PunkAssBlog (“I’m so punkass that when I speak Truth to Power, Power listens, because it knows if it gets all stubborn and shit, I’ll chuck a brick through a Starbucks’ window just to do it. If, you know, no cops are around.”) says that Robert Spencer, Charles Johnson, Bryan Preston, Allahpundit and, naturally and especially, yours truly (who for the record has no pretensions to being an Islamic scholar) “lied” about Iran’s intentions in sending out its letters to both President Bush and the Pope—and that I am engaging in a “call for war as a way to compensate” for my “esteem issues, particularly as they relate to masculinity.”
Ouch. How totally punkass!
Of course, this is itself a lie: in my first post, regarding the letter to Bush, I reached no conclusion, but instead offered an opinion about how we might proceed, based on Ahmadinejad’s increasingly belligerent behavior:
But whether or not Ahmadinejad (and the mullahs) are pragmatists playing chess, or else crazed religious fanatics poised to unleash some sort of devestating weapon on the world, what is unquestionable is that Ahmadinejad has positioned his pieces so as to appear ready to go to war.
Which, for those who have observed our poisoned partisan atmosphere, means that Iran has forced us to consider our optionsâ€â€many of which will be politicized, delayed, demonized, or used opportunistically by politicians trying to take the electoral pulse (Seymour Hersh’s story about the US being prepared to nuke the Persians a shining example)â€â€all of which works in Iran’s favor if their aim is to buy time to complete their nuclear program.
Of course, it is also possible (and far more frightening) to think that our intelligence has once again failed (remember, Israel believes Iran to be much closer to completing the program than does our infallible intelligence apparatus), and that Ahmadinejad’s letter augurs something far more disastrous and, dare I say it?â€â€imminent.
And that is why we simply must be prepared to react with dispassionate resoluteness to any aggression by Iran; better, of course, would be were we to act to prevent that aggression in the first placeâ€â€even if that means nothing more than letting Iran know that, given their President’s unprecedented letter, any near-term attacks with WMD will be laid at their doorstep, and that we have a policy for responding to such attacksâ€â€but one wonders if our diplomats (and an increasingly rogue element in the CIA) wouldn’t fight that strategy tooth and nail.
Many foreign policy realists inside the beltway are betting we can keep a pragmatic Ahmadinejad within his box. But are the rest of us willing to take that bet?
And in my post yesterday, I wrote:
[…] one wonders if recent revelations about highly enriched uranium traces being found at sites connected to Iran’s defense ministry, as well as former Pakistani chief of staff Mizra Aslam Beg’s suggestion that Iran likely already has nuclear weapons, might have something to do with all this…
Either way, I sure do hope John Murtha comes forward with a plan to censure Ahmadinejad, if not for what is beginning to look more and more like an actual imminent attack against the West, than at least for his indecorous behavior with regard to “who can be given nuts and chocolates”.
Neither of these posts calls for war with Iran; each, however, takes seriously the bizarre behavior of Ahmadinejad, and suggests, either implicitly or explicitly, that, in the absence of any certainty regarding Iran’s intentions, we be prepared to take Ahmadinejad at this word. This is common sense, it seems to me, but I suppose it could be an attempt to compensate for my esteem issues, most especially the size of my junk—about which PunkAss (“I’m so punkass, I can talk about mentally measuring other guys’ junk and not feel at all self-conscious!”) seems curiously interested.
Anyway, I’ll let you read his deconstruction of the da’wa argument for yourselves—and in the interim will myself try to resist pointing out how PunkAss’ casual certainty that Iran is “at least 5 years away, likely more, from nuclear weapon creation,” and that “nothing short of a full-scale invasion would allow us to actually dismantle any possible program” (assertions not linked to any supporting evidence, and both of which are under dispute, if not outright wrong) are meant to affect an expert status on both the Iranian weapons program and US military capabilities that I’m not sure he possesses. Of course, it’s possible, I suppose, that PunkAss knows more about Iran’s nuclear weapons program than Pakistan’s former chief of staff Mizra Aslam Beg (and Israeli intelligence, who we can disregard as “neo-con” allies; and those highly-enriched uranium traces? Likely false positives). Though I doubt it.
And yet I’m the one pretending to be an expert…?
But why bring up somebody as frankly insignificant as PunkAssBlog (“I’m so punkass that were Sid Vicious alive today, he’d be my personal valet, and you can be damn sure he’d be keeping the fridge stocked with Red Bull or else he’d find my punkass Vans in his ass”)?
Well, because in reading his post I was struck by what comes through as a rather touching belief in Ahmadinejad’s basic goodness—at least, when compared to wingnuts like me, who actually hate America, humanity, etc., far more than Ahmadinejad ever could. Writes punkass (“prepare to feel my punkass edge, paste-eater!”):
Your hated enemy said [his letter] was actually a call to human beliefs, our shared idea of morality. He said if we agree to conduct ourselves by that shared morality, we’ll have resolved our differences. Now, I don’t know that he’s being entirely on the level here, but it’s even better to highlight parts out of context that actually say nothing and just assert they mean war.
