[QUOTE=Shodan]
So, to recap -
You claimed that the Iranian government would necessarily be deterred from launching an attack on US soil because of the likelihood of an overwhelming US response[/quote]
I still have not said this [nor any of the other crap you’re trying to foist on me].
I have not advanced an assertion about what Iran will or won’t do. I have merely pointed out that there’s no clear indication that Iran will duplicate the actions of the Taleban.
You said that Iran might attack the US. And rather than lay out reasons why Iran might do so you merely offered the actions of a third party as evidence. I merely pointed out that the actions of the Taleban are not necessarily indicative of the actions of Iran. You know, with the two of them being different entities with different composition, goals and situations etc. And because these two entities are not identical the actions of the Taliban are not evidence of Iran’s actions.
I’m not sure why you’re choosing to read all this other stuff into it.
You made a statement and provided some shoddy backing for it. I called you on it. I did NOT say these other things you’re inferring.
Step back from “reading betweeen the lines” or whatever crap you’re doing, cuz it ain’t working - you’re getting it all wrong. Just read the lines themselves and we can go from there.
Ah well… as long as I’m at it, I might as well respond. After all, I just got the chance to laugh rather hard after reading over someone’s belief that a term popularized by the Howdy Doody show is highfalutin and spiteful.
So in addition to clearing up American pop culture references, I can comment on th is jazz, as well
As, until December 2003, the DCI was saying that the issues regarding Iraq’s WMD programs, or the lack thereof, hadn’t been cleared up and were still outstanding.
Now… that certainly doesn’t represent a unanimous view. But it does suggest that the October 2002 statement that Iraq definitely had WMD had not changed to “Iraq definitely doesn’t” by the time the war was launched. I think it’s plausible that some intel experts, then, disagreed on the specifics.
No?
No. This is where I started, ended, and never moved from. I have repeatedly been saying that Iran is neither an immediate threat nor a non-threat. I have stated that whether or not any of Iran’s proxy forces will attack us again is indeterminate.
Yeah, that’s what I said. Unless, of course, what I really said was that even after Iraq was driven out of their country and offering peace, Iran was still carrying on the war. Proving, of course, that their (and your) definition of “win” had nothing to do with Iraq leaving their territory or having a negotiated cease fire along their previous borders.
Please show a single cite that the Nazis were “only too happy for peace” but it was the allies who frustrated the Nazis’ peaceful desires.
Besides the fact that the Nazis never actually sued for peace, and Iraq did?
Further, your contention that Iran’s policy was “identical” to that followed by most major nations including the US… curious, then, that we didn’t topple Sadaam’s regime after we kicked him out from Kuwait, eh?
You are also shifting the goalposts. The statement I made about Iran carrying on the war after they’d evicted Iraq and after Iraq had offered to negotiate peace wasn’t to “chastise” Iran, but to point out that claims Iran had acted only in self defense and that they weren’t willing to sacrifice massive numbers of their people to fulfill a political goal are kinda gainsaid by them perusing a foe that’s already left their territory and offered a peace deal.
Or as I stated rather clearly:
Your cite already refutes this, actually. More to the point, they tried hit and run attacks, but they later returned to human wave attacks. In fact, your own cite discusses how even towards the end of the war, Iran was still making use of human-wave attacks during the Karbalah campaign. Your argument is also a starwman, as nobody has argued that Iran only used human-wave tactics.
Or as already posted:
Further, you cite something about what the regular army did the final months of 1983. But what happened at the end of 1983? From page 33
You cite the strategy of the regular army… without mentioning that it was directly reversed by the end of 1983 and the clerics chose the human-wave tactic again, and that the Pasdaran were supporting it.
Page 19 is a picture. No text. That’s from page 14.
But, in any case, the text you post is, again, refuted by your own cite.
So what does your own cite say? Namely, that once Iraq retook the offensive, the Pasdaran’s only strategy was to charge.
Your quote about an indirect attack of course cherrypicks the facts and fails to take account of the paragraphs that come right after the bit you quoted.
The situation was one in which, once Iran had infiltrated via boats, they were met by overwhelming force and in the end the Iranians were driven back with “considerable losses.” They then did the same exactly thing, the very next day. They were turned back again. Less than a week later, they tried the same thing. And they were driven back, again.
So, you quote something as if it shows that Iran had adopted a strategy that was different from tossing more and more men at an entrenched enemy… but it turns out that though their tactics changed slightly, their strategy was the exact same. As they sent wave after wave to attack, via the same vector, defenders who used overwhelming force and drove them back each time after inflicting “considerable losses.”
In fact, in 1985 the Iranians restaged the same marsh campaign. And as your own cite puts it, this time the defenders “eliminated the Iranian incursion.” So Iran was willing to toss wave after wave of troops, at the same objective, using the same vector of attack, until the Iranian force was “eliminated.”
