Pretty much says it all:
http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran-has-us-surrounded-all-right.html
Each star is a US base. But just to be clear, Iran is the one that is threatening us.
Considering Iraq and Afghanistan are ripe for the moving in and they already own Lebanon, I'm not sure I disagree with the US base placements. Granted, we brought this nonsense on ourselves by supporting the Shah and getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but that doesn't mean you don't protect yourself from a troublemaker.
You call this protecting ourselves?
Sure, BG, don't you remember the red menace that was going to expand from Viet Nam to take over the world? It's the same thing, except now it's them Muslim fellas, who jeopardize all us good Christians (especially those of us Christians who are actually Jews)... they're starting over there in Arab land and they're gonna move West and take over Europe and then the good old USA!
Lock you doors!!
booklaw said:
Sure, BG, don't you remember the red menace that was going to expand from Viet Nam to take over the world? It's the same thing, except now it's them Muslim fellas, who jeopardize all us good Christians (especially those of us Christians who are actually Jews)... they're starting over there in Arab land and they're gonna move West and take over Europe and then the good old USA!Lock you doors!!
Almost. Ever since 1979, Iran has been looking to become a major player in world influence: both in the political and religious arena . And they've succeeded. They have the very underrated distinction of being strong allies with Venezuela. Maybe, to the point of getting a military base or advisers stationed. They're certainly looking to fill the potential voids in Iraq and Afghanistan so as to occupy two former enemy countries, as well as putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They're looking to gain nuclear technology while threatening to wipe Israel off the map. They, along with Syria, practically own Lebanon: again, Israel. So all of this, while maybe not taking over Europe or the USA, certainly has the potential to involve thousands upon thousands of American lives. Not mentioning the potential life loss of the region.
And don't forget, Iran has the drone that we lost over there so now they have more reams of intelligence data. Makes the Wikileaks stuff look like nothing. So, they will eventually have new ways of retaliating. Sure, they may build some nukes but we have a lot more than can go much further and their air force is lacking spare parts for the F-16s they have because we don't sell to them anymore. This is not going to be a good situation for many years to come because even if Ahmedinejad is toppled they won't allow any new leadership to become friendly with the West or even to become more secular.
Idlewild said:
Almost. Ever since 1979, Iran has been looking to become a major player in world influence: both in the political and religious arena .
They ARE a major player in world influence. Have been for a long time. For a lot of reasons. We could have engaged them diplomatically, instead we deposed their democratically elected government, and 40 years later, invade almost every country surrounding them.
Is it unreasonable that they strike a defensive and noisy posture?
No.
Idlewild said: And they've succeeded. They have the very underrated distinction of being strong allies with Venezuela. Maybe, to the point of getting a military base or advisers stationed.
Then perhaps we shouldn't have deposed Iran's strongest enemy in the region (Iraq), installing instead a government that is FAR more friendly to Shiite Iran than Saddam ever was.
Invading Iraq was and is completely antithetical to your theory here. But hey, that's neoconservatism for you.
Idlewild said:They're certainly looking to fill the potential voids in Iraq and Afghanistan so as to occupy two former enemy countries, potential life loss of the region.
You know how much loss of life our country created in the region? 100,000's, perhaps a million dead Iraqis.
And we did this as what? A preemptive measure to a threat that doesn't exist?
The idea that we should be the bulwark against civilian deaths in the region is a cruel and unfunny joke.
Idlewild said:
as well as putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They're looking to gain nuclear technology while threatening to wipe Israel off the map.
That phrase doesn't exist in farci, so it's a lie that you should stop perpetuating.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near nuclear weaponry, or even that they are pursuing it.
So the more belligerent we are, the less likely we are to deter nuclear weaponry.
Choose your diplomacy wisely.
PragmaticGuy said:
And don't forget, Iran has the drone that we lost over there so now they have more reams of intelligence data. Makes the Wikileaks stuff look like nothing. So, they will eventually have new ways of retaliating. Sure, they may build some nukes but we have a lot more than can go much further and their air force is lacking spare parts for the F-16s they have because we don't sell to them anymore. This is not going to be a good situation for many years to come because even if Ahmedinejad is toppled they won't allow any new leadership to become friendly with the West or even to become more secular.
