Munich 2006

US vs Iran. Us vs them. Gotta get them before they get us. The testosterone level is way too high on this issue. Ahmadinejad’s rise and his rhetoric can be directly linked to the increased direct US military involvement in the Middle East. He has tapped into a strong nationalistic vein and his agenda pretty much coincides with the Mullahs desire for a continued Islamic state. To distract attention from domestic problems he has to keep the nation focused on the international threat which is embodied in the great Satan, America. Dubya on the other hand can trace his rise to an increased level of terrorist attacks in the US. He tapped into a strong nationalistic vein and his policies pretty much coincide with the Neocon view of primacy for the US. To distract attention from budget deficits, rising energy costs, a lackluster economy, an inept administration beset with political favoritism he continues to focus on perceived international threats.

No the comparison should not be to Munich but rather to Gary Cooper in High Noon.

Hey Chris, Read this short bloggers article about text messaging Ahmadinejad phone. He fired the phone company president? wtf! lol http://intelligence-summit.blogspot.com/2006/04/iran-text-message-tells-president-he.html well whatdayathink… Urban legend humor or an undercurrent opinion of the Iranian majority put into a text message format?

How about this; http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,411083,00.html Didn’t taxi drivers go to jail for going on strike a year or so ago ?

I think they just wanted to GET paid. You going to talk to taxi drivers when you get there?

Hope your a big tipper

Munch 2006?

Well, yeah, him too.

Do’h! Fixed. Thanks, Billmon.

Ahmadinejad is irrelevant, just as Khatami was before him. They’re both mere public faces. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is the one holding all the important strings of power in Iran, including who is permitted to run for the Presidency.

Chancellor Hitler is irrelevant just as von Papen was before him. They’re both mere public faces. President Hindenberg is the one holding all the important strings of power in the Reich, including who is permitted to run for the Presidency.

President is irrelevant just as Clinton was before him. They’re both mere public faces. Justice Scalia is the one holding all the important strings of power in the DC, including who is permitted to win the Presidency.

There are comment threads for all Billmon pieces at Moon of Alabama.

That site was opened when Billmon shut down the comments at his site.

Iran?

This 71 year old Athiest Vet says: We should FLATTEN them! (Well, their government.)

Iran has been conducting terrorist attacks against the US for more than 20 years.

Iran was directly responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks and our Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.

Iran has been providing terrorists and terror groups with intelligence, funding and support for years.

Iran is shipping explosives, arms and terrorists into Iraq to kill our people.

Iran is paying criminals in Iraq to kill American and British forces.

Iran has, and is putting their agents into positions of importance in Iraq.

And anyone who has actually been paying attention to what has been going on KNOWS IT!

Here is a link to my forum on the Middle East.

http://community.adlandpro.com/forumShow.aspx?ForumID=10649

Neil C. Reinhardt

And “WAT”, YOU ARE CLUELESS!

This 58 year old atheist vet says that military action is never a good answer nor should it ever be the first answer. Whatever problems we have with Iraq are better served by using common sense and international diplomacy. It’s not as whiz-bang-boom as a strike or invasion but it’s far, far more cost-effective in the long run.

Come on Rez Dog, have you been asleep for 20 + years?

Jeeeze, military action is NOT the First response!

The other responses have NOT worked!

WAKE UP!

We have been trying to get Iran to stop KILLING US for over 20 years and they keep doing it.

In case you have not studied, or FLUNKED, History, it PROVES the ONLY way to handle some problems IS military action.

Quite right - that Iran hasn’t said they want to expand their borders is great news. Wonderful! Your reference to Nazi Germany and use of the word “lebensraum” was a perfect touch to demonstrate how Iran is nothing like Nazi Germany because they don’t want to expand their borders.

Perfect point - no really, I mean it.

Oh, except for that minor little comparison about killing every single Jew in the Middle East - wiping Israel off the map -restated many times, especially on the morning after just having enriched uranium.

Other than that unfortunate “wiping out all the Jews” business, they are nothing like Nazis.

Great point. Good analysis of their very unthreatening public statements (unless you count lusting for nuclear genocide, but why would THAT matter?). No threat at all - of course.

