go to list of threads
Iran next? wait, wait, wait.... posted by: simplicissimus 12:57 6.11.10 i'll take his points under advisement (as until there's a break one way or another, it's possible he's right). but he loses some credibility -- actually, a lot of credibility -- with this comment on obama: "and a disgraceful silence when the regime's very stability was threatened by peaceful demonstrators." first, he wasn't silent. second, every single -- and i mean every single -- commentator (whether iranian via the internet or mid-east experts writing on blogs) i read last summer duing the iranian demonstrations made it *unambiguous* that the second any western government made comments about that even insinuated that the movement was about supporting the students in overthrowing the government (which is exactly what the american right was calling for at the time) it would be the end. for god's sake, the iranian media was a 24-hour a day propaganda blast about how the whole thing was a western-inspired coup attempt. in other words: the iranian people were being told (and the government wanted them to believe the very thing that krauthamer is faulting obama for not doing. i mean, i'm all for hard questions, supplied by the kraut, on our foreign policy. but just because it would have made krauthamer feel tougher doesn't mean saying anything would have been smart. --- of course, i'll also add (partially in snark) that we saw what tremendous success 7 years of hard line comments and saber-rattling did. don't forget, as persian girl i dated told me (and i've relayed before) achmedinejad was elected as a direct result of -- and through continually re-playing -- statements made by bush about the axis of evil, etc. krauthammer takedown of obama policy toward iran posted by: horsebeater 12:35 6.11.10 showing why he's the best GOP commentator alive today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061004110.html the best part: ****************** From the beginning, the Obama strategy toward Iran and other rogue states had been to offer goodwill and concessions on the premise that this would lead to one of two outcomes: (a) the other side changes policy, or (b) if not, the world isolates the offending state and rallies around us -- now that we have demonstrated last-mile good intentions. Hence, nearly a year and a half of peace overtures, negotiation, concessions, two New Year's messages to the Iranian people, a bit of groveling about U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup and a disgraceful silence when the regime's very stability was threatened by peaceful demonstrators. Iran's response? Defiance, contempt and an acceleration of its nuclear program. And the world's response? Did it rally behind us? The Russians and Chinese bargained furiously and successfully to hollow out the sanctions resolution. Turkey is openly choosing sides with the region's "strong horse" -- Iran and its clients (Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas) -- as it watches the United States flailingly try to placate Syria and appease Iran while it pressures Israel, neglects Lebanon and draws down its power in the region. To say nothing of Brazil. Et tu, Lula? This comes after 16 months of assiduously courting these powers with one conciliatory gesture after another: "resetting" relations with Russia, kowtowing to China, lavishing a two-day visit on Turkey highlighted by a speech to the Turkish parliament in Ankara, and elevating Brazil by supplanting the G-8 with the G-20. All this has been read as American weakness, evidence that Obama can be rolled. The result is succinctly, if understatedly, captured in Wednesday's Post headline "U.S. alliance against Iran is showing new signs of vulnerability." You think? i'll trade you: posted by: simplicissimus 20:59 1.6.10 we'll erase americans' general assumption that republicans are war mongers. so long as we also erase americans' general assumption that the democrats are weak on defense. put it another way: why the hell was the press talking about obamas' lack of a public statement immediately following the christmas terror attempt when it took bush @a week to give one after richard reid in 2002? as it stands now this is one of the better bargains for your team (and when there is a successful attack, you'll see just how good of a bargain it is) believe me. oops... posted by: horsebeater 12:39 1.5.10 Remember that National Intelligence Estimate that came out in 2007 that found that Iran had discontinued its nuclear program, and which everyone used to paint the Bush administration as a bunch of liars? And remember how Cheney called it bullshit? The Obama administration agrees with Cheney. (of course, this fact is buried at the bottom of page 1, as if a non-issue) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/world/middleeast/03iran.html ********** if you forgot about the NIE, here's the NYT story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html with this tidbit: Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, portrayed the assessment as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran.” a random sampling... posted by: publius 14:59 6.15.09 of the "headlines" on the main page of cnn.com at the moment: __________ Blagojevich mocks himself on stage Most in survey can't find heart Captain America -- not so dead? Mandy Moore makes new name for herself Chihuahuas corner cougar in garage Man gets stuck atop highway sign 'Hunch' Web site will make decisions for you Mourning the death of single-girl friendship Movie crew leases house, trashes it _______ granted, the main story is about iran, and there are a couple of headlines which actually do qualify as real news...but when at least 50% of the headlines on your front page are nothing more than fluffy pop culture time wasters...you're quite simply not a news site... coverage... posted by: simplicissimus 13:51 6.15.09 some things of note from following the story this weekend: fareed zakahria, of cnn is pretty damn good: man, cnn has turned to absolute shit. i saw a daily show bit about it but didn't realize how true it is: 50% of their broadcast time is taken by reading ignorant, simply-worded "comments" and "tweets" from viewers with no discernable knowledge of the situation. however, fareed's "GPS" show on saturday was fantastic. it almost looked like it was by the bbc -- lots of news, strong analysis, no sillyness. andrew sullivan from theatlantic.com is a machine: his obsession is my gain. he's updating every 5-10 minutes all day long the EU recognizing the vote as legitimate is utter horsehit. i'm starting to view this whole event as a litmus test. if you can't at least hold your tongue until more details come out you really suck. as much as i hate twitter: it's incredible to see what's coming out of iran right now. i'm really sad about the "loss" of cable news as a reporting source. i remember tianamen, the russian coup attempt, the first iraq war: how the coverage was round the clock and awesome. it's a real shame to see how much these channels have turned into entertainment in the last 2 decades. a couple