PDA

View Full Version : Bush Gone Wild



ODShowtime
02-08-2005, 02:38 PM
Mon Feb 7, 7:01 PM ET Op/Ed

By Ted Rall

Trying to Start War Against Iran

PARIS--We're already at war with Iran. The question isn't whether or not they'll fight back. The question is when and how.

Bush used his State of the Union address to signal that Iran is his next target of war, calling it "the world's primary state sponsor of terror--pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." Though Condoleezza Rice pledges that war against Iran "is simply not on the agenda at this point," she issued similar assurances in 2002 when, in fact, Bush had already green-lighted war against Iraq. "When asked [at her confirmation hearing] whether the United States' goal was to replace the Islamic Republic [of Iran]," reports the International Herald-Tribune, Rice "did not say no." And for good reason. As the White House confirms, U.S. Special Forces commandos have been operating on Iranian soil since last year, scoping out military bases as targets of future airstrikes. United Press International reports that U.S. spy jets have been deployed over Iran in order to goad defense radar stations into locking in on them, revealing their positions for the coming war. Can you imagine how Bush would react to news that Mexican ground troops were snapping souvenir photos of Los Alamos, or that the Canadian air force was jetting over the Midwestern stratosphere? There's no difference. In such a case Bush could easily get the U.N. to sign off on war. This is more than a one-time border incursion. This is invasion, under international law the ultimate justification for a declaration of war--by Iran.

Since they declared mission accomplished in Iraq a couple of years ago, the hard-right Bush Administration's most bellicose zealots have been itching to invade Iran. But Bush probably can't let Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have their way. Afghanistan and Iraq have used up all of our available troops and cash. Even cutting and running from Iraq wouldn't do the trick. If 150,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq can't defeat a few thousand resistance fighters with RPGs and IEDs, how will they fare against Iran--a nation three times the size of Iraq, whose terrain includes a range of big-ass mountains, which has a half-million-man standing army equipped with modern hardware?

Denied their longed-for ground invasion, the neocons have fallen back to the next best thing: using Israel to launch proxy airstrikes against possible WMD and other military installations in Iran's eastern desert. Placing Iran as the "top of the list" of the world's most troublesome nations during a high-profile television appearance, Dick Cheney referenced Israel's 1981 preemptive bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor as a model for U.S. military action against Iran. "They understand that they were overly optimistic about Iraq," a person in a position to know the Administration's intentions tells me. "But they think they've learned from their mistakes, that young Iranians want democracy. If we put the mullahs off-balance, they say, the people will overthrow them."

That's a big gamble. Iran already has, in Ian Bremmer's words, "one of the most pluralist and (relatively) democratic regimes in the Middle East." Moreover, distrust of the United States--which overthrew Iran's democratic government in 1953, backed the Shah's vicious dictatorship and has worked tirelessly to ruin the Iranian economy through sanctions and covert sabotage since the 1978 Islamic revolution--can hardly be overstated. The kids may want freedom, but they don't believe the U.S. will deliver it. And they live right next door to Iraq, where American "liberation" leaves something to be desired.

In the middle to long run, "surgical" airstrikes on Iranian military infrastructure would probably be even more costly to U.S. interests than an outright ground invasion. Because Iranian officials have lived under the threat of attack for 25 years, they've taken pains to carefully conceal their extensive military infrastructure, which may include nuclear weapons. Pentagon analysts concede that these efforts have been effective enough to deny Israel or the U.S. the ability to cripple Iran's ability to field fighter jets or launch missiles.

Iranian leaders already feel the squeeze between U.S.-occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. The day after an Israeli or U.S. attack, Iranian leaders would correctly surmise that failure to respond would undermine their domestic political credibility. Jumping through U.S.-imposed hoops, as Saddam did during the winter of 2002-3, would be perceived by the Bushists as an indication of weakness. Ex-president Hussein can tell you how well cooperation works.

The nightmare scenario happens to be the most likely. To stand a chance in its confrontation with the United States, Iran would require the support of neighboring Arab countries. But now that Iraq has been neutered by partition, civil war and occupation, Iran is the only large majority Shia nation in the Middle East. Since many Sunnis consider Shiaism a heretical strain of Islam, Iranians would otherwise suffer alone. Were Iran to retaliate against Israel--whether responding to an attack originating from the U.S. or Israel wouldn't matter since Iran's missiles could only reach the latter--that would change. Arab states, forced to choose between Shia Iran and the Jewish state, would yield to popular pressure to come to Iran's aid. If the Iranians have managed to build one nuke, they might use it against Tel Aviv. Cheney's half-baked rehash of 1981 could fulfill every late 20th century's worst-case scenario by setting ablaze the entire Middle East.