Again, your own cite says of this pattern of behavior:
So, again, the Iranian casualties were “steadily mounting” for “no appreciable gains” while the Iranians repeatedly attacked into overwhelming firepower.
Not quite sure why you post this, as it again refutes what you’ve been trying to say… since as of one of the last major campaigns of the war, Iran was still using human-wave attacks.
Again, you don’t quote from anything past the overview… and as such you miss the entire section dedicated to the battle you were discussing, in which your own cite says :
In other words, up to one of the major campaigns of the war, the Iranians were still willing to carry on up to anything short of “extraordinary casualties”. Due to their fanaticism. After that, as your own cite makes clear, it was only their failure at Karbalah that precluded them from mobilizing enough forces for continued bloody attacks.
Without your cherrypicking, they tried hit and run attacks, and the clerics rejected those in favor of more human-wave attacks. They tried indirect approaches and infiltration, which amounted to attacking the same way along the same ground into the teeth of overwhelming opposition time and again as casualties mounted until the Iranian force was “eliminated”.
It’s interesting that you portray such behavior as being ‘worried about casualties’. If executing the same attack time and time again against overwhelming odds doesn’t show a lack of concern about casualties, you’re using some funky definitions.
All of this ‘advancing the same way against overwhelming force, time and again’ was after Iraq had offered to negotiate a peace settlement. And Iran had already chased them out of their territory. And the former borders were once again secure. And any definition of “winning” other than Total War (or “Regim Change”) had already been met. But of course, Iran’s choice to continue their same bloody strategy year after year in an elective war didn’t say anything about their willingness to sacrifice lives.
Further, it is quite clear that it wasn’t the history or the total of casualties sustained through the whole war, but that there were so many in a failed battle. They didn’t stop human-wave tactics at any point through the entire war because they were adding up, they stopped them near the very end of the war once a battle went horribly wrong. And even then, the casualty count did not lead them to sue for peace or want to end the war, merely made it more difficult for them to mobilize new troops.
Ignoring, of course, that the Iranians “tolerated” such tactics in an elective war with an enemy that had already offered peace while the British were fighting against Nazism and, contrary to your views, reality shows that the Nazis never were receptive to let alone offered peace.
Nor is there any real reason for your constant tu quoque fallacies. Iran continually adopted a strategy of pouring wave after wave of soldiers against positions that routinely chewed them up… but that didn’t display a disdain for casualties, because the British accepted more casualties at another battle.
Tell that to the Spartans.
Tell that to religious fanatics who believe that death sends them to paradise.
Tell that to any of the light brigade. Or the Die-Hards.
In any case, Iran spent year after year after year using tactics guaranteed to result in casualties, including but not limited to repeatedly using the same route to attack the same defensive position that had overwhelmingly superior firepower. And, despite your “fantasy”, even after they’d publicly renounced human-wave tactics, they still were not done with the war.
Ahhh, the well worn fallacious accusation of racism instead of the well worn fallacious accusation of belligerency. Not only have I never said anything, at all, that the Iranians are “a species apart”, but that the actions of their government, which I specifically delineated from their people, was willing to sacrifice massive numbers of people, including but not limited to children, in order to accomplish elective military goals.
Bwah?
No… the purpose of the “meme” (eg. the facts about what happened) is, exactly what I said ,that the Iranian government is willing to sacrifice massive numbers of people, including children. Why you think that the fact of the keys being made in Taiwan somehow makes it more evil is… well, weird. Do you have something against the Taiwanese?
Further, are any other nations even mentioned in this “propaganda” “meme”? Is anybody comparing them to conflicts in Africa and saying that Iran used more children, or what have you? Or is that, much like the added evil of Taiwan, simply something you’re reading into some very simple facts?
I’ll also note, you have yet to actually even attempt to provide an alternative explanation of even basic plausibility. ‘They only intention buying all those keys evinced was an intention to buy keys’ is kinda weaksauce.
The ad hominem fallacy, wonderful. If it’s in The New Republic, we can safely ignore it. I’m not sure what you’d take as “proof”. Perhaps a sufficiently leftist newspaper? Good thing that you have your shields up so tightly, however.
Evidently you feel that a Ph.D. and tenured political science professor cannot be considered a reliable source, and that you have no obligation to disprove his contentions, only cast doubt at them. I will say, however, that it’s good that you at least tried to google a bit. Certainly better than spoke’s unwillingness to read up on an issue at all before declaring something that’s fantastically well documented may be a war myth.
Again, I’m sure readers can look over Kuntzel’s C.V. and see if he’s a reliable source or not.
But hey, sometimes google fu I necessary, I suppose. From here (and again, posters can determine for themselves if P.W. Singer, Brookings fellow, Harvard Ph.D, respected author on the subject, etc… is a reputable gent).
