kind. Just something to think about.
At the end of the day, I don’t have government transfer documents, or sales receipts, so it falls to what people have written about it. That leaves media reports, government assertions, and non-fiction books. To the one particular assertion you’ve contested, I provided support from a well-connected source. You have provided skepticism.
And I haven’t asked for such, only for the specific items that we supplied Iraq with that you think are objectionable or in direct support of WMD programs. Let’s look back to your statement:
My question is painfully simple: What WMD components, nuke components and other weapons? I’m becoming convinced that you do not know of any such components and that is the reason you cannot name them. And yet, you maintain that the transfers of these components are part of the historical record.
I don’t have those specifics – I thought I made that clear (I apologize if I made it seem as if I know those specifics). I have read a number of things, like the Pollack book I’ve excerpted, that say that those things happened. In the absence of contrary evidence, the only logical conclusion one draws is that those assertions that are consistent across sources of varying ideological viewpoint are true. There is simply no reason to think otherwise.
The Pollack quote does not support your assertion. Your statement is specific, Pollack’s is quite broad and cannot be distilled to your specific assertion. And if you don’t really know what it is you’re asserting, then why are you asserting it?
Translation: If it feels right, it is.
The Pollack excerpt says that the US supplied Iraq with “equipment, know-how, and supplies for weapons of mass destruction.”
I wrote that the “United States supplied Iraq with many of the components to make chemical weapons (in addition to intelligence, components for Iraq’s nuclear program, more traditional weapons, and other war-related assistance).”
You seem to have the writing down. Now work on the reading.
does not equal
You seem to have the reading down. Now work on the comprehension.
While wikipedia is not the most reliable of sources the following represents the breakdown of total shipments of conventional arms to Iraq from 1973 – 1990:
In millions of dollars: source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
USSR – $30,301 – 68.9%
France – $5,595 – 12.9%
China (PRC) – $5,192 – 11.8%
Others – $2,104 – 4.8%
Egypt – $568 – 1.3%
USA – $200 – 0.5%
There is mention of a couple of covert CIA programs in the 1980’s to supply arms and technologies to Iraq through proxies, but even a massive operation wouldn’t have touched the total of the “other” category in total sales.
With regards to chemical weapons’ precursers there is the fact that in 1983 an American Company was prevented from selling a bunch of a compound that could be made into mustard gas. The problem is that most of these chemicals can also be used to make other things, like pesticides and their export does not necessarily constitute a precurser to Chemical weapans.
The notion that the US was a significant player in arming Iraq and providing it with significant quantities of Chemicals for WMD’s is a myth.
“Equipment, know-how, and supplies for weapons of mass destruction” is not the same as “actual chemical weapons” or “components for Iraq’s nuclear program”. They are different assertions. Reading comprehension is a difficult skill, I know. Even some self-proclaimed geniuses such as Nishi have no skill in it whatsoever. Spend some time developing those skills, and provide us with specifics of your accusation and actual sources.
Iran is indisputably sponsoring terrorist groups that have and are continuing to engage in military action against the United States (as well as civilians in a number of countries). If those actions had been carried out by Iran officially, they would indisputably be acts of war. As such, Iran should be treated as being at war with the United States, unless you have no problems with governments engaging in brutality through the simple subterfuge of using a nongovernmental proxy.
Hezbollah was launching military attacks on Israel from Lebanon. Either Hezbollah-occupied Lebanon is a de facto separate country at war with Israel, in which case Israel is legally justified in waging war on Hezbollah, or by its complicity in military attacks waged from its soil, Lebanon is at war with Israel, and Israel is justified in waging war on Lebanon. In either case, by sending troops to aid against Israel, Israel and Iran are at war. No ‘illegality’ involved at all. (Given the Iranian complicity in Hezbollah, Iran was at war with Israel to begin with.) If you don’t like the war, stay out of it.
Me: ‘A’ happened.
Karl: Blame America First!
Me: ‘A’ happened.
Spies: Liar!
Maggie: Evidence, please
Me: Pollack says so, too.
Pablo: The word “many” is ambiguous and until you provide a receipt for mustard gas I will believe my gut that ‘A’ is not true.
BJTexas: Wikipedia also confirms ‘A’ happened. B is a myth.