[my emphasis]
PunkAss is right: far better to highlight those parts taken out of context that offer meaningless platitudes about our shared morality (even as Iran continues to fund terror organizations and is looking for ways to drive the Jews into the sea) than to suggest (as Reuters does) that there is historical precedent for such letters going back to Mohammed, and that these letters carry with them the possibility that Iran is preparing for some sort of attack.
After all, why be so negative?
Continues PunkAss (“I’m so punkass, I’ll smoke a joint right out in the open, and fuck the pigs if they want to try to stop me! Because I’ll just run into the mall and lose them in the food court”):
As sad as this is for the wingnuts, there’s more compassion for Americans, especially ones in need, in that letter than the ‘nutjobs ever express. Based on the paper trail, it seems obvious that they hate most Americans more than the Iranian President. But it’s still important to use the sheep you despise to promote your cause, and banking off the work of others, G*ldstein’s done a fantastic job. He’s produced perfectly evil probloganda, and he should have more of the Americans he hates dying and slaughtering innocents in no time.
Got that? So deranged with partisan hatred have people like PunkAss become that they actually believe that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad cares more about the wellfare of “Americans, especially ones in need,” than do those of us who, well, listen to what Ahmadinejad and his Mullah puppetmasters actually have to say.
In fact, in his faux-hipster punkass world (“How punkass is it? It’s so punkass that I’ll answer that question this way: fuck you, you non-punkass bitch”
, those of us who are interested in finding a way to take seriously Iran’s threats and still avoid the all out war that would necessarily result should Iran follow through on any of its threats—something that can only happen, I’d like to point out, should people like PunkAss convince us Ahmadinejad’s interest in “shared morality” makes him no more dangerous than a little fluffy Farsi bunny—are evil and blinkered war propagandists, while PunkAss is a brave dissident, standing astride history screaming into the teeth of the bloodthirsty wignut hordes, “You guys, like, totally suck, man!”
****
related: reports are circulating today about an Iranian law passing that would require Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians to wear badges. But Israpundit notes that this story might be a hoax.
.
“probloganda”
You just know he’s high-fiving himself and chortling with self-satisfied glee over that one…all around his mom’s basement.
I’m so punkass, I thought Gleaming the Cube was a documentary.
And now for more uplifting moral news….Iran is going to start requiring Jews, Christians, and all non-muslims to wear identifying patches!
Link
What could go wrong?
And now for more uplifting moral news….Iran is going to start requiring Jews, Christians, and all non-muslims to wear identifying patches!
Link
What could go wrong?
—
Blogaganda – scans better.
—-
As I remember back in my younger days a punk was what we now call a prison bitch, as for ass, that what the punk was a piece of.
I think you should show more respect for Ahmadinejad’s outreach. I mean, he probably took a whole afternoon off from kite flying and puppy petting to write that letter and all you can do is crap all over it (and, frankly, after what we did to Saddam, the world needs all the kite flyers and puppy petters it can get).
I’m so punkass, I’ve scribbled “Death” all over my Psychology 101 notebook…in ink!
Our friends, those “compassionate” Iranians have passed a law requiring non-Muslims to wear an identifying badge in public.
Square that circle, punkassbitch.
This pussy has no clue that the reason firmness is required when dealing with Islamonutjobs like Ahmalittleteapot is that given enough slack, they’ll do something so stupid, so heinous, that we’ll have no choice other than to nuke their asses.
I don’t want that. Goldstein doesn’t want that, neither does anyone else posting here.
Jamitinmypunkass is willing to take the risk in order to score silly debating points.
Punkass indeed.
I prefer my planets “green”.
the warm, cuddly embrace of a corrupt and monstrous theocracy that executes gays and now would like to revive a little fashion sense, circa 1930s Germany.
But seriously…don’t try to insinuate leftists have a history of fawning over dictators! That was totally somebody else- you Racist!
<snark>
And the fact that Ahmadinejad revived a law requiring Jews to wear yellow patches just means he cares more about them than others. After all yellow is a hpy color, happy, happy, happy.
What a nerve actually equating that with the holocaust. After all, Ahmadinejad is just speaking truth to the zionist neo con power.
</snark>
TW: finally as in the type of solution that Ahmadinejad envisions
re your update and my last –> D’Oh
Holy crap, you quoted yourself to enhance credibility.
THAT’S Punkass.
And why do people add emphasis(bold) to a quote? Why waste my time with unbolded text? If you want to take stuff out of context, then just DO it.
“Explaining your rant” is an oxymoron.
Just rant.
I am curious if SPunkInHisAss still believes in Ahmadinejad’s ability to embrace “human beliefs” now that his government has called for Jews and Christians to wear identification symbols? (see this&that’s link at 11:54am)
Every week, there are more shocking threats, acts of oppression, and evidence of nuclear progress coming from Iran, yet the U.N. dithers to the point of incapacitation and the political Left takes a firm stand against the America and its leadership, only country (with the exception of Israel) that will be left to take action against Iran when we’ve reached a boiling point.
Politics, for the Left, has become a zero-sum game against Bush. Regardless the threats against all of us, those like SPunkInHisAss will go to tragic lengths to defend the indefensible.