From here (Ghazal Omid, right wing op-ed or Iranian feminst, lived in Iran at the time, reliable or not, etc…)
I’m not even sure what the exactly quibble here is… Iran deliberately sent children into minefields. They used them, not even as combatants who might have a chance, but as living mine flails who would, by definition, be blown to pieces if they were successful. This is beyond debate. Although, of course, someone who doesn’t read up on it can always claim that it’s only “alleged” since as far as they know, there are nor facts to support it. But… is the only quibble whether or not they gave them keys? Singer estimates that 100,000 Iranian boys were killed as part of the war. Is the quibble not over whether or not Iran was willing to sacrifice children in an elective war… simply over how many they ordered keys for?
Again, using what actually happened as our guide, Iran ‘bailed’ from the war once it was clear that Iraq had suddenly reversed fortune and stood a very real chance of winning. Even after the massive casualties they suffered, they were still prepared to fight on,until Iraq made it clear that they could drive deep into Iran and take territory.
Not really interested in playing that little game. That Iranians used children deliberately to clear minefields is beyond question. That they gave them plastic keys is well cited and well documented. You’ve offered some patently laughable alternate views for why Iran ordered the plastic keys.
Even without the keys, the Iranian theocrats made public requests for every child, from 12 on up, to join in the war effort. Knowing what Iran’s tactics actually were (despite your cherrypicking) arguing that they weren’t willing to sacrifice those children is laughable.
As always, those in the peanut gallery can determine for themselves whether or not buying those keys and then giving them to young children in order to get them to step on mines indicates a desire to use the keys for such a purpose, or not. Or if using children with the strategy that Iran held, and sending them into combat, displayed a willingness to sacrifice them. Or if, perhaps, Iran would have turned away children after its leaders requested that they come out and fight.
Psst! Finn! Not to distract you from kicking ass and taking names, but the British were fighting the Kaiser’s troops at the Somme, not the Nazis. Wrong war.
Hah, point taken.
All the other references that I was responding to were to WW II and/or Nazi Germany. Still, that was a sloppy error to make. My mistake.
Let it not be said that when I make factual errors, I blissfully ignore them
Still, doesn’t have any real relevance other than a tu quoque fallacy. “The Iranians displayed a willingness to keep fighting and losing troops right up until the end of the war when it was clear that Iraq had reversed the situation and could make territorial gains. Even after Karbalah, they still wanted to keep fighting and were not ready to talk peace. But that doesn’t show that Iran wasn’t willing to quit because of casualties, because Britain endured more during another time.”
This is both completely at odds with everything you did say and also abuses the very dictionary definition of threat you purported to uphold. The above remark is a non-position; furthermore, it is downright Orwellian in its lack of clarity and abuse of the English language.
Neither a threat nor a non-threat? What is this, FinnAgain’s Iranian Cat? To what further lengths will you go to abuse the written word? Flabbergasted is too mild a word to describe how I feel both about the time and energy I wasted on you in this discussion.
All I can say is, I hope someone else derived some value from it.
I think you’d be less “flabbergasted” if you calmed down and read what Finn actually said, which is that he didn’t consider Iran an immediate threat or a non-threat.
Makes sense, and I agree.
Congrats to all for a sober discussion of facts and issues without the personal stuff that sometimes seeps into these debates. :dubious:
I think we have taken this as far as we can. I will point out, however, that you might want to read the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of my bullet points before you assert that I have not laid out any reasons why a comparison of Iran and Afghanistan is not as far-fetched as you seem to be asserting.
I am not reading between the lines. I asserted, quite correctly, that the threat of a US response is not good reason to believe that a terrorist attack on US soil is out of the question. You seem to be maintaining that Iran is different. Why you think it is different, you haven’t mentioned.
If you want to maintain that it is irrelevant that Iran has expressed a wish to destroy Americans, has sponsored groups that have attacked Americans, shares the Islamo-fascist ideology that has already motivated an attack on US soil, and has been working on developing WMD, well, go ahead.
It’s rather like a woman who goes to a judge for a restraining order against her ex-husband. “He has threatened to kill me, he shot my dog, he sends me threatening letters, he has already served time in prison for beating up one of my friends, and he is stockpiling automatic weapons.”
“Don’t be so hysterical”, responds the judge. "Just because other people who did the same things went on to attack their ex-wives is no reason for you to worry.
After all, those were all different people, and anybody who did attack you would lose his house to the lawsuit and get the death penalty."
Yep, I was specifically disagreeing with the terminology used , for instance, by Rummy.
“I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
And as, for instance, as many people pointed out during and after the Iraq war, saying something was an immediate threat and switching that word off with “imminent” was used as justification for Webster’s doctrine of preemptive war. Something that was “a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” I was pointing out, yet again, that I do not support preemptive war.
You’re right. It’s certainly better to refrain from posting with hot blood.
First, You did not spend the time with FA arguing the opposite of what he now contends. I did.
