The Iranian threat <i>is</i> tiny compared to the USSR
Over the weekend, responding to criticisms from Bush and McCain, Barack Obama explained his perspective on diplomacy.
This strikes me as the kind of sentiment that’s hard to disagree with, but John McCain spoke in Chicago this morning, and went after Obama for saying the potential threat posed by Iran is “tiny” compared to the USSR during the Cold War.
McCain said, “Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant.” McCain went on to argue that Iran is playing a destructive role in Iraq and is “intent on acquiring nuclear weapons.” McCain concluded, “They might not be a superpower, but the threat the government of Iran poses is anything but ‘tiny.’”
Does McCain really want to debate this?
First, Obama didn’t say the possible Iranian threat is “tiny.” He said it’s “tiny” when compared to the Soviet Union. As Josh Marshall explained, Russia was, after all, “the world’s greatest land military power, with a massive strategic nuclear capacity that carried on a multi-decade ideological struggle” with the United States. McCain thinks it reflects poor “judgment” to recognize the obvious difference between a nuclear superpower and Iran?
Second, there’s a bit of a contradiction here. Over the weekend, the McCain campaign said Obama was giving Iran too much credit, offering Iran “the status of a super power akin to the Soviets.” Today, the McCain campaign said Obama isn’t giving Iran enough credit. These guys should probably coordinate talking points among themselves before going on the attack.
And finally, on the substance, Obama is so obviously right about Iran it’s hard to believe this discussion is actually happening. As Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria explained a few months ago: “Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century…. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?”
Ultimately, McCain seems to believe diplomacy just isn’t worth it. We could engage Iranians directly, but Iran might, as a result, get stronger, and our discussions may not stem the country’s ambitions.
Here’s the thing: thanks to the war in Iraq that McCain is so fond of, Iran is already getting stronger and more ambitious. So why keep pursuing an approach that isn’t producing the results we want?
It's a trap - run, Johnny, run!!
the fucking reichwingneocon bastards want their
holocaust war and they intend on having it
by spreading lies and lies and more lies.
the gop has become total fascist criminals.
And then after Iran, there's Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Canada, Indonesia, Venezuela, the Vatican, and the Huffingtonpost.com. They are all to be feared as they too seek WMDs.
Blue,
"It's a trap!"
If I didn't think Admiral Akbar was so cool, I'd agree that there is a passing resemblance to McLame.
:)
Iran is a threat and determined to acquire nuclear weapons according to whom??? The US government??? You have to be kidding me. The US government is totally void of credibility.
The days of blindly accepting what the US says are long over. Even if they show me "proof," I won't buy anything they have to sell.
Guess that's what happens when you doctor evidence and invade another country.
Mc Same... More death.. more debt.. more deception.
This is very simple. Vote for McCain, and we will have continued war with Iraq and possible war with Iran. These so-called undecided voters either don't watch the news or are totally uniformed.
as americans and others are killed with russian weapons in afghanistan and Iraq and darfur and zimbabwe, mcAssJacket might want to rethink it. but his msm will be front and center with a host of false equivalencies and outright falacies to save their lying BFF, Johnny "cakes".
In other news.. i watched a bit of NBC Nightly tonight. Brian Williams was saying NBC received a strong rebuke from BushCo today about the way they portrayed Bush in interview with Richard Engle on weekend. I guess we weren't supposed to see the smarmy,arrogant,braindead,dipshit side of Bush again.Better luck next time.Its all hes got anyways.
Where's the proof that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons?
Quit lying to us GOP!
And what's going to happen if we did bomb Iran and destabilize another source of the world's oil? How are other countries going to react to us for another unprovoked attack that impacts everyone?
And the Chimperor and imbeciles like yourself and douchebag Lieberman aren't , McSkidMark ?
Pffft. I think I am starting to get it:
See, on the slim chance that the GOP manage to steal this election and place this hand-puppet ver2.0 in power, Johnny Walnuts is setting the groundwork for "refusing" to engage the Iranians in diplomacy. His problem is he doesn't know what the HELL he is talking about and knows that even the Iranian Ambassador's chaffeur's assistant would hand him his lunch in direct talks, let alone any of Irans top dogs. Better to act the bully than to have to man-up and face another country's leaders one-on-one, I guess. Right, McCain?
The Truth Hurts @ 5:
An acute and wise observation. It should also be noted that while it is laudable that Obama is minimizing Iran's "threat", it should also be remembered that Obama, like Clinton, wishes to keep the nuclear option on the table vis a vis Iran. Not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of those countries in the Middle East [except, of course, for Israel]. One should always keep in mind that Obama will always keep the interests of Israel above those of the other countries that inhabit the Middle East.
As usual: Well said President Obama.
Was Mr. McCain able to discuss with the families when he would use diplomacy ?
Did he discuss former US officials or History?
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."
-- Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State (Source: New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973)
Did McCain address some of the other issues...
Many families, parents and teachers across the Country have had to explain
to their children and young adults what this administration has been involved with and has tried to legitimize;
torture, constitutional crimes, Blackwater mercinaries, the killing of innocent families, subpoenas, pre-emptive war, greed and corruption, bankruptcies, bank fraud
It's never been about the threat.