thoughts... posted by: simplicissimus 12:06 6.15.09 al-jazaeera -- which has gained some credibility as a reporting outfit in my eyes in the last few years -- has revealed itself to be utter crap. they are literally giving almost no coverage to the story, save a few articles on achmedinejad's "victory". as far as i'm concerned, there's not much a reason to ever get news from them again. the american right's reaction has also been curious. actually, most of it is as positive as you'd expect. however, some of the neo-cons have been twisting themselves in knots trying to legitize the results -- after all, it's hard to characterize a nation as the enemy of humanity when hudreds of thousands are conducting peaceful, moderate, reasonable protests about free elections. the american left has -- thus far -- been the most coherent. of course, should mousavi somehow gain power (or, even, god willing there a velvet revolution), they'll have their chance at fumbling badly to explain why the new regime is not pro-western, israel-accepting, non-nuclear-seeking. "critical mass".... posted by: simplicissimus 10:10 6.15.09 this just gets better and better: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Tens-of-thousands-of-supporters-of-Irans-opposition-leader-Mir-Hossein-Mousavi-have-defied-a-ban-to-attend-a-rally-in-Tehran/Video/200906315306746?lpos=video_News_in_Video_Home_Region_1 if you ain't following this now, you're a fool... posted by: simplicissimus 18:13 6.14.09 this is one of the most incredible things i've seen in a while: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html this is just becoming one of the most awesome stories of 2009 posted by: simplicissimus 15:22 6.12.09 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jun/12/iran-middleeast it's not a panacea, but man it's good to see. not ready to make a bold call... posted by: simplicissimus 11:58 6.11.09 but i'd say it's a 50/50 shot that achmedenijad is going to lose tomorrow's election (or, at least, lose after a run-off). man, that would be awesome. and -- truth be told -- you'd have to credit bush *and* obama on that result. beyond the whole iraq thing, what drove me insane about bush's foreign policy is that they never understood that (assuming you don't want total war for all time) the tough-guy routine is only a means by which you earn respect for later conciliation. and conciliation is only effective if your willingness to be an asshole is not questioned. regardless, obama's speech last week -- perfectly timed -- offered the perfect counter-part to the bush administation's previous stance. and there's no doubt in my mind that the combination of the two is what may give a strong push to getting a moderate as president of iran. now, this won't change too much (because the clerics are in control regardless), but to take down a guy like that without having to go to war or fire a shot ... wouldn't that be something. fingers crossed. fallon resignation posted by: publius 13:20 3.12.08 this whole things is bizarre. i read the esquire article over the weekend and did find it a bit strange that fallon was giving that inteview, never mind being as open as he was. the basic point of the article was that fallon is about the only sane voice at the top of the chain of command and that because he clashes with the bushies/neocons on just about everything, but particularly iran, his days may be numbered. i doubt anyone thought that you'd be able to reach that number by counting fingers on one hand... http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/12/miedast.fallon/index.html here's the esquire article which this whole thing is, absurdly, being blamed on... http://www.esquire.com/print-this/features/fox-fallon lord knows what is going on behind the scenes, but you don't take an admiral of the line with 40 years of service and force him to resign because he got a little testy in an article that very few people were going to read...lord knows probably 10 times as many people have read it now... here's what stratfor has to say... "U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced March 11 his acceptance of the unexpected resignation of Adm. William J. Fallon, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). A Navy admiral, Fallon replaced U.S. Army General John Abizaid on March 16, 2007. The shift to a Naval officer was in part a symbolic move away from CENTCOM’s role in Iraq, which is now squarely in Army Gen. David Petraeus’ corner. (CENTCOM’s commander remains between Petraeus and the president in the chain of command only on paper.) Resignations at this level do not just happen. Despite some circumlocutions, Gates made little attempt to conceal the existence of standing disagreements between them. In all likelihood, Fallon really either resigned in protest of something or was forced out. (Gates was instrumental in forcing out U.S. Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace from his position as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2007.) Fallon was quoted heavily in a recent Esquire article called “The Man Between War and Peace,” by Thomas P. M. Barnett. The article is quite critical of the administration, and almost sounds like Fallon knew he was on the chopping block. The combination of Fallon’s criticism and his choice to grant Barnett, an avid critic of the administration, an interview is not typical behavior by a serving U.S. combatant commander. Fallon was known to oppose Bush administration officials who favored an attack on Iran. Notably, the leadership of the combatant command that would oversee such an operation is now vacant. There will be no comfort in Tehran tonight over the resignation, whatever its real purpose. Other tensions in the region also could be in play. Another Israeli-Hezbollah conflict would largely fall to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (based in Gaeta, Italy). But the real explanation for Fallon’s departure could lie on the other side of the Persian Gulf; namely, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan." now all we need is mccain to get elected and we can bomb bomb bomb bomb iran... shitsuckers, shitsuckers all... score one for the internets... posted by: simplicissimus 10:40 1.15.08 the above take on the state of radio transmissions in the persian gulf, obtained in about 5 minutes through google, was dead on: it wasn't the iranians, it was the "filipino monkey(s)" http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/ you are going to exploooooooooooooooode! two things posted by: simplicissimus 16:28 1.11.08 1) double-plus to squisshy for knowing the *full* title to iron eagle iii. 2) i did some research on this and the frequency that the "explooooode" comment came in on is apparently the CB Radio equivalent for international shipping in that region. as was described in depth from what i assume was a former ship pilot or navigator or something, it's like a 24 hour channel of absurd puss, self-promotion, and tons and tons of racist comments regarding filipinos. in other words, it could have come from anyone and could have regarded anything. this doesn't mean it wasn't the iranians, but simply that it wasn't definitely, or anywhere close to being them. ironically, look what came to light recently: the gulf of tonkin incident simply didn't happen... http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0109/p04s01-usmi.htm i would have expected this to have been a bigger news story. the followup is too funny ... posted by: squisshy 15:20 1.11.08 i mean, i'm sorry, but the whole ominous, heavily-accented (to the point of sounding a bit fake) "you will exploooode in two minutes ..." always seemed to be a bit over the top to me. i mean, were these guys revolutionary guard members or extras from Iron Eagle III: Aces? frankly, the iranian account sounds much more plausible, especially given the documented responses of the U.S. ship. then there's that whole Vincennes boo-boo in 1988 ... and the fact that our prez is an habitual liar ... hmmm, near-miss of cuban missile crisis proportions, or trumped-up hogwash? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011000692.html?nav=hcmodule&sid=ST2008011001831 son of the gulf of tonkin inci posted by: publius 12:33 1.7.08 http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/07/iran.us.navy/index.html the article is not very good.. posted by: publius 15:47 10.9.07 but the sentiment behind it is right on... http://tinyurl.com/29spgh is anyone surprised?... posted by: publius 00:15 10.8.07 that iran is channeling money and arms to insurgents in iraq? i mean, when a country who declares you to be part of the "axis of evil" is conducting live operations on your doorstep, isn't it only logical that you're going to poke them in any way you can while still maintaining some sham of official deniability? the us doctrine seems to be "we will do what we want in the region and if you in any way support the people we say are the bad guys we're likely going to come after you - and of course we'll get that telegenic general who everyone seemed to like to so much to give reports to the media 'from our commanders on the ground'". while it may not have the panache or brevity of "the monroe doctrine", that's certainly how it seems to me. It's OK. posted by: spacehippie 00:28 10.5.07 If the precedent set by this bit of propaganda stands, we should have another 10 years or so before the invasion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0QS5Io_yUg you know what really makes thi posted by: publius 18:36 10.4.07 this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnpNkPCcfBM you can say whatever you like, but there's no way that the constant barrage of demonzation against this guys is not a (however) loosely organized propaganda campaign....and when it starts bleeding over into popular culture, the job is more or less done... and just to complete the tie-ins, i found out about this from an article today on the front page of the nyt arts section... i'm trying very hard not to believe in conpiracy and the effects of a pliant media hip to hip with a control freak government, but i'm having less and less success convincing myself as time goes on... lehrer... posted by: publius 13:39 9.26.07 did a segment on ahmadinejad last night. about 5-6 minutes showing footage of the whole columbia thing - protesters, bollinger's hatchet job, ahmadinejad doing his thing. that was followed by a very civil 8-10 minute discussion between a professor at columbia who had served on the national security council under three presidents and a journalist who had dual iranian/us citizenship (who would've thought such a thing is possible). judy woodruff asked them insightful questions which were partially based on her own preparation and partially in response to the points touched on by the guests. i learned a fair bit about the relative position of the president in iranian governance, how ahmedinejad is seen at home, what the supreme leader and others in the government and everyday life seem to think of his showboating, etc... in short, i watched a 15 or minute segment which showed decent portions of the guys speech and put it all into context in relation to us, iranian, and world politics. it's obviously not the whole picture, but it was informative and intelligent throughout. that this is so clearly the exception to the rule on american televised news on any other channel is truly depressing...it's the strongest case i cna think of for public television....though i'm sure in the next few years the government will find a way to do away with that as well... on media posted by: simplicissimus 10:39 9.26.07 4 or 5 years ago there was an exhibit at the museum of contemporary art here in chicago. (going beyond the over-dramatic presentation, lighting, etc. - which, i am sure would really bum out the artist) the premise was very simple: it showed three random local chicago newscasts from beginning to end. one from @1970 one from @1985 one from @2003 and i have to say, the 1970 newscast looked and sounded like 60 minutes. long, in-depth pieces, obviously knowledgeable reporters, and lots of serious local coverage. the 1985 newscast was not as good, and a bit slicker, but still seemed like a news program. the 2003 newscast was 30 minutes of recipes, weather, sports, and salacious -- but entirely un-notable -- local stories regarding violent crime. --- so while it's true, there's a lot more out there. the sources that provide the most news to the most people are really fucking bad. and getting worse. the cable channels are just as awful. it recently dawned on me that unless there is a breaking story, cable news is just like local news, repeated every 30 minutes. even the "specialized" political shows are politically-motivated rantings by paid professionals. so the internet is there. and there's a lot on it. but even that is really, really difficult to navigate if you don't know where to look and how to look at it. also agree posted by: squisshy 10:04 9.26.07 that it's a tough balance in terms of how to treat the wackjob that one has invited to speak -- i can't stand when the media just acts like there are two sides to every story, each equally viable (which, incidentally, is the way i believe the media treats the many outright lies proffered by presidential candidates ... primarily republicans in my view, heh, heh ... over the years). at the same time bollinger's intro was so absurd, and the general press venom so extreme, that i'm not sure i'd say the media walked the line very well on this one. probably right posted by: squisshy 10:01 9.26.07 that it's easy to get off-kilter views of what is going on with the world via the internet, but many "resources" on the net amount to a parade of wingnuts. i guess i'm really talking about the news that (in my mind, anyway) it seems that a majority of the american public consumes on a daily basis ... the numbers say that more and more people get their news from the internet, but just in looking at my immediate family, there are many people without the time or resources to surf the web trolling for news -- they just read the local paper and watch the news before dinner. that's really what i'm talking about, and