You guys are funny.
How in the hell did you come to this conclusion based upon my last sentence? You really do have a problem with reading comprehension.
Fucking frogs. Always going around making shit up.
Civilis: Confirmation of one assertion is not support for other assertions, and though you did not make that claim, I shall insult you as if you had.
The question of Hezbollah is interesting, and I wouldn’t quibble with the factual assertions you have made. Your analysis is off, however, which I might explain if I feel like it.
BJTexas: You provided information that supports my contention that the US supplied components to make WMD. Then you concluded that the assertion that the US supplied MOST of those components is false – something I never alleged.
Interesting, by the by, that no one has had much of a problem the the other 9/10ths of what I wrote….
er, not “most,” but some “significant” amount. Same conclusion.
Why do frogs hate America ?
I overstated the charge on chemical weapons. What I have been able to confirm from a number of sources is that the United States supplied Iraq with many of the components to make chemical weapons (in addition to intelligence, components for Iraq’s nuclear program, more traditional weapons, and other war-related assistance).
It has gone downhill since then.
JD. true.
I am willing to accept, without further corroborating evidence, Pollock’s statement, which I will express as “Saddam… acquir[ed some] equipment, know-how, and supplies for weapons of mass destruction… from America itself.” This is your statement ‘A’. If you would like to rephrase it, please do so.
This is not the same as your statement B, that the US was “supplying [Iraq] with chemical weapons.”
This is not the same as your statement C, “the United States supplied Iraq with many of the components to make chemical weapons”.
This is not the same as your statement D, that the US was supplying “components for Iraq’s nuclear program”.
This is not the same as your statement E (which you at least qualify that you cannot support), “The US MAY have provided [Iraq] actual chemical weapons”.
I accept that the US supplied Iraq with some components or know-how that went into his chemical weapons program. I suspect the
components were likely dual-use items. I see nothing in the evidence of whether that sale was government initiated, government supported, or just a routine business transaction that falls in the brutal game of realpolitik, and I see no evidence of how the US should shoulder the blame for their use, especially from someone willing to absolve more direct acts of war from Iran, and who keeps using this bizarre term “illegal” with reference to warfare. As I recall, the Iranians had attempted to assign the Western guilt to the Germans. The US is not Germany or France’s keeper, and I think many here believe we should be more critical of France’s foreign policy in regards to who they send weapons and assistance to.
Right. That’s precisely why I mentioned DMMP and Thiodiglycol. Both are WMD precursors like uh, chlorine. Both also have a plethora of legitimate uses and there is no bar to trading in them unless the country in question is under sanction.
Then there’s the problem with attributing sales by an American company to Iraq to the US Government. Al Haddad Trading Company, for instance, is believed to have been a Saddam front and the other company listed by the UN as having sold chemicals to Iraq, Alcolac International, was prosecuted for export violations and pled guilty in 1989. That would be during the Bush I administration.
This is not what Froggy would like you to believe.
Pollack doesn’t say “many”. He says “some” and what he refers to with that term is the set of “equipment, know how and supplies” which does not equal components for nuke and chem programs along with other weapons.
I see that your math is as poor as your reading.
What Civilis said.
There is simply no compelling evidence that whatever components ended up being shipped to Iraq resulted in any important, significant or meaningful support of the statement that the US supported and/or supplied Chemical weapons to Iraq nor is there any evidence that the US (beyond some intelligence information with regards to Iranian deplyments) supplied anything close to a meaningful or significant percentage of Iraq’s conventional weapons.
Conclusion: Go scream at the Germans, Russians, French and China for having been the principle suppliers of virtually all of Saddam’s weapons, both conventional and not. The moral equivalency argument re: WMD’s is weak and inadequately supported.
and if Pollack was any kind of scholar he’d have some sources you could share with us from the sacred book.
BTW, please point to anyone with even half a clue that says we provided mustard gas to Iraq. That would be a neat trick given that we stopped making it in 1968.
I wouldn’t be commenting here if I didn’t mind taking it as well as giving it. You’re obviously not some barely-literate griefer, and you can write coherently, so I shouldn’t be so quick as to write you off as a troll. My apologies. I’ll give you that, absent a more detailed qualifier, that “some”, “many”, and “significant” are all in the eyes of the beholder, especially as we all can’t agree on the underlying facts. We’d have to come to an agreement as to what the three words mean as well as what actually historically happened, which is unlikely to happen. As such, I will preemptively withdraw my complaints about “the United States supplied Iraq with many of the components to make chemical weapons†as our disagreement isn’t factual but semantic.