If war follows its own internal logic, so does the clash of words and gestures that leads up to it. The U.S. has backed Iran into a geographic and diplomatic corner, breaking the first rule of Machiavelli 101 by encouraging nuclear proliferation as the sole guarantee against U.S.-led regime change. (Kim Jung Il, President Khatami on Line 1.) Losing the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq made the Bushists Gone Wild lose face; now they need a bigger win than ever. One hopes for cool heads to prevail, but they are in short supply. The two sides are locked in a death grip in which self-perpetuation necessitates the other's destruction.

ELVIS
02-08-2005, 02:43 PM
Iran, US have shared interests in Iraq, says Rafsanjani


New York, Feb 8, Kyodo/IRNA -- Iran and the United States have a
common enemy in the Al-Qaeda terrorist network and shared interests
in Iraq, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said
in an interview published Monday.

Rafsanjani, one of Iran`s most powerful leaders, said in the
interview with `USA Today` in Tehran on Sunday that Iraq`s January 30
national elections went "well" and that Al-Qaeda terrorists "are our
enemies, too."

"You are aware of what (Al-Qaeda has) done to our (fellow
Shiites) in Iraq.

He described as "nonsense" statements by US President George W.
Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Iran`s "cleric-run
government" and human rights record.

"We say (the United States) wouldn`t dare to attack us, and they
have tested it once (the failed hostage rescue in 1980)," he added.

"The United States is a big country, but unfortunately it
seems it has the brain of a little bird not befitting the greatness
of the country," Rafsanjani said.

He also said Iran is not aspiring to acquire nuclear weapons.
"We are certain that we will never use such weapons; therefore, they
have no use for us," he said.

Rafsanjani was Iranian president from 1989 to 1997 and is likely
to run for president again in June.



:elvis:

guwapo_rocker
02-08-2005, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
or that the Canadian air force was jetting over the Midwestern stratosphere?

Our plane is in the shop.....

Needs a new prop.

Steve Savicki
02-08-2005, 02:54 PM
Can 50.8 to 52% explain why they voted for this guy?

Nickdfresh
02-08-2005, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Iran, US have shared interests in Iraq, says Rafsanjani


New York, Feb 8, Kyodo/IRNA -- Iran and the United States have a
common enemy in the Al-Qaeda terrorist network and shared interests
in Iraq, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said
in an interview published Monday.

Rafsanjani, one of Iran`s most powerful leaders, said in the
interview with `USA Today` in Tehran on Sunday that Iraq`s January 30
national elections went "well" and that Al-Qaeda terrorists "are our
enemies, too."

"You are aware of what (Al-Qaeda has) done to our (fellow
Shiites) in Iraq.

He described as "nonsense" statements by US President George W.
Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Iran`s "cleric-run
government" and human rights record.

"We say (the United States) wouldn`t dare to attack us, and they
have tested it once (the failed hostage rescue in 1980)," he added.

"The United States is a big country, but unfortunately it
seems it has the brain of a little bird not befitting the greatness
of the country," Rafsanjani said.

He also said Iran is not aspiring to acquire nuclear weapons.
"We are certain that we will never use such weapons; therefore, they
have no use for us," he said.

Rafsanjani was Iranian president from 1989 to 1997 and is likely
to run for president again in June.



:elvis:


Great! That's our "in' to seek dialogue with Iran and save "face," the one going on between the Franco-German/UK European Union commission and the Iranian Gov't. The one the Iranians have been waiting for us to enter a dialogue rather than threaten them with our bogus, irrational sabre-rattling.

Nickdfresh
02-08-2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Mon Feb 7, 7:01 PM ET Op/Ed

By Ted Rall

Trying to Start War Against Iran

PARIS--We're already at war with Iran. The question isn't whether...


You're on fire today with those articles Matt!

ODShowtime
02-08-2005, 03:18 PM
No Nick, we need to start a war so we can get paid! Where's the profits in "diplomacy"?

ELVIS
02-08-2005, 03:24 PM
Where's the link to that article ??

I find it difficult to take "big-ass mountains" with any seriousness...

ODShowtime
02-08-2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Rafsanjani, one of Iran`s most powerful leaders, said in the
interview with `USA Today` in Tehran on Sunday that

"The United States is a big country, but unfortunately it
seems it has the brain of a little bird not befitting the greatness
of the country,"

I hate when one of those ragheads is right about our country.:mad:

ODShowtime
02-08-2005, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Where's the link to that article ??

I find it difficult to take "big-ass mountains" with any seriousness...

sorry I forgot:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=748&e=1&u=/ucru/20050208/cm_ucru/bushgonewild

Big Teddy tells it like it is.