it doesn't seem to me there's a lot of questioning going on there. also, given the quality of a lot of material on the web i'm not sure how comforted i am by the idea that more and more people get their facts there ... in terms of factually-supported, easily-digestible, mass-produced "news" i guess i would argue that has all moved more and more in lockstep over time. very little questioning of the established viewpoint in my opinion. regarding the media's reaction posted by: horsebeater 09:45 9.26.07 ... that's a tricky one. Intellectually, this is a tough one for me. Ultimately, the media have to sort between kooks and demagogues and people within the realm of reasonable ideas. When covering a kook or a demagogue, I think if the media plays the coverage completely straight, it is doing its readers a disservice. I don't expect CNN to show a 20 minute clip of a David Duke speech or a Kim Jong Il speech without any commentary (like pointing out the multiple lies and questionable propositions that likely are made in any such speech). Except for 5 minutes on 60 minutes (which didn't strike me as flag-waving at all, really), I didn't watch any mainstream media coverage of ahmadeinejad. I can imagine that if I did, it would put a bad taste in my mouth like publius had, but I also think that calls for the media to just let people listen to what he has to say essentially argues that the role of the media is to act like a tape recorder, which doesn't really strike me as the traditional liberal view of the media's role, and really is problematic when it comes to people that are outright lying in their statements. squisshy posted by: horsebeater 09:39 9.26.07 "there are very few places one can find any sort of off-message view of the world and what is going on in it these days." talk radio? the internet? magazines? internet sites for magazines? (e.g., www.motherjones.com, www.thenation.com, www.huffingtonpost.com, www.harpers.org). i would say that, due to the internet, off-message views of the world are more accessible to the general populous than at any point in human history. an opportuity to listen to ahm posted by: rabelais 01:35 9.26.07 http://www.charlierose.com/home don't know how long it'll be accessible for free, but it's up now. i thought that was just an oni posted by: publius 12:58 9.25.07 but apparently not... http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210007?f=h_latest so unbelievably disturbing... speaking of bill o'reilly ... posted by: squisshy 12:28 9.25.07 i thought this was quite funny, but also a little sad and pathetic. http://www.avclub.com/content/hater/bill_oreilly_on_the_difference although i must admit i just read the recap, not listened to the clip, so maybe there were many subtle layers ... as for the state of the american media, publius, it has been migrating towards propaganda for some time. shit, noam chomsky's been ranting about that for at least the last decade, and it's one of the things that i agree with him on. there are very few places one can find any sort of off-message view of the world and what is going on in it these days. you know what else reminds me of the USSR? guantanamo/extraordinary rendition. not an exact analogue by any means, but uncomfortably close. ahmadinejad in new york posted by: publius 12:10 9.25.07 i was really hoping that jim lehrer would have a segment on the ahmadiejad visit to columbia on last night, but unfortunately it was only covered in the news summary at the beginning of the show. maybe tonight they'll have something after his speech at the un. i was hoping to get one of their patented "let the principal actors talk for a while so you can form your own opinion" pieces, much like what they did when petraeus was testifying on the hill, because all other media coverage is so shrill and overtly propagandistic (is that a word?) that i felt like biting off my own arm. this is yellow journalism at its worst. watching the cbs evening news (i'm out at my parents place and that's the news show they watch) i wouldn't have been surprised if the "reporters" covering the speech at columbia had come out right and tried to organize a lynch mob. it's utterly embarassing. my absolute favorite was the despicable bill o'reilly (stumbled over fox news on my way to find monday night football). he had some "body language expert" on who was watching the tape of ahmadinejad's speech and reading between the lines for us. "he's trying to act tough, but he's continually licking his lips, which is a sign that...". it was so absurd it was hilarious. i remember the way that the soviet news machine was presented to us when i was in social studies in 3rd grade, and for the life of me i don't see all that much difference between that and the current state of the mass (particularly televised) media. and don't even get me started on the craven lee bollinger, president of columbia. to invite a head of state to speak at your university and then spend your entire 10 minute introduction flat out insulting the guy ("you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator...you are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated") is pathetic pandering to the controversy his visit stirred up. a simple "while there are many at columbia who strongly disagree with your opinions and who oppose your presence here today, in the name of intellectual and academic freedom we have chosen to let you make your views heard and to defend them in a public forum" would have done. gets the same point across and doesn't make you a pompous bully. i'm not making any excuses or apologies for ahmadinejad, but i'd like to see a news report on the guy which doesn't involve smug, flag-draped "reporters" spending all of their time insulting the guy rather than engaging in something resembling an intelligent response to what he actually has to say. if you filter out all of the noise and actually listed to what the guy has to say (granted, words are very cheap) he actually makes a lot of sense (when he's not on the topic of the holocaust or homosexuals). a petty dictator he may or may not be, but if i had the choice between listening to the type of answers he gives to questions and the rah-rah boilerplate that comes out of the current adminstration in washington, i'd take the former going away. and he were are... posted by: simplicissimus 14:48 8.24.07 back at where we started: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1654188,00.html --- i like to think this is just another case of the yips on this particular issue. but, maybe not. and there's no denying one simple fact: if there's one thing i would expect from an administration that had so much success (and now failure) controlling to political center of gravity, it's doing something like this, which would certainly go a long way towards getting it back. plus, you can just hear all the hawks talking about (truthfully) how israel's airstrike on iraq's nuclear reactor in 1982 changed history's arc -- indeed, it is hard to imagine either gulf war if iraq had the bomb -- and how this would be the same exact thing. gulp. never mind... posted by: simplicissimus 20:56 5.28.07 who was the first president to hold formal diplomatic meetings with iran since 1980? not jimmy carter. not bush senior. not clinton. but bush, junior. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_iran_talks is this a good thing? yes it is. and bush deserves a shout out for doing it. though he also deserves a bitch slap for painting us into such a corner where we had no choice but to do it (as opposed to 2003, when the jerusalem post reported the iranians were begging for formal discussions(...ya think our leverage might have been a little higher then?) is it also funny this president is doing it, after all that hysterical "why talk with iran, there's no point and even suggesting it makes you a weak, lefty pinko" shit that this administration was spouting, and the republican party in general was echoing, between 2003 and about three months ago? you bet. i give up... posted by: simplicissimus 00:31 5.24.07 i admit. halfway through and i couldn't take it anymore. i'm all for realpolitik etc. and am perfectly willing and able to shed my convictions when reading "serious" (and oftentimes conservative) discussion of policy (especially international policy). but this was about as bad as it gets. i should have known in the first few paragraphs when he states that iraq was and is part of the war with islamofascism...which would be a fine thing to say, if the regime wasn't among the most secular in the muslim world. now, you could argue that it "now" is part of that war, but to write a saber rattling article while glossing over where such saber rattling recently got us...i mean, is this a joke? and then i should have known when he left an incredibly important aspect out of his discussion of "finlanization", which is that it occurred because the finns had been rabid nazis and therefore were pariahs of the international community before the ussr really did anything...hell, finlandization isn't some magic process that just occurs because everyone is weak or disorganized or vaguely soft (because if it was, it would have happened to western europe in the 60s and 70s), it happens to countries that are without friends and allies in the international community. i mention this only because if what happened to a pro-nazi country that is basically enveloped by a then victorious ussr is the best analogy he can draw, then his whole fucking thesis of imminent doom and gloom is pretty fucking weak. but i digress... norman podhoretz posted by: publius 23:04 5.23.07 there are so many inconsistencies, half-truths, and idiotic blatherings in this piece that i don't even know where to start...so i won't. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10882&page=all what? no confirmation on the posted by: simplicissimus 18:02 2.19.07 just joking, my friend. 1) on "the evidence". you say: "The point that the Bush administration is trying to make is that Iran is apparently pursuing a state policy of arming the Shiites and that the level of support is more than we're seeing from other countries." But what I am trying to explain, and I think this is fairly backed up, is that -- at least at present -- everyone knows and agrees that the iranians are giving arms and support to forces in iraq. HOWEVER, they are giving arms and support to MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS of shiites, including al-maliki's SCIRI, who we are backing. Furthermore, according to Johnson (linked above) the Iranians that the government picked up was in the compound of al-Hakim...our "ally" who was just in the White House a few months back for a meeting with Bush. That's my hold up: When Iran is giving money/guns to all the Shittes, including SCIRI, when we pick up one of those Iranians (which I noted was the only impressive evidence to my mind) in the compound of one of our allies....how does this evidence get tranlated to meaning the Iranian government is undermining us. They may be. But, if so, our "allies" are totally in on it. I don't need to tell you how poorly this bodes for the whole fucking project. Welcoming guns, money, and advisers from Iran is either OK or it isn't. And I'm fine saying it isn't. But if that's the case, we can't cherry pick all the support -- especially when so much of it goes to our "allies" -- and then say they're undermining us. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. 2) i'm reading "the looming tower": http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/books/review/06filkins.html?ex=1312516800&en=0e30ba3135672953&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (i don't know if sourcing the nyt is impressive anymore to anyone, but there you go). and i admit it is coloring my opinion of an awful lot. Granted, I'm only up to about 1998 or so, but I have to say the most incredible thing about it thus far is how pretty much everything going on with al-Qaeda (up till them, at least) came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan. The theory. The money. The support. Everything. i'll say more later, i'm sure, but i will say this: the idea (at least up until 1998) that anyone in the bush administration who had a shred of sense could actually believe that the best way to beat al qaeda was to attack iraq (another islamic nation and thereby fueling the fire that creates terrorists in the first place, but also so far removed from the list of countries who had any connection to al qaeda that it is almost laughable) means they were morons or misdirecting the country. posted by: horsebeater 17:21 2.19.07 (1) Yes, elements of Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Pakistan probably are helping the Sunnis in Iraq, but in many cases it is not the "official" government position to help them out, but it is unofficial aid from groups the government doesn't fully control. The point that the Bush administration is trying to make is that Iran is apparently pursuing a state policy of arming the Shiites and that the level of support is more than we're seeing from other countries. On the "justice" point, you're fallaciously arguing that if you don't arrest ALL the criminally-behaving countries, it is unjust to arrest any of them. That just isn't right. (3) yes yes... you can't talk to anyone from iran about iran without getting an earful about how iran is NOT arabic and not really part of the middle east and oh so completely different than the rest of the blah blah blah. I first made this mistake in 1998 to a girl whose parents emigrated with her around 1980 after the revolution and still remember the extreme irritation and displeasure. But Whatever. It's ruled by fanatical islamist elements. The key point that binds them is fanatical islam; not the fact that they are arabic. In fact, in most arabic countries you DON'T get fanatical islamists actually running the country in a formal manner. In that regard, Iran is worse than most arabic countries, who are ruled by islamic despots and at least are not theocracies. But the point above isn't at all dependent upon whether iran is arabic or anything like that. The point is that when the top levels of the country