Except, maggie, that Froggy is misinterpreting/misrepresenting Pollack. This is why we’re not getting any details. That would spoil the party.
seeing how he’s handling comments here, that wouldn’t be surprising.
I withdrew B. I never contended that my support for A was sufficient to cover assertions other than A.
I honestly don’t think there is much disagreement on the facts (“accept that the US supplied Iraq with some components or know-how that went into his chemical weapons program.”).
“I suspect the
components were likely dual-use items.” Why do you suspect that?
“I see nothing in the evidence of whether that sale was government initiated, government supported” – The US supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Thats not proof, but its ‘something.’
“just a routine business transaction that falls in the brutal game of realpolitik” that is a breathtaking absolution of responsibility.
“I see no evidence of how the US should shoulder the blame for their use, especially from someone willing to absolve more direct acts of war from Iran, and who keeps using this bizarre term “illegal†with reference to warfare.” I have NEVER sought to or been willing to absolve Iran for its acts. I simply think the same standard should apply to the US. Most people on this thread have a double standard – I don’t. The “illegality” refers to international law, which is explicitly accepted by both governments as authoritative.
For the record, I’d like to note that almost 14 hours have passed since I asked La Rana to specify what materials he’s referring to that came from the US and went into Saddam’s weapons programs. He has yet to name even one, which puts him at least 2 behind me.
How would you like me to handle the comments Maggie? I think I’ve been pretty civil and accommodating. Tell me what you’d prefer.
Agreed civilis. The reaction engendered by mere statement of these facts is fascinating. I have been accused of moral equivalency, lying, hostility to the US, and absolving Iran for its acts, when I do not believe any of those things and deliberately tried to avoid giving those impressions. People on this thread seem downright fearful of even acknowledging that the US does not come into this with clean hands.
Someone else on this thread seems downright fearful of acknowledging the reality of the situation.
No one has said that the US is without sin. I think the best, most concise version of the argument you’re up against is in BJ’s #53: “The notion that the US was a significant player in arming Iraq and providing it with significant quantities of Chemicals for WMD’s is a myth.”
You insist otherwise, with no evidence to support that notion other than a misreading of Pollack. What is it you’re downright fearful of, Froggy?
6/6, 8:07 AM: “I don’t have those specifics – I thought I made that clear (I apologize if I made it seem as if I know those specifics). “
Take your time.
I tend to think of interactions, either between commenters on a blog or between countries, as governed by sets of rules. If I know the rules, I can choose my actions to take advantage of the rules. I don’t mind others exploiting the rules as long as I have the ability to choose the same actions to get the same benefit. I can also look at the rules to see where they break, that is where following the rules allows an outcome that is otherwise blatantly against the nature of the game, at which point I can suggest rule changes.
Looking at the rules regarding geopolitics and warfare (which are not the same as ‘international law’), we see that if forces belonging to country A acting at the behest of the government of A attack the territory of country B or forces belonging to country B in neutral territory, A has committed an act of war against B and B is entitled to respond in kind.
If elements of country A’s military acting outside of government control attack country B, then A must be obligated to take steps to eliminate those rogue units, either through legal or military means to B’s satisfaction, or else country A can launch military attacks against B with impunity by merely stating that whatever units participated in the attack were acting outside of orders and have been “appropriately punished” (“oh, we’re sorry, but rogue units of our air force leveled your capital city and killed thousands of innocent people, we’ve docked their pay for a month and have been assurred it won’t happen again”).
If irregular forces in country A’s territory attack country B, then A must be obligated to take steps to eliminate those irregular units through military means to B’s satisfaction, or else country A can launch military attacks against B with impunity by merely stating that whatever forces participated in the attack were not its troops. (“oh, we’re sorry, but those troops wearing our uniforms that massacred your border town in the disputed area wern’t our army, they were gurillas, and our army chief assures me that they’ve all been wiped out and won’t attack you again). Alternatively, A can admit that it’s military does not have the ability to attempt to take out the irregular forces, in which case whatever areas the irregulars control are for all practical intents and purposes not controled by A’s government and may as well be a separate country, which is at war with B.