Second, there is nothing personal here whatsoever. I don’t know FinnAgain from Adam. I am sure he is a perfectly cromulent guy, and we would probably have a fine time drinking beer and playing video games. It is internet reflux, and as such, it is nothing personal.
Third, FinnAgain really has reduced his bluster to a complete non-position. Let’s try to figure out where he stands now.
Iran is not an immediate threat. (We agree. Who knew? No longer a controversial position.)
Iran is not a (medium or long-term) non-threat.
Suppose this is true. If this is true, then either one or the other of the following must be true.
A) Iran is a (medium- or long-) term threat.
OR
B) FinnAgain does not really know whether Iran is a (medium- or long-term) threat and he does not want to make a dispositive statement either way.
In the case of A), I do not believe he has even come close to meeting elementary criteria of threat. Others have voiced a similar opinion. Perhaps there more who agree and more who disagree. We have made our points; it is what it is.
In the case of B), well, that would be my position, too, though I would assess Iran’s probability of threat somewhere below 50%.
Personally, I believe Iran has very limited capabilities but enormous regional ambitions. The past 25 years have shown us that signalling threat can coerce desirable political outcomes in democracies. Pape demonstrates this conclusively in the article I linked earlier, The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.
Because Iran’s ambitions are disconnected with its actual capabilities to do large scale harm, it has to signal its intentions too strongly to get the outcomes it wants, knowing that our democracy probably does not have the stomach to call it bluffing. Thus Iran can have daily Hate on America rallies and can drape American flags over its warheads while at the same time, it can probably cease expensive development of a real nuclear weapons program. Why buy the farm when you get the policy outcomes for free? It is very likely that Iran does not need nuclear weapons to be able to coerce the United States. We are just that easy.
If there should be a C), let me know, because I am not seeing it right now.
My posts that are under discussion were in re you post about the Taleban’s actions being an indicator of what Iran may do. It was not in response to your more recent post.
I say that Iran is different than the Taliban.
Main differences:
Different people
Different countries
Different time periods
Different histories
Different cultures
different situations on many fronts…
I have not said that Iran would or would not do anything. This assertion that I have is of your invention.
I merely said that just because the Taliban do something, that’s not evidence that Iran would do the same thing. That’s it. That’s all.
I’d have to say these things you’re incorrectly purporting I said before I could “maintain” them.
The fact that I did not say these things is my current point.
It’s rather like <insert goofy made up analogy here>.
Argument by analogy only works if your audience already agrees with you.
FWIW, it’s rather silly and sad you’re casting the US as a battered wife w/ Iran as the husband.
Also, fwiw, I have yet to make the deterrence argument you’re bound and determined to attribute to me.
As I have never once said a single different thing, that’s a neat trick.
I suppose it’s hard to take the opposite of a middle position in any case… the opposite of my postion would be "Iran is an imminent/immediate threat and at the same time no threat at all.
If what I was arguing was at all different from what I “now” contend, I would have said either “Iran is an imminent/immediate threat” or “Iran is no threat at all”. I haven’t said either of them. My position has remained 100% constant.
Iran is neither imminent/immediate threat, nor a non-threat. Iran’s religious fundamentalism, support for terrorism and stated desire to do us harm is a threat that justifies us being wary of their intentions and adopting a defensive posture.
I have argued against the “neocon” position that Iran was going to attack us tomorrow if they got a nuke, and that it was a definite imminent threat justifying military preemption. I have specifically stated that I do not believe that Iran rises to the level justifying Webster’s standards for preemptive war.
I have argued against the “peace in our time” position that Iran is not a threat at all and their support for groups like Hezbollah and Al Quaeda is totally benign.
I have repeatedly and consistently stated that we should adopt a defensive stance and be wary of Iran’s intentions .
Not only that, but I have pointed these very same things out again, and again, and again.
Not only have I repeated and clarified all this, but I have done so, at least once, in a post to you. Coding errors left intact:
My bolding for emphasis. What is a reader supposed to take away from this? “As such, they represent a threat.”
I am really, really trying not to misrepresent you or intentionally distort the discussion. It is obvious that we both care deeply about these issues. Just step back from all of the details and try to imagine what your big picture is presenting here. You really are all over the place.
Perhaps it is possible to go to some effort to reconcile all of your arguments and line-by-line rebuttals into a coherent position. But I also believe this is unfair to expect your readers and fellow travelers to have to reconcile your own arguments with themselves to find something logically consistent. This is why I try to avoid high school Lincoln-Douglass line-by-line refutasions. In zeal over the detail, the actual argument loses focus and the individual points of conflict overwhelm the substance like a cancer.
Regardless of what has been said before, if you say the above is your final position and has been all along, then fine, I will take you at your word. Iran should be approached cautiously and warily. Great. We agree.
But, bismillah, the fact that nearly everyone from elucidator to PatriotX has disagreed with you does not mean that we are all Heroes of Self-Deception. Rather, you have been so all over the map with your remarks and pronouncements that everyone has found something objectionable. I really do believe you have something valuable to contribute, so I give you this totally unsolicited feedback. Please make all of our lives easier and stay on message.
