Muslims and thermonuclear fire *fap fap fap*

[Axis Kast]

Interestingly, I do not see "self-defense" anywhere in that justification.

Establishing a progressive regime in the Arab world is an act of self-defense, considering what we now know to be the fruit of alternatives.

Perhaps that is because constant conflict and deprivation do not actually cause social progress.

Which is why we’re working to achieve security and rebuild the national infrastructure in Iraq, genius.

Hint: they don't believe it because it isn't true. Despite all of your claims, the invasion of Iraq has not made Europeans feel any more secure.

Temporarily. As soon as the European Union begins to flex its muscles for a more serious fiscal and political showdown with the United States, there will be reverberations. Such is the nature of power.

It just does not occur to you that the use of brute force never wins an ideological contest, for which a more constructive use of power is required. And by what criteria do you judge that we cannot employ time as a primary asset in overcoming our enemies in the region? All evidence gathered since the downfall of Saddam Hussein indicated that his rule over Iraq was becoming incresingly shaky as the country deterioriated. And despite the rhetoric being spewed by the mullahs in Tehran, the Iranian population now of age has no fervour or enthusiasm for the Islamic Revolution; a fact underlinted (EDIT) by the political strains upon the mullahs' control over Iranian politics. It is you who keeps foaming at the mouth about hitting rogue regimes NOW. Is it seriously your thesis that the United States does not have the strength, flexibility, and sustainibility to outlast our enemies? That they must inevitably grow stronger while we grow concurrently weaker? If this is in fact your position, on what basis is it predicated?

Except fascism.

And waiting for the terrorist regimes to change themselves after two hundred years of stagnation is nothing but stupid. All evidence gathered since the downfall of Saddam Hussein proves that he was having trouble maintaining the kind of regime he so desired, not that he and his were in any danger of being overthrown by reactionary elements. In fact, if anything, we now know that his loyalists were stronger than originally believed. The aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991 proved that Saddam, even in defeat, was relatively capable of keeping a lid on revolt. That has not changed appreciably with the passage of time. The same is true in Iran, where despite street protests and a handful of scuffles with police and hired thugs, representative power is only decreasing – an inverse relationship, it must be added, to their hostility against the United States in the recent past. The point is not that waiting a few years to strike hard against terrorists will cost the Western world its existence, but that it serves no purpose whatsoever save to strengthen our enemies – and certainly not to weaken them appreciably or let them take care of themselves without our help.

But bombings, wars, and forced regime-changes will bring about this magickal transformation you insist will eventually occur. You pretend that this (Muslim radicalisation) would only be a short-term phenomenon and that it must melt away with determined American pressure and force. Fine argument as long as it ignores its central problem: that reform is wholly an internal process and one which cannot be forced at gunpoint at any level of intensity.

Which is a fine argument as long as it ignores a central problem: that we fought a war with two nations between 1941 and 1945 which, as a result of total military defeat and subsequent (and lengthy) occupation, became bastions of democratic and economic success. Nobody has argued that the reconstruction process – or even the occupation – will be any less than seven to ten years. American troops will probably remain in Iraq for some time to come – in at least division strength.

The only way Axi derives "agreement" out of the body of my arguments with his psychotic vision of things is by citing the observations of what we have and are doing wrong in the occupation of Iraq wholly out of context. This on top of his usual strawman distortions and general dishonesty.

Once again: by admitting that the overall objectives are achievable if only tactics were changed, you admit the validity of the entire strategy.

You mean the laughable pretense of the sovereignty transfer? Nobody except the PNAC groupies believes in the reality of that alleged event. Neither is anybody willing to lay serious money on the reliability of the New Model Iraqi army.

The transfer of political power is being accompanied by a simultaneous transfer of responsibility in the realm of infrastructure management, a significant leap forward in terms of who is actually “running the show” in Iraq. The “New Model Iraqi Army” you speak of is itself more and more active on a daily basis.

It takes one truly delusional little mind to translate "judicious use of military force" as wholesale military adventurism. And until the ideas which motivate the actions they produce are tackled and defeated, the actions will not be stifled.

Ideas that can be tackled only by fundamental reconstruction of the shattered societies of the Middle East, none of which will come from within. Your harbingers of future change are little more than spit in a swimming pool.

That's assuming that there are any to spare. There aren't.

There aren’t any aircraft to spare to bomb selected targets in Iran from the Persian Gulf or Iraqi air bases? Prove it.

As for Iran, Russia’s pressuring Tehran into signing accords Iran already ignores are of little consequence. Any call for “more surprise inspections” is merely an attempt to avoid punishment for previous violations. The IAEA is already clamoring for wider access.

The current Iranian situation has not been going on "for centuries" and the political strains between the populace, the central government, and the mullahs is an observable phenomenon. I'd really wish you'd do your own fucking homework for a change.

And so, what you’ve found is a single opinion piece musing that if only there were an economic downturn in Iran, we might see some progress by liberal-minded factions. Yeah. And if your aunt had a dick, she’d be your uncle.

The bullshit is yours, I do believe. Really, how long are you going to keep spewing the same tired arguments ad-nauseum?

Either the country is sovereign, per your assertion, and hence responsible for its choices (and inaction against the Jerusalem Force), or the country is not sovereign, and must yield to those who will deal with the threat in their place. Which is it? Either Iran is consciously shirking its duty, or it is unable to fulfill its obligations as a nation-state.

Only in the bizarro-world of Weltpolitik and not in any real world.

Because insults make arguments! Calling me Hitler reincarnated because you dislike the prospect of violence does nothing to advance your case. In fact, all it does is make you out as the desperate party.

Without the prospect of conventional danger, regimes won’t act. See Iraq, 2003.

I haven't ignored it at all. I simply state that the argument is idiotic on its face, and one not supported by the history of the last fifty years.

You deny that closed societies breed anti-Americanism in the Middle East? That the leadership there uses the United States as a scapegoat at every convenience? That poor government leads to emasculation, and that instability leads others to seek domination rather than cooperation? The Arab world’s weakness inspires both contempt for its leaders and fear for its stability from the West.

Nice if the point was a straight comparison to the U.S./Soviet Cold War. It wasn't however.

Then why the fuck make the Cold War an issue at all? You lie.

Except unilaterialism makes for intrangicense even among allies, particularly those which aren't as politically stable as most other nations. Pakistan, for example.

Pakistan’s “intransigence” is remarkably cooperative.