It's always been about the oil.
Blood for oil in bizarro bushworld.
They should wargame it. Obama gets to be the Soviets, McCain is the US. Then McCain is Iran, and Obama is the US. Who do you think could wreck more havoc? Does McCain really want to argue this? I really think having the capacity to end human life as we know it several times over trumps most of the threat of the Iranians.
We should have followed John McCain's advice and stayed for 100 years. In Vietnam.
Of course, then McCain would still be living in Hanoi, instead of divorcing his first wife and marrying the beer heiress.
Col Kilgore @ 9:
I don't believe a damn word from brian "shilliams". he's just trying to get some "cred" with liberals.
Col Kilgore, My, My, My, Poor George. He's seems to be getting it from all sides. The blantant partisanship with his statements in Israel to the 'giving up golf' bullshit, has the White House in panic mode. George can't help putting his foot in his mouth. Good, now the American people know him for the incompetant hack he is.
I learned today from a moron I work with that ; Nancy Pelosi is responsible for the loss of the value of the dollar, the democratic congress is responsible for the recession, Israel helped the U.S.A.win the Revolutionary war(I know the problems with this), and many more stupid Rush/Beck statements. This is who is running the show. Are we doomed or what.
I have been telling all the "war on terrorist" fear mongers about this very subject for years. We lived under the MAD philosophy with the USSR- that if ignited would have terminated whole states. This was a true fear we learned to live with. As a kid, after the Cuban Missle Crisis, living near an important naval station we wore dog tags like the GIs. We practiced as if nukes were coming, which was very different from the fire drills.
Mav_PreMed @ 10:
don't forget that Iran is also sponsoring terror all over the world, too.
the rest of the world just doesn't know it yet.
I think we need colon powell to show the world those fingerpaints again.
Finally, at long last, some real honesty from an American politician about the absurdly huge military power gap between the U S of A and everyone else. Never mind the little piss ants like pre-invasion Iraq or present day Iran.
Barrack was too conservative, the US outspends Iran 400 to 1 on military.
It is outrageous enough to have Senator McCain and Senator Clinton repeating the unsubstantiated claims about Iran sold to the American public by the right wing radicals who lied our nation into an unnecessary war. But when the talking heads do not challenge them when they repeat these claims about Iran the talking heads David Gregory, Chris Matthews and George Stephanapolous go ahead and repeat and embellish these unsubstantiated claims themselves.
Tonight on David Gregory's program "race for the White House", David Gregory repeated that Iranian President Ahmadinejad has been "proven to be supporting terrorist".
David have you ever thought let me repeat have you ever thought about asking for that proof? Then Gregory went onto say that the Iranian President should "back off of the nuclear program"
Hello David Gregory Iran has the right to enrich uranium under the Iaea.
The talking heads have been at again....well for the last four years they have allowed John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Douglas Feith and others to endlessly repeat these claims about Iran.
I HAVE YET TO WITNESS ONE TALKING HEAD CHALLENGE THESE CLAIMS. NOT ONCE!
Impeach cheney and bush @ 22:
in NYC, we did it from the late 50s through the 60s.
roo, do not despair. Hopefully the Amercan populice will stop watching American Idol and vote. How much more can we take? Gas prices, health-care crisis, if people vote Repug this time, we are doomed.
Watch how the Democrats and Republicans both eagerly start a war with Iran. Even Obama is repeating this garbage that Iran has something other than a reactor grade enrichment program. Facts are facts. Every Democratic politician is repeating this garbage and the media is ignoring the facts as usual.
Get ready to enlist all you dummies out there!!!
Here's the thing The Republicans need American's to believe that Iran is Big and if American's start to hear and believe the truth that in reallity Iran is not even a "Paper Tiger" then their "Fear Campaign" will collapse.
Rethuglicans don't like to hear anything called tiny because it reminds them of their pee-pee parts.
Kathleen @ 25:
they won't stop! they want to force that mem onto the democratic platform as well.
"Over the weekend, the McCain campaign said Obama was giving Iran too much credit, offering Iran “the status of a super power akin to the Soviets.” Today, the McCain campaign said Obama isn’t giving Iran enough credit."
But my friends, with the addition of a little Kool-Aid, my porridge, my friends, is juuust right...my friends.
In 2006, the Pentagon's list of its top 100 suppliers also included such well-known civilian firms as Tyson Foods ($335,239,095), Goodrich Corp. ($344,091,017), Procter & Gamble ($362,461,808), Kraft Foods ($500,799,104), Dell ($636,343,593), ExxonMobil ($1,176,354,936), FedEx ($1,303,032,027) and General Electric ($2,327,705,161). Also on the Pentagon's 2006 payroll were such often-ignored defense contractors as the animated mouse-house, the Walt Disney Co.; iPod-maker Apple; sunglasses purveyor Oakley; cocoa giant Nestle; ketchup producer Heinz; and chocolate bar maker Hershey.
These are, in fact, today's "typical defense contractors."
Holy shit! A presidential candidate with a foreign policy philosophy that actually makes sense.
maybe if rummy and chainey start lobbying for war with Iran will it get through to anyone that these scum are lying. we are already sponsoring terrorism against Iran.