I think some of the confusion here stems from the assumption that if the US needs to be wary of Iran, if we need to keep a close eye on them, if we need to consider them a potential threat to our strategic goals in the ME, then this must mean that we need to attack them…or that anyone who feels Iran is a potential threat also feels that the US should start bombing the crap out of them ASAP. However, the two positions (i.e. thinking Iran is a potential threat that needs to be watched carefully yet the US doesn’t need to bomb the crap out of right this minute) aren’t mutually exclusive. My own position is that Iran needs to be watched but that we aren’t even close to needing to exercise a military option (either surgical type strikes or the ridiculous invasion thingy). In point of fact I think that we (the US) ISN’T preparing for war with Iran, that we AREN’T getting ready to use the military option…despite the frantic hand wringing I’ve seen on this subject in other threads.
I have consistently pointed out the difference between an immediate/imminent threat which justifies preemptive war, something that isn’t a threat at all, and something that is a threat but not just justify preemptive war but instead, only a defensive stance and prudent caution.
No, I’m not. Something can be a threat without rising to the level of an immediate/imminent threat which justifies preemptive war.
There’s no reconciliation required. Iran’s stated position of hostility towards us, support for Islamic fundamentalism, support for global terrorism and the possibility of them acquiring nuclear weapons all represent threats.
They do not qualify as an imminent/immediate threat, which would justify preemptive war.
Nor is their sponsorship of terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc… totally benign.
I have stated repeatedly that they are a threat, justifying prudent caution, a defensive stance, and skepticism of their intentions without real moves towards peace. I have stated repeatedly that they are not an imminent threat, nor are they a non-threat.
I’m not sure how I can stay any more ‘on message’ when I say the same thing, again and again.
There is a staggering amount of verbiage between “Iran is a threat!!!” and “Iran is not a threat enough to justify preemptive war” in the quoted post. If this is “on message” for you, I do hope you do not plan on running for public office.
I don’t think it is our job as readers to tease out your fine distinctions amid heaps of vitriol and other rhetoric. If you have an argument, especially one that really should be straightforward, just step back and make it. Otherwise it will get lost in the noise and you will end up ranting that no one is bothering to follow your argument or listen to what you say. Really, we are. But our commitment to making sense of what is going on between your ears is not as serious as yours is.
You will probably still insist that you were doing just that. Fine. But as someone committed to the discussion and as someone who has been well rewarded in life for his comprehension skills, my view is that you weren’t. Like I said, the line-by-line “refutations” are probably the biggest single detractor to your overall intelligibility. What do you really, want FinnAgain, to drive “retractions” or real communication?
At this point, if you don’t want to accept the feedback, we can agree to disagree.
Furthermore, it is the former claim that I was actually discussing with you. The latter is so obvious and (almost) universally agreed upon that it hardly even bears discussion. I don’t see anyone here clamoring for preemptive war with Iran.
You might want to actually read the thread. What FinnAgain has spent thousands of words attempting to prevent is accusations from others that he is clamoring for pre-emptive war.
In the OP, BrainGlutton (of course) accuses Bush of wanting to wage pre-emptive war on Iran. There was some back-and-forth on whether or not enriched uranium makes Iran dangerous, and then in post #31davidm accuses flickster of recommending war against Iran. Then FinnAgain entered the thread to point out that various posters were over-stating the conclusions of the NIE.
Then, in post 45, vibrotronica asks FinnAgain “how many people he is willing to kill” to prevent Iran from developing the Bomb.
So far, three people accusing others of wanting to wage pre-emptive war. ElvisL1ves then chimes in, asking FinnAgain if he believes"we have a right, even an obligation perhaps, to go attack anybody who tosses around some rhetoric we don’t like’. So there’s another. (ElvisL1ves repeats the accusation in post 65). Little Nemo, apparently unable to stand the strain, accuses Bush of wanting to stage a war against Iran. So that’s five.
Then vibrotronica repeats the accusation in post 91, and squeegee accuses Norman Podhoretz of wanting to wage pre-emptive war on Iran. So now we are at six. Then vibrotronica withdraws the accusations, while attempting to force it to be a matter of choosing between “attack Iran” and “Iran is no threat to the US”. Then he (vibrotronica) repeats the accusation in post 117, so we are still at six.
Then we got into the various other misrepresentations (the people Hizbollah killed weren’t non-combatants, whereupon FinnAgain cited the findings of the court that found they were, that Hizbollah’s attacks on US personnel stopped, etc.) Then the various insults and violations of the rules of civilized debate started, and here we are.
There may have been some others that I missed. The reasons they were not included are not be be discussed.
Ok, fair enough, Shodan. I came in on like page 5. I read the thread when it was fresh. It’s been awhile. I did not get the impression that FinnAgain was clamoring for immediate war, so it did not come up in my side of the discussion.