are fanatical and tyrannical (like iran or like iraq, even if the fanaticism and tyranny were different flavors), then the ability of the "educated middle class" to overthrow them might be less than you think. three back at ya... posted by: simplicissimus 18:29 2.16.07 from easiest to hardest... (1) i'm pretty much with you on proxy wars...but this whole "what iran is doing" is where you lose me. do you know who supports the sunni insurgents (responsible for @70-80 of american casualties)? some elements of the government, intelligence, and military of saudi arabia, egypt and pakistan. hell, there's a very good source (which i'm trying to verify) that even all of the shias...including the ones we like...are in some form or other getting weapons/support from iran: http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/bushs_the_boy_c.html#more my point is this: what bush is saying may be true, but it's pretty clearly true across the board for multiple governments, intelligence services, civilian populations with respect to multiple shia and sunni factions. and if that's the case, then the whole "justified" versus "unjustified" thing kinda crumbles, as you can't selectively dole out what is un/jusitified to whomever you please. well, you can, but you can't rely on being "right" or "peace-loving" or "fair" or "just" when doing it. (2) regarding "i don't recall". two things: - first of all, that would not be something that would have been remotely noteworthy. it hasn't been discussed since lawschool (i would swear to this), it was not an important moment (i swear to this), it did not lead to any other behavior (i swear to this). in fact, i specifically remember when i came by your place on hill st. to walk to class and you were taking a shit with your trow down and the door wide open. so, with that recollection, i can be pretty sure i have a good memory of your nakedness. - second of all, there was no documentation surrounding that event, if it happened. i guarantee you that condi -- and about a dozen other people -- keep a very detailed record of who she meets with, what's discussed, and what documents/cables come in. so, if i did the same for cock viewing, i am certain i could definitively determine whether it ever happened. (3) re: iran taking care of itself. first, iran is a whole nother issue. it's very, very different than the arabic states. they are persian (and won't let you forget it). they speak farsi. they aren't sunni (like nearly all arabs). they are facing armed rebellion from salfist-esqu taliban in the southeast. the salafist, which is what al-qaeda adheres to, are basically the religious nuts who want to convert the entire world to islam and return the world to how it was in the 8th century. (by the way, guess who spreads salfism? the wahhabist who have been installed by the saudi royal family as a de-facto governmental force within the kingdom....they were brought in 1980 to "protect" the kingdom from it's internal extremists. why are we not attacking the saudis...who pay for/espouse/and support this fringe brand of islam that is basically anti-everything? because they are our allies!) --- adam kline is here so i'll return to this below --- regarding condi.... posted by: horsebeater 10:16 2.16.07 ... as a lawyer, I have to say that I have to rebut the "I don't recall = guilty" formulation. Simpli, do you remember the time that I showed you my cock in law school? What, you say you don't remember? Does this mean it happened? regarding proxy wars posted by: horsebeater 10:14 2.16.07 simpli, i'd ask you to take a step back on this. you seem to be arguing that we cannot be upset with iran for fighting a proxy war in iraq because it happens all the time. it is not the case that all proxy wars are morally just or all proxy wars are not. it depends. For example, the USSR unjustly invaded Afghanistan. Accordingly, our support of the Afghans and our proxy war there was likely just (it might have had OTHER consequences that we should have avoided, but when it comes to morality of war, we were certainly within our rights to support them). On the other hand, North Korea's attacking South Korea in the 1950's was unjust. Accordingly, China supplying North Korea and using them to fight a proxy war was unjust. you say above that your larger point is "is fighting a proxy war does not mean you have to go to war," and that's absolutely correct. but i'd at least ask you to concede the point that some proxy wars are just and some are unjust and what iran is doing is almost certainly in the unjust category. that certainly doesn't mean that we should go to war with iran, but it's also true that there is nothing wrong with our explaining to the world why we aren't all that trusting of iran either. about iran taking care of itse posted by: horsebeater 10:06 2.16.07 simpli makes the argument "everything i read that is remotely scholarly about present day iran says that the regime is not very stable, that it has a very large perecentage of young, westernized citizens who are going to overturn it," which is precisely the same argument i was making a few years ago. people were asking "why iraq and not north korea or iran" and the answer was that, relatively, iraq was the easy call because north korea would cause too many casualties vis-a-vis iraq and iran would most likely take care of itself over time via internal revoluation. now i'm not so sure. look, the shah was overthrown 28 years ago and it hasn't happened yet. you haven't even had the uprising that you had by the shia in iraq in 1991 post-Gulf War. if this is going to happen, why not a peep thus far? if anything, iraq seems to have proven to me that even a highly educated populace that might seem to be the kind of populace that could evolve into a democracy may be much more damaged than appears when ruled by totalitarianism or a theocracy for many many years. they very well might not have the ability to overthrow any regime. the dirty little secret about democracy is that the overall net number of democratic countries essentially didn't change between 1992 and 2004. you had gains in the slavs, but russia and other countries like venezuela were backsliding. in 2004 you had gains in ukraine and lebanon and libya and some positive movement, but when you look at where it has happened, it has normally happened not really through violent uprising but really because the despots at the top essentially decided it was no longer worth it. look at the soviet bloc: if gorbachev doesn't go through glasnost and perestroika, does any of that really happen? if marcos in the phillipenes just decides that its not worth it anymore, does aquino really take power? in the ukraine and libya: those were both kind of old and tired despots not willing to do whatever it takes to maintain power. Is it possible that one important deciding factor in whether a regime is going to be overthrown is the fanatacism of the regime? one would've thought that cuba would have been a prime target for regime change at some point in the past 50 years, but castro seems to be able to stick around. in some ways, just