[Patrick Degan]

Sigh...:

It just does not occur to you that the use of brute force never wins an ideological contest, for which a more constructive use of power is required. And by what criteria do you judge that we cannot employ time as a primary asset in overcoming our enemies in the region? All evidence gathered since the downfall of Saddam Hussein indicated that his rule over Iraq was becoming incresingly shaky as the country deterioriated. And despite the rhetoric being spewed by the mullahs in Tehran, the Iranian population now of age has no fervour or enthusiasm for the Islamic Revolution; a fact underlinted (EDIT) by the political strains upon the mullahs' control over Iranian politics. It is you who keeps foaming at the mouth about hitting rogue regimes NOW. Is it seriously your thesis that the United States does not have the strength, flexibility, and sustainibility to outlast our enemies? That they must inevitably grow stronger while we grow concurrently weaker? If this is in fact your position, on what basis is it predicated?

Except fascism.

Nice False Analogy Fallacy. Germany, Italy, and Japan had prior experience with parliamentary government before fascism arose in any of those states, so it was not as if the Allies were working in a vacuum in the post-war environment.

And waiting for the terrorist regimes to change themselves after two hundred years of stagnation is nothing but stupid.

It is your argument which is stupid. Not to mention one which exposes your utter ignorance of the region's history. The Middle Eastern nations were all formed out of the Ottoman Empire following its breakup after World War I. The only monarchies which have endured from that time have been the Hashemite Kingdom and the House of Saud. And the monarchies of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq were overthrown in socialist revolutions in the '50s; Iran's in 1979 to the Islamic revolution. Pakistan was part of the Raj before Britain quit India in 1948. The present climate of the Middle East traces its roots only as far back as 1919 at the earliest, and 1978 at the latest, barring other dynamic changes which have reshaped the politics of the region in the intervening time. So take your incompetent "two hundred years of stagnation" rhetoric and cram it.

All evidence gathered since the downfall of Saddam Hussein proves that he was having trouble maintaining the kind of regime he so desired, not that he and his were in any danger of being overthrown by reactionary elements. In fact, if anything, we now know that his loyalists were stronger than originally believed. The aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991 proved that Saddam, even in defeat, was relatively capable of keeping a lid on revolt.

Riiiight —that's why Saddam Hussein effectively lost control of the northern third of the country and was increasingly unable to keep the lid on the Shia in the southern regions between the two wars.

The same is true in Iran, where despite street protests and a handful of scuffles with police and hired thugs, representative power is only decreasing – an inverse relationship, it must be added, to their hostility against the United States in the recent past. The point is not that waiting a few years to strike hard against terrorists will cost the Western world its existence, but that it serves no purpose whatsoever save to strengthen our enemies – and certainly not to weaken them appreciably or let them take care of themselves without our help.

If our enemies were capable of strengthening, they would not be resorting to terrorism in the first place, numbskull. That does not spell a threat requiring immediate large-scale military action to counter. And you can keep ignoring the realities inside Iran as long as you like; the fact is that the mullahs no longer wield authority through moral or ideological force but police force alone. Not a formula for long-term political survival particularly in an environment where the economy is shaky at best. And as you have just conceded that the existence of the Western world is not at threat through terrorism, you have undermined your argument that war in the Middle East is imperative.

Once again: by admitting that the overall objectives are achievable if only tactics were changed, you admit the validity of the entire strategy.

And I need only reiterate: The only way you derive "agreement" out of the body of my arguments with your psychotic worldview is by citing the observations of what we have and are doing wrong in the occupation of Iraq wholly out of context. This on top of your usual strawman distortions and general dishonesty. Particularly as nowhere have I made any such statement such as "the occupation would work if we did so-and-so".

The transfer of political power is being accompanied by a simultaneous transfer of responsibility in the realm of infrastructure management, a significant leap forward in terms of who is actually “running the show” in Iraq. The “New Model Iraqi Army” you speak of is itself more and more active on a daily basis.

Except the Provisional Government's actions rely upon U.S. approval, and U.S. military actions decide the course of conduct and not those of the Iraqi army or police forces.

It takes one truly delusional little mind to translate "judicious use of military force" as wholesale military adventurism. And until the ideas which motivate the actions they produce are tackled and defeated, the actions will not be stifled.

Ideas that can be tackled only by fundamental reconstruction of the shattered societies of the Middle East, none of which will come from within. Your harbingers of future change are little more than spit in a swimming pool.

And your lunatic notions of forceable reconstruction are farts in the wind. The only thing the people of the Middle East will perceive by our going in, knocking over their governments, and remaking their societies in our image is rank imperialism. Attempts to remake a nation by force are always resisted and end in disaster.

There aren’t any aircraft to spare to bomb selected targets in Iran from the Persian Gulf or Iraqi air bases? Prove it.

The problem is that bombings endanger the situation tipping over into a general war, and that is what we do not have the forces to spare for.

As for Iran, Russia’s pressuring Tehran into signing accords Iran already ignores are of little consequence. Any call for “more surprise inspections” is merely an attempt to avoid punishment for previous violations. The IAEA is already clamoring for wider access.

Pressure backed by the threat to withhold fuel for their reactor. Not inconsequential at all.

The current Iranian situation has not been going on "for centuries" and the political strains between the populace, the central government, and the mullahs is an observable phenomenon. I'd really wish you'd do your own fucking homework for a change.

And so, what you’ve found is a single opinion piece musing that if only there were an economic downturn in Iran, we might see some progress by liberal-minded factions. Yeah.

And your proof that this scenario and the facts underlining it are invalid is...? Oh yeah —your mastubatory fantasies about remaking Iran through the instrument of war.

And if your aunt had a dick, she’d be your uncle.

You seem to be developing an unhealthy obsession with dicks lately.

The bullshit is yours, I do believe. Really, how long are you going to keep spewing the same tired arguments ad-nauseum?

Either the country is sovereign, per your assertion, and hence responsible for its choices (and inaction against the Jerusalem Force), or the country is not sovereign, and must yield to those who will deal with the threat in their place. Which is it? Either Iran is consciously shirking its duty, or it is unable to fulfill its obligations as a nation-state.

Iran's sovereignty exists by definition, whether its government is unstable or not. That applies to every nation across the board and not merely to the ones we feel deserve the privilege. The instability of a government does not accord blanket authority for external interference in any nation's internal troubles. And you still are quite unable to demonstrate how the Jerusalem Force's actions constitute an immediate danger of revolution against the central government or an immediate external military threat for which a general war is the sole recourse of action. Nice little False Dilemma you keep trying to pose, but it remains a false dilemma nonetheless.