The facts don't matter. McCain is simply promoting the old Bush/neocon scare tactics. It doesn't matter how weak Iran is to them, it is simply their new muslim target to scare Americans with. Ahmedinijad is all rhetoric but he has little power.
Obama is refreshing because he's willing to deal with the middle-east in a real-world, human to human way. That's the only way we're going to get anything done there. The Bush/McCain way is just for scaring Americans and to try and show that they're tough when dealing with scary brown people.
roo @ 21:
LOL
Israel?? Wow, that's a new kind of ignorance in a class all it's own. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Ok, that was disingenuous: I definitely LOLed.
Btw, I am going with "or what". There is evidence that the Universe tilts toward Good otherwise we'd be in even worse shape, if the GOP had its way. We can still pull this mess out of the fire.
Iran's 2005 defense budget was estimated to be $6 billion (USD) by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
USA 2007 defense budget $439.3 billion (USD). This does not include nuclear weapons R & D, Veteran's Affairs, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now why are they such a threat when the Iranian budget is 1.3% of the US spending. Yet another example of the facts having a liberal bias.
beltman713 @ 34:
You seem to forget we were pretty much considered a Friendly and Generous Nation to admire during Clintons 8 years. (With the exception of Kosovo which was a Nato operation with only ONE U.S. Casualty.)
He also didn't buy into the Neocons game.
Hans Blix forgets about the sharks here
This is real strength. This is the strength of intelligence, the strength of confidence, the strength of knowing who you are and who our adversaries are.
Bush and McCain have been terrorizing Americans for 8 years, telling us over and over and over again that we have to be afraid. That we are too weak to talk to our "enemies". That this nation, this huge, powerful nation, can't bear to talk to scary people.
Obama is bringing our strength, our confidence, and our intelligence back into favor.
Kathleen @ 25:
Kathleen
Very well put. Hardball could be considered one of the most egregious programs to allow these statements to go unchallenged, since they claim to ask those hardball questions that the other programs are seemingly too timid to ask. But you certainly are correct that these journalists are not doing their jobs, which is to allow the pronouncements given by the government to go unchallenged. It is seriously doubtful if those journalists in the UK would have allowed their administration to make similar statements without bothering to grill them about what they had said.
roo @ 21:
That's about like that chick on the view who said there was no history before Jesus.
Obama also didn't say the US doesn't have any enemies.
Time to put all reasonable talk through the Straight Talk slicer and dicer. Jerks.
The reason Republicans have been able to get away with this BS Iran rhetoric is by playing the Israel card. Every time someone tries to bring reality into the Iran situation, a Republican screams, "But Ahmedinijad said Israel is a stinking corpes/wiped off the map....!!! You're not anti-semitic are you???"
L.A. Confidential @ 39:
I forget nothing.
The Iranian threatis tiny compared to the USSR.
John McCain said, “Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant.”
this is a joke coming from someone who voted for the patriot act...after a small group called Al Quida? attacked us with boxcutters and a laptop from a cave in Afghanistan...
I mean surely ...if a small group of fanatics with boxcutters is enough of a threat to compel McCain to vote for an unconstitutional patriot act...
then surely a whole country with box cutters. laptop computers and (a few tanks?)
...is a big enough threat to warrant Marshall law immediately?....right?
beltman713 @ 46:
Let me guess. Your for Obama
Kathleen and Erroll,
You hit the nail on the head. That is the FIRST question I ask when presented with the "Iran threat".
"where is the proof that Iran has supplied weapons, supporting terrorists, firing upon Iraq?"
Of course, my wingnut just changes the argument, but it gets him off the Iran thing really quick!!
Erroll @ 13:
how would you know that obama will do? are you one of his neurons?
i don't think so. these are addled remarks from someone with no facts to
back up what you espouse.
L.A. Confidential @ 48:
Yes, I am.
Just 48 hours after jumping on the Bush appeasement bandwagon, John McCain is probably regretting his leap. First, it was revealed that the tough-talking Republican presidential nominee was for negotiating with the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories before he was against it. Then Americans learned that in 2003, Mr. Straight Talk favored engagement with the terror-sponsoring state of Syria. Now in his accusations against Democrat Barack Obama, John McCain conveniently forgot Ronald Reagan's dealings with Tehran during the Iran-Contra scandal. Given his defense of the Reagan administration at the time, McCain's selective amnesia comes as no surprise.
For the details, see:
"McCain Defended Reagan, North During Iran-Contra Scandal."
Guess he needed to clarify a bit so he didn't loose the fearful, paranoid, and make us safe votes.
Responding to McCain, Obama told a town hall rally later Monday in Billings, Mont., "Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat." But the Soviet Union posed an added threat, he said.
Yes, let them debate talking instead of bombing.
beltman713 @ 51:
Well thats good I'm glad your happy we're inheriting a barrel of shit along with him so your going to have to figure out how to deal with it with the rest of us.
Bullies typically don't pick on someone ready, willing and able to fight back.
An Appeal to Admiral Fallon on Iran
from former CIA analyst Ray McGovern
Dear Admiral Fallon,
I have not been able to find out how to reach you directly, so I drafted this letter in the hope it will be brought to your attention.