But when I do go back and review the thread, it seems to be that both sides bear some of the responsibility.
Like I told Finn, I would be happy to discuss the timing, purpose, and consensus of responsibility for Hezbollah’s history of violence in another thread.
First bit is something of a tangent and if you want to discuss this element further its best done in a separate thread.
Sure, triflingly easy as its well known that Germany made peace offers both in October 1939 after the fall of Poland and again in July 1940 after the fall of France. The offers were rejected. Britain did not trust Hitler and preferred to fight. As I earlier wrote I believe this to be the correct approach, nonetheless it is a matter of historical record that had the Allies wanted a negotiated end to the war they could have had it. They were not interested in negotiations they preferred to fight on to achieve a total victory and unconditional surrender. It will be noted in relation to Iran that the ‘peace partner’ making the peace offers to Iran that you keep going on about was no other then Saddam Hussein who the Iranians trusted as much as the British trusted Hitler.
TOPIC 2: Iranian Human Wave attacks/Disregard for casualties
Complete distortion. The relevant extract from the cite does not say clerics chose human-wave tactics again and the Pasdaran supported this. It does not say this even remotely, and I will be returning to your mention of wave attacks later. But for now this is the change in strategy being referred to:
Page 14 (original numbering from the cite) For those wondering what this much mentioned cite is its a Marine Corps historical analysis of the Iran-Iraq war and is found here.
No mention of the clerics pushing for wave attacks and the Pasdaran supporting them whatsoever! You have simply made it up.
My cite does not say this at any point.
Your paragraph is a distortion of the cite. That the outcome of the campaign was an Iranian defeat does not mean that the strategy employed was not an indirect one rather then one of frontal assault.
No, they didnt, pay attention. Page 16. Their attack the next day was at a different location specifically at the corps boundary between the III and IV Corps. (Corps boundaries are traditionally a weak point in a defence line and often targeted for this reason). There is no mention of tactics or casualties and no basis for further extrapolation.
Sure if by same thing you mean nothing more then “On March 1 the Iranians attacked a third time, again through the marshes. Once more they were defeated” from Page 16. Which is the only information contained for this attack in the cite. No information on tactics or casualties is given and there is no basis for further extrapolation.
More generally there is no indication whatsoever within the discussion of this campaign that Iranian tactics were rigid, repetitive or consisted of wave attacks along same vectors or anything else to indicate that to quote you “the Pasdaran’s only strategy was to charge”. Wave attacks are not mentioned. There is not even any indication given that Iranian casualties in attacks were heavy. Indeed the only mention of Iranian casualties whatsoever within the entire discussion at all is this in relation to one part of the campaign:
Note that the context of committing troops and driving the Iranians back suggests Iraqi counter-attacks were responsible for inflicting “considerable” casualties rather then wave attacks of which there is not a single mention for this campaign. Despite this you have repeatedly extrapolated this single instance of casualties - “considerable” - and used it for discussion of attacks elsewhere for which you have no evidence of either tactics employed or resulting casualties. To wit here:
Here you are not only distorting the cite you are being outright fraudulent. You are simply talking out your ass. There is no mention of such tactics in this campaign whatsoever and no indication given that overall Iranian casualties were even particularly heavy. You have completely and utterly distorted the passage in the cite. When the authors begin by stating in plain English the Pasdaran were foreswearing frontal assaults in favour of indirect ones and specifically mentions inflitrating through marshlands in areas that the Iraqis had not strongly manned, that’s what they are trying to convey. The passage is labelled Iranian Indirect Attacks after all.
If the Iranians were in fact launching repeated human wave attacks with heavy casualties I expect the authors would have mentioned it!
There is no mention of wave after wave attacks in this period either. Again you have simply made it up. The cite says this in its entirety in relation to the 1985 campaign (page 16-17)
So, they attempted another indirect approach through marshlands a year later in the same general area, succeeded in crossing the Tigris and then fell afoul when exiting the marshes to the highway. They were destroyed not because they launched wave after wave of pointless attacks but because they themselves were caught in a converging attack from multiple directions by two armoured divisions. No mention whatsoever of your claim "*Iran was willing to toss wave after wave of troops, at the same objective, using the same vector of attack, until the Iranian force was “eliminated”. * Nada, Zip. Zilch.
I will add at this point, that the campaign the following year also took place in marshlands which is a sound strategy that makes sense because this terrain minimises the power of Iraqi armoured forces, is difficult for the Iraqis to entrench or lay minefields in, and allows the possibility of waterborne inflitration. This time (page 17):
Human wave assault? No. Attack by surprise in an unexpected sector at night in bad terrain in bad weather. The Iraqis brought up their armoured reserves, the Republican Guard, but they got stuck in the mud and hammered badly by Iranian artillery. The Iraqis spent the next three weeks trying unsuccessfully to dislodge the Iranians.