Because insults make arguments! Calling me Hitler reincarnated because you dislike the prospect of violence does nothing to advance your case. In fact, all it does is make you out as the desperate party.

I do not "call you Hitler", but merely point out that your geopolitical philosophy and his are disturbingly similar. Both of you advance the "might makes right" theory of national conduct. In fact:

Linky
Linky

It must be thoroughly understood that the lost land will never be won back by solemn appeals to the God, nor by hopes in any League of Nations, but only by the force of arms.

Strength lies not in defense but in attack.

Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills

Only force rules. Force is the first law

Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.

—it's sort of amazing just how alike the two of you sound.

Without the prospect of conventional danger, regimes won’t act. See Iraq, 2003.

Except Iraq was neatly boxed-in, unable to present a threat to its neighbours, and ironically exercised far greater control against Islamic extremism than the present puppet government or our occupation forces have managed to date. There was no valid pretext or reason to launch a wholly unnecessary war.

You deny that closed societies breed anti-Americanism in the Middle East? That the leadership there uses the United States as a scapegoat at every convenience? That poor government leads to emasculation, and that instability leads others to seek domination rather than cooperation? The Arab world’s weakness inspires both contempt for its leaders and fear for its stability from the West.

Except there was no particular incentive for breeding anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East until we attacked Iraq in 1991 and put troops in Saudi Arabia to that end, and subsequently kept them there for the next twelve years. The present radical anti-Americanism in the Middle East is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Nice if the point was a straight comparison to the U.S./Soviet Cold War. It wasn't however.

Then why the fuck make the Cold War an issue at all? You lie.

A known liar accusing me of lying. How droll. Evidently, you are quite unable to seperate the concept of a cold war-type engagement from the historical Cold War between the West and the Soviet Bloc. How typical of you. I haven't decided if you are actually this fundamentally stupid or this fundamentally dishonest, but the effect is more or less the same.

Except unilaterialism makes for intrangicense even among allies, particularly those which aren't as politically stable as most other nations. Pakistan, for example.

Pakistan’s “intransigence” is remarkably cooperative.

Only for as long as Pervez Musharraf's regime is not threatened to the point of collapse by his continuing cooperation with our agenda. If his survival on the throne depends upon terminating that cooperation, he will and faster than you can blink an eye.

[Axis Kast]

Nice False Analogy Fallacy. Germany, Italy, and Japan had prior experience with parliamentary government before fascism arose in any of those states, so it was not as if the Allies were working in a vacuum in the post-war environment.

You’re responding to the wrong question. Post facto democracy in the former Axis nations did not defeat the fascist ideology, but rather, the collapse of the governments and militaries that espoused it.

It is your argument which is stupid. Not to mention one which exposes your utter ignorance of the region's history. The Middle Eastern nations were all formed out of the Ottoman Empire following its breakup after World War I. The only monarchies which have endured from that time have been the Hashemite Kingdom and the House of Saud. And the monarchies of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq were overthrown in socialist revolutions in the '50s; Iran's in 1979 to the Islamic revolution. Pakistan was part of the Raj before Britain quit India in 1948. The present climate of the Middle East traces its roots only as far back as 1919 at the earliest, and 1978 at the latest, barring other dynamic changes which have reshaped the politics of the region in the intervening time. So take your incompetent "two hundred years of stagnation" rhetoric and cram it.

None of which were remotely dynamic, regardless of the pro forma titles. Nasser’s was as fundamentally flawed a government as the Shah’s. Since before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, no Arab nation has been capable of shirking what are little more than dysfunctional oligarchies that deny them anything but the hope of progressive social, economic, and political change. Not to mention that one hundred years is as damning a period of stagnation as two hundred for our purposes, so that even by your own count, the Middle East isn’t moving forward – and without some force of miracles, won’t be anytime soon, either.

Riiiight —that's why Saddam Hussein effectively lost control of the northern third of the country and was increasingly unable to keep the lid on the Shia in the southern regions between the two wars.

He lost control of those regions because his security forces were challenged by the Coalition air campaign, moron. And none of this, incidentally, has any bearing on the ultimate stability of his government in central Iraq, where there was a clear line of successors waiting in the wings.

If our enemies were capable of strengthening, they would not be resorting to terrorism in the first place, numbskull.

So only the weak are capable of resorting to terrorism? Gee, that’s funny. Ever heard of the Rainbow Warrior? The large and prosperous can utilize terrorism and its conventions to suit their needs as well. Iran is currently doing the same.

That does not spell a threat requiring immediate large-scale military action to counter. And you can keep ignoring the realities inside Iran as long as you like; the fact is that the mullahs no longer wield authority through moral or ideological force but police force alone. Not a formula for long-term political survival particularly in an environment where the economy is shaky at best. And as you have just conceded that the existence of the Western world is not at threat through terrorism, you have undermined your argument that war in the Middle East is imperative.

Your argument that tolerating terrorism while waiting for stagnant nations to change overnight through spontaneous revolutions that haven’t yet occurred despite long histories of misrule and mismanagement is somehow a useful policy is absolutely stunning. Simply because Osama bin Laden cannot bring the United States crashing down around us does not mean he isn’t a target worth pursuing with every fiber of our capability. Terrorism does severe damage to the American economy, the American psyche, and, some would argue, the American political arena, as well. It is a clear threat.

And I need only reiterate: The only way you derive "agreement" out of the body of my arguments with your psychotic worldview is by citing the observations of what we have and are doing wrong in the occupation of Iraq wholly out of context. This on top of your usual strawman distortions and general dishonesty. Particularly as nowhere have I made any such statement such as "the occupation would work if we did so-and-so".

By pointing out that had we maintained the original Army and deployed more troops in the first place, we’d be that much further to making the nation secure, you give the lie to your own argument that improvement in Iraq is somehow impossible.

Except the Provisional Government's actions rely upon U.S. approval, and U.S. military actions decide the course of conduct and not those of the Iraqi army or police forces.

Which is immaterial to the fact that the pool of Iraqis educated and experienced in managing their own affairs is growing as we speak. Eventually, the United States will be compelled to bow out in favor of a government after our own image. If that government has resources of its own at its disposal – which is what we are working toward at this time –, it will be that much more self-reliant.