Congratulations on your keen insight.

orangeducks

“Anonymous” and “unanimous” - Guys, you got me. Your deep knowledge of how the Islamic Republic of Iran is identical to Nazi Germany and the U.S. in its political composition is beyond reproach. (/sarcasm)

Analogies - may the gods preserve us from their use in the hands of the lazy and ignorant.

Ah Iran. Whose loss we can only blame on Jimmy Carter right along with the Panama Canal. As a 55 year old veteran and son of a career military officer perhaps a little history is in order about the Iranians. Surely their use of agents in infiltrating government was learned at the knee of the CIA when in the 50’s they engineered a revolt to put the Shah on the Peacock Throne. No reason to get upset and hold a grudge when the Shah is removed, we were only doing it for your own good. Paying people to kill people and shipping explosives to an enemy of your country only works if you are the US and you had a deal Iraq to do it. Nasty little war the Iranians and Iraq had. I guess if we hadn’t shot down that Aerobus full of civilians by mistake, we would be exchanging Christmas cards with Iran. Now I would have thought that the marines kill in Beirut would only strengthen the argument that we should not get caught in the middle of a civil war. Gee Neil, at 71 sitting there in your arm chair you sound like a suicide bomber but you don’t want to be the one to do it.

I think Billmon makes a convincing argument for no US action at this point as Ahmadinejad may yet wear out his welcome in his own country quicker than the US could achieve this militarily.

However, that approach still leaves the question open as to what the international community should do about rogue nations who acquire nuclear technology. I think everyone can agree that, peaceful or not, we do not need more countries in the world with weapon-grade uranium. Iran’s recent announcement, though, quickly demonstrated just how unwilling and incapable the Western nations are at enforcing this notion.

I can’t help but feeling that even a quick slap would be useful in delivering a message that we will not tolerate any divergence from a just and right global nuclear policy.

WAT, look clueless, the only reason I’m not back in the 101st and in Iraq is they will not let someone my age reenlist.

(And I assure you that someone of your limited skills can not instruct me on history.)

Your illogical comments show your just another member of the the ignorant Loonly Left!

The fact your father was in the military has nothing to do with anything and is just another example of your illogical and irrational thinking skills.

Last, in regards to your futher asinine and illogical comments about me being in an armchair, I play two person Beach Vollyball 3 days a week in the deep sands of Manhattan Beach, Calif. Anytime you think you can match me, let me know.

Neil, you shouldn’t let a bunch of weenies down at the recruiting office shut you down. A man of your obvious intelligence owing to the fact you have all the answers or at least a firm grasp on the generalities should be able to get on with any of the private security companies in Iraq. Just ride shotgun for a couple of weeks in a convoy and I am sure you will be running the outfit before you know it.

A favor though before you run off. At the risk of sounding like just another ignorant member of the loonly left who is using my irrational thinking skills, making asinine and illogical comments but wasn’t there something you wanted to say? Something of some substance? Something that you thought through sitting in your arm chair after a tough day on the beach playing volleyball in the deep sand? Instruct me oh wise one on Reinhardt’s view of World History.

Apologies to the rest of the thread

• Could you be right about the timing human?

US Troops are moving to the south, the borders with Iran are said to be closed and the Americans start to grab the heavy guns from the IPs at the south (to secure their side may be, having all that talks that the IPs are infiltrated by militias adherent to Iran!).It’s all been set. That was the point all over the way …having Iraq as the strategic place to deal with all the pending issues-a prefect war area-.

• Neil C. Reinhardt “Iran is shipping explosives, arms and terrorists into Iraq to kill our people.” They are killing our people also. “Iran is paying criminals in Iraq to kill American and British forces.” And Iraqis. “Iran has, and is putting their agents into positions of importance in Iraq.” Yes they are, or that what I think. Though, war is never been the right solution, it will make it more and more complicated.

Reinhardt, CAN YOU HANDLE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN. I doubt.

There are other wars, you know. Other kinds of fascism to compare leaders with. Other solutions.

US political rhetoric is suffering from an extremely limited imagination. Both Saddam and Ahmadinejad have been compared to Hitler in the run up to war. (We’ve already started on the tracks to war in Iran, and we have no brakes - Christopher, my advice would be find a new posting upwind of Tehran).

