The point is incorrect. Armies fight on their stomach, there has never in history been an army more effective because it is hungry. Hunger makes you weak and well fed soldiers all else being equal, will romp hungry ones every day of the week.
The facts are probably incorrect too, I think Iran’s economy is starting to suffer from the sanctions (the most recent ones have real teeth and force Iran to go through various inefficiencies to move its oil for less than they could otherwise get for it), plus the global oil price is going down right now too. Iran has had some bad years too, with high inflation and unemployment. I don’t think Iran is actually starving, though. Things are rough there but not “mass starvation” rough, and I think, at least, they are still quite a ways away from such a state.
There’s a lot to be proud of out of Iran/Persia. They’ve created some amazing art, famous rugs and clothes/clothing material, decent wine etc . Unfortunately all of the real great Persian cultural stuff is undermined by the theocratic state. Traditionally Persia was very cosmopolitan, one of the great losses of the Islamic Republic of Iran is that it basically has done perhaps permanent harm to the cultural output of Iran/Persia. (I’m using the word Persian to deliberately evoke the pre-Revolution culture/state, I’m aware that in the native vernacular Persian has always been a Western term.)
But, I do recall a quote from The American Pageant: CONFEDERATE OFFICER: “Forward, men, they have cheese in their haversacks!” (The Confederate Army always had a supply/logistics problem . . .)
FinnAgain, you are just re-writing your posting history.
I am not going to spend two hours searching your hundred (thousands?) of posts on the topic, but I recall several threads where the question on the table was basically “Iran gets a nuclear weapon? So what?” and you proceeded to spook your audience with tales of Iranian misdeeds. Some even from later than 1983!
I trust readers will remember these.
So yeah, the fear-mongering is on your end. Lately you’ve tried the little jiu jitsu thing you’re doing in this thread, where you offer up the same tired fear-mongering, but pretend you’re only throwing it out there to show how restrained the US response has been. Transparent. Just another excuse to get your “Iran is a threat!” talking points out there.
Me, I wish we were a little less fearful as a people. Wars are born of fear.
What exactly is confusing you? Have I said we should bomb Iran, let alone invade? I know there is a faction which believes we need to downplay, distort or ignore the facts in order to avoid war, and there is a faction which believes we need to lie about the facts in order to avoid war, but I see no reason why we can’t have a discussion that actually contains factual information. Yes, Iran has attacked the US on multiple occasions and worked with Al Quaeda in order to further that pattern. Yes Iran is currently a supporter of global terrorism. No, Iran is not a cuddly little kitten poorly picked upon by an uncaring, nasty world. No, we should not invade Iran.
It is an interesting sort of mind which cannot, at the same time, hold the facts about Iran’s history and its importance while still not advocating military action.
As your dodges are both predictable and tedious, I predicted that one, too. And then you went and used it. I guess you only have a few and so the rotation is pretty short.
Of course, what most likely happened back in reality is what you’ve done in your post: distorted actual events in accord with your narrative. Almost definitely what happened was that I pointed out the history of Iranian attacks on America to show either that they attacked up multiple times without counter strikes (proving that we aren’t a threat to them) or I pointed out that Iran has attacked us multiple times and was collaborating with Al Quaeda and has attempted to dominate Lebanon (proving that people who claim Iran is totally peace loving and harmless are gravely mistaken.) Most likely then, as now, you are pretending that stating the facts about Iran and countering agenda-driven factual errors is, what’s that phrase? Oh yeah, “spooking my audience”. *It says something interesting that you find the facts to be ‘spooky’. *
It’s also quite telling that your position can only be supported by fear mongering and handwaving away facts. Why it’s almost as if you realize that your position is unwinable since it’s irrational, ignorant and has no currency other than fear mongering, but you’ve painted yourself into a corner.
You do realize that your dodges are not only predictable, I predicted that one in the very post you’re responding to?
I mean, I know you’ve got nothing so you’re lobbing me softballs, but when I point out the bullshit dodge you’re going to use, going ahead and using it kinda takes some of the thunder out of it. Maybe you should come up with new dodges? Here, I’ll write one for you:
“Sure, Iran attacked United States military forces in the 80’s, and the 90’s, and collaborated with Al Quaeda with the deliberate intention of aiding in more attacks on the US, but the US still did nothing militarily in retaliation, ever. But… fear! Woe! Dread! Horror! We must prevent the war that isn’t happening and isn’t going to happen and won’t happen! Fear of the coming invasion will help us prevent it!”