And your lunatic notions of forceable reconstruction are farts in the wind. The only thing the people of the Middle East will perceive by our going in, knocking over their governments, and remaking their societies in our image is rank imperialism. Attempts to remake a nation by force are always resisted and end in disaster.

Once again, have you no memory of the Second World War and its aftermath? You do realize that if we do succeed in building a stable, prosperous Iraq, there will be more to envy in the outcome for other peoples in the Middle East than to resent. It’s difficult to sustain the argument that the United States is a “Great Satan” when the nation they invaded is suddenly experiencing all the sought-after changes that aren’t occurring elsewhere.

The problem is that bombings endanger the situation tipping over into a general war, and that is what we do not have the forces to spare for.

The likelihood of engaging in a general war with Iran is minimal, at best. Their forces would be ravaged upon mobilization.

Pressure backed by the threat to withhold fuel for their reactor. Not inconsequential at all.

Which they can always acquire from North Korea. Or China. Not to mention that Russia has already more or less ignored Iran’s current transgressions, and continues to demand more reports in true Blixian style. They are pushing paper to avoid confronting the issue.

And your proof that this scenario and the facts underlining it are invalid is...? Oh yeah —your mastubatory fantasies about remaking Iran through the instrument of war.

It doesn’t matter how valid his scenario is, you blithering buffoon. Without the economic downturn of massive proportions, it’s all nothing more than pointless speculation.

Iran's sovereignty exists by definition, whether its government is unstable or not. That applies to every nation across the board and not merely to the ones we feel deserve the privilege. The instability of a government does not accord blanket authority for external interference in any nation's internal troubles. And you still are quite unable to demonstrate how the Jerusalem Force's actions constitute an immediate danger of revolution against the central government or an immediate external military threat for which a general war is the sole recourse of action. Nice little False Dilemma you keep trying to pose, but it remains a false dilemma nonetheless.

It’s amazing, the lengths you’ll go to in order to defend the clear hostility of a terrorist regime. Tell me, do you actually believe your drivel, or do you just throw it out there to disagree with me?

Sovereignty does not exist by definition. It must be recognized. It will only be recognized should the nation in question display a capability to manage their own affairs as the responsible party. If it cannot function as that responsible party – or even attempt to do so, and Iran has not attempted to do anything about the Jerusalem Force –, then it secedes that title. The Jerusalem Force’s ability to overthrow its own government has nothing to do with it, but rather, the Jerusalem Force’s continued support for terrorist activities against the United States. As an arm of the Iranian military, it is either a conscious act – that is, Iran is purposely abstaining, in which case, it is an act of war –, or it is a problem of control, in which case it must be stopped – if not by Iran, then by those who are threatened.

I do not "call you Hitler", but merely point out that your geopolitical philosophy and his are disturbingly similar. Both of you advance the "might makes right" theory of national conduct.

I cannot be held responsible if the world is a nasty place. That hasn’t changed since the dawn of human history. Thinking that it might is not a sign of positive idealism. It’s a sign of stupidity and ignorance. Playing by a set of “rules” and standards to which nobody else adheres save when it suits their own needs in gaining the upper hand over you is a great way to loose. And on the chessboard of nation-states, a loss equals a reduction in power (or, even worse, an end of existence).

Except Iraq was neatly boxed-in, unable to present a threat to its neighbours, and ironically exercised far greater control against Islamic extremism than the present puppet government or our occupation forces have managed to date. There was no valid pretext or reason to launch a wholly unnecessary war.

Irrelevant. Saddam would not have caved without an army at his doorstep. He in fact vacillated until there was one.

Except there was no particular incentive for breeding anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East until we attacked Iraq in 1991 and put troops in Saudi Arabia to that end, and subsequently kept them there for the next twelve years. The present radical anti-Americanism in the Middle East is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Try the Shah and ’79. And if you believe truly that 1991 was the beginning of all our troubles, then you are clearly in agreement with my argument, which is that anti-Americanism is inevitable. Surely you agree that our actions in Kuwait were necessary to prevent a gamut of similar invasions and to corral the machinations of Saddam Hussein. We put troops in Saudi Arabia to empower them to defend themselves.

A known liar accusing me of lying. How droll. Evidently, you are quite unable to seperate the concept of a cold war-type engagement from the historical Cold War between the West and the Soviet Bloc. How typical of you. I haven't decided if you are actually this fundamentally stupid or this fundamentally dishonest, but the effect is more or less the same.

We needed a Cold War-style engagement because of the nuclear question. We don’t have that in the Middle East. Saying that the War on Terrorism will be multi-faceted is not the same.

Only for as long as Pervez Musharraf's regime is not threatened to the point of collapse by his continuing cooperation with our agenda. If his survival on the throne depends upon terminating that cooperation, he will and faster than you can blink an eye.

There is no other option. Musharraf is the best we have.

[Patrick Degan]

Part One

Nice False Analogy Fallacy. Germany, Italy, and Japan had prior experience with parliamentary government before fascism arose in any of those states, so it was not as if the Allies were working in a vacuum in the post-war environment.

You’re responding to the wrong question. Post facto democracy in the former Axis nations did not defeat the fascist ideology, but rather, the collapse of the governments and militaries that espoused it.

Wrong, asshole —you're the one making the wholly false parallel between the Axis and Iraq. Democracy existed in Germany, Italy, and Japan prior to the war. Fascism was the exception.

It is your argument which is stupid. Not to mention one which exposes your utter ignorance of the region's history. The Middle Eastern nations were all formed out of the Ottoman Empire following its breakup after World War I. The only monarchies which have endured from that time have been the Hashemite Kingdom and the House of Saud. And the monarchies of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq were overthrown in socialist revolutions in the '50s; Iran's in 1979 to the Islamic revolution. Pakistan was part of the Raj before Britain quit India in 1948. The present climate of the Middle East traces its roots only as far back as 1919 at the earliest, and 1978 at the latest, barring other dynamic changes which have reshaped the politics of the region in the intervening time. So take your incompetent "two hundred years of stagnation" rhetoric and cram it.

None of which were remotely dynamic, regardless of the pro forma titles. Nasser’s was as fundamentally flawed a government as the Shah’s. Since before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, no Arab nation has been capable of shirking what are little more than dysfunctional oligarchies that deny them anything but the hope of progressive social, economic, and political change. Not to mention that one hundred years is as damning a period of stagnation as two hundred for our purposes, so that even by your own count, the Middle East isn’t moving forward – and without some force of miracles, won’t be anytime soon, either.