Always Hitler. There are similarities: a re-armament followed by increased regional dominance. But there are differences that could make all the difference: Iran, for example, is not totally undemocratic. Ahmadinejad is a conservative leader after nearly two decades of reformers, all elected by a democratic process. Obviously democracy in Iran is severely flawed (severe limits on who can run, vote rigging etc etc) but it’s there, unlike Iraq, unlike Germany 1939. There are legitimate opposition groups who can be recruited to calm the situation down, if we weren’t radicalizing the whole of Iran against us by threatening to turn swathes of the country into radioactive glass.

Of course, the real reason for invoking Hitler is the instant moral authority it gives your views. In fact the Neocons don’t view either situation like Hitler: they believe both are more like Ceaucescu: a little push and they topple, and in 6 months the country is democratic and buying Frigidaires and SUVs.

It would do me a lot of good if someone could (minimal target) find a different comparison for the Iranian situation or (maximal target) actually perhaps consider the case for war on Iran in its own merits, without historical precedent.

Here’s a few thoughts: how would the US manage a country of 70 million people, living in some of the most extreme terrain in the world (from the foothills of the Himalayas, to the edges of the Arabian desert) when it can’t even persuade a country of 30 million to agree on a government or stop killing each other.

How will the rest of the world view an America that broke the post-war taboo and used nukes? Would we look like global policemen or a neighbourhood threat?

Historical parallels are seldom exact. But the Iran situation seems a bit like Britain and France (and the USA) deciding to bomb and invade Germany in 1933, as soon as Hitler came to power, on the strength of a reading of “Mein Kampf.” Good idea? Well maybe, in retrospect. but at the time? In 1938, perhaps. Might, might, might. Iran might get a bomb in 5 or 10 years time (wouldn’t they have to test a home-grown one, though - plenty of warning there?) might develop a delivery system, might decide to use it. At the moment though they represent no immediate danger at all to anyone. And as someone has observed above, invasion of Iran would be about as easy as Britain and France, totally unprepared, invading Germany in 1933 because Hitler said some nasty things in Mein Kampf. War at this stage is completely unnecessary. But as many bloggers make clear, the USA defines itself at present as the nation which sees war as the only solution to international problems. How else will they win the 2008 Olympics? Go for it, guys. I’ve got one of these new hybrid Toyotas anyway.

Fair Point Mr Innz, and let’s look at some of those wars for a second to identify how good an answer it is (this is the kind of historical comparison that is more worthwhile than trying to compare Iran to Nazi Germany):

Second World War: qualified success - Germans defeated, half of Europe under communist rule.

Korean War: a draw, half of Korea under extreme Communist rule. No end in sight.

Vietnam War: loss, Vietnam ends under Communist rule. Vietnam is quasi-capitalist and the region is stable.

Gulf War I: Qualified Success, Kuwait liberated, Iraqi liberation movements suppressed by Saddam. Kuwait stable, Iraq not. Region is highly unstable.

Kosovo War: Qualified Success - Ethnic Cleansing ended, Milosevic deposed, but a little late for the thousands of dead Bosnians. Kosovo still not stable.

Afghan War: Taliban defeated, but not eradicated, Mullah Omar and Bin Laden not captured. Taliban resurgent. Opium harvest on rise. Afghanistan nowhere near stable.

Gulf War II: I think we know how this one turned out.

Okay, class, discuss. In none of the above wars has the USA achieved all of its war aims, or succeeded in stabilising the area oif operations after involvement. In fact the only war that ended in regional stability was the Vietnam war which the only one we lost outright. The most successful wars (not including Grenada and Panama, but they really don’t count) were Gulf War I, which left Saddam in charge and WWII which did restore freedom and prosperity to more than half of the people it was fought on behalf of. On the other hand it plunged some 30% of the world into Communism and gave us 40 years of nuclear tension. Yes, Iran does want a nuclear weapon and may well have a delivery platform that can reach New York, but it’s a far cry from the US and USSR’s stockpiles which can still destroy the entire world, what, five times over?