as the moderates in congress are the ones that get knocked out, it seems easier to knock out a more moderate regime than the crazy ones, because when push comes to shove, the moderates aren't willing to slaughter their own people but the fanatics are. If the above theory is right, that's certainly not good news for Iran. she's got "no recollection" of posted by: simplicissimus 20:40 2.14.07 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/14/ex_aide_says_rice_misled_us_congress_on_iran/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News look, i don't pretend to know the in's and out's of this story, but i will say this as a lawyer: when somebody testifies they have "no recollection" of something, it means they're lying. it's the poor man's fifth amendment. even if you are later proven to have done/seen/discussed whatever "it" is, you can always say you just don't remember...sorta like scooter libby. i have "no recollection" of what i ate for dinner on may 23, 1992. but when we're talking about a proposal that is of at least some weight, regarding a member of the axis of evil, that regards recognizing israel's right to exist...for anyone, let alone the fucking secretary of state, to say they have "no recollection" of any discussion regarding it? she's fucking lying. damn, it seems this entire administration suffering from early-onset alzheimers lately. i think the word you *were* lo posted by: simplicissimus 17:44 2.14.07 "chillax" we really should just all "chillax". Dude, he is right - Debating i posted by: misterconradbain 17:07 2.14.07 you cannot second guess a general - it is very bad for morale. Everyone knows that and should just sit back, relax and trust. here it is, from the press con posted by: simplicissimus 15:26 2.14.07 "When Gen. Petraeus' nomination was considered three weeks ago, the United States Senate voted unanimously to confirm him. And I appreciated that vote by the senators. And now members of the House of Representatives are debating a resolution that would express disapproval of the plan that Gen. Petraeus is carrying out." I'm real glad that Bush is taking the time to explain that we weren't confirming a secretary of defense, we were actually electing a monarch! and all that time the white house was blasting the dems, saying that disagreement on policy was no reason not to confirm judges, executive officers, etc. who knew they what they *really* meant to say the opposite: if you vote to confirm somebody you really can't then ever disagree with whatever they thereafter say or do. well, i'm glad that's cleared up. a response posted by: simplicissimus 22:33 2.12.07 (with the accepance of the fact that i have no set in stone position on iran) (1) (and i almost fronted this) it is pretty clear how this administration handles "information" on military matters. either (1) it comes from a military/governmenal source and therefore it is treated with incredible deference (this is he whole support for the troop surge: "sec def gates / the generals on the ground asked for it, so how can you say you are in favor of his confirmation / support the military, if you don't accept it?; or (2) it contradicts what the military governmental source says and therefore is callled "more information...who is against more information?" see the handling of the repor regarding douglas feith's "intelligence" on iraq...this is the talking point from every conservative news source. the thing of it is this: under this analysis, you can't win. either you disagree with the military/defense dept. etc. and therefore aren't giving the troops what they want, or you are opposing "other views" or the "collection of all information". this is brilliant in its simplicity and effectiveness on a political level, but on a practical level it forgives the administration no matter what they do militarily. they accept the word of the professionals or they find something that contradicts them. either way, they win. (2) my point about the timing of all of this is that it strikes me as suspicious. granted, after iraq my radar is up with respect to any claims that somebody is a "threat". i accept that iran, in the most conventional aspect, is certainly not a friend, but i must ask myself "why now?" if this is not "new", what about the present mandated the release of this information? this is especially true when one considers the manner it was distribued and that fact that the general on the ground doesn't seem all that convinced it means anything. i'd like to, and generally do, believe that the debacle in iraq has this administration cowed. however, when i see shit like his, and i look at their mentaliy, i wonder when the other shoe will drop and when it does, wha it is going to look like. (5) there are rules of war, but the use of proxies -- at least to my mind -- is an accepted fact in just about every conflict there is. i mean under this theory, al qaeda was certainly justified in attacking the united states because of it's support for israel. i think we actually may agree (even to the extent my example is quite flawed, but not totally so) with respect to this entire point. however, again, what i'm saying is that, even if true, the iranian connection is not in and of itself a "good" reason (though it may be "a" reason) to go to war. ************************ finally, where we really may diverge, is on how best to treat iran. last year, i dated a persian woman, and nobody hated the islamic leaders of that country more than her. but she said, again and again, that every time the us rattles its saber, it just strengthened the leader (i won't even attempt to spell his name). and up until 2002 or 2003, when he was elected, there was a large and fairly powerful moderate group in the highest places of the government. now, i'm not saying (and i don't think the isg said) we should involve them in policy decisions. but what i am saying is that there are various ways to deal with iran, but continuing to corner it is not going to produce any positive results. everything i read that is remotely scholarly about present day iran says that the regime is not very stable, that it has a very large perecentage of young, westernized citizens who are going to overturn it, BUT that it is also very nationalisic and, as such, threatening is going to help, rather than hurt, the regime. i mean if the iraq invasion, and the helplessness in the face of north korea, proves anything to the iranians it is this: build and bomb and increase your safety, or go without and increase the odds of a war. a final example, which i think i already cited, was recently offered by colin powell on the issue of the isg. he discussed a crisis where the syrians were allowing rocket attacks on israel. the israelis freaked and were acting nutty. and the us was able to meet with the syrians, explain why they needed to knock it off, and lo and behold they clamped down. in my book, that's "talking to" the syrians and i don't see how things like that hurt. i'm on a crash course of reading about al qaeda (currently on "the looming tower") and if it is showing me anything, it's that treating the middle east and the movements within it in the way we have -- like the nazis or the soviets -- is totally absurd. the arab and persian societies, and the groups within them, are way more complicated than that. dare i say nuanced? --- finally, on a completely separate note, do you know how many russians died in afghanistan? 