Something similar applies to irregular forces directly supplied and armed by country A but not directly operating out of its territory, and it gets tricky if A and B are both arming proxy forces in a civil war, especially when A and B don’t want to go to war with each other. Nothing says B ever has to respond to A’s actions as acts of war, only that if it doesn’t have the option to do so, then A clearly has an advantage when B is unwilling to stoop to A’s level.
Now, any country is going to attempt to use the rules to their advantage.
Then how can you claim to know we transferred such things? How can you argue that as a fact? Are the accounts you’ve read unsourced and unsubstantiated? And if so, do those lead you to factual conclusions?
I never asserted that the US was a significant player. I apologize for overstating the initial claim. Everything else stands.
Put feet back on ground.
Pablo,
“I have read a number of things, like the Pollack book I’ve excerpted, that say that those things happened. In the absence of contrary evidence, the only logical conclusion one draws is that those assertions that are consistent across sources of varying ideological viewpoint are true.”
Why did you ‘overstate’ your original statement? What caused you to state “US supplied chemical weapons to Saddam’s Iraq”?
Because most supplies for chemical weapons are dual use. I know from research that the crucial pieces that aren’t dual use were likely supplied by other countries. Specifically, Germany probably produced the chemical weapons facilities where the dual-use chemicals were combined to form weapons, and the Soviet Union probably provided the weaponization know-how, like how to create bombs and artillery shells. France provided the nuclear facilities.
At the time, it was considered uncontroversial that the US would support a brutal dictatorship against a brutal dictatorship that was at war with the US. We did it in World War II. It’s not necessarily nice, and we’ve developed a bit of a conscience since then, but that’s the way the game was played. That we had a motive to support Iraq against Iran does not say anything about the specific issue of whether the US government relaxed its standards regarding chemical weapons.
I meant that specifically referring to transactions with dual-use chemicals that we had no reason to believe would be used for chemical weapons, as opposed to sales where either the US arranged the transaction or knew the transactions had such intended purpose but didn’t intervene. I would expect that the 1980’s US would be less paranoid about transactions with a dictatorship that was at war with one of our enemies than we would be about transactions with a dictatorship that was at war with us. I’m glad we’re moving towards a world where we no longer have to play the game like we did in the cold war.
Except that international law isn’t law. It’s bent and violated all the time by everyone that isn’t isolationist (because they have the US to do it for them), to some degree or another. I took your list in 37 as your idea of the sum total of Iran’s geopolitical relationship with the US and its allies, and it overlooks a lot of Iran’s actions. I have no problem with holding the US to Iran’s level of behavior. I see a remarked unwillingness on your part to holding Iran to the US’s standards of behavior, but that’s because we’re looking at different rule sets.
LaRana, Pollack doesn’t say what you’d like to think he does. And if he were saying that, I suspect he’d offer some examples of such. In fact, I’d be surprised if he doesn’t detail some of what he’s talking about in that passage.
What assertions? Pollack doesn’t say that we supplied components in your quote. What else does he say on page 208? 207? 209? You’ve read all of these other ideologically diverse, informed assertions and none of them list any specifics? Then what are they asserting?
I should qualify my statement here. A German company probably built the facility; there are unconfirmed rumors that German companies have built what can only rationally be chemical weapons facilities for other countries, including Libya. The setup itself is probably nominally dual use in that there could be another purpose, but the situation is such that I seriously doubt they didn’t know what they were doing. I have no idea what the German government knew about the deal.
Pablo, I supplied the words. Take it up with Pollack if you don’t like what he said. There are a number of other assertions in that book alone, but I’m not going to spend and hour flipping through it to find you more examples so you can abuse me somewhat incoherently for not saying what you want me to say. For example, I’ve made it abundantly clear that the sources I am relying on have made the assertions that I have repeated. Oye.
Civilis, I’ll get back to you shortly.
Ok, I’ll ask again.