I wonder what will come first. The rove indicment, or this supposed war that Iran has “islamically declared.”
great response, chia pet. Got something substantive to add to the conversation? Or are you out of ammo?
TV (Harry)
I’m so punkass, I gave my chia pet a mohawk.
You got to admit. That is some punk ass shit.
I’m so punkass I crap live ChiaPets.
…I have no idea what that means.
As so often happens, Mark Steyn says it best: “Back then it was just crazies like Reagan and Thatcher who had nukes, so you can understand why everyone was terrified. But now Kim Jong-Il and the ayatollahs have them, so we’re all sophisticated and relaxed about it, like the French hearing that their president’s acquired a couple more mistresses.”
Hmmm.
Centrifuges require a pretty significant amount of electricity.
Just bomb the powerlines dammit!
That’ll take their whole nukler power thingy offline.
PunkAss (“I’m so punkass, I make Green Day seem Punk”) wrote:
The closing of the letter, “Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda,” —left untranslated in the version widely available—translates as “Peace oÂÂnly unto those who follow the true path.”
In his hurry to call Jeff a liar, PunkAss (“I’m so punkass, I make Sum 41 seem Punk”) missed that part.
Ed: And then it’ll be endless whining about how the babies are all dying because the evil American warlords cut off the power, and no matter what the Iranians said they totally didn’t actually have a nuclear weapons program, and anyway they totally should because that’ll be a counter to evil American nukes and stuff and we just hate brown people anyway, etc.
(Remember “millions of zillions of babies in Iraq die every 45 seconds because of evil sanctions”? I do.
You cannot win against such arguments, rhetorically; even giving up gets you blamed when the result of giving up is castable as negative, somehow, at some later point.
Especially in domestic politics, if the President is/was a Republican.)
Was the left right on Iraq? I think so. I think that every claim that got us in there was false. So, um, pardon me if we don’t believe you on the whole zealot thing.
I frankly don’t care what Punkass thinks. He is, self admittedly, a punkass.
Ahmenadingdong? I’ve had enough of his mouth. He can either stop spewing the shit or get his punk ass kicked into the next existance. You fuck with the bull, you get the horn, buddy. That’s nature.
Islam? Fine if you like that sort of thing. I don’t, much, but as long as it’s not being forced on me under threat of death, I don’t much care about it one way or the other. Threaten me, and see how fast you grow a third eye.
That’s nature, too.
SB: control
yourself, bitch.
OT but I’ve heard that the badges thing is false. They are trying to legislate fashion – apparently they are upset at all the European fashions the ladies are wearing. There is no mention of Christians or Jews in the legislation. This was on the radio this morning. They interviewed someone from one of the Isreali dailies that covers Iran.
TW: I think that PunkAss has a little male confidence issue.
How were they right, logic man? Not saying that you need to believe me at all; but I’m interested in how you think the “left” was right on Iraq.
Because personally, I’m not really sure what their position was/is? (We want Saddam gone, but sanctions were a) working b) killing innocent children. We a) supported the invasion to remove Saddam, but recognized that it would require more troops b) are calling for an immediate pull-out of troops because the war is lost. And so on.)
Little help? Because from what I understand, Saddam is gone, there’s been no civil war, and Iraq may form a unity government as soon as Saturday.
It seems, too, that al Qaeda is less sanguine about our obvious failure in Iraq than are people like you.
Ah, the old “Boy who cried Wolf” argument. Just remember, the wolf GOT the boy at the end. What will happen if Crazy Mahmoud gets a bomb? The wolf will get the boy, and everyone else, including you.
Tool.
TV (Harry)
Jeff, there were no weapons of mass destruction, no *legit* connections to any al-qaeda work, really nothing that should have forced us into this mess. he had nothing to do with 9/1, bad as saddam was.
remember when the right used to be against nation-building? what happened to that?
because it turns out that position was correct: it’s impossible to make someone’s country for them.
the iraqi threat was fake, and the iranian threat is equally fake. this time, though, unless there’s a draft, i don’t see how we’ll kill enough people to prove it…
Hey Harry, does that mean we should kill everyone with a grudge against us? B/c that’s a lot of the world right now.
Real hipsters wedge Sid Vicious references in-between proto-fascist blog posts written for an audience of inbreds adn pimple-faced geeks who think Ayn Rand is high literature.
Amir Taheri writes in today’s Nat’l Post:
Yup. Cuz “logic” man says so. Rest easy everyone!
Huh? Where did I say we should kill Iranians and Iraqis? Want to quantify that a bit more please?
All I’m saying is that something needs to be done. I fully admit I don’t know what it’ll be yet. So don’t put words in my mouth.
TV (Harry)
Well, there you go. “logic man” has convinced this former warmongering, conservative, capitalist pig, chickenhawk (sorry about the glaring animal contradictions, everyone) that we truly can have “peace in our time.”
You do have a piece of paper in your hand, don’t you, logic man?