I see this is yet another of your bullshit redefinition efforts; this one trying to make the history of the region conform to whatever twisted political gospel you've formed your views of the Middle East upon. The plain fact is that five political currents have swept through the region in the course of 85 years. Radical antiwestern Islamic fundamentalism is only the most recent one and was a phenomenon which did not exist until the 1990s. That is not "stagnation" by any rational definition of the term. This is the region's struggle with modernity. And I hate to burst your balloon, but "miracles" have never been brought about at gunpoint. Attempting to force Westernisation upon the Middle East will end up having the opposite effect and in point of fact is having the opposite effect than the one spelled out in the PNAC Faery Tale Collection, which is why radical Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise in the region.

Oh, and BTW, Nasser was supplanted by Sadat —who made peace with Israel. His successor Mubarak has built upon that peace and remains a solid ally of the west. Another knock on your "two hundred years of stagnation" theory.

Riiiight —that's why Saddam Hussein effectively lost control of the northern third of the country and was increasingly unable to keep the lid on the Shia in the southern regions between the two wars.

He lost control of those regions because his security forces were challenged by the Coalition air campaign, moron. And none of this, incidentally, has any bearing on the ultimate stability of his government in central Iraq, where there was a clear line of successors waiting in the wings.

Wrong, asshole —air campaigns have never impeded the ability of a government to maintain control over its own territory and people, as the examples of Nazi Germany, Japan, and Serbia have demonstrated. Iraq was deterioriating in the years between the two wars from the sanctions which had effectively locked the country down. And no line-of-succession in Iraq was secure; Saddam came to power in a military coup. The deterioriating situation in Iraq made his downfall and that of his sons in a military coup increasingly likely.

If our enemies were capable of strengthening, they would not be resorting to terrorism in the first place, numbskull.

So only the weak are capable of resorting to terrorism? Gee, that’s funny. Ever heard of the Rainbow Warrior? The large and prosperous can utilize terrorism and its conventions to suit their needs as well. Iran is currently doing the same.

False Analogy Fallacy yet again; the sinking of the Greenpeace ship was a military operation and one carried out by the French Secret Services (the DSGE) for the purpose of preventing the ship's intrusion upon a French military reservation. Furthermore, it is an action the French have never repeated. Trying to use an exception and one which doesn't even make an adequate parallel does not destroy a general rule; namely that terrorism is the weapon of the weak and powerless.

That does not spell a threat requiring immediate large-scale military action to counter. And you can keep ignoring the realities inside Iran as long as you like; the fact is that the mullahs no longer wield authority through moral or ideological force but police force alone. Not a formula for long-term political survival particularly in an environment where the economy is shaky at best. And as you have just conceded that the existence of the Western world is not at threat through terrorism, you have undermined your argument that war in the Middle East is imperative.

Your argument that tolerating terrorism while waiting for stagnant nations to change overnight through spontaneous revolutions that haven’t yet occurred despite long histories of misrule and mismanagement is somehow a useful policy is absolutely stunning. Simply because Osama bin Laden cannot bring the United States crashing down around us does not mean he isn’t a target worth pursuing with every fiber of our capability. Terrorism does severe damage to the American economy, the American psyche, and, some would argue, the American political arena, as well. It is a clear threat.

Man of Straw. Nowhere do I say that terrorists aren't worth pursuing or combatting. The point is that the expedient to general war is not necessary and particularly as, by your own concession on the point, that terrorism cannot present a threat to national existence which removes the imperative you insist upon.

And I need only reiterate: The only way you derive "agreement" out of the body of my arguments with your psychotic worldview is by citing the observations of what we have and are doing wrong in the occupation of Iraq wholly out of context. This on top of your usual strawman distortions and general dishonesty. Particularly as nowhere have I made any such statement such as "the occupation would work if we did so-and-so".

By pointing out that had we maintained the original Army and deployed more troops in the first place, we’d be that much further to making the nation secure, you give the lie to your own argument that improvement in Iraq is somehow impossible.

Wrong, Mr. Delusional Dishonest Fuck. Since you are determined to endlessly strawman my arguments, a reiteration is in order:

So far, the Iraqi authorities we've installed have been nothing but our puppets, the reconstruction has been handled as nothing more than a huge kickback scheme to American corporations, we've managed to antagonise the population by making every wrong move imaginable, and in the bargain haven't even restored basic services to what was enjoyed under Saddam Hussein and despite this you imagine that we still have credibility as liberators instead of an imperial occupation force.

And frankly, trying to argue that outright conquest and occupation is the least manipulative form of intervention is about the most comical proposition you've yet attempted to float in any thread.

Except PR and a successful occupation effort go hand-in-hand, as does immediate large-scale relief which we failed to deliver. It didn't help that we did nothing to control the wholesale looting which occurred in the country in the days immediately following our takeover, nor that we pulled idiotic stunts like disbanding the army or shutting down a major opposition newspaper, which helped touch off the Fallujah mess, nor that we've structured relief and reconstruction efforts as large-scale kickback schemes to American contractors and imported people to do the work instead of employing Iraqis on a large scale —which would have done much toward fostering good will among the populace. The time for PR efforts was when we established our occupation presence.

The Iraqis at this point aren't even under their own oppressors but American troops and American puppets. We've arbitrarily rewritten their laws, sold off Iraqi assets, and largely shut Iraqis out of the decisionmaking and economic life of their own country. What do you call that from your perspective in Bizarro-world?

And exactly how is any of this:

Except outside intervention is what caused this problem in the first place, tiger-boy, and you either can't or won't explain how repeating this disaster on a larger scale will somehow result in a different outcome beyond simply asserting ad-infinitum that it will.

You just keep saying that violence is the only option left (without ever explaining why) and that it will induce change (without ever explaining how). You ignore that this very course of action is the cause of the present problem and expect that somehow, someway, we can kill enough Muslims to pacify the rest. Well, the ball's still in your court, tiger-boy. Exactly how is this supposed to work? How will this not radicalise the entire Muslim population against the United States? Do you really expect we can terrify a billion people into submission? And how will the examples of repeated brute force induce these billion people to realise the beneficence of Western-style democracy and American-style free enterprise?

Again, you say nothing of exactly how this miraculous transformation is supposed to take place in the face of the fact that American intervention has resulted in the current disaster and that somehow democracy and Western-style capitalism is going to be successfully imposed at gunpoint, or as I've said, repeating the disaster on a far larger scale.