You know the US is the one who invades countries, is the only country to ever use a nuke, and is as likely as any other to use them again.
It's comical to think that we're the good guys when it comes to war and diplomacy.
I agree....I never said we were the good guys. We're just as bad as the rest of the world. The propagandists say we're the good guys. Believe me, I get more embarrassed to live in this country each day. We may have the highest standard of living but our foreign relations leave a lot to be desired. I think we have way too much disdain for people who don't believe in what we do. If people in other countries accept the type of government they have then we have no right to say otherwise or start wars in order to "convince them" they're wrong.
Ah, sorry. Misread your perspective.
Boygabriel said:
They ARE a major player in world influence. Have been for a long time. For a lot of reasons. We could have engaged them diplomatically, instead we deposed their democratically elected government, and 40 years later, invade almost every country surrounding them.Yes, I know they're a major player. I believe I stated this.Boygabriel said:Is it unreasonable that they strike a defensive and noisy posture? No.
Then perhaps we shouldn't have deposed Iran's strongest enemy in the region (Iraq), installing instead a government that is FAR more friendly to Shiite Iran than Saddam ever was.
Invading Iraq was and is completely antithetical to your theory here. But hey, that's neoconservatism for you.
When did I ever say or infer invading Iraq was ethical? I was always against it. But it happened. And because it happened, to not be cautious about Iran would be foolish.Boygabriel said:You know how much loss of life our country created in the region? 100,000's, perhaps a million dead Iraqis.
And we did this as what? A preemptive measure to a threat that doesn't exist?
The idea that we should be the bulwark against civilian deaths in the region is a cruel and unfunny joke.
Yes. I know hundreds of thousands of human beings perished. This is something the western powers will have to face as a shameful act along with retaliation for at least a century. No smiley faces here.You do know that the enemy territories I'm speaking relates to Iran? That Afghanistan (Taliban), Iraq, and even Pakistan
were not Iran friendly?Boygabriel said:That phrase doesn't exist in farci, so it's a lie that you should stop perpetuating.
That is not a lie. F-a-r-s-i phrase or not. And I'm not even a supporter of Israel. Maybe you think there are no homosexuals in Iran as well?Boygabriel said:There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near nuclear weaponry, or even that they are pursuing it.
Right! The big major player is acquiring nuclear material for peaceful means. So peaceful that it has the whole region shaking in their boots. So peaceful, that the Saudis are now looking to start a nuke program of their own. Probably so peaceful that most of the Arab nations will look the other way when the Israelis cross their borders to bomb the nuclear "power" processing plant.Boygabriel said:So the more belligerent we are, the less likely we are to deter nuclear weaponry.
Choose your diplomacy wisely.
No.
Alright! I give up on the formatting. Let the chips fall...
Idlewild said:
When did I ever say or infer invading Iraq was ethical? I was always against it. But it happened. And because it happened, to not be cautious about Iran would be foolish.
Being cautious is one thing, occupying every neighboring nation is another entirely.
You are the one who referenced "potential life loss of the region." The Iraq debacle speaks directly to this point, and to our lack of credibility on the topic.
Idlewild said:You do know that the enemy territories I'm speaking relates to Iran? That Afghanistan (Taliban), Iraq, and even Pakistan
What?
Idlewild said:That is not a lie. F-a-r-s-i phrase or not. And I'm not even a supporter of Israel.
No, it is. It was misquoted and out of context. To claim otherwise is inaccurate. The phrase doesn't exist in farsi.
Idlewild said:
Maybe you think there are no homosexuals in Iran as well?
What?
Idlewild said:Right! The big major player is acquiring nuclear material for peaceful means. So peaceful that it has the whole region shaking in their boots. So peaceful, that the Saudis are now looking to start a nuke program of their own. Probably so peaceful that most of the Arab nations will look the other way when the Israelis cross their borders to bomb the nuclear "power" processing plant.