Why did you ‘overstate’ your original statement? What caused you to state “US supplied chemical weapons to Saddam’s Iraq�
I have no problem with what Pollcak says. You do. It doesn’t support your assertion, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
Just a mistake (I didn’t see your earlier question). Didn’t realize I’d written it incorrectly until after. That particular fact is of little concern to me, despite what one could very reasonable infer from this thread.
Pablo, I feel bad dashing your hopes and dreams, but when Pollack says “some,” that supports my contention of “many.” It is not sufficient (something I never said), but it is without question perfectly supportive of what I said.
Just thought I’d bring that back down here so we can all see where you were going and marvel at your utter failure to get there.
You poor thing. So misunderstood.
Some of what? You can’t answer that because it would take too much time, it’s not worth the effort, etc… right? But you know it to be true because everyone you’ve read says so, though only in the vaguest terms.
Uh huh.
Just a mistake.
Hmmm
There are many species of mistake, as I’m sure you are aware. Why don’t (can’t) you stop to think through what you meant when you wrote the statement “US supplied chemical weapons…” and tell us. Why did you write what you wrote?
In such discussions, this is always useful. Note the attribution before remarking.
Well, yeah, because that’s exactly what you’re doing. The whole point of your presentation is nobody ought to blame the poor misguided Iranians because the US is just as bad, and anyway the damned Americans were unkind to poor dear Saddam, so clearly they are on balance worse. There is no other way to read your argument, and simpering, handwaving, I’m-just-sayin’ attempts to deflect that do not serve the purpose. Underlying it all is the assumption that if the imperialist meddling Americans had just kept hands off, none of this would ever have given us any trouble and all would be tranquility from Dakar to the Hindu Kush — implying, without ever saying outright, that the only influence of any significance for good or evil in the entire region is the interfering Yanks, a degree of jingoism (though negative) that would make Teddy Roosevelt blush.
What’s genuinely amusing is watching you tapdance around the fact that you are defining your own proposals as malefic. The constant drumbeat is that the troubles we have in the Middle East are failures of diplomacy generated by ill-will — that if we were only prepare to talk to those people, to offer them partnerships that would raise them to their proper estate in the world, all would go smoothly. This ignores the fact that such negotiations are ongoing, and have been for the entire period, but simply waves away the Inconvenient Truth® that shipping arms to Iraq and shaking hands with Saddam were part and parcel of an effort based on precisely those principles — talk to ’em, give ’em money and useful stuff to turn ’em up sweet, invite them to speak at world events to raise their prestige, all in the hope of getting them to lay off. Talk of the specific content is simply absurd. You’d be saying the same thing if all that had been shipped was CO2 canisters for dispensing soft drinks; after all, such can be used to pressurize war gas dispensers, and it’s a <shudder> greenhouse gas. Villainy!
Regards,
Ric
Pablo, Civilis, BJTexs, Maggie, SBP, et al
Thanks for taking this fellow on. These sorts of lies shouldn’t be allowed to skate. Course, then you have to go chasing after the thousands of smaller lies he uses to try to wriggle away from himself…but what else to do?
You too Ric.
Pablo, “But you know it to be true because everyone you’ve read says so, though only in the vaguest terms.” Guilty as charged. Your explanation for why you know I am wrong…?
Ric, “there is no other way to read your argument”. I have advanced two arguments, one by choice, and one by necessity. This first is that Iranian malfeasance is not of a scale sufficient to justify the rhetoric (i.e. expansionist, death cult, at war, etc.). This is the reason I entered this thread, and a point I’d love to return, given the chance (Civilis has afforded me that much). The second is a result of my own mistake, but I’ve had to defend the assertion that the US supported Iraq during Saddam’s war with Iran in ways that included the supply of elements to make WMD. It was a secondary point of my initial argument, which everyone has chosen to pick on because no one can either confirm or deny any specifics.
Ask me a question and I’ll give you an answer. You prefer to tar me with things I haven’t said and don’t believe. And yet you think that says more about me than you. How sad.
In general, I’m not interested in any proposals. I’m not interested in any particular foreign policy formulation. I’m just interested in finding out what happened, and making sure everyone appreciates that prior to formulating any proposals. Most of the people in this thread are interested in defending the assertions of government officials, without question, for reasons I am constitutionally unable to comprehend. They are humans like the rest of us, make mistakes, have self-interested goals, and due to their closeness to power have a greater interest in whitewashing any wrongdoing by the entity that feeds them.