ELVIS
02-08-2005, 03:30 PM
Good article though...

ODShowtime
02-08-2005, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Good article though...

This guy is almost always good. His cartoons are great too. I appreciate your additions to the discussion!

Big Train
02-08-2005, 03:36 PM
Oh no, we are flying over and goading them? Like we aren't with 12 other countries at the moment. You think it doesn't happen to us? Chinese planes "bumping us", sub hunts going on worldwide. Taking any of that as a precursor to war is a bit dim.

The facts still remain that we are committed and stressed financially and militarily here. Bush will not start another war in the next 4 years as there is no popular support for another engagement. The boogeyman can say all they want, but it simply is not feasbile nor would it be allowed to happen

ODShowtime
02-08-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
Oh no, we are flying over and goading them? Like we aren't with 12 other countries at the moment.

What other countries have had their neighbors in the east and west invaded and conquered by us in the last 4 years? How much more obvious could it get?

The facts still remain that we are committed and stressed financially and militarily here. Bush will not start another war in the next 4 years as there is no popular support for another engagement. The boogeyman can say all they want, but it simply is not feasbile nor would it be allowed to happen

Since when has feasibility or the public's wishes meant a god-damned thing to these assholes?

I feel like I'm Big Train's alarm clock. WAKE UP IT'S REALITY TIME!

Big Train
02-08-2005, 03:49 PM
Oh, I'm wide awake.

Ok, let me try to explain in terms a lib would understand.

On the one hand, Bush is on his way out of public life, so if he is the scumbag you all proclaim him to be, cashing out should be his number one priority. Now, with all his closeness to oil and defense, he has done plenty for those industries. If I am to follow the logic presented in other threads, he is now using SS as a way to feed his "wall st. cronies".

If nothing else, the political risk to his domestic agenda is to high risking another military engagement. It would give the Dems a strong foothold to regroup and rail. How is that worth it to him when defense and oil are already greased? That's right, it isn't.

The Dems are down and out at the moment, so Republicans are focused on pushing all their domestic agenda items through NOW, uncontested. Foreign Affairs are already to entangled. The potential upside to attacking Iran is not large enough.

FORD
02-08-2005, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
Bush will not start another war in the next 4 years as there is no popular support for another engagement.

There wasn't much popular support for the last one either, but that didn't stop them.

Remember, PNAC had this agenda in 1998. Junior's pResidency is just the vehicle they are using to implement it, and they couldn't care less how much they are hated for doing so.

Nickdfresh
02-08-2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
Oh no, we are flying over and goading them? Like we aren't with 12 other countries at the moment. You think it doesn't happen to us? Chinese planes "bumping us", sub hunts going on worldwide. Taking any of that as a precursor to war is a bit dim.

The facts still remain that we are committed and stressed financially and militarily here. Bush will not start another war in the next 4 years as there is no popular support for another engagement. The boogeyman can say all they want, but it simply is not feasbile nor would it be allowed to happen

BigT, you make a lot of sense. But I fear that whereas you and I are rational, the Neocon likes of Donald Scumsfled and Wolfieshitz are driven by the sheer tint of their Rose Colored Glasses. They may not be rational! I saw Rummy on a Sunday morning talk program. He was asked about Seymour Hersh's series of articles on the subject and he roundly dismissed them ("who are his sources...blah blah").

But then asked the question I would paraphrase as "could Iran's gov't fall with a single bombing raid?" He replied basically saying the yes, because the Romanian dictator (Ceaucesteau?) was overthrown unexpectedly, why can't the Iranian gov't just fall like a house of cards?

It took a brilliant journalist to point out to him that Romania was never attacked by an external enemy with 150,000 of their foriegn troops on the border. Rumsfeld believes whatever he WANTS TOO. Because these Noecons are noted for surrounding themselves with yes-men and ignoring or suppressing dissent. So who knows?

Listen to Seymour Hersh's interview on of all shows, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_celeb.jhtml

Big Train
02-08-2005, 04:00 PM
I'm saying even giving you all points for what you said (assuming they are all crazy necons etcc on their sunset cruise), it would never get support from those within their own party who still have to worry about being re-elected.

The risk/reward ratio just is not there.

I don't get my news from Jon Stewart...nobody should.

ODShowtime
02-08-2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
On the one hand, Bush is on his way out of public life, so if he is the scumbag you all proclaim him to be, cashing out should be his number one priority. Now, with all his closeness to oil and defense, he has done plenty for those industries. If I am to follow the logic presented in other threads, he is now using SS as a way to feed his "wall st. cronies".