Other nations' fear and Israel's belligerence and military state now counts as justification for… whatever it is you're advocating? invading and occupying neighboring sub regions?
Please.
Idlewild said:Nuclear weaponry will eventually come to those who pursue it, no matter what our stance is with the particular country in question. Iran is a global power: so why shouldn't they produce nuclear weaponry to become a global super-power? Any nation in their situation would. They have the cash, they certainly have the scientific minds-it's inevitable.
So we should engage them diplomatically. Not menace them with invasions and armies.
These bases and occupations have the exact opposite effect of deescalation and prevention of loss of life.
I'm not advocating anything. I'm jut telling you why the bases are there. And yes, we should have diplomatic relations with Iran. Using Switzerland as a middle-man for thirty plus years is silly. We should have diplomatic relations with Cuba too.
I know WHY the bases are there.
They're unjustified and counterproductive.
On top of that, the Washington establishment, press corps, and especially neoconservatives, are successfully convincing the nation that Iran is the one menacing us.
Meanwhile most Americans couldn't point to Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan on a map, let alone know that we're massing troops and bases up and down Iran's borders.
All some people know is that that bad country with the evil man with the beard wants to nuke us or Israel or both.
Pass the french fries and see what's on the other channel.
Your map does not show the submarines, the carrier groups, or amphibious ships in the surrounding waters.
Because of their ability to strike quickly, they may be far more effective (offensive?) than bases.
Wonderful.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/20111211143819690801.html
How is that related? I'm lost.
Sometimes we are smart enough to "aid" the enemies of our enemies, rather than fight our enemies directly.
Ideally, such tactics allows us to state, "we didn't attack Iran ....Iraq and Oman did".
Or, as in the case of the article I link above: "Look, we are making money for America. Not spending it"
In each case, we were bright enough to "just" supply the planes and the bombs, and trained the pilots.
...if you dig a little deeper, you will find we also train the up-and-coming members of their military's officer class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
While this may come off as incredibly pointless and cliche - those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
For decades, the Roman Empire supplied certain neighboring Visigothic tribes tribes with weapons and training, upholding the "enemey of my enemy" foreign policy. In 310 AD, Rome was sacked and the "Eternal City" finally fell, due to an invading army of... Visigoths.
In the 1980's, U.S. foreign policy involved supporting certain Middle Eastern factions with training and information in their fight against Russian occupation in Afghanistan, with the Taliban freedom fighters being the largest benefactor. Then in September 2001...
Yup
whynot_31 said:
Sometimes we are smart enough to "aid" the enemies of our enemies, rather than fight our enemies directly.Ideally, such tactics allows us to state, "we didn't attack Iran ....Iraq and Oman did".
Or, as in the case of the article I link above: "Look, we are making money for America. Not spending it"
In each case, we were bright enough to "just" supply the planes and the bombs, and trained the pilots.
...if you dig a little deeper, you will find we also train the up-and-coming members of their military's officer class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
threatening to wipe Israel off the map.That phrase doesn't exist in farci, so it's a lie that you should stop perpetuating.
That so called "threat" has been debunked a thousand times by Professor Juan Cole and others innumerable times over the years. The only ones making threats are Israel and the USA. It's time for the world to put a stop to this nonsense.
At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.
that be some war mongering talk there.
We now must figure out whether a war with Iran would bring out more voters who are opposed to it, OR for it.
Is an election worth what is at stake?
Tip 1: Always state that you are exhausting all diplomatic options. Repeat this until people believe you have to do something, not merely want to do something.
It's funny that we have to "persuade" Israel to do something, when we provide them THREE BILLION dollars a year in combined military & economic "aid".
How about this for persuasion:
Don't attack Iran or we will remove the BILLIONS we give you.
Of course this won't happen b/c the establishment in DC isn't actually opposed to war with Iran.
This like "persuading" your child not to beat up on their younger sibling, while still giving them money & buying them the boxing gloves.
armchair_warrior said:
At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.that be some war mongering talk there.
armchair_warrior said:
At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.that be some war mongering talk there.