Good one, Ric. I notice that Dissident Frogman’s chart is pretty close to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) one in Wiki.
I taught a 4 part class on the historical roots of radical islam a few months back. When we got to imperialistic Jihad of the Iranian ilk I brushed past the Iran/Iraq war other than to say that it was “ugly and brutish beyond measure.” One of the older ladies in my class, an intelligent woman and a retired journalist/English Teacher proclaimed, “Yes and then we rearmed Saddam!” She was flabbergasted when I whipped out the Wiki chart.
Froggy, as ric is pointing out you are trying to make a moral equivalancy argument that based upon any/even the smallest amount of US participation in arming any part of Saddam in the 80’s constitutes an automatic STFU when it comes to politicing about Wmd’s. I call past, present and future bullpucky on this assertion. I want my government to be far less interested in measuring out precise quantities of diplomatic fair play and far more committed to promoting and defending our best interests.
This WMD argument is old, lame and devoid of meaningful foundation.
I know what the items discussed are and I know the circumstances under which they were transferred. They do not comprise what you represent them as. See the links in my #65, BJ’s #53 and Ric’s #94. I’ve been hoping that you’d actually make your argument instead of insisting that vague inferences are hard truth without evidence to negate them, but apparently that is not going to happen, ever. What’s your explanation for believing that you’re right?
And yet you can’t be bothered to delve into any of the specifics of what happened, as long as your can find a meme you feel has been repeated enough…
For instance, Americans kill people. Everyone recognizes that. Now, let’s move on to a proposal.
Civilis,
“Iran is indisputably sponsoring terrorist groups that have and are continuing to engage in military action against the United States (as well as civilians in a number of countries). If those actions had been carried out by Iran officially, they would indisputably be acts of war.”
I completely agree, though I think the extent of this has been overstated.
“As such, Iran should be treated as being at war with the United States, unless you have no problems with governments engaging in brutality through the simple subterfuge of using a nongovernmental proxy.”
This is somewhat more complicated (here I hope to cover your other comments). I sometimes refer to international law because to a significant extent it is concerned with providing comprehensive answers to questions just like this. So permit me to borrow some language from that discipline.
Certain actions should be prohibited, and certain actions should give rise to the right of self defense. Everyone agrees with this and also agrees that the latter should be a subset of the former. The question then becomes, what fits into each category, and why.
I would argue that the supply of money, weapons, and other supplies, in and of itself, while possibly prohibited, does not give rise to any justified action in self defense. This becomes more difficult when the party you are supplying those things to is currently engaging in hostilities with another nation (ignoring alignment treaties for the moment). It becomes even more difficult if the supplying country has reason to know that those things it supplies will be used in hostilities against another nation (only a shade different, but different nonetheless).
Starting from the other end, I would argue that when a country supplies any sort of military direction for an attack, the attacked country can legitimately respond in self defense against the country that provided the direction, whether the attackers were nationals or “irregulars.” It gets trickier – and we run into the other analysis – when the supplying nation simply has knowledge that the advice they are offering will be used in hostilities against another country.
The international court of justice draws the line at the direction of attackers. Instinctively I feel the line should be drawn further back, perhaps at the supply of weapons or information with the knowledge that those things will be used against another nation. The problem with that is that it would justify an extraordinary number of actions in self-defense worldwide (this is the reason I bring up US actions). The US has frequently found itself on the other side of that would-be line, so if we draw it there, and say that the support of Hezbollah is reason enough for the US to invade Iran, then countless other countries have a legitimate claim to self-defense against the US (Iran and Nicaragua are two good examples). That is highly problematic, but (to try to ward off impending attacks) carries with it no moral weight. It simply is.
Then there are the questions of whether the right of self-defense is constrained by the limits of necessity and scope (something international law has recognize since forever), and whether the right of self-defense continues in perpetuity (also a necessity question). We can get into those next, for they carry similar problems.
OK, so how about the provision of EFP’s designed specifically to kill American troops, along with training, funding and possibly directing a nongovernmental entity to use them against American forces? Act of war or no?