If nothing else, the political risk to his domestic agenda is to high risking another military engagement. It would give the Dems a strong foothold to regroup and rail. How is that worth it to him when defense and oil are already greased? That's right, it isn't.

The Dems are down and out at the moment, so Republicans are focused on pushing all their domestic agenda items through NOW, uncontested. Foreign Affairs are already to entangled. The potential upside to attacking Iran is not large enough.

What did I just say? Logic doesn't mean shit to these people. The craziest notion I have is that they're trying to start armageddon. The second most crazy notion is that they want to completely remake the Middle East.

Neither is logical or based in reality, so using logic to predict their actions doesn't work.

Nickdfresh
02-08-2005, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
I'm saying even giving you all points for what you said (assuming they are all crazy necons etcc on their sunset cruise), it would never get support from those within their own party who still have to worry about being re-elected.

The risk/reward ratio just is not there.

I don't get my news from Jon Stewart...nobody should.

Why not, you get your comedy from FOX News;)
Neither do I actually.

It was Seymour Hersh talking on his show, reflecting on the articles he has written I was referencing. Although, sometimes I think The Daily Show transmits more truth than any of the networks.

Big Train
02-08-2005, 04:09 PM
And What did I just say? Assuming they are as illogical as you say, it STILL wouldn't work because there would be NO popular support from the Dems, the population and those in his own party who need to be re-elected.

ODShowtime
02-08-2005, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
And What did I just say? Assuming they are as illogical as you say, it STILL wouldn't work because there would be NO popular support from the Dems, the population and those in his own party who need to be re-elected.

I may not be fully informed here, but what could Dems possibly do to stop them?

Also, that's IF we don't get attacked before then.

Steve Savicki
02-08-2005, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by FORD
There wasn't much popular support for the last one either, but that didn't stop them.
The reason people voted for him was that he started a war and put unnecessary fear into people that the U.S. needed it.

Many people who've said they don't like war or even approved of it to begin with still voted for Junior because:

1. He makes our country "look strong" with a 2nd term, or

2. Junior brainwashed the general public into thinking the war is necessary this 2nd term when it was never necessary to begin with.

A low down tactic to win the election I say- the cost of human life.:(

Big Train
02-08-2005, 04:40 PM
Yes Steve, those are the EXACT reasons I voted for him..

Sgt Schultz
02-08-2005, 04:43 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/thorphalanx/bush_gone_wild.gif

Steve Savicki
02-08-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
Yes Steve, those are the EXACT reasons I voted for him..
Then may I ask, how does Junior make the country look strong with just a 2nd term?

ELVIS
02-08-2005, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
I don't get my news from Jon Stewart...nobody should.

Amen to that!

Nickdfresh
02-08-2005, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Amen to that!

Where should we get our news Elvis?

Big Train
02-08-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Steve Savicki
Then may I ask, how does Junior make the country look strong with just a 2nd term?

My sarcasm is not coming off as strong as I would like it to.

ELVIS
02-08-2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Where should we get our news Elvis?

As many sources as possible...

ELVIS
02-08-2005, 05:14 PM
Except The John Stewart show...:D

Nickdfresh
02-08-2005, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Except The John Stewart show...:D

FTR~(:D ) I don't. But I do get political commentary (i.e. satire) and they do often have really good guests on.

WTF, you're telling me Bill O'Reilly is any better or more truthful?

Steve Savicki
02-08-2005, 05:45 PM
Sorry Big Train... just a LONG day at work... LONG tomorrow as well (I sometimes hate it when I know what will happen in advance.)

ELVIS
02-08-2005, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

WTF, you're telling me Bill O'Reilly is any better or more truthful?

I would say, better...;)

Nickdfresh
02-08-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I would say, better...;)

You mean Vibetter;) .

Nickdfresh
02-08-2005, 07:22 PM
Speak of the devil, The Seymour Hersh interview is being broadcast right now on Comedy Central.

diamondD
02-08-2005, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
My sarcasm is not coming off as strong as I would like it to.


No offense to Steve, but sarcasm sails right over his head usually.

Little_Skittles
02-08-2005, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
I hate when one of those ragheads is right about our country.:mad:


Keep your friends close and your enemies closer they know all your weaknesses.

ELVIS
02-08-2005, 09:27 PM
You are a wise girl...

Little_Skittles
02-08-2005, 09:34 PM
Learned it from my mama first and then other people later on.

ODShowtime
02-09-2005, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Little_Skittles
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer they know all your weaknesses.

The best is to not let your enemies know they are your enemies, until you are ready to strike.

The Russians have a word for it, but I'm not going to try and butcher the spelling here.