BG-
Our best scenario may be that we are "smart".
whynot_31 said:
Sometimes we are smart enough to "aid" the enemies of our enemies, rather than fight our enemies directly.Ideally, such tactics allows us to state, "we didn't attack Iran ....Iraq and Oman did".
Or, as in the case of the article I link above: "Look, we are making money for America. Not spending it"
In each case, we were bright enough to "just" supply the planes and the bombs, and trained the pilots.
...if you dig a little deeper, you will find we also train the up-and-coming members of their military's officer class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
there aren't quotation marks in the world big enough to properly express that.
If the US goes to war against Iran (or helps some other country do it), I just hope diehard Democrats will be able to see why many of people perceive the Republican and Democratic parties as being very similar in this regard.
On the other hand, maybe I'll just envy them for believing that one party is always superior to the other. When one has a hero, there is always someone else to blame.
National defense, domestic spying and related issues have definitely woken some people up to the similarities between the two parties on these issues.
IMO.
I've watched a lot of people come to realization that Obama is not, and never was, a progressive.
I think Obama not being a progressive is a big part of the reason he stands a chance at being re-elected.
Since that's getting off topic, I started a new thread with a response.
http://brooklynian.com/forum/brooklyn-politics/the-2012-election?replies=1#post-752017
Here's what the Republican front runner, Mitt Romney says he would do about Iran's nuclear ambitions:
Beginning Nov. 4, 1979 , dozens of U.S. diplomats were held hostage by Iranian Islamic revolutionaries for 444 days while America’s feckless president, Jimmy Carter, fretted in the White House. Running for the presidency against Carter the next year, Ronald Reagan made it crystal clear that the Iranians would pay a very stiff price for continuing their criminal behavior. On Jan. 20, 1981, in the hour that Reagan was sworn into office, Iran released the hostages. The Iranians well understood that Reagan was serious about turning words into action in a way that Jimmy Carter never was.America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake. The same Islamic fanatics who took our diplomats hostage are racing to build a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama, America’s most feckless president since Carter, has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets in the White House, the Iranians are making rapid progress toward obtaining the most destructive weapons in the history of the world.
The gravity of this development cannot be overstated. For three decades now, the ayatollahs running Iran have sponsored terrorism around the world. If we’ve learned anything from Sept. 11, 2001, it is that terrorism in the nuclear age holds nightmarish possibilities for horror on a mass scale.
What’s more, Iran’s leaders openly call for the annihilation of the state of Israel. Should they acquire the means to carry out this inhuman objective, the Middle East will become a nuclear tinderbox overnight. The perils for Israel, for our other allies and for our own forces in the region will become unthinkable.
The United States cannot afford to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Yet under Barack Obama, that is the course we are on.
As president, I would move America in a different direction.
The overall rubric of my foreign policy will be the same as Ronald Reagan’s: namely, “peace through strength.” Like Reagan, I have put forward a comprehensive plan to rebuild American might and equip our soldiers with the weapons they need to prevail in any conflict. By increasing our annual naval shipbuilding rate from nine to 15, I intend to restore our position so that our Navy is an unchallengeable power on the high seas. Just as Reagan sought to defend the United States from Soviet weapons with his Strategic Defense Initiative, I will press forward with ballistic missile defense systems to ensure that Iranian and North Korean missiles cannot threaten us or our allies.
As for Iran in particular, I will take every measure necessary to check the evil regime of the ayatollahs. Until Iran ceases its nuclear-bomb program, I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must. I will speak out on behalf of the cause of democracy in Iran and support Iranian dissidents who are fighting for their freedom. I will make clear that America’s commitment to Israel’s security and survival is absolute. I will demonstrate our commitment to the world by making Jerusalem the destination of my first foreign trip.
Most important, I will buttress my diplomacy with a military option that will persuade the ayatollahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Only when they understand that at the end of that road lies not nuclear weapons but ruin will there be a real chance for a peaceful resolution.
My plan includes restoring the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. It also includes increasing military assistance to Israel and improved coordination with all of our allies in the area.
