I think we all need an ass kicking.

Ben

Lieberman was pounding the war drums hard this morning:

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on CBS's Face the Nation this morning laid out a case for the US taking military action against Iran.

"Iraq is now the main front in the long war we are fighting against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

How did that happen? Was it magic?

JL wrote: In fact 90% of the suicide bombers in Iraq today killing Iraqis and American soldiers are foreign Al Qaeda fighters.

How did that happen? Was it serendipity?

JL wrote: Iran is training and equipping soldiers, Iraqis, to come in and kill American soldiers and Iraqis," said Lieberman.

How did that happen? Was it slint?

JL wrote:"If we're going to sit and talk with the Iranians, tell them what we want them to do, which is to stop doing that because it's killing Americans, we can't leave it at that. I think we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," he said. "To me that would include a strike into, over the border into Iran where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

Maybe if you didn't invade a country with a quarter of the troops everyone told you that you needed, maybe you could have secured the damn border, and maybe you wouldn't have killed so many troops as they tried to play catch up inside a hell designed by draft-dodging assholes playing Generals. Maybe disbanding the Iraqi army and de-Baathifying the coun try into a total power vacuum was a bad idea also, you dipshits.

"Let's just stop right there," said Schieffer. "You're saying that if the Iranians don't let up that the United States should take military action."

"I am," replied Lieberman. "If they don't play by the rules we've got to use our force and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

Manufacturing them enemies. Simple as 1, 2, 3. Line them up, invoke the fear doctrine, knock them down.

clocker bob wrote: The next new moon over Iran is February 17. Watch that week, until the 24th.

whatever happend with that?

only here wrote:

clocker bob wrote: The next new moon over Iran is February 17. Watch that week, until the 24th.

whatever happend with that?

Only Here is surprised to learn that a guy named Clocker Bob on a public message board is unable to accurately predict to the day when the US military will strike Iran.

That's pretty funny.

ok then. moving on....

clocker bob wrote:Check out the percentages of new immigrants in the ground forces of the US Army. The government is recruiting overseas, using citizenship as the prize.

dallas morning news, 11/28/06 wrote:By DAVID McLEMORE / The Dallas Morning News

They come from Mexico, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Colombia, Cambodia and a hundred other countries across the globe to find the promise of America. Increasingly they enlist to fight, and sometimes die, in America's wars.

About 69,300 foreign-born men and women serve in the U.S. armed forces, roughly 5 percent of the total active-duty force, according to the most recent data. Of those, 43 percent – 29,800 – are not U.S. citizens. The Pentagon says more than 100 immigrant soldiers have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

it's no surprise that our troops are underpaid. having said that, our army looks a lot more like america than any white house cabinet.
they do a good job, generally [no pun intended].

Rick Reuben wrote:Another old kook cheerleads for death.

norman podhoretz wrote:Q: What kind of international fallout can we expect from such a campaign?

PODHORETZ: Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will, we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.

We might unleash a few other -isms, too. But it's true, the brunt of it will fall on Americans, not the people who demand the carnage but don't supply the attackers.

The neo con agenda: slowly making it impossible for Americans to travel to much of the world without disguising themselves as Canadians.

saw that yesterday on cursor. what reality are these psychopaths living in?

Iran is a really tough problem, and I'm frankly not sure how it will work out. From what I've heard there is a significant part of the population who would like to see a moderate and progressive Iran. Anything looking like an attack from the US could set back their cause...possibly by decades.

On the other hand there is little doubt that Iran supports (not solely, but significantly) Hezbollah, and thus the anti-democratic terroristic activity in Lebanon, and the opponents of a two state solution on the Muslim side, and some of those directly attacking US forces in Iraq.

It's very difficult to believe with any certainty that if Iran were to build nuclear weapons they wouldn't pass them on to the usual terrorist suspects. I don't think there is a weapon they do have that they've denied to these same terrorists. Maybe really big missiles. But a nuclear attack may not require missiles...just the payload in a truck or a ship.

Also there is a strain of ideology in Iran that favors very actively trying to bring about a religiously inspired apocalypse. (The 12th Imam and all that.)

If there is any way to do it, it would be best if we could support the moderates and let them eventually take over their own country, if they can. And that might mean doing nothing.

But Iran having actual nuclear weapons is simply not acceptable. And the facilities used to create them may be so well protected that "surgical strikes" against them is all but impossible.

(Aside: Along with massive human rights violations...essentially a clampdown on democracy...Putin's Russia has been moving in such ways so as to virtually guarantee Iran will become a nuclear power. And for what? Money? I hope those who worry about Haliburton reserve some of their anger for Putin and his ilk...someone much more dangerous I'd say.)

I guess I'd ultimately say that the question can't be answered yes or no. The best answer is to give Ahmadinejad and the ultra-conservative clerics an ass kicking (and there may be non-military ways to do that), while supporting the more liberal segments of Iranian society.

But that may be impossible.

There may be no good answers, just a bunch of bad ones we get to choose from. In that case the choice is not so much about principles or ideology, but rather the tactical options and their associated costs, risks, and likelihood of success.

The people with the right information to make those choices don't post on EA. And their information is also flawed. And they are only human, and so will make mistakes. And one such mistake is not taking the "do nothing" option seriously. I'm not saying we should do nothing. I'm just saying it needs to be considered as a serious option. Ahmadinejad and company, however, seem intent on taking that option off the table.

Why would someone ask me a question when they also believe I will only answer with lies?

Why should I answer someone who will only respond by calling me a liar?

Rick Reuben wrote:Because I keep records of all liars.

Data Protection Act means that I should have personal access to my Liar File. Please destroy 24 hours after revealing it.