15,000. i would have guessed 5-10 times that amount. when viewed through the prism of the psychological effect a foreign misadventure can have on a society, i find this fact very frightening. certainly not a predictor of how things will go when we're done in iraq...obviously not...but still a little unsettling. about iran posted by: horsebeater 21:44 2.12.07 a few things... (1) I agree, the evidence ain't great. That said, no one is using it as a grounds to go to war. I realize that you have every right to start trying to make clear that you think war is a bad idea, but lets not set up paper tigers here. And lets not start to CRITICIZE the Bush administration for sharing information. Sharing information is a good thing. Let's not act like that's the enemy. (2) I disagree that this story has come out of nowhere. this has been mentioned by the white house a number of times. check here, for example: http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501 I'm not paying a ton of attention and this didn't strike me as news. (5) Regarding proxy wars. Under just war theory if you are justly at war with another country and a third country starts aiding your enemy then, yes, that gives you grounds to justly go to war with that third country, assuming the amount of aid is significant enough and designed to advance the war-making capability of your enemy. You can choose not to escalate, of course. One reason to choose not to is to, say, avoid nuclear war (i.e., Russia not attacking us over Afghanistan; us not attacking China over Vietnam). But to the extent that there are "rules of war," this isn't really all that controversial. ******** I think the White House has every right to point out to the nation and to the world that Iran is a bunch of bad guys, largely to help make sure that Iran is treated like the semi-rogue state that it is. This can happen a million way short of going to war. So when people (like the Iraq Study Group) say "gee... why aren't you involving iran in iraqi policy decisions," then the White House can say "because they are very much part of the problem." The White House never gets any traction in trying to strengthen sanctions against Iran and presenting the evidence that they have that the Iranians are liars demonstrates the fact that they aren't trustworthy and shouldn't be taken at face value and at their word on everything. somebody stop me posted by: simplicissimus 21:37 2.12.07 are you fucking kidding me? general pace...you know, the head man in iraq, doesn't think the evidence is so convincing: http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm theres' more... posted by: simplicissimus 15:20 2.12.07 it gets even better: iran supplies weapons to the SCIRI....you know, al-Maliki's party...which is backed by the US and Bush. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/sciri-iran/ So does this mean we have to overthrow al-Maliki? there must be more? posted by: simplicissimus 15:15 2.12.07 if you didn't notice, the us military gave a strange sort of "press briefing" yesterday on iranian meddling in iraq. check out the pdf of the powerpoint: http://www.iraqslogger.com/downloads/Iran_in_Iraq__English_.pdf but before you do, consider the following: 1) With the exception of the Iranian Qods Force identification, which I thought was at least intriguing, this evidence pretty much sucks. I mean if we find weapons in English, French, German, or Russian does that mean we tie the governments of England, America, France, Germany or Russia into them? uh, i think not. Who do you think gives more support: the Saudis to the Sunnis or the Iranians to the Shiites? Yep, just like I thought. 2) The dates of the photographs is likewise odd. While it gives some sense of "regularity" to the Iranians actions, why the hell was this never, ever, ever even a minor story before a few months ago? 3) I'm sorry, but at this point when the best "source" the government can attribute it's "really good" information too is "detainees" i'm a little leery. 4) Why the hell...and somebody please help me here...would this "press briefing" only be given "off the record" by "unnamed military officials"? This is really amazing...I mean it's pretty clear isn't it: this time around cheney, et al. don't want to have the film clips of their insinuations: the press may well do the job for them on that score. --- 5) MOST IMPORTANTLY: Would anyone have said the USSR was permitted to attack the Americans for supporting the Afghanis? Would anyone have said that the USA was forced to attack the Soviets for giving aid to the North Vietnamese? Could we have gone after the Chinese for everything in Korea? I suppose anybody is "permitted" to attack anyone if they want, but to pretend that this is shocking or scandalous is really fucking incredible. This proxy-war business has been going on since the Greeks, and I presume a lot earlier. Sure, it pisses me off. But to say it mandates war is really, really ridiculous...unless we have decided that we really are just another country protecting it's interests. Which is fine, but in that case just don't argue with me that we're somehow ordained by god or fate to win... since this is the hot topic of posted by: publius 15:00 4.18.06 i figured i'd post the new yorker article which by herr hersch which is cited in a lot of the news stories i'v seen. i read the article in the magazine a week or so ago, and i have to say it's pretty damned chilling... http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact does anyone else find... posted by: publius 22:27 2.15.06 the matter-of-factness of this story odd? http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/15/iran.usa.reut/index.html this is almost too perfect... posted by: publius 12:17 7.1.05 i can hear it already..."this terrorist, who came to power in farcical elections, is one of those directly responsible for holding freedom-loving americans hostage for over a year. this man is a menace, and we must act before he installs a terrorist, hostage-taking, freedom hating, tyranny-loving regime of terror and tyranny and freedom-hating right next door to where the seeds of democracy are just beginning to bloom in a free and democratic iraq..." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/international/middleeast/01tehran.html?pagewanted=print Maybe so. posted by: simplicissimus 20:24 6.1.05 And then I see this bit of cyber-sleuthing. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/1/15449/13796 yes, unlikely to mean anything (though Cy Hersh has been saying for months that we're attacking Iran in June: http://tinyurl.com/3qbmr ).... still, the dailykos link is interesting even if only for the fact that google.com provides in one minute what otherwise would only be obtained after a few days of torture....