First, thank you...
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/051908b.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com
L.A. Confidential @ 39:
I guess your infatuation for everything Clinton is pushing you to rewrite history. Do not confuse ambivalence with admiration.
McCain's brain is tiny. He doesn't want to talk to anyone, just declare war. I hope we have a draft so all these chickenhawks get a chance to see what war is all about.
This vet will never vote for a war mongerer like McBush.
getalife @ 54:
Let's start by getting some countries back on our side first.
'The United States needs a strategy that 'creates more partners and fewer terrorists,' former US president Bill Clinton said in an interview but no one noticed.
Tyler Durden @ 58:
It's not infatuation. It's knowing the facts. Sure he wasn't perfect by a long shot but if you prefer the past 8 years over Clinton's two terms there is something wrong with you.
L.A. Confidential @ 55:
Other than what seem perpetual temper tantrums, do Hillary supporters have *anything* to contribute to the national discourse.
So Hillary won't be inheriting the barrel of shit then?
this is how all repugs talk.
It's don't matter if their replies make sense, are offensive, or could kill people, who cares (repugs say) as long as they have the company of other idiots repugs.
Just because one was a POW doesn't make one a good candidate for prez. Plus mccain was an idiot before he was captured.
I didn't have health care while I was a POW. -- mccain (paraphrased) his answer to people should get the high quality health care that the Senate has.
Go Obama!
Go USA!
Go hillary! (no I really mean it, move the hell on hillary)
L.A. Confidential @ 55:
Dude, you vote for who you want to, and I'll vote for who I want to.
L.A. Confidential @ 61:
You have to do better than silly strawmen arguments....
US of A has 4800 nucs ready to be fired, and 5200 that could be ready in short time. Iran has zero, yes they want one , but what do you think would happen if they tried to use that "one". The republicans want you to be very scared, thats there whole sorry argument. Total BS.
I’m sorry, but the leaders of the US have ALWAYS been the biggest threat to the US public. The USSR might have been a threat ideologically, but they were nowhere near as active as the US in intervening in other countries and when they did, many times, they supported middle class moderate elements against the more radical elements in liberation movements. There were countless times the USSR supported movements and leaders who were no more to the left than the US government at the time while those leaders were persecuting communists in their countries. There were exceptions, not nearly as many as the propaganda apparatus would like you to believe.
The largest threat to the US is the fact that we have a government not controlled by the people, with policies drafted in secret and within an ideological foundation that hasn’t been changed or updated in decades. If the US wants Iran to change the answer is simple, support the democratic elements in Iran and accept what policies those elements create. If they create policies in a democratic fashion that benefits the country as a whole, while not necessarily elite US investors, the US will win support of Iranians. If the ideologically rigid and cut off US elites do more of the status quo, THEY are the biggest threat to us. The idea that the US elites, no matter what party they’re in or what label they give themselves, and the general public are in this “fight” together is an illusion.
beltman713 @ 64:
Interesting how many Hillary supporters have an approach similar to the GOP: FEARRRRR!
I guess once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl.... LOL
Tyler Durden @ 65:
Why don't you grow up and start treating people with respect for a change. Obama's not going to wave a magic wand and fix everything instantaneously. He's going to need all the friends and allies and help he can get.
Tyler Durden @ 68:
I don't get the argument anyway. Bill Clinton isn't running for president. Hillary has 0 experience running the country.
Tyler Durden @ 68:
Right and your mother birthed, fed, and diapered you also. Payed all your bills for 18 years or longer.
beltman713 @ 70:
You can't be taught thats the problem. Your idealism and ego is to heavily invested into the "image".
L.A. Confidential @ 69:
Projecting much?
If you were paying attention, you would have noticed how that point has been made countless times by Obama: the US needs to stop acting unilaterally.
Jesus tap dancing Christ. It is as if some people are proactively closing their eyes and ears and crying out "LALALALALALALA I can't hear you."
Give me one reason why I shouldn't question Obama? Either now or as President?
P.D. @ 7:
It will be worst than that. People here and around the world would labeled the US a whip bowl of white supremacy that's unstable and not with the world. Three time? We will lose even the smallest allies.
L.A. Confidential @ 69:
Nobody is going to be waving any magic wands, this country is seriously f****d up and it's going to take a lot of work to fix, if it can even BE fixed.
Dumb and dumber.
Does it get any more frightening than these two arguing the obvious, ad nauseum.
NO EVIDENCE that Iran has a nuclear 'weapons" program. Even though Cheney, Bolton, Micheal ledeen, Bill Kristol, etc keep repeating that they do. Even though the talking heads never fucking challenge anyone when they repeat these unsubstantiated claims.
Senator McCain and Senator Clinton Vice President Dick Cheney have repeated these claims and Chris Matthews, George Stephanpoulous Tim Russert and other talking heads just roll over and play dead and say things like "how can we stop them" Jesus Mary and Joseph.
Middle east analyst Flynt Leverett who "quit" the Bush administration just before the
illegal invasion of Iraq has written a great deal about Iran. The New America Foundation is a great website.
http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2007/pbs_interviews_flynt_leverett_on_iran_and_iraq
What we wanted to tell you about Iran.