Logic man—that’s what everybody seems to miss: Those on the left AND the right who counseled caution and restraint before the Iraq invasion (and who did enough research and reading to realize that impending musroom clouds were fairy tales that serve only to scare the sheeple into line) were indeed correct… everything they (we) feared from a half-assed invasion with virtually no post-war planning (and bad decisions) has come to pass, sadly: increase in terrorist acts worldwide, insurgency, chaos, constitutional planning based on anti-democratic Islamic ideals, civil war, greatly reduced oil production (funny how that helps drive up the cost of oil, huh?), ongoing US and Iraqi casualties (in place of flowers and candy, I guess), reconstruction graft (thanks, Halliburton), less freedom for women (burkhas are back in Iraq… Just in time for Summer!).
But for some reason, that doesn’t stop those who were wrong from the beginning on Iraq to weigh in on the Iran topic, as if they actually had any tatters of credibility left.
If at first they don’t succeeed… fail, fail again, I guess.
A link to the Twin Towers trailer and a post linking TalkLeft are proto-fascist, Whozit?
Wow. That’s some broad definition of budding-fascism you have there, buddy.
And if I had to bet on who the pimple-faced geek was, I’d put my money on anyone who uses the pimple-faced geek trope.
But then, I see projection everywhere!
I’m so punkass that I totally bought into the ideology of a group of people who thought throwing a musical festival in some farmer’s field– trashing it in the process– would totally transform the world into a collectivist’s paradise which idea itself was the product of a bunch of phrenology-believing intellectuals who were aiming to keep their secularized christian ethos alive by grafting a fatuous economic theory to it after they committed their Godectomy and their hordes of apologists followed on with their reality-suppressants, with such skill that it should leave any Baptist trying to resolve the conflicting Gospel versions of the resurrection in awe, which all culminates in ME, and I CARE about people, so you all can go and die.
Yeah I know it wasn’t spelled, capitalized, or punctuated right, fuck you. Take your grammar, the MAN’S tool of oppression and stick it in you ass.
NOW THAT’S PUNKASS
Sure thing, Hal. Tough break that you’re incapable of coherent speech, btw.
This is where you and the punkass get sideways. You don’t share Ahmamadman’s idea of morality. In other words, you don’t kill enough gays, you don’t hang enough rape victims and you don’t give enough aid to terrorists.
You have just been left wanting in Ahmamadman’s idea of morality.
BECAUSE OF THE MORALITY!!!!
Say hello to my little friend.
BTW, Taheri also recently returned from Iraq:
RTWT.
Docob—yes… yes… but thank God for tennis!
Hang in there kid – you’ll get that scholarship yet! =)
Well, since you clearly think you have the goods on the Iran issue, why not save us all a lot of time and let us know what the proper course of action is?
this story seems to have originated at Canada.com and they still have it. I found it here as well:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003639939
And I heard it on Fox News this morning. I will be surprised if it is a hoax.
Well, Defense Guy, since you asked… and since the soonest the Iranians might actually have a nuke is three years from now (by all estimates I’ve seen)… I might start with actual diplomacy, rather than sabre rattling… and not an immediate ill-planned invasion (or fruitless and dangerous use of “bunker-busting” nukes) –but, of course, that’s just me. For smarter, more reasoned approaches, I urge you to read what Professor Juan Cole has to say on an ongoing basis at Informed Comment (juancole.com).
LOL “proto-fascist?” That must the ugly sister of “crypto-fascist.”
You know what else is “proto-fascist?” Cops with guns. A standing army. Oh, and ignoring the Second Amendment, as most major U.S. cities do.
But hey, don’t let facts stand in the way of convenient, inaccurate labelling of viewpoints you don’t like.
I’m pretty sure he responded to a similar question already, DefenseGuy. IIRC, his prescription includes total and immediate withdrawl from the ME combined with abandonment of Isreal.
TW = elements, as in those are the two main elements of his plan.
Not to speak for Jeff, but a position taken in retrospect is not a position. The Left is always taking their positions after-the-fact. You can criticize the Right, or Bush himself, but I give the administration credit for taking action. I can go back and forth with you for hours about other reasons for going into Iraq that are just as reasonable as WMD, but you’re one who’s more comfortable with blame and casting aspersions toward Bush and the GOP leadership. That’s fine, for you, but it doesn’t get us anywhere only serves to illustrate how incapable the political Left is in making critical decisions regarding the military and geopolitics. Better to let others make the decisions, and criticize them afterward, right?
Kinda PunkAss of you, I think.
OMG … did Hal just refer to Juan Cole as his go-to guy? Talk about your credibility being in tatters!
the iraqi threat was fake, and the iranian threat is equally fake.
Yeah, the German threat was fake too. And how much of a threat was Vichy France? Was Italy going to invade Florida? Why did we invade three countries that didn’t attack us and posed no threat to us, especially when we completely ignored the Russian occupation of Poland (the defense of whose sovereignty was the ostensible purpose of the war from the start)?
DAMN THAT HYPOCRITICAL WARMONGERING FDR!!
For smarter, more reasoned approaches, I urge you to read what Professor Juan Cole has to say
OK, now you’re not even being serious. Cole barely knows Arabic and couldn’t remember whether Jenin or 9/11 happened first.