Uh hunh. A specific, vociferous, and multiply repeated declaration by Iranian authorities that it is at war with the United States; invasion of an American embassy by an armed mob, followed by holding the diplomats hostage for a year and a quarter; declaration of purposeful intent to destroy an American ally; repeated and multifarious direct armed provocations and confrontations, on the high seas and elsewhere, over a period of thirty years, including the kidnapping of the nationals of allies; the training and arming of proxies and irregulars used against American interests; and the supply of arms to declared and active enemies of the United States, who have used them in support of that status — do not justify “rhetoric”? Got news for you, bub. Under the mildest and most generous of the tenets of the Westphalianism you and your allies try to project upon everyone except the United States, any of those constitute blanket permission for all-out war, to include invasion, internment, and/or hanging the perpetrators. We have, so far, indulgently confined ourselves to “rhetoric”, which I personally consider a good thing — summary execution is not the proper response to children acting up in the supermarket, except perhaps in the most egregious cases. Nor is “yes, little Jonny, you shall have all the candy you want”, though.
As for the other — yeah, you popped up the standard Yglesias “talking point” as if it meant something, and got your ass handed to you, so you squawk. My heart bleeds.
Regards,
Ric
BTW, is anyone arguing that? For that matter, is anyone arguing that invading Iran would be a great idea and would be justified?
If it could be shown that Iran was supplying EFPs with the knowledge they would be used against American troops (hard to argue that the supply would be without knowledge), my gut reaction is that it should not only be prohibited, but give rise to some sort of self defense on the US’s part. International law would find that insufficient – a decision rooted in an appreciation of the implications and corollaries resulting from saying that the supply of weapons with knowledge gives rise to a legitimate self-defense claim. For instance, if the US supplied intelligence to Iraq in their war against Iran, how does Iran not have a legit claim of self-defense? The same goes for Nicaragua and supplying the contras. I don’t say that to create some moral equivalency, but rather to point out that the determination has serious consequences if we are going to be consistent.
Like I said, my gut disagrees with the prevailing international law. The central problem I have is that the evidence of EFPs is somewhere between awful and nonexistent. I can find you specific cites, but to save time, this site has links to nearly everything on the internet with regard to EFPs. Aside from completely unsupported declarations by military commanders, which are often contradicted by other military commanders, and two abortive and embarrassingly inconclusive attempts to display the Iranian EFPs, no evidence has been presented that suggests that the Iranians are manufacturing EFPs and shipping them to Iraq. As far as I can tell, the only “evidence” is Patreus and Mullens declarations that it is so.
Pablo, Ric just did. Generally i get the impression that many would be ok with it.
Ric, probably the best way to describe U.S.-Iranian relations over the past 30 years is an ongoing, extremely low-level war. What we do about it is the problem. And I find it problematic, for reasons I’ve just explained, that you only mention aggressive actions by Iran.
And no, they don’t “constitute blanket permission for all-out war.” At least not under any understanding of the laws of war, or international law, for the last several centuries.
Balls, la Rana. Going to war against Iran would be justified by any or all of the provocations I mentioned. I did not and would not say that it was a good idea; in fact, I consider it an extremely bad idea. There are other ways, some of them fitting the definition of “diplomacy”, some not.
But when you and yours trot out your moral equivalency arguments and call for “talking to those people” as if that hadn’t been going on continuously for half a fucking century, I’m gonna call you on it. It’s wrong. It’s stupid. It’s a lie.
Regards,
Ric
It would be justified because….according to….on the basis of….
Of all the arguments one can muster on the topic of moral and legal justifications for war, “Balls” is new to me.
“Balls” was and remains a response to “Ric just did”, i.e., call for war with Iran, which I did not and do not.
Re-re-reciting the phrase “international law” does not make it mean what you want it to mean, because of the quaint phrase “controlling legal authority”, which does not exist; there are no cops, and where there is no enforcement the very concept of “law” is self-delusional.
The basis of modern relations between States is the Treaty of Westphalia and its successors, which define “sovereignty”. The rest of it is a mishmash of unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral treaties and declarations, together with a large set of customary behaviors. The United Nations, by its very Charter, is not a supranational entity with authority in the sense of itself providing sanctions for misbehavior; when it declares sanctions those must be implemented by the signatory States, and they frequently are not — witness Saddam’s Iraq, which was sanctioned repeatedly and the sanctions ignored by many parties, including France, Germany, and most of what Mark Twain called the “European Concert”.