But bombings, wars, and forced regime-changes will bring about this magickal transformation you insist will eventually occur. You pretend that this would only be a short-term phenomenon and that it must melt away with determined American pressure and force. Fine argument as long as it ignores its central problem: that reform is wholly an internal process and one which cannot be forced at gunpoint at any level of intensity.

—contradicted by the observations of fact concerning the fuckup which is the occupation of Iraq? How does this contradict the central argument that the war with Iraq was wholly unnecessary in the first place and has had no effect upon the alleged effort to win the so-called War on Terror? That point I've argued consistently in five threads now. The only way you mine agreement with your bizarre worldview out of the body of my arguments is to quote said observations of fact wholly out of context and you are not getting away with it. Not now and not for another fifty pages if it comes to it.

[Patrick Degan]

Part Two

Except the Provisional Government's actions rely upon U.S. approval, and U.S. military actions decide the course of conduct and not those of the Iraqi army or police forces.

Which is immaterial to the fact that the pool of Iraqis educated and experienced in managing their own affairs is growing as we speak. Eventually, the United States will be compelled to bow out in favor of a government after our own image. If that government has resources of its own at its disposal – which is what we are working toward at this time –, it will be that much more self-reliant.

Nice little wish-projection. Pity it ignores the realities on the ground; that the Iraqis who view the present government as nothing but our puppets far outnumbers the "good Iraqis" and said government exists only with a screen of American tanks to protect it. The acid-test is what happens when that screen of tanks is gone.

And your lunatic notions of forceable reconstruction are farts in the wind. The only thing the people of the Middle East will perceive by our going in, knocking over their governments, and remaking their societies in our image is rank imperialism. Attempts to remake a nation by force are always resisted and end in disaster.

Once again, have you no memory of the Second World War and its aftermath?

I have a far better memory of it than you because I've actually bothered to study the subject.

You do realize that if we do succeed in building a stable, prosperous Iraq, there will be more to envy in the outcome for other peoples in the Middle East than to resent. It’s difficult to sustain the argument that the United States is a “Great Satan” when the nation they invaded is suddenly experiencing all the sought-after changes that aren’t occurring elsewhere.

Using a "what-if" as proof of your argument? Excuse me, but BWAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! The only reason democratic reform was able to take root effectively in Germany, Japan, and Italy following the Second World War was because western-style democratic government existed in those nations before fascism. Fascism was the exception. Plus there were anti-fascist elements of society already in covert opposition to each of those governments to one degree or another: Mussolini was overthrown by the Italians in 1943, the generals tried to kill Hitler in 1944 and there was always an underground opposition against the Nazi regime, and the admirals opposed Japan's war with the United States before Pearl Harbour and were among those in the government trying to find a political solution to the war prior to Hiroshima. And only after the Japanese were assured that we were not going to abolish the Imperial institution did they surrender. That, and not their military defeat, was why the reconstruction of the Axis nations worked. By contrast, Muslims believe in the Shariat to one degree or another as fundamental to any vision of proper government and national identity. They're not looking to overthrow Islam, nor are in fundamental disagreement with the principles of the Faith. This isn't about materialism or prosperity as defined in the West, and trying to impose western-style government and socioeconomics on the Middle East at gunpoint is only going to fuel radicalism, not diminish it. That alone is one reason why attempts to draw parallels to post-World War 2 are doomed to failure and why arguments predicated on that assumption are fatally flawed.

The problem is that bombings endanger the situation tipping over into a general war, and that is what we do not have the forces to spare for.

The likelihood of engaging in a general war with Iran is minimal, at best. Their forces would be ravaged upon mobilization.

And your proof for this surmise is...? Oh, right —pulled out of your own ass, as usual. Air campaigns can't ravage armies nor bring about their speedy downfall. See Germany, Japan, and Kosovo.

Pressure backed by the threat to withhold fuel for their reactor. Not inconsequential at all.

Which they can always acquire from North Korea. Or China. Not to mention that Russia has already more or less ignored Iran’s current transgressions, and continues to demand more reports in true Blixian style. They are pushing paper to avoid confronting the issue.

Except the Chinese have no real incentive to supply Bushehr. Nor North Korea, which is attempting its own weapons programme and it putting all of its uranium to that effort. And as Hans Blix was proved right about Iraq, trying to use him by analogy to condemn Russia's position vis-a-vis Iran is not exactly your swiftest move, tiger-boy. Nor does it provide a ghost of a proof that Russia is simply ignoring international concerns or its own national interests.

And your proof that this scenario and the facts underlining it are invalid is...? Oh yeah —your mastubatory fantasies about remaking Iran through the instrument of war.

It doesn’t matter how valid his scenario is, you blithering buffoon. Without the economic downturn of massive proportions, it’s all nothing more than pointless speculation.

But Magickal Transformation via War isn't?

Iran's sovereignty exists by definition, whether its government is unstable or not. That applies to every nation across the board and not merely to the ones we feel deserve the privilege. The instability of a government does not accord blanket authority for external interference in any nation's internal troubles. And you still are quite unable to demonstrate how the Jerusalem Force's actions constitute an immediate danger of revolution against the central government or an immediate external military threat for which a general war is the sole recourse of action. Nice little False Dilemma you keep trying to pose, but it remains a false dilemma nonetheless.

It’s amazing, the lengths you’ll go to in order to defend the clear hostility of a terrorist regime. Tell me, do you actually believe your drivel, or do you just throw it out there to disagree with me?

It's amazing the lengths you'll go to in order to put up your Army of Strawmen. Do you actually believe your drivel, or are you simply so fundamentally dishonest that you actually imagine that your endless lies about my arguments will fly?

Sovereignty does not exist by definition. It must be recognized. It will only be recognized should the nation in question display a capability to manage their own affairs as the responsible party. If it cannot function as that responsible party – or even attempt to do so, and Iran has not attempted to do anything about the Jerusalem Force –, then it secedes that title. The Jerusalem Force’s ability to overthrow its own government has nothing to do with it, but rather, the Jerusalem Force’s continued support for terrorist activities against the United States. As an arm of the Iranian military, it is either a conscious act – that is, Iran is purposely abstaining, in which case, it is an act of war –, or it is a problem of control, in which case it must be stopped – if not by Iran, then by those who are threatened.

Sovereignty does indeed exist by definition, whether you choose to recognise the concept or not; the alternative is international anarchy. And as you cannot demonstrate that the Jerusalem Force can in fact overthrow the government of Iran, you have no argument even by your own twisted standards. And trying to twist the Jerusalem Force's actions into acts of war so serious that it requires a general war as the only response belies both history and rationality, and represents a position not even this cowboy White House is willing to put itself behind.