Call them “punk ass”, but fortunately for me & my ilk, we’ve been saying the same things since before the invasion of Iraq began… it’s just that our “punk-ass” viwews just happen to have been borne out by the facts, unlike some other pipe-dreams imagined by our leadership (and some on this blog, to boot).
Got a problem w/ Prof. Cole? Don’t read his work. But I trust him—and he was also spot-on w/ the Iraq imbroglio, before the fact, too. If you have somebody for me to read (esp. somebody who was right about Iraq, as Cole was), then let me know…. happy to broaden my horizons!
Btw, broadening my horizons is why I’m on this blog to begin with… to see what and why others see things so differently than I do. So far, I haven’t figured it out, except that my views have yet to be debated here… just torn at & minimized (and in the case of Cole, attacked ad-hominem).
Damn Zoroastrians owe me money.
Oh, I’ve got nothing important to add to the dogpile on AssPunk. Just enjoying the show and I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to us this Turing Word.
Turing Word: high, as in, but you’re so high.
Baghdad, Iraq (AP) Iraqis danced and clapped with joy Sunday as they voted in their country’s first free election in a half-century, defying insurgents who launched eight deadly suicide bombings and mortar strikes at polling stations.
…
“These elections are a joke,” said Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan.
Oh, dear God. What do you think debate is? Full agreement?
That’s worked for me so far.
And who can forget when Juan Cole suggested Iraqi bloggers were CIA plants?
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000659.html
Yesterday he made up a conspiracy theory (all by himself, this time) about the Iraqi bloggers who write at Iraq the Model.
Jarvis weighed in too:
Prof. Juan Cole libels my freedom-loving friends from Iraq.
The man is pond scum. I know no other way to say it. This guy Cole (supported by your tax dollars in Michigan) decides that if he disagrees with someone, he should imply that that someone must be backed by the CIA or other nefarious forces. Prof. Cole is too deaf, dumb, and blind to see the liberal irony in that; back in the day, when people disagreed with those on his side of the political spectrum, people on the other side implied that they must be backed by the Soviet Union, by Commies. It’s an old trick, Prof. I’m ashamed of you for using it.
Ever since America engaged in Iraq, Cole has spent every day on his blog doing nothing but collecting bad news—never good news. And people looking for bad news—chicken liberals—celebrate him for that.
Hey, I think he means you!
And for the record, most of Cole’s predictions about Iraq were dead wrong.
Pablo,
No… I’m honestly not expecting anything near full agreement, but something beyond “hindsight is 20-20, lefty” and “Juan Cole is a stooge”… I’m just looking for a reason why on the subject of Iran I should listen to the very people who were so wrong about Iraq, that’s all… why is Iran different (when the pre-war positioning by the Powers That Be seems so … um… familiar)?
Thanks for the offer, but to tell you the truth, Mr. Cole is a bit of a know nothing who tries to pass himself off as an expert. I suppose you have some supporting evidence for the at least 3 years claim? In addition, I’d like to know what you think actual diplomacy rather than sabre rattling with the current Iranian regime might look like, perhaps you can let us all know how it is different than what is currently being tried? How does one begin a rational conversation with a regime that ends parlimentary sessions with chants of ‘death to america’?
Hey, let’s look at some of Juan’s allegedly perspicacious predictions:
http://www.juancole.com/2003_02_01_juancole_archive.html
In other words, the Bush administration is not actually going into Iraq to establish democracy. Rather, the Iraqi people will just be forced at gunpoint to trade a belligerant dictatorship for a pliant one.
Yes, Juan’s quite the oracle. Good call!
Moreover, the idea that a US military occupation of Iraq will deter as oppose to provoking more attacks on US interests is awfully optimistic.
Hey, how many attacks on us since then? Guess that didn’t pan out either.
Do we want 100 million Shiites angry at us again?
Hmmm, that didn’t happen either.
What happens if the Iraqi Sunni middle classes lose faith in secular Arab nationalism because the Baath is overthrown, and they turn to al-Qaeda-type Islam, in part out of
resentment at American hegemony over their country?
Nope, Iraq’s Sunnis have mostly embraced democracy. Al Qaeda is extremely unpopular in every poll, and al Qaeda’s internal memors despair over the fact Sunnis have rejected them.
if the Iraqi Kurds turn against the US?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha! The Kurds are more pro-America than Americans.
This guy’s a bad joke.
Who also happens to be wrong more times than my local weatherman.
Defense Guy—actually, it’s not really the sabre rattling I’m worried about. And I do realize that can be part of diplomacy, too… it’s just that there was talk of diplomacy for Iraq, too, but we now know that the die was cast for war way back then, even as President Bush was making mouth noises about “diplomacy” and making trips to the U.N. &c… and now we’ve got the mid-terms coming up & no positive results to point to as far as governance, so all they really have to get the sheep in line is another fear-based war (oh, and the tired old Marriage Defense thing). Their lack of options for maintaining power makes me afraid they’ll just do it (again) and damn the consequences (again).
