I’d be okay with war in Iran.
Among Iranians. With lots of government officials and mullahs hanging from lamposts and such.
One only need read the very lucid counter-spin comments at the bottom of that article to see it for what it is: rats jumping ship. Too late.
Cheers.
Why? Is that sort of thing entertaining to you?
I suspect friend Bryan is making a grim joke. I myself, and presumably you, would be delighted to see the hard liners in Iran shown the door, though not necessarily the gallows. I simply want them to stop doing evil, I don’t need for them to stop breathing.
If I’m wrong, I expect to be corrected, and then I would co-sign your dismay.
[shrug] So long as they have to get in line behind Bush and Cheney and the whole quondam staff of PNAC, I have no objection.
Yes yes Fury, counterspin to deal with the obvious traitorous agenda of that nefarious Zionist Neocon organization, Common Dreams.
Facts brought up by that notorious rat leaving the ship, the Washington Post.
Facts that are just obviously pre-spun, like public statements in 2002 by the IDF chief of staff and IDF chief of military intelligence that said Iraq didn’t have WMD and called bullshit on Bush. Obviously those crafty Zionists were just preparing the way for spin, later on. Those dirty Zionists knew, ahead of time, that they’d be blamed for controlling the United States and to throw valiant conspiracy busters off the scent, they actually went and opposed US policy. Will those Zionists never stop their crafty scheming?
But of course, Lawrence Wilkerson, who left the State Department in 2005 and has been a relentless critic of Bush’s administration for years now? Obviously a rat leaving a sinking ship. Why, obviously when he left after Bush’s reelection and immediately shared what he knew, he had seen that reelection was a sure sign of a sinking ship and his act of blowing the whistle just proved how much of a rat he was. Damn snitch, just like Powell!
And Gareth Porter? Obviously a Zionist… a secret Zionist! Can’t trust a single bit of research he’s gathered. Why, even though he pretty much broke the story and provided the American media with the first detailed analysis of Iran’s secret 2003 proposal, that just proves he was a rat leaving a sinking ship. Only a Zionist traitor would suggest that Bush was taking the wrong tack with Iran by not negotiating more vigorously. Solid proof of his nefarious Zionist duplicity. That rat.
Brilliant factual rebuttal, by the way.
You sure did disprove all those facts.
Agreed on all counts – I think we know each other well enough that we won’t be surprising each other soon. Guess I simply dislike ‘gallows humor’ and as well as you, trust that’s what it was.
If so, apologies beforehand, Brian.
I read it…it’s from an obviously biased source. What do you suppose this proves exactly?
And what has this got to do with a supposed up and coming war in Iran DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?
Or did you decide to change the goal posts to posit a war with Iran in the next 8 years? 16? 32? 64? 128? 256? War with Iran…someday?
Do you have some kind of problem with counter-revolution in Iran? Do you have some kind of stake in the current Iranian government perhaps…or strong feelings about their demise due to internal revolution? Or was this just a knee jerk reaction?
Out of curiosity, what exactly IS your position wrt to the actual OP Red…
-XT
Seeing as **Red **apologized for the implications of his remark at 8:14, its a bit stiff of you to rag on him for it at 8:40.
If you say so 'luci…I didn’t get that out of Red’s ‘apology’ and figured I’d ask him for clarification. But if you think this explains his statement then that’s fine.
And honestly it’s a distraction anyway…I’d really like to hear what Red’s take on the actual OP is (I can guess, but he’s welcome to come out and clarify his position).
-XT
Consider how close you are to suggesting the he has a subtle and covert agenda. Red Fury, that is. Subtle and covert.
He’s free to clarify his position of course. To me it was a rather odd response to what Bryan Ekers was pretty obviously saying.
I will concede the point though 'luci, FWIW to you and Red, and merely ask again what Red’s thoughts on the actual OP might be. Is invasion imminent in Redworld? His, um, cite seems to indicate not…that it will happen in the NEXT administration. Due to a vast Israeli conspiracy…
-XT
FAgain,
I’ve known for a long time that it is simply pointless trying to “debate” anything with you that concerns Israel – or its binding ties to US foreign policy. Thus I wont. I certainly have better things to do such as getting drunk…which is your usual dismissal of my posts. That I’m some drunken xenophobic imbecile. Fine. But you know what? First, I couldn’t care less how I am labeled by anyone on this board – or elsewhere for that matter…too old and yes, way too smart to let this environment get to me. Been around the block with this issue, more than likely, before you were born.