Flynt Leverett
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html
Iaea weapons inspector Scott Ritter is also a reliable source for information about Iran
Amy Goodman interviews Scott Ritter about Iran
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/16/scott_ritter_on_target_iran_the
ublished on Monday, June 20, 2005 by AlJazeera
The US War with Iran has Already Begun
by Scott Ritter
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm
Now most of our leaders (including Senator Clinton and Senator MCCain) do not listen to Iaea's director Mr. El Baradei about Iran..BUT WE SHOULD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4761441.stm
beltman713 @ 76:
Okay we agree on something.
L.A. Confidential @ 72:
You don't know anything about me.
L.A. Confidential @ 74:
You can, as long as you wear the lapel pin....then take it off....then put it on again.
L.A. Confidential @ 74:
They all should be questioned.
Holy crap, I commented without watching the video...
Obama thinks that Russia is more of a threat than Iran. and I agree...
But it begs the question.
Why did Obama participate in the greatest attack on our liberties ever...
...by voting for the patriot act...
after we got attacked by fanatics with a few boxcutters?
I guess maybe he thinks al Quida was more of a threat than the Russian KGB and all those nuclear weapons, and Iran combined!
L.A. Confidential @ 74:
You should question EVERYBODY who is in public office. Obama, Hillary, or Mother Teresa.
It is not a negative, it is the civic duty of any citizen not to follow blindly and without questioning what their president does or says.
Now what the heck is your point really? That only Obama should be questioned?
milquetoast @ 83:
For what it is worth Obama was not in the senate for the original Patriot Act (tm)
L.A. Confidential @ 71:
So you propose to question Obama, but take the word from a former president of the college republicans chapter of her alma matter.
Start by questioning those you follow so blindly before going ape shit on anything Obama.
Actually Iran or Persia has been around for 2500 years or longer.
The real problem is American Foreign Policy in the Mid East.
Something is going to come back. I think the term is 'slapback'.
Fasten your seat belts.
The reality is that the bush media creates political illusion.
We all can see the problem that has been occurring and has escalated.
Our country is being sold out and privatized - multi-national corporations.
Whats next more toll roads..
Where do the candidates stand on this.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said Citigroup .....
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/05/19/2008-05-19T202842...
To see if the threat of the old Soviet Union and Iran is equivalent, one merely needs to ask how many ICBMs does Iran have, how many nuclear armed submarines does it have, what is Iran's capability to hit the U.S. mainland? This may be McCain's achilles heel, his inability to assess enemy threats, as evidenced by his championing the fiasco in Iraq. He has military experience, but no military command experience as far as I can tell. In other words, no credentials in strategy, and an enemy recognition problem to boot.
Of course, McCain dismisses negotiations with the Iranians. After all, how does one sing in public "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and then credibly negotiate?
The only reason Iran is in the bombsight is because that was the plan back in 2003. Start a cakewalk war with Iraq, followed by Syria, followed by Iran. The neocons never thought they would get bogged down in Iraq. No real neocon would have settled for removing Sunni control from Iraq, benefiting Iran, and then leaving the situation with Iran's position enhanced. Hence the analogies with Hitler and the angry male Republican shouters, and so forth, as the Republicans lead a charade to justify bombing Iran. If anything is holding them back, then it is the arrangements between China and Iran, and the already high oil prices. Saudi Arabia isn't going to pump more oil to offset bombing Iran. Still, during the last Middle East visit, Bush looked like the cat who swallowed the canary. I think 35% chance we bomb.
@87
I think the term you are seeking is "blowback"
Yeah, they could easily pack several hundred soldiers on their immense naval fleet and cruise over here and kick our ass.
SCHRODINGER'S CAT @ 87:
I think it is "Blowback."
And 9/11 was just a tiny taste of it...
Both Iran and the US of A need each other. Both regimes need to have a perennial "enemy" so that they can push their shit. The Mullahs need the great satan to keep on their disastrous policies, and Bush et al need a big bad muslim wolf to scare the shit of the average redneck so that they shut the hell up and do as they told. That is why the US will never attack Iran and vice versa... too much of a good thing going on.
The main thing I have learned from traveling and interacting with Iranians, is that a lot of them were able to decouple the American government from its citizens. I wish I could say the same about Americans... who under the right manipulation would have no problem nuking a whole country of people that did nothing to them, just because they have a bearded asshole for president.
beltman713 @ 82:
Ok, here are a few for you about the Hope and Change marketeer:
What is "progressive" about being:
-A pro NAFTA, CAFTA and PFTA free trader.
-Against a simple Universal single payer health plan.
-Pro "clean" coal, Pro ethanol and Pro nuclear power.
Obama no.
:^D
Obama.
Change worth waiting for....(I hope)
Wow.... so offering to have diplomatic talks with Iran 'legitimizes' them.
...but now we are trying to compare them to the USSR during the cold war? THAT's not gonna stroke ahmouhnjihad's ego too much, is it now?
Michael @ 96:
LOL, Orwell had nothing on these guys:
We are at war with the USSR, we have always been at war with the USSR.