Cole pretends he was always against the invasion, when he wasn’t. And he talked out of both sides of his mouth on the Iraqi elections. And I’m sure his willingness to baselessly imply that the bloggers at Iraq the Model were CIA plants had nothing to do with being corrected by them on Iraqi history.
and
Indeed, you are.
Defense Guy:
“Well, since you clearly think you have the goods on the Iran issue, why not save us all a lot of time and let us know what the proper course of action is?”
As far as I can tell, to people who say, “You guys were wrong on the Iraqi threat, so I’ll be damned if I’m going to believe you on the Iranian threat,” the proper course of action is as follows:
Wait until Iran nukes someone. They probably won’t, because the wrong people are worried about it. As long as they don’t, insist they’re years away from having a bomb, would never be so crazy as to use it anyway; why can Israel have a bomb but not Iran, and who are we to say; etc.
If it does happen, blame Bush. He could have stopped it, after all, if it weren’t for Iraq!
IncandenzaH,
You suggest “real diplomacy.” Let us consider what we are asking Iran to do. We are asking them to walk away from two decades of research and expense when they are on the cusp of developing the most powerful weapons known to man, weapons which will allow them to carry out their geopolitical meddling (such as supporting Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) with even more impunity than they already do. Such weapons are the only thing which can protect them from American military power, something they must surely be thinking hard about given that we have nearly 200,000 troops in theater.
In exchange for that, what can we possibly offer?
And that was just treating Iran as a Realist unitary actor. When you consider that the leadership is now mostly made up of the 1979 revolutionaries, who consider America the font of all that is evil in the world, the likelihood of a peaceful outcome goes down dramatically.
TW: ideas, as in, ”Ideas must have some relationship to reality to be useful.”
IncandenzaH, perhaps you could answer a question for me. You don’t want to listen to those who were “wrong about Iraq”, so who is it that we should listen to? As I recall, all Congressional leaders of both parties, the last 2 Presidents, all Western leaders and their intelligence agencies, the UN and just about everyone else knew Iraq had WMDs prior to our “rush to war”. So who was saying they didn’t have them (outside of guys who look for dates at Burger King)?
(tw: zipper. I kid you not. SCOTT!!!)
Is that you, Andy?
Mastiff—Your response definitely helps me understand your viewpoint. I don’t disagree with it, either. To be honest, I’m tired of the right/left mishegoss & simply want to hear good arguments aired & discussed… yours is & I very much appreciated reading it. Thanks.
IncandenzaH sez:
The problem is your premise. If the whole Iraq thing was wrong, what would right look like today? Quote Cole if you like.
It seems to me that the best argument might suppose that a Saddam regime free of sanctions might provide a military check to Ahamdingytard and the Mullahcracy. But I’m not sure that fits my idea of international security.
IncandenzaH,
I applaud your willingness to check out opposing viewpoints (and hope you read the material on Cole I linked earlier, because I believe you are mistaken about him).
On the diplomatic front, Iran has summarily rejected offers of low-grade enriched uranium and of a light-water reactor. Ask yourself what this says about Iraq’s intent.
There are other options short of airstrikes that can be employed in the short-term as well. Unfortunately, the type of diplomacy I think you are suggesting is likely to be pointless absent cooperation from Russia and China, which does not seem to be forthcoming. Which should not surprise you. They aren’t cooperating on the Darfur issue, either. And they led the opposition to UN action on Iraq (despite the fact that they also thought Saddam had WMDs).
As for Iraq, the reason that the US—and many other countries—were wrong about the state of Iraq’s WMD program was because the regime failed to comply with UN resolutions and the terms of the cease-fire agreement after the first part of the Gulf War and transparently disarm itself (as South Africa did, for example). Ask yourself: “What are the likely consequences of breaking a cease-fire agreement?”
Also, the US (and regular visitors here) were certainly not wrong about the genocidal nature of the regime. Nor were they wrong about Saddam’s attempt to assassinate former Pres. Bush. Nor were they wrong about Saddam taking in terrorists like Abu Nidal, Ansar al-Islam and later Zarqawi from Afghanistan. Nor were they wrong in concluding that Saddam would have pushed forward with his dormant WMD programs once the sanctions had eroded further.
Currently, the biggest problem in Iraq is sectarian violence. But this was a problem under Saddam, as the mass graves hundreds of thousands of Shia and Kurds demonstrate. Revenge killings following the liberation of a country are not unprecedented, as the examples of post-WWII France and Czechoslovakia will attest.
But now Iraqis have at least a shot at democracy. They have a rapidly growing economy, despite the security situation. Public opinion polling shows they are glad Saddam is toppled and think their country is on the right track. The invasion incentivized Libya to surrender its WMD program and Syria to at least partially retreat from Lebanon. And while the deaths incurred by US troops and Iraqi civilians are tragic, they are quite low by any historical measure of a military operation of this scope and magnitude.
In sum, I can’t speak for others, but it is my impression that the folks who still back the invasion do so largely because they did not think WMDs were the sole rationale for invading Iraq and think that the post-invasion—while littered with errors of the sort that occur in any major war operation—has achieved a number of good results, not only for the US, but for Iraq, the region and the world.