We can’t afford to wait much longer, and we certainly can’t afford to wait through four more years of an Obama administration. By then it will be far too late. If the Iranians are permitted to get the bomb, the consequences will be as uncontrollable as they are horrendous. My foreign policy plan to avert this catastrophe is plain: Either the ayatollahs will get the message, or they will learn some very painful lessons about the meaning of American resolve.
Hahahahahaha.
Oh R-money.
You are so money.
PS:
The same Islamic fanatics who took our diplomats hostage are racing to build a nuclear bomb.
Mittens - where do you get this information? Because your own nation's intelligence community doesn't agree with you.
I think they should get the bomb or no body should have it. why should russia, israel us uk france have it????
its a club made up of mostly former richest countries in the world.
it was meant to keep the 3rd world poor countries in check.
but they didn't foresee the rise of the rest of the globe.
israel, uk, france, russia, us.
all of them has more nukes than china or India. which has more population etc... isn't that fuck up. small populations with power to destroy the world dictates what the rest of the human race should or shouldn't have.
!@#$ that, more countries should have it, they'll won't be randomly bombed by the "international" community which is made up of europe and american paid allies.
AW, the world isn't a democracy.
who said it is LOL.
if they are smart they'll get it faster vs the slow way of geting it and people would let them have it as israel and pakistan and india has it. nk is pretty safe right now with it.
those countries who gave up it got invaded pretty quickly.
poor Libya, the dude gave it up only a few years ago.
look at Saddam only if he had it.
lessons to be learned from this is. if you don't want the us to bomb you get nukes.
Yup, better to be caught with the bomb than without it.
...hell, the bomb you have doesn't even have to work, the world just has to THINK it will.
real international pariahs are the ones who veto international opinion in the un.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg
basically telling world opinion to go the f away.
yes, the UN loses credibility when one realizes which countries hold power in it.
(shhhhh, people like to think of it like the League of Justice in those super hero cartoons)
If the first world is smart, it will pass a resolution that we know won't be complied with, this way we can say we tried all non-violent alternatives before war....
even former Mossad chief is against war with Iran.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NC13Ak01.html
A few minutes with a Mossad chief
Meir Dagan appeared Sunday on the popular US program and political sounding board 60 Minutes, where he took on Netanyahu and much of the US and Israeli right, albeit obliquely. The interview was interspersed with photos and anecdotes establishing Dagan's strong military and security credentials and his likely association with a number of assassinations across the Middle East. He had already spoken out last year against war with Iran, calling it "the stupidest thing I have ever heard".
The former Mossad chief noted, with some qualifications, the "rationality" of the Iranian leadership. Dagan is not lecturing the American public on Cartesian philosophy or game theory. He is breaking with Israelis and Americans who claim - perhaps even believe - that Iran is ruled by crazed clerics intent on ending the world who cannot be deterred from using nuclear arms. Mutually assured destruction, Dagan believes, can be obtained in the Middle East. It was the basis of the US-USSR standoff for many decades, which kept conflict in check until the fall of the communist regime.
Dagan has followed relations with Iran for decades. He knows that Israel had strong ties with Iran under the shah and also for many years after the mullahs came to power in 1979, as Israel helped in the long war against Iraq (1980-88). The breakdown in relations did not come from a change in ideology or policy in Tehran; it came from a political shift in Jerusalem that, following the destruction of Saddam's army in the First Gulf War, suddenly - and perhaps erroneously - saw Iran as unchecked and dangerous. Iran soon became an enemy.
He may be right; a doctrine of mutually assured destruction MAY BE the best we can hope for.
As the use of technology (including nuclear) become widespread, it is only a matter of time before many more nations gain the capability to build a nuclear bomb.
Destroying their "budding" capabilities may slow the process down, but at some point we are going to have to accept the new reality.
However, I don't think that is the real question. I think the real question is, "Do we think think the drums of war have beat for too long, and too loudly for us to step back?"
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!
now :
most recent : chca, threecee, lancekalp, armchair_warrior, tateinbk, carmen, aepete, xlizellx, madsy_swami, mg, flushy, eastbloc, epiclylaterd, brooklynbound, opossumqueen, susanderavish, god, rogersma, inpixels, turtle95, ribbons, arches
Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)