Now there is no doubt that at various points in the war the Iranians did employ human wave attacks. But it is also clear that the war was more complex then you appear to be recognising. You may if you like insert a ritualistic “But I never said it was nothing but wave attacks” which I will grant, but at every point you have tried to convey the opposite, even to the point of radically distorting a campaign narratives like the Marine Corps one we have discussed.
Furthermore, my mention of the Somme and WW1 isnt some strange tu quoque device but a display of context. It should be evident as a matter of logic that if the Iranians had practiced little else but repeated wave attacks regardless of casualties as you imply, then their total fatalities would be extremely extremely heavy. Yet they suffered fewer dead in eight years then the British did in just six months on the Somme where wave attacks were most certainly employed.
TOPIC 3: 500,000 Keys/ Children in Minefields
Dont be obtuse. Made in Taiwan for at least certain generations has a connotation of cheap and shabby manufactured goods. Which is exactly what I expect the connotation to be here. Not only are the Iranians the embodiment of evil but cheap as well.
I dont need to explain the existence of these 500,000 keys nor am I even trying to. I’m asking you to provide original evidence that there ever even were these 500,000 keys. You brought them up. I asked you previously to provide supporting evidence for them. You dodged the question. No matter, I’m happy to ask you again.
Ok, perhaps you are not acquainted with standards of historical proof. The New Republic article is not a scholarly and academic one, it cites nothing and provides no sort of evidence for its propositions. The proposition may or may not be true, but we have no basis for judging from the article itself. What I am wanting from you is some sort of original citation ie where does this claim come from, and in what position was the claimer in a position to know. I am not attacking TNR itself, it is what it is, but its not proof any more then the right wing blogger that you cite is. If as you claim these 500,000 keys are fantasically well documented then its going to be easy for you to establish them. Its therefore not clear to me why you just dont do that, instead of blathering on.
You dont seem to get it. Its not a question of whether Singer is or isnt a respectable gent but of evidence. Singer is not presenting a claim but repeating one, he is not a primary source. And he makes no mention of 500,000 keys, gives no original sources, and claims the boys were armed which conflicts with most versions of the claim and would seem unnecessary if they were just intended to be walking mine detonaters.
Not really seeking a right-wing op ed
This claim has gone through a set of mutations. Your Brookings cite says the boys were armed. Its elsewhere claimed they were not. My cite mentions “hundreds” of boys were used in this role. Other sites say the boys would deliberately roll on the ground to detonate the mines, others say an anonymous Eastern European reporter supposedly saw “tens of thousands of children, roped together” doing this. Various sites say the boys were young, sometimes as young as 12. Well except when they were mainly under 12. Or when they weren’t boys but little girls, better at both tugging the heartstrings and at detonating mines with their own bodies apparently. It goes on and on, by the time its reached here this paper claims not only were there keys but that the 500,000 children actually did die. Or was it “only” 10,000. Who knows? The Iranians deny it and say its propaganda. But they might be lying. Which seems odd in itself given they supposedly exhult and celebrate this martyrdom, as the story goes.
This supposedly well documented event appears in fact very poorly documented. The story sure gets around in various guises and the “anonymous East European journalist” sure gets quoted a lot. Not that anyone seems to know where he first made this claim. What publication did his story first appear in? Were there government communiques from Iran announcing 500,000 keys purchased for mine-clearing martyrs? Did a Taiwanese company reveal the purchase? Is there an exhibit somewhere in a Tehran museum? Is it fact? Is it wartime propaganda like Germans bayonetting and cooking Belgian babies? Is it an embellishment based off the admittedly appalling use of child soldiers in the front line?
Personally I dont know. As a matter of logic I find it improbable that the number of children killed in mine clearing exceeds the probable total number of Iranian war dead so at least one of the stories above can not be true. To what extent it is true, I cant say, or if there is any truth to it at all
But this story came from somewhere. Someone first claimed it and first printed it. If its as well documented as you claim just produce some source documention already, cant be too hard.
You cited… wikipedia? With a straight face? After complaining that citing detailed historical analysis and primary sources don’t count because they’re either not primary sources or printed in a forum that’s got a negative view of using children to clear mines? At least we’ve got two fully functioning standards at work here. Saves time if one standard is shown to be lacking.
Wow. When Iran peruses a country that’s already left its national territory, and is asking for peace, you say that Iran still has to win. When Hitler has conquered several nations, instituted fascism in them and begun the process of Vernichtung, and still had plans for global domination… it’s not appeasement and political posturing, but peace.
Just in case you’re curious (and, ya know, tired of citing Wikipedia) you are repeating Nazi propaganda, quite literally. What you’re claiming, actually, is part of what some folks have referred to as the Hitler Myth. But, honestly… at the point where you’re citing wikipedia and your argument is pretty much identical to Nazi propaganda…?