I do not "call you Hitler", but merely point out that your geopolitical philosophy and his are disturbingly similar. Both of you advance the "might makes right" theory of national conduct.

I cannot be held responsible if the world is a nasty place. That hasn’t changed since the dawn of human history. Thinking that it might is not a sign of positive idealism. It’s a sign of stupidity and ignorance. Playing by a set of “rules” and standards to which nobody else adheres save when it suits their own needs in gaining the upper hand over you is a great way to loose. And on the chessboard of nation-states, a loss equals a reduction in power (or, even worse, an end of existence).

No, you can only parrot Hitler's philosophy, which you have just done yet again. I see no difference between the drivel you've just offered here and this drivel here:

Linky
Linky

It must be thoroughly understood that the lost land will never be won back by solemn appeals to the God, nor by hopes in any League of Nations, but only by the force of arms.

Strength lies not in defense but in attack.

Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills

Only force rules. Force is the first law

Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.

Again, it's sort of amazing just how alike the two of you sound.

Except Iraq was neatly boxed-in, unable to present a threat to its neighbours, and ironically exercised far greater control against Islamic extremism than the present puppet government or our occupation forces have managed to date. There was no valid pretext or reason to launch a wholly unnecessary war.

Irrelevant. Saddam would not have caved without an army at his doorstep. He in fact vacillated until there was one.

Irrelevant. Saddam Hussein not only posed no threat, he was utterly incapable of posing a threat, and Iraq under his rule was deterioriating progressively. Regimes do not endure under those conditions; the only question concerning his eventual downfall was when, not if.

Except there was no particular incentive for breeding anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East until we attacked Iraq in 1991 and put troops in Saudi Arabia to that end, and subsequently kept them there for the next twelve years. The present radical anti-Americanism in the Middle East is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Try the Shah and ’79.

A brutally repressive regime supported by America and returned to power through CIA intervention in 1956 after he had been overthrown in favour of Mossadegh. You help make my overall argument for me. Furthermore, Khomeni's attempt to export his Islamic Revolution and anti-American radicalism was a clear failure and has no connection to the independent rising of the present anti-Western radicalism which came in the wake of Gulf War I. Which means you have no effective point in raising this example.

And if you believe truly that 1991 was the beginning of all our troubles, then you are clearly in agreement with my argument, which is that anti-Americanism is inevitable.

Only in the realm of your psychotic delusions and not in the record of this thread.

Surely you agree that our actions in Kuwait were necessary to prevent a gamut of similar invasions and to corral the machinations of Saddam Hussein. We put troops in Saudi Arabia to empower them to defend themselves.

Except Saddam Hussein would not have attempted to invade Kuwait without April Glaspie's essentially greenlighting the event by telling him the U.S would have no interest in the matter, and keeping troops in Saudi Arabia long after Iraq was beaten back and bombed into the Stone Age didn't empower Saudi Arabia to defend itself. Surely, that should have been the function of its own army and air force.

A known liar accusing me of lying. How droll. Evidently, you are quite unable to seperate the concept of a cold war-type engagement from the historical Cold War between the West and the Soviet Bloc. How typical of you. I haven't decided if you are actually this fundamentally stupid or this fundamentally dishonest, but the effect is more or less the same.

We needed a Cold War-style engagement because of the nuclear question. We don’t have that in the Middle East. Saying that the War on Terrorism will be multi-faceted is not the same.

If the nuclear question was the sole reason for a Cold War, there would have been no reason for the United States to engage in copious foreign aid in every region challenged ideologically by communism, nor engagement in brush-wars either through the CIA or directly (and disasterously) in Vietnam. Even without nukes, trying to bring down the Soviet Union militarily was not a practicable option; despite the fact that for the first twenty years of the Cold War, the United States had overwhelming nuclear superiority.

Only for as long as Pervez Musharraf's regime is not threatened to the point of collapse by his continuing cooperation with our agenda. If his survival on the throne depends upon terminating that cooperation, he will and faster than you can blink an eye.

There is no other option. Musharraf is the best we have.

Nice little non-answer which misses the point.

[Axis Kast]

Nice little wish-projection. Pity it ignores the realities on the ground; that the Iraqis who view the present government as nothing but our puppets far outnumbers the "good Iraqis" and said government exists only with a screen of American tanks to protect it. The acid-test is what happens when that screen of tanks is gone.

And yet again you ignore efforts behind the counter-insurgency campaign, as a result of which the country has already made radical steps forward in terms of being able to support itself.

Using a "what-if" as proof of your argument? Excuse me, but BWAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! The only reason democratic reform was able to take root effectively in Germany, Japan, and Italy following the Second World War was because western-style democratic government existed in those nations before fascism. Fascism was the exception. Plus there were anti-fascist elements of society already in covert opposition to each of those governments to one degree or another: Mussolini was overthrown by the Italians in 1943, the generals tried to kill Hitler in 1944 and there was always an underground opposition against the Nazi regime, and the admirals opposed Japan's war with the United States before Pearl Harbour and were among those in the government trying to find a political solution to the war prior to Hiroshima.

And, in each case, the opposition was able to act only because the Allies had struck significant blows beforehand. In Italy, Mussolini’s ouster would never have occurred without prior battlefield defeats. The same is true of Hitler in Germany and the wartime leadership in Japan. By your own admission there are elements vigorously campaigning for more liberal government in every Middle Eastern nation. Now - also by your own admission – there is historical precedent by which to justify military intervention. Thank you kindly for the concession.

And only after the Japanese were assured that we were not going to abolish the Imperial institution did they surrender. That, and not their military defeat, was why the reconstruction of the Axis nations worked. By contrast, Muslims believe in the Shariat to one degree or another as fundamental to any vision of proper government and national identity. They're not looking to overthrow Islam, nor are in fundamental disagreement with the principles of the Faith. This isn't about materialism or prosperity as defined in the West, and trying to impose western-style government and socioeconomics on the Middle East at gunpoint is only going to fuel radicalism, not diminish it. That alone is one reason why attempts to draw parallels to post-World War 2 are doomed to failure and why arguments predicated on that assumption are fatally flawed.

And the United States has no intention of dismantling all the institutions of the Muslim world. Success in Iraq will prove as much. The question is entirely about materialism and prosperity: without instability, there is little to fuel more radical and violent interpretations of the religious zealots, the attraction of whom will steadily diminish as worldly progress is made more possible.

And your proof for this surmise is...? Oh, right —pulled out of your own ass, as usual. Air campaigns can't ravage armies nor bring about their speedy downfall. See Germany, Japan, and Kosovo.

And your proof for war? It’s not there. Precedent is in my favor: Iraq was incapable of striking back at Israel, just as any counterstroke by Iran would be virtually guaranteed to fail spectacularly against American and British armed forces.

But Magickal Transformation via War isn't?

The war is occurring as we speak. The drastic economic downturn isn’t.

It's amazing the lengths you'll go to in order to put up your Army of Strawmen. Do you actually believe your drivel, or are you simply so fundamentally dishonest that you actually imagine that your endless lies about my arguments will fly?

You’re the one excusing Iran’s actions as inconsequential because they don’t yet amount to a 9/11, not I.

Sovereignty does indeed exist by definition, whether you choose to recognise the concept or not; the alternative is international anarchy. And as you cannot demonstrate that the Jerusalem Force can in fact overthrow the government of Iran, you have no argument even by your own twisted standards. And trying to twist the Jerusalem Force's actions into acts of war so serious that it requires a general war as the only response belies both history and rationality, and represents a position not even this cowboy White House is willing to put itself behind.

Sovereignty can’t exist by definition. Declaring oneself inviolate does not make one so. There are responsibilities associated with the claim to nation-hood, one of which is to take responsibility for managing the state of affairs within one’s own borders.

And you can stop beating a dead and useless horse, as whether the Jerusalem Force can overthrow Iran is immaterial to whether they pose a threat to others and should thus be restrained by the government of Iran, which is their avowed sponsor.

The Jerusalem Force aids, abets, and provides for al-Qaeda with the conscious toleration of the Iranian government. That’s aiding the enemy to a point even the blind could see clearly. You’re the only one defying rationality here.

Again, it's sort of amazing just how alike the two of you sound.

This is the best you can do? “Wagh, you’re a mean guy!”? Jesus Christ, Deegan. You’re losing your edge.

Irrelevant. Saddam Hussein not only posed no threat, he was utterly incapable of posing a threat, and Iraq under his rule was deterioriating progressively. Regimes do not endure under those conditions; the only question concerning his eventual downfall was when, not if.

And yet Saddam did not comply with demands to allow inspectors free access to his country without the threat of a major invasion force on his borders. So, yes, Deegan, the use of conventional force is absolutely relevant.

As for downfalls, “when” is a highly subjective term. Twiddling our thumbs as we wait for change that may or may not occur based on the hopes and dreams of a man like yourself is not good policy.

A brutally repressive regime supported by America and returned to power through CIA intervention in 1956 after he had been overthrown in favour of Mossadegh. You help make my overall argument for me. Furthermore, Khomeni's attempt to export his Islamic Revolution and anti-American radicalism was a clear failure and has no connection to the independent rising of the present anti-Western radicalism which came in the wake of Gulf War I. Which means you have no effective point in raising this example.

You were wrong about ’91.

Only in the realm of your psychotic delusions and not in the record of this thread.

Concession accepted, asswipe. I love it. You just ignore whatever you don’t like, don’t you? Can’t admit that you think intervention in 1991 was necessary? Can’t admit that the result was anti-Americanism anyway? Aw, poor baby. Caught in a trap and no way out.

Except Saddam Hussein would not have attempted to invade Kuwait without April Glaspie's essentially greenlighting the event by telling him the U.S would have no interest in the matter, and keeping troops in Saudi Arabia long after Iraq was beaten back and bombed into the Stone Age didn't empower Saudi Arabia to defend itself. Surely, that should have been the function of its own army and air force.

For the millionth time, you dishonest fuckwit, Saddam anticipated an American military response. That’s the only reason so many Republican Guard units were tasked with the initial invasion.

As for Saudi Arabia, their own army and their own air force were pitiful shells before the Americans arrived to aid in their training. In fact, despite our best efforts, they remain mired in corruption and incompetence.

If the nuclear question was the sole reason for a Cold War, there would have been no reason for the United States to engage in copious foreign aid in every region challenged ideologically by communism, nor engagement in brush-wars either through the CIA or directly (and disasterously) in Vietnam. Even without nukes, trying to bring down the Soviet Union militarily was not a practicable option; despite the fact that for the first twenty years of the Cold War, the United States had overwhelming nuclear superiority.

I repeat: a multi-faceted war is not necessarily a “Cold” War. The Cold War was reduced to smaller engagements because of the threat of mutual destruction. The War on Terror isn’t.

Nice little non-answer which misses the point.

You make no point. If we don’t pressure Musharraf, we don’t get anywhere anyway.

[Patrick Degan]

Part One

Nice little wish-projection. Pity it ignores the realities on the ground; that the Iraqis who view the present government as nothing but our puppets far outnumbers the "good Iraqis" and said government exists only with a screen of American tanks to protect it. The acid-test is what happens when that screen of tanks is gone.

And yet again you ignore efforts behind the counter-insurgency campaign, as a result of which the country has already made radical steps forward in terms of being able to support itself.

Except the insurgency shows no signs of damping down anytime soon, nor does the new provisional government show itself capable of making a decision without U.S. oversight. Sugarcoating the situation in Iraq does not defeat the reality of the situation in Iraq, no matter how much you depserately need it to.

Using a "what-if" as proof of your argument? Excuse me, but BWAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! The only reason democratic reform was able to take root effectively in Germany, Japan, and Italy following the Second World War was because western-style democratic government existed in those nations before fascism. Fascism was the exception. Plus there were anti-fascist elements of society already in covert opposition to each of those governments to one degree or another: Mussolini was overthrown by the Italians in 1943, the generals tried to kill Hitler in 1944 and there was always an underground opposition against the Nazi regime, and the admirals opposed Japan's war with the United States before Pearl Harbour and were among those in the government trying to find a political solution to the war prior to Hiroshima.

And, in each case, the opposition was able to act only because the Allies had struck significant blows beforehand. In Italy, Mussolini’s ouster would never have occurred without prior battlefield defeats. The same is true of Hitler in Germany and the wartime leadership in Japan. By your own admission there are elements vigorously campaigning for more liberal government in every Middle Eastern nation. Now - also by your own admission – there is historical precedent by which to justify military intervention. Thank you kindly for the concession.

The "concession" exists entirely in that delusional ego-