PS: As I went into preview mode to post this, I took note of Pablo’s reply re balancing Iraq against Iran. I would note that most of today’s Iraq critics love to bring up that the US modestly supported Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war in the 80s as an indictment of US foreign policy.
You did alright by me.
IncandenzaH is the new Actus. P.S. I saw sid vicious sitting on a grave stone next to me, and he said rock and roll is better off dead.
Karl,
You bang on about China and Russia in terms of support in the UN. China will avoid sanctions like the plague because of the amount of oil that they import from Iran. Russia on the other hand is interested in both the oil and the possibilty of the lucrative contracts that could be generateed from then enriching lower grade uranium for Iran if Iran were to drop enrichment.
However, Iran won’t change direction on this for the reason that we mostly expect: It’s totally reasonable for the 5th largest exporter of oil to suffer from an electrical energy crisis and need to develop peaceful nuclear energy, right?
Thanks for that, Karl. Very interesting & thoughtful & well supported. But funnily enough, I still have a bad feeling about trusting the very same people who so poorly planned and executed the invasion of Iraq to successfully prosecute another war in the region. They don’t appear to be very good at shifting to Plan B, when needed (or actually even *having* a Plan B, actually)… plus, their over-the-top claims about Iraq’s dangers before the invasion (Condi’s mushroom clouds) doesn’t make me trust their veracity much in this context, either… and yet, they’re nearly the same arguments I’m hearing today, to wit: “If we do nothing, it might be too late.” (How does one argue that?) In this case, the Bush Administration needs to really make their case to the U.S. and to the world—with evidence and facts & not trumped up photos and guesses thrown up as a UN smokescreen (mobile WMD labs, anybody?). If/when they do, they’ll have a much better chance of Yours-Truly here (and I’m sure others around the world) joining the drumbeat for war. Until then, it’s just guesses & fearmongering & I’m simply not inclined to let Rummy & Co. take another stab at war, at this point. The Bush Adminisration’s record of untruthfulness, lack of accountability along with their proven inability to get the job done gives me a lot of pause here… A lot.
After reading hundreds of posts, with possibly thousands of links proving Iraq’s intentions, how and where we got the intelligence to claim what we did, debunking so many people who said otherwise, please understand how fed up we are at trying to debate people who (including in this comment thread) don’t acknowledge that people are engaging them while being engaged. IncandenzaH excepted, why are all those who are in disagreement with us not trying to refute?
Then, after it all settles down, someone will come back in talking the crap that they did before being engaged. Like we never responded. They will say how we are unwilling to debate, like we never responded. They will claim we are afraid to use logic, like we never responded.
IncandenzaH, you are in charge, sworn with protecting the Country who elected you to your current office. You are faced with an antagonistic country who threatens to wipe out an ally, bomb your cities, uses rhetoric that no true member of a world community would ever say. Your intelligence, and the intelligence of your allies, and a few non-allies, largely back-up the capabilities of such attacks. You need to act now. You also know that if you do act, half of your country will attack you for being a war-monger. If you get attacked first (the same) half of your country will say you blew it by not following the clues that were in front of your face. All the while they will hamstring your efforts, and still hold you responsible for the failure of using the tools they don’t want you to have. On reflection, we could be talking about Iraq, or Iran.
This is a no-win for Bush. There are few media outlets that give him any kind of break. The stories we see are whatever makes us look our worse. In spite of this, his dedication to uphold his duties the way he feels they need to be upheld is one of the few things I still admire him for. I wouldn’t want his job, would you?
I apologize for the long comment, but I need to add one more thought. We could easily have bombed the living crap out of the whole damned country. We took another course. Similar to the Israelis, we put our men in harm’s way when the only reason to do so is because we are human beings. If we really were the butchers we are made out to be, we would have far fewer casualties than we have now. Thanks for putting up with th comment.
tw: “military” not completely, no.
This does tell me a lot about where you are coming from. What untruthfullness? The old “BUSH LIED”, I guess Iraq is proff of “inability”?
No progress made in three years?
You know, IncandenzaH (?), you might get a little more sympathetic respnse around here if you dialed back on the hyperbole and–at the minimum–acknowledge that pre-Iraq intel was pretty much uniform in one thing: Saddam’s possesion of WMD. It wasn’t just the US. If you can’t admit that then you’re just dishonest. Second, who in this administration is calling for war with Iran? Who? Several of the them have said only that the use of force is on the table. That’s part of diplomacy. Lastly, why do you and the left in general trust the word of tyrants, despots and lunatics over the word of a twice-elected administration? Just because you didn’t like the outcome of two elections doesn’t explain your predilection with charging Bushco with mendacity at EVERY DAMNED THING UNDER THE SUN.
What remains of the Left can no longer distinguish between fact and leftist propaganda.
I say this because lefties plop down posts simply asserting all kinds of things. Then they proceed *from* these opinions of theirs, as if these things were proven fact that can be used as the basis of argument.
IncandenzaH writes:
I’m not a psychologist, so I can’t do anything about “bad feelings.”