We are at war with Iran, we have always been at war with Iran.
Heck the current corruption of the English language (Enhanced interrogation techniques, insurgents, etc anyone?) is pretty much Newspeak in action.
93 Johnny2Bad
Hollycow you're going to go by something writin By a guy with the name of Adolph?
Tyler Durden @ 92:
Fasten your seat belt because you're in for a wild ride that's gonna rock your world. For starters, Iran actually helped the U.S. in the fight against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in parts of northern Iran. Watch PBS Frontline: Showdown Iran to LEARN more.
dadams @ 50:
It turns out that my opinion of Obama is based not on emotion but on facts. He had said during the debates last summer that he will keep the nuclear option on the table against Iran. Obama then attempted to ridicule Mike Gravel for bringing this up even though Gravel was correct in making that observation at the debate. Obama has also continually stated that he will recognize and back the interests of Israel while practically ignoring the fact that the Palestinians have been continually oppressed by the Israeli military.
Apparently it is far easier to be swayed by Obama's rhetoric and charisma than it is to actually examine what this alleged agent of hope and change actually stands for [such as advocating that close to 100,000 troops should remain in Iraq or the region even after his phased, as opposed to immediate, withdrawal of troops would finally occur. Not exactly the best way to support those troops, now is it].
Tyler Durden @ 85:
Yep, but he voted to reauthorize it.
What's the difference?
He was actually in the Senate and had to put up. Just like he said he "would have voted against the war" but when he actually got there, he voted to fund the war over and over and over.
Not as easy as sitting in the Illinois state house running your mouth. What a fraud.
Here's the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9032008473440567742&q=PBS+Frontl...
PBS - Frontline: Showdown with Iran
Scott Ritter's latest interview on Iran.
He says 90% chance that the Bush administration will pre-emptively attack Iran
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/14/scott-ritter-4/
The talking heads ( David Gregory, Chris Matthews, George Stephanapoulous, Tim Russert) have been repeating the unsubstantiated claims about Iran almost as much as Senator McCain, Bush, Cheney and Senator Clinton.
HAS ANYONE HEARD ANY OF THE TALKING HEADS CHALLENGE THESE ENDLESSLY REPEATED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS ABOUT IRAN OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. I HAVE NOT...NOT ONCE
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/14/scott-ritter-4/
Charles Goyette Interviews Scott Ritter
May 14th, 2008
Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq and author of Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change, discusses the Chicago city council’s attempt to bring attention of the possibility of war with Iran to the Illinois congressional delegation, the effectiveness of city council’s antiwar resolutions, Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ attempt to focus attention on Iraq instead of Iran, Cheney’s role, the chances he’s giving that the U.S. will attack Iran, Iran’s influence in Iraq, the bad Ho Chi Minh Trail analogy, Iran’s possible response to a U.S. military attack, the scenario of a what a war between the U.S. and Iran would look like, Iran’s air defense system, why a U.S. strike on Iran would be the worst thing for Israeli national security, the president’s lack of constitutional authority to go to war, and takes questions from callers.
MP3 here. (24:50)
Scott Ritter is the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement.” Scott Ritter has been noted for his criticism of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter publicly argued that Iraq p
Yes folks, Russia was (and still is) a much greater threat than Iran will ever be...
...but...
there is a group out there...somewhere... called Al-Quida ...and they have boxcutters and work out of caves (on laptops) in Afghanistan that are an even bigger threat!!!!
...and thats why I voted for the patriot act.
Paul's Bunions @ 98:
Yep, I think I will.
I'm looking forward to the Obama Doctrine, where foreign policy is driven by land mass.
Antarctica will have no idea what hit them.
RH Potfry @ 105:
You must be the child who was left behind.
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=140
Bush’s Nazi-Iran Analogy
For those of you who have not yet seen it, M.J. Rosenberg’s column on Bush’s analogy between Nazi Germany and Iran and the contretemps between the Obama and McCain camps over Hamas is a must read, by far the best meditation on both issues, particularly on the implications for the American Jewish community, that has crossed my desk.
Israel Policy Forum
http://www.ipforum.org/display.cfm?id=6&Sub=15
Washington DC, May 16, 2008
Issue # 368
Bush’s Sermon on Mount Masada
What was President Bush thinking?
Bush went to Israel to celebrate its 60th anniversary, a nice gesture and one in keeping with a President whose personal proclivities are strongly pro-Israel even if his policies have not done Israel much good.
He used his visit there not just to salute our friend and ally but to promote confrontation with Iran, an idea that is utterly unpopular in the United States (to put it mildly) but is an applause producer in Israel. In fact, he went before the Israeli Knesset to denounce Americans who favor negotiations with Iran before resorting to war. He was clearly referring to Senator Obama although his own Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates hold the same views.
Bush told the Knesset: “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along . . . We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
redsaunas @ 107:
LOL
Bush screwed the pooch with his little nazi appeaser speech in Israel, and tried to explain "what he meant" on NBC and that didn't go very well either and now he has his lawyer whining to NBC that they were unfair with their editing. He also whines about calling the recession "a recession".