The Iranian threat is real, but limited and entirely manageable. The USA doesn’t have a very good record of solving things through military action so all the armchair generals up page (La-Z-Boy Hawks?) should be a little more circumspect when calling for military strikes.

Hypocrite, they name is Neil C. Reinhardt. Announces triumphantly that he is a vet, but attacks the next guy for mentioning that he is the same and also from a line of vets. Typical right wing know-nothing (sorry for the redundancy). You say you’re 71? Good! The planet won’t have to put up with your nonsense much longer.

This kind of thing can really destroy the U.S. Forever turn it into a shitpile. I mean, our leadership is pretty much morally bankrupt, and our treasury is bankrupt. But everybody, everybody will really really hate us after we pull this one.

And the latest story I saw was that the Demo leadership is cowed and quiet on this.

By the way, Molo, since Vietnam what American war hasn’t enhanced the production of some drug that’s imported via some CIA-connected airline? My guess is that the opium that’s now growing on the mountainsides of Afghanistan will be flowing through the veins of Americans shortly through ports controlled by the UAE.

I haven’t been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days.

Bo Chen Why did you copy/paste that whole article.

I scrolled through it and caught this bullshit statement; [B] Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz is so narrow that sinking one supertanker will block it indefinitely,[/B]

I skipped the rest of that copied screed because of that one paranoid statement from sundance .org

Is there any way that comments could be vetted according to relevance (and perhaps length!)? It’s not worth reading the comments otherwise as this blog has now attracted a quite a few kooks…

I agree jeff, maybe some folks should post screeds on their own damn blog.

I wonder how Iranians feel about sending badly needed,useless Iranian currency to aid and support Hamas ?

btw, with this recent announced turn of events;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/aponremiea/israel_palestinians

Are they willing to send their own sons to spill Iranian blood for the Palestinian cause?

The debate on this site is great!

First, I’d like to thank all U.S. military veterans on all sides of the debate. U.S. citizens and people everywhere owe you a lot of gratitude for your courageous service.

About Iran, I’ll say this: Just as we should all value our military service people, the U.S. government should consider military interventions as a LAST resort. While Bush might have had compelling reasons to invade Iraq, it’s clear his decision to do so was questionable. I hope it works out for the better, but only time will tell.

After Iraq, it has become clear that the so-called “Preemptive Strike” policy should only be used where the evidence of hostile intent by an enemy is overwhelming. That was not the case with Iraq and it is still not the case with Iran.

The US needs to see through the rhetoric produced by government officials in countries like Iran.

It is likely true that the government of Iran has promoted many underhanded actions around the world. But as some readers have pointed out, the U.S. has not been entirely perfect or righteous in all its actions either.

Meanwhile, there is an old Chinese proverb that bears consideration in a case like this:

“It’s best not to corner a rat. A cornered rat will chew up everything in it’s sight.”

Instead of military action the U.S. and other governments should make good use of carrot and stick policy.

They should fight underhanded Iranian actions on an individual basis to show that such actions will not prosper.

At the same time, they should try to persuade Iran that it will be worthwhile to come back into the international fold.

Iran’s actions are fundamentally nationalist in character, as is often the case with renegade governments, and what they truly aim at is saving face politically before the local population.

As far as launching an attack, it’s not worth risking lives of U.S. military personnel and Iranian civilians just to kill a rat.

There are other ways to do that.

Hey, Oh Clueless One named “ME”.

1. You have neither integrity or courage because you do not use your name. Nope, you hide behind your computer and shoot off your mouth just like the rest of the cowards of the world.

2. You need to take a course in reading comprehension & how to think more logically. (Of course, as mentally challenged as you are, you would probably flunk them both.)

3. IF you had a fully functioning brain, you would know NOTHING I wrote is “hypocritical” in any way.

(Maybe you need to look “hypocrite” up in a dictionary.)

So, Oh Uninformed One, go crawl back in to your deep dark cave and wallow in ignorance with your troglodyte friends.

To the rest of you who do not agree with Military action against Iran.

THEY HAVE BEEN, FOR OVER TWENTY FIVE YEARS, AND STILL ARE, KILLING AMERICANS!

That alone is sufficent reason.