The US changed its political strategy, changing the type and timing of the elections, largely to accommodate al-Sistani. It changed its entire system for training Iraqi forces when the first round didn’t work. It constantly adapts military strategy in matters large and small. For example, the large-scale military ops across Anbar province in last Fall, coopting local Sunni leaders to split insurgent groups from foreign fighters, etc. The US also had plans to deal with all sorts of bad scenarios that did not occur (possible use of WMDs by Saddam, mass refugee problems affecting neighboring nations, etc. Anyone with military experience, or anyone who has studied the history of war will tell you the old adage that no military plan survives first contact with the enemy. I suspect IncandenzaH has not heard it.
Of course, the quote is “”we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” She wasn’t saying mushroom clouds were imminent.
Good question: Do we want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud? I’m pretty sure the answer remains “no.” Iran’s actions demonstrate it wants nukes and its Pres has expressed a desire to wipe another country off the map, so we should pretend that diplomacy is going to work with religious fanatics who have rejected the offer of Russian uranium procesing or their own light water reactor?
The official US strategy right now is diplomacy (and contrary to Iraq, we don’t see any military build-up). Given Bush’s abysmal poll numbers, I think you can bet he would have to have compelling evidence to wage war agaisnt Iran. Right now, I’m expecting him to leave it for the next President.
As for the mobile labs, a recently translated document seized during the invasion raises the question of why Saddam’s Military Industrialization Committee would take interest in weather balloons.
You should realize that the people here are not stupid and recognize that the boiler-plate leftist Bush-bashing rhetoric you have just used tells the real story here. So stop pretending you have any interest in seeing the other side.
IncandenzaH, you seemed to have missed my earlier question, so here it is again. Please consider it, because it is the basis for your whole “Bush was untruthful” assertion:
…..perhaps you could answer a question for me. You don’t want to listen to those who were “wrong about Iraqâ€Â, so who is it that we should listen to? As I recall, all Congressional leaders of both parties, the last 2 Presidents, all Western leaders and their intelligence agencies, the UN and just about everyone else knew Iraq had WMDs prior to our “rush to warâ€Â. So who was saying they didn’t have them (outside of guys who look for dates at Burger King)?
(tw: question. I’m tellin’ ya Jeff, that thing is scary.)
…and on the other topic, I note that DEBKA says the Iranian draft dress code does not contain provisions requiring special dress for non-Muslim minorities. DEBKA is obviously a pro-Israel source, which lends weight to their report in this case. So I’m leaning back toward skepticism on that one.
IncandenzaH apparently also posts as iraqwarwrong on another blog.
I guess that means I won’t be getting an answer to my question. Pity.
Why is it no member of the “reality based community” won’t ever attempt to explain that to me?
I doubt that incandenzah is the author of iraqwarwrong. there is a poster on the other Iran thread (I think that’s the thread), posting under the name withheld that has to be the author of the brilliant parody site iraqwarwrong.
Again, I have nothing to do with the site, I just think it is a brilliant parody.
This is always my favorite.
I wonder what basis these folks have for saying “poorly planned and executed”? Were they on the ground? Were they at CENTCOM, the JCS maybe? I may not have been much higher than at CFA-A and CFLCC, but c’mon guys, let us here something backing up this assertion.
Don’t be afraid to use big words, or jargon, or anything else I might have to look up in FM 101-5-2…
Geez, Major John. Don’t you watch the Today show or Hardball?
Poorly planned? The Peninsula Campaign in 1862 was poorly planned. The British advance into Zululand that ended at Isandhlwana was poorly planned. Poorly planned military operations mean you get the living snot kicked out of your forces and casualty rates that are higher than what were common with training exercises in the 1980s.
Seriously, has anybody seen anyone attempt to answer that question? Who of any consequence, other than Scott Ritter (after the $400,000), said Iraq didn’t have WMDs prior to the war?
Everytime I ask that question, I kill the thread.
Sorry.
So how does this invasion compare to training exercises? did those run 3 years and counting?
Actus, since you seem to imply that the past 3 years has been a failure, could you point us to which military operation in history you would rate a success?
And perhaps you could endeavor to answer my question immediately above?
Major John wrote:
I suspect it’s a variation of “it didn’t go perfectly” and loudly repeating it, hoping people would be ignorant enough to believe the claim.
Grenada and Kosovo worked well. The brutality we helped to unleash in central america also destroyed movements against our interests there.
But I don’t mean to imply. I’m told I should compare to exercises. But I don’t know much about the exercises. Did they run to expecting us to be there 3+ years with over 100K troops and this much cost?
No sooner does IncandenzaH get respect, than Actus has to come along and start making that side of the aisle look bad again.
We’re still in Kosovo (quagmire, anyone?)
And if you think Grenada “worked well”, I submit that is proof positive you have absolutely, positively NO CLUE about military matters.
Worked well don’t mean without a hitch. It means the job got done. If we used too much force cluelessly, but it worked, well…. it worked.
Still being in Kosovo is not how I gauge whether we suceed or fail there. How many are dying per day?
Also, I’d like to know about these supposed exercises i’m supposed to compare Iraq to. How do they compare to the 3+ years, 100 K in country, 2K+ dead, and costs that we’re seeing?