You know you've lost it when you have to get your lawyer to whine about what you meant to say.
i read bush's lawyer's letter to nbc, i went and watched as much of the interview with engle that i could tolerate given that i'm eating (the first third) and it's hard to figure what bush's beef is about. his answers were not chopped up that i could see. perhaps he was asked questions that were cut?
he's such a flaming asshole, liar, criminal, etc.
and what's with that astonishingly wide stance he had at the opening of the interview?
you'd think someone would have sent him a memo about that.
John McCain is either a complete idiot or a liar. The USSR had, as we had, thousands of land based nuclear missiles, hundred of jets with nuclear missiles and submarines with missiles. Iran's defense budget is what percentage compared to ours? How big is their air force?
But the Republican threat is greater than both.
I was at McCain's speech when he said this. And the experience was very enlightening for me.
The whole set-up of the speech, the situation, the tone, the cameras, all plays to the media's obsession with taking a line and making it into a news story. Sure enough that's exactly what has happened here.
What about the rest of his speech? What about his policies? His plans for the future?
I guess that's not newsworthy.
We are living in a fucking soap opera and it's a shame!
Furthermore, yes the monkeys in the crowd were loving it, and yes we are still so naive that we will blindly accept whatever our authority figures say.
Bravo to the Code Pink activists that interrupted McLieberman during his war drumroll.
And shame on the nasty old man that ripped and stole their banner!
On the list of threats to this silly country, obesity is at the top. Terrorism or the Russians aren't close to this scourge. Stupidity runs a close second.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=56077§ionid=351020201
Talabani: Iran sends no weapon to Iraq
Sat, 17 May 2008 05:12:59
Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has dismissed claims that Iran is sending weapons into his country and called for strong Iran ties.
"Those who make such claims against Iran only express their personal views which don't reflect those of the Iraqi government," he said in interview with the Al-Arabiya TV on Friday.
"I, as the president of Iraq, do not agree with such views," he added.
"Our Iranian brothers are ready for dialogue on any such issues," Talabani said.
"As far as Iranian weapons are concerned it should be mentioned that during Saddam Hussein's rule Iran provided weapons for the Iraqi opposition groups," he added.
Talabani also called for enhanced ties between Iraq and Iran and said that "I strongly believe that the relations between Iran and Iraq in different fields could be further strengthened," IRNA quoted him as saying.
Ruthless People @ 113:
Bush and Cheney who are not 'real" Republicans and the rest of the right wing radicals are more dangerous than Russia, Iran and the Republicans.
IRAN is a threat in the following way:
its influence in OPEC. right now, and alot of people dont know this fact, the US has a monopoly on all sales of oil. they do in the way that in the 60's within a month of the US going off the gold standard, the US stuck a deal with OPEC that all sales of oil to every country in the world can only be done in US dollars. so now the US economy is on the OIL standard. this explains why oil prices are sky rocketing because the dollar is falling in value compared to the value of other world currencies. oil needs to rise in price to compensate for the dollars decline.
Iran and Venezuela have been trying to set up trade of oil in different currencies then the dollar. something more stable. this would be the biggest hit to the US that would destroy us. if you think about it the magority of the dollars printed in the world are held by foriegn countries to buy oil with. lets say everyone cashes in these dollars.
INFLATION on a catastrophic level.
you know Saddam started trading oil for food in euros right up to the Iraq war
this is the project for the new American century
this is why we fight
Dickey @ 118:
Oh and PEAK OIL is a scary subject
in 10 years oil production will be where we were at in the 80's
world population was something like a billion and a half less than where we are at
we would then need to lose a billion and a half people to sustain the need for oil within the common mans need.
oh and I totally spelled majority, alot and foreign wrong
Bravo to Obama!
We should try to talk through our problems, it's called being an adult.
McCain reminds me of some stupid kid arguing with another kid about how his dad can kick the other kid's dad's rear end.
We need this kind of prudence in the White House in order to restore our credibility in the world.
I'll quote Ronald Reagan, who was quoting Jesus: "We must be that city shining on the hill" and you can't do it by alienating the rest of the world.
Go Obama! You have my vote sir.
McCain probably doesn't even know that Israel is a nuclear power. Here he is repeating a lie that was publicly debunked 5 months ago: that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. the Pentagon report says they abandoned that effort years ago. Of course they want nuclear power. So would you if you were burning $128/barrel oil for electricity.
milquetoast @ 83:
he didn't vote for the first patriot act, as far as I remember. Was he even in the Senate?
Dickey @ 118:
CoIntelPro for Democratic Party Victory @ 122:
See my answer at 101. Obama did much better at being "right" when he wasn't in the Senate.
Go figure.
To everybody that says the USSR was a threat: Explain to me how we didn't turn them into one? I mean, the Soviets weren't anything different from the endless dictators that we exchanged for revolving-door fashion to support us. Compared to the Nazi vision of war victory, the Soviets were a good choice indeed. It would have been better to just work with the USSR and understand that after 1812, 1914, and 1941 the Russians were creating buffer states. I mean, it was good enough to relate to Mao, but not to Brezhnev?