Despite the Nazi propaganda you repeat, of course, even after the Munich Agreement, Hitler still went on to seize Czechoslovakia. That you view his 1939 “peace deal” as any more valid than his 1938 is… remarkable.
No. It would be noted that, even during the use of the official Nazi propaganda you’re repeating, Hitler still held conquered territories. Once Sadaam had been driven out of Iran, he had effectively been defeated.
Anyways, we should probably get off this topic before you get a chance to echo any more official Nazi propaganda.
Ah, I see, you echo official Nazi propaganda and now you’re just making stuff up. Good, good. I already quoted this, and you seem to have… what, missed it? Let’s see if your cite does or does not say that at the end of 1983 the clerics chose human-wave tactics and the Pasdaran supported it.
Well lookie that… you were not telling the truth. And you were making stuff up… in order to claim that I wasn’t being honest.
Yes, much like the quote I just posted above is ‘made up’.
That you somehow fail to understand what it means that Iran was attacking along one vector into overwhelming force, and then doing the same thing the next day, and then doing the same thing less than a week later, and then trying the same exact thing the next year…
Yet again… truth, or bullshit?
That’s the second quote, from your own cite, that you deny. You didn’t actually read your own cite, did you?
Unreal. Not only did I not distort your cite, I repeated almost verbatim what they said happened. As shown above, you have already claimed that two quotes from your own cite do not actually exist.
…
First, as your own cite makes clear the Iranians attacked through the marshes, into overwhelming firepower first one day, then the next day, then less than a week later. That they did the same exact thing but hit a different point once they got there does not in any way contradict that. Again, from your own damn cite.
So in other words, again and again the Iranians attacked, through the marshes, into overwhelming firepower, and were defeated. Again and again.
…
You mean, when I was specifically responding to how there was a change in tactics but not in strategy… I wasn’t talking about tactics?
And no mention of casualties? Driven back with “consdierable losses”, first time, Iran tried it again twice more within less than a month’s time… and then restaged the same exact thing the next year, with the result that the Iranian incursion was “eliminated”?
Wow, just wow.
Un-fucking-believable. I am being fraudulent?
First attack, through the Marsh, Iranians suffer “considerable losses”. The very next day, they attack through the marsh, again. Less than a week later, they attack through the marsh, again. Each time they are defeated. Your own damn cite tells us that, of this phase of the war:
So the Iranians attacked, time after time, into dug in defenders who used superior fire power. And they lost, each time. And they continued with the same strategy, even though your very own cite says that with their very first attack, they suffered “considerable losses”. I’m sorry, you’ve already made it very clear that you haven’t actually read your own cite.
Again, you are the one who hasn’t read your own cite. And again, you are caught having not read it, and accusing me of “making things up.”
February 22nd, Iranians attack via the marshes. They are driven back with “considerable losses”. The next day, they attack via the very same vector. Less than a week later, they attacked along the very same vector. Your own cite tells us that they were advancing against dug in defenders using overwhelming firepower. That you deny that the three series of attacks are three waves of attacks is, quite frankly, par for the course. That you deny that they tossed another group of soldiers, at the same target, that was dug in, that had them beat with overwhelming firepower, and that “eliminated” them the fourth time they they tried the same exact thing…
Your own cite (which you didn’t even have the courtesy of reading before you cited it) says
Despite your obfuscation about what point they hit once they advanced along the same exact vector, your own cite uses only one arrow to represent the attacks in both February and March and the attacks in the next year. Since they used the same vector.
You then go on to reject historical analysis from Singer as if the only valid cites are primary ones, ignore that he mentions keys but doesn’t give a total for all the keys ordered… you have a direct first hand accounts from a woman who was there in Iran, but it’s no good because it was an “ring wing op-ed”, you ignore that Kuntzel has indeed document his claims, which the cited “right wing blog” only quoted, and that was an excerpt for a longer, fully cited, analysis that Kuntzel has on his own website, free of charge.
You then repeat Iranian propaganda (evidently Nazi propaganda got old) in which they claim “Pro-Zionist Jews are claiming that the Iranian government used the children to clear mine fields.” Evidently calling the MKO “Pro-Zionist Jews”. You say it is “odd” to consider that Iran would be bullshitting. You cast Iran’s use of children just as using them “in the front line”.
When, again, your own damn cite, which you could have actually read, says “The Iranians herded hundreds of children (some no more than 12 years old) into the combat zone to detonate concealed mines.”
But… no, screw this. You deny that one quote exists that is in your own cite, that I have quoted at least once and you have responded to a post in which I quoted it. You deny another quote that I have partially quoted at least one, and you have responded to. You cite Iran’s denial of using children to clear minefields as credible, when your own cite says that they did it. You deny what you own cite says about Iran’s strategy, and claim that I am making things up.
No, sorry, not going to waste time with you. Maybe if you feel like reading your own cite at some point.
But without you even being willing to read what you post, I’m done with this.