Feel free to slot that into your rotation, spoke. I know you need some new material. Tell us the one about how we have to fear the impending war against Iran which would be horrendous and whose occurrence we should fear because it might come upon us at any time without warning and we must be fearful of such an event, even though it’s impossible. Then switch to how you’re opposed to using fear to sell a position.
I’m definitely not making that assumption. But it does sound a little familiar, and I can recall a lot of warnings about Saddam’s Republic Guard that amounted to squat. I am serious when I say I’m not advocating for an invasion - and it can’t be stressed enough that none is imminent either - but I do roll my eyes a little when I hear about the impending disaster that would surely befall anyone who dares invade Iran. Vigilance is called for, but Obama pushing for sanctions doesn’t make it easier for a future administration to go to war. If anything it provides a counterargument because it would require that administration to demonstrate that the sanctions aren’t working, and it might actually remove the cause for war.
And Unocal, oh my! This probably has a lot more to do with Kucinich’s desperation to keep a job in Congress than anything else.
All true, and of course the government can take credit for none of it. I hope a lot of that cultural life is lying dormant and will outlive those maniacs.
I’m on record on the Dope as saying we should provide covert, non-military support for a grass roots movement to replace the Iranian theocracy with democracy, and that we should have tough sanctions until Iran agrees to implement the Additional Protocols in order to certify non-diversion or nuclear material and the non-existence of a parallel weaponization program in concert with its ostensibly scientific program.
This is nothing new.
Nor is it at all new that people with strong partisan narratives, which are unsupportable on the facts and logic, want to attack, ignore and/or bury the actual facts of the matter and declare that anybody who does not do so is angling for war. And hey, at least you asked, first. But there was still nothing, at all, in my post which was either counterfactual, fallacious or a call for military action let alone invasion.
There were a lot of aggravated people here in 1968. A lot people out in the streets. Protests, riots, demonstrations. Somebody watching it on TV from another country might have gotten the impression the US citizenry was ready to revolt.
So do you think we would have welcomed “liberators” from, say, Russia in '68? I don’t either.
Apples and oranges. I’m sure we’d defeat Iran’s conventional forces pretty quickly, the same as we did in Iraq. Maybe our next President could even land on an aircraft carrier and declare “mission accomplished.”
And then we’d be dealing with a quagmire of insurgency for the next 20 years.
I don’t think the U.S. would have welcomed Russian troops and I’m not arguing Iran is just waiting for a helpful invasion, although certainly some people have asked for help. Meanwhile I’m struggling with this question because the comparison of the protests feels so glib. Yes, there were a lot of protests in 1968 and there was serious unrest over Vietnam and civil rights issues. The issues of the day did not include a presidential election rigged by a ruling theocracy, and the federal government did not throw people in jail just for protesting, didn’t torture confessions out of opposition politicians, and oh yes, it didn’t murder anybody as it cracked down on the protests, nevermind all the other things Iran did as it tried to crush the protests. The Iranian government acknowledges 36 people were killed and the opposition says 72. I won’t bother scaling up the figures to account for population - 72 people killed. Do you think that might make any kind of difference in the character of the protests or how the citizenry might feel about the protests and the government a couple of years later? People still talk about Kent State, and that was four people forty years ago.
No, of course it’s not an exact comparison. But the point still holds. We have a very imperfect understanding of the mindset of the Iranian people as a whole. The fact that some of the protesters may have reached out to us doesn’t mean diddly. Hell, there were protesters in the US in '68 carrying around Chairman Mao’s little red book. That didn’t mean the whole country was looking for China’s input.
And the violent repression in Iran which rightly outrages us may look, to a working class Joe Iranian, like a law-and-order crackdown on a buncha hippies.
The point I’m making is that (as in the 1968 United States) we can’t extrapolate the mindset of the whole nation from the mindset of urban protesters.
I’m not sure the precise precipitation of the comments by Kucinich, but there are arguments that sanctions bolster dictators and there have been calls to be more hawkish with Iran.