The only enforcement of “international law” comes from reciprocity — if one State offends against another, the second is empowered to respond. Since you and your fellows have declared reciprocity anathema, by declaring that the United States is bound by “law” but subject to whatever depredation others may choose to exact without recourse, the question is moot. This is most apparent in the case of the Geneva Conventions, which according to the One True Thought require that the United States (and Israel) not harm a hair on anyone’s head while suffering in silence at whatever outrage may be performed upon it. What is left is some bilateral treaties about company ownership, the transfer of money, and the like, which have nothing to do with war or its conduct.
Tinkerbell survives by wishful thinking at every performance. Outside the performance hall, the principle is somewhat less applicable.
Regards,
Ric
BWAH HA HA HA HAaaaaaa
Now you know how Ken Pollack feels, Ric. ;)
It doesn’t matter what you said, only what La Rana thinks you said.
I note that LR never chose to explain the cause of his ‘mistake’. Not to say what sort of mistake it was. Not to say what motivated it, if it was the sort of mistake that had a motivation. LR just brushed it off as something unworthy of being looked into, something too trivial to notice. It seemed to me at the time he wrote it that gross slander would be too kind a characterization, but no, I was wrong, it was just a mistake. A trifling thing, no matter.
It’s also worth noting that La Rana just happily conflated any strike on Iran with a full scale invasion. The truth of the matter is that we’ve got guys at Whiteman who can saddle up and put an enormous hurt on Iranian targets and be sleeping in their own beds less than 24 hours later, having never set a boot on the ground.
Next, it also bears mention that La Rana thinks the full summary of Iranian involvement with Iraq insurgencies and their use of Iranian made IED’s/EFP’s can be had from *snicker* Cernig. Bill Roggio, not so much. MNF? Nah. They’re awful and nonexistent. Completely unsupported! Eleventy!
I also can’t help noticing that the firm assertion that we supplied Saddam with WMD components is less supported than that of Iran’s involvement in exporting weapons and training to Iraq. Apparently, it depends on what you want to believe.
Where did I call you a liar, reading-comprehension-boy?
Perhaps you’re thinking of another sockpuppet you’ve got running around. Named Doyle, perhaps.
But by all means continue wriggling and spinning. Won’t change the facts, my friend.
well, Pablo, that just takes me back to this gem @37
and what is the MNF??? TEH GUBMINT!!! so totally not reliable. Cernig and Pollack? Gods among men.
On Iran in Iraq, see:
http://tinyurl.com/49yjob
Eh, you wanted some online sources. I gave you a repository of sources. But you don’t like those sources. Must have different ones. What you don’t appreciate (english needs an usted form), since few of you have read any thing about it, is that all of these sites analyze the exact same government press releases and media reports, and provide links to the same. If you guys took the time read all of the information that has been reported, and paid attention to who was saying what, on the basis of what information, you’d have something to offer other than “nya nya nya not the sources I like!” We are over 100 posts and spies and sirilis are the only ones to offer any substantive disagreement. That should tell you something. But I won’t hold my breath.
Pablo, I simply haven’t done that – we just didn’t reach that question yet, entirely because you are uninterested in having an actual conversation. My two posts above perfectly articulate the issue. But you aren’t interested in figuring anything out. Too bad.
I think we can all agree that this is going in circles. Adieu.
did I call it or what? see, La Rana knows stuff that can’t be found anywhere else.
analyze the exact same government press releases and media reports
None of the links or references you’ve provided give the information Pablo asked for.
Do you really think this incompetent spin attempt is going to work?
entirely because you are uninterested in having an actual conversation
Pablo asked a question.
You haven’t answered it.
Someone “is uninterested in having an actual conversation”, Le Frog, but it isn’t Pablo.
[…] John Bolton (and Regis) noted the irony of Obama’s unilateralism at the beginning of the month. Apparently, he’s not the only one. In assessing US reliability under a potential Obama administration, foreign officials also probably notice his ongoing flip-floppery on international trade. […]
[…] once we move from the streets to the governments of these other countries, we find the prospect of an Obama administration creates anxiety among countries from Israel to Iraq and China (largely due to trade concerns likely echoed in South […]