We Americans create threats of our own making. I for one would have supported the Kruschevian idea of peaceful co-existence. The Soviets were also overrated as a threat to us, because once we started turning the USSR into the big bugaboo, we drastically overestimated the destructive might of the Red Army, even with those fancy ICBMS (we Americans were always top dog, after all, it wasn't the US that had much of its heavily populated regions ravaged by genocidal evil people) and so we spent trillions on weapons we didn't need. Everything currently said about Iran also applies to the Cold War.
Cointelpro for Democratic Party Victory @ 122
"he didn’t vote for the first patriot act, as far as I remember. Was he even in the Senate?"
he had time to think about it and still voted for it!
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama:_U.S._presidenti...
we went for 60 years in a cold war with Russia ...and kept (most) our rights in the face of KGB agents, nuclear weapons and the largest fleet of tanks in the world!
and along come a few radicals with boxcutters...and poof! Obama votes for patriot act renewal...what a load of crap!
milquetoast @ 126:
Again, the Cold War was of our own making and our own inability to see that the USSR was a far from ideal regime, but hardly worse than most dictatorial regimes we supported in the Cold War. Only, it seemed that we couldn't co-exist with the Communists. The idea that Capitalism couldn't co-exist with Communism is absurd. It had no problem co-existing with fascism, so why was Communism all of a sudden the real threat?
I wish for some honesty atleast for once. COULD YOU PLEASE STOP SELLING US ANOTHER WAR?
I know you're using the WMD story once again and I'm aware of AEI/PNAC talking points.
The "tiny" threat to which Obama referred was the "giant" threat that Iran might not roll over and just cough up its resources to the US.
Johnny2Bad @ 81:
It's the repugs idea of patriotism.
they wear that pin when chimpy veto bills concerning our finest.
Somebody needs to tap Johny McShitforbrains on the shoulder and let him know that the US will be fighting Russia and China if they fuck with Iran. Not reported anywhere in the US are the very stern warnings from Russian and Chinese diplomats that "a US invasion of Iran would have serious consequences for America." Also not reported are the continuing joint war games and coordinated troop movements by Russia and China. These are very clear ways of saying, keep your fucking hands off.
Russia enjoyed the artificially high price of oil that Chimpy and Darth created by invading Iraq. They also continue to enjoy the soaring prices due to the fear of the US invading Iran. However, they will not tolerate the US invading one of their long time allies in the gulf.
China is in a world of hurt because of the price of oil. Even though the US consumes more oil per capita than any other nation on the planet, China has 3 times more people than we do, and has surpassed the US in total consumption of oil and coal. If the US invaded Iran, that would be the end of China's economy. They would have to recall the few trillion dollars they loaned us.
These subtle points of geopolitics seems to escape the poodle sized brain in McBush's head.
We can talk till we're blue in the face, Bush WILL attack Iran, but it'll happen with a Mossad engineered false flag creating the impression that Iran has attacked Israel. The resulting "fear factor" will be enough to cause a GOP win in the elections.
we should all pitch in for a bottle of geritol for Mcalzheimers.
Anyway Obama didn't even say the threat was tiny. He said the countries were tiny compared to the USSR. No one could argue that's not true.
But the fucking cuban missile crisis compared to Ahminijad saying he doesn't like us?? WTF.
Just saw Laura ingram on fox describe Obama's Iran/USSR assertion as a "gaffe", :)
They're doing the same thing that they did during the cold war. Yes, the USSR was powerful. But throughout the cold war, the intelligence/pentagram/industrial community expended a hell of a lot of energy propagandizing the USSR in order to make it appear a lot more threatening than it ever was or could be. The effort worked, and it provided a couple of generations' worth of huge budgets for bankrolling the intelligence/military-industrial sector. It also provided a means to keep Americans afraid and thus subservient. Now it's Iran/ Islamic-boogeyman-nation-du-jur's turn. It 's a process that has more to do with continuing the cold war scam than it has to do with providing any kind of security.
The only difference is that the scamsters seem a lot more willing to routinely embrace and commit crimes against humanity in order to extort their profits and play their power games.
What we need to hear isn't wardrums it's how we're going to disarm the world. We had our chance to help destroy Russia's deactivated nuclear warheads, and Bill Clinton asked the Republican Congress for funds to help them deactivate. The repugs said no.
Since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, these arms are in the hands of many smaller, decentralized Eastern European countries, who are selling them on the black market, so countries like Iran could be buying them.
But the threat probably isn't missles, even if some are being built, but smaller bombs about the size of a briefcase or backpack.
All this could've been prevented if the repugs hadn't been so intent on denying Clinton a legacy. And it may not be too late yet, but will be more complex with carrot stick approaches, security guarantees, technology transfers, cultural exchanges, summit meetings etc.
warren terra imboldan iraan
...
thamberlinapebeserslibruleeslamofassism
raaaaaaaah
If the Iranians get the bomb or are percieved of being a threat to acquire the bomb ...the saudis + other sunni majority regimes middle east will spend billions to acquire their own and majority of middle east ...the most unstable region in the world will be a hairtrigger from firing the greatest destructive weapon ever built . This happy talk about diplomacy didnt work in 79 and wont work now .
Comments are closed on this entry