Having said that, I can understand your passion, for Og knows Jews have had to weather some of the most unfair and downright murderous treatment in the annals of history. Why? Topic for another thread but blood ties bordering on xenophobia along with usury might have something to do with it. OTOH, I openly admire your work ethic, high regard for education and overall intelligence. Geographically tiny Israel itself is likely the best current example of what the combined above cultural traits can accomplish. Amazing when compared to any other nation in the area. And even beyond that, I’d love to see a (greatly) modified form of the kibbutz as a form of communal living. Even still, a great concept IMO.
Having said that, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t respond to any other posts of yours in the future. Simply too old, and again, even if I have to say so myself, too schooled in life to have a young, condescending whippersnapper tell me what is going on in the Middle East. Thanks but no thanks.
Not that you’ll be missing much anyway. Clearly you know it all.
Keep on keeping on. Might even want to take a brand on your rather lengthy lectures. If that’s what they are.
Good luck with that.
Right. Enough explaining myself and more to the point.
Why shouldn’t we listen to a man whose been right all along? Video:
Israel’s influence of US policy & the Israeli lobby
Or how about things that Israel doesn’t want the MSM to see?
Video Israel Doesn’t Want You to See
Can’t say its been nice knowing you, but I do admit I like the fire in your belly. Being passionate is a good thing IMO, being stubborn…probably not so much.
One only look at Israel’s situation to realize as much.
Be well.
Well, you might include Panama in that list. Noriega didn’t exactly declare war, but he did declare that a state of war exists.
Things didn’t work out too well subsequently for our CIA representative/DEA nemesis.
More generally, I’ll note that John Mace and I think xtisme don’t deny that the US or a proxy might bomb Iran. That seems rather warlike to me as well, as well as being a serious strategic error.
(Incidentally, I’ll be away from the board for a while after this evening.)
Might US special forces set foot in Iran in 2008? I think so.
Might US soldiers, including special forces, be caught or killed in Iran in 2008? Sure. I’d put the odds at 5%. Of course the secretary might disavow knowledge of their actions…
No, I free acknowledge the possibility of the US bombing Iran, though I think it’s a pretty low order of probability at this point during THIS administration. Of a higher probability IMHO is that Israel will feel threatented enough to go after Iran’s perceived nuclear program. I really don’t have a good feel for what the probability of that is actually.
I don’t know if this would be a mistake strategically or not from Israel’s perspective.
-XT
Yeah, but that’s not war, that’s War Lite. A few bombs, a civilian or two, no biggie. The Muslim World will just shrug it off, 'cause of how much they love us and trust us.
Well, you know, this is totally a strawman, right? I didn’t say it was ‘no biggie’. I didn’t comment on how the Muslim world would or would not react to such a strike. I actually didn’t comment on any of this.
What I DID say is that we won’t be going to war with Iran during Bush’s term, and we won’t be invading Iran…which is what the OP asked and what I at least was commenting on. I also said that even the air strike thing is of a pretty remote chance at this point. I’ve said the same for the past 3+ years as the constant frantic handwringing threads of this nature have come and gone. And yet, they are like the energizer bunny…they keep going, and going, and going. With the same tired old arguments over and over again.
Since you ask (though I’ve answered this exact same sally from you in past threads), air strikes may be acts of war, but they don’t necessarily lead to war. There is a wide gulf of difference between limited air strikes and full out invasions.
It will be funny to see all the backpeddling to already prepared positions when the US DOESN’T attack Iran during Bush’s term. It will also be interesting to see how the ‘Bush is evil and wants to invade Iran!’ crowd take it if President Obama has to order air strikes against Iran’s nuclear program…there should be enough handwaving to achieve flight…
-XT
What backpeddling?
Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Regards,
Shodan
XT:
You asking and answering the wrong question. When war is easy, peace becomes difficult, it must be worked for. What efforts towards a peaceful solution do you see on our part? Outside of the belligerant rhetoric that seems to gush endlessly from our leaders. Is this how peace is sought, do you think?
Do you agree, or no, that a peaceful modus vivendi with Iran is a desireable thing? Something to be actively sought, rather then grudgingly and reluctantly accepted? Are you satisfied that our leaders are actively seeking such an accord? Then, why, pray, don’t they tell John Bolton to shut the fuck up? Why the calm aplomb when Isreal threatens air strikes?
All we are saying is give peace a chance. Is this how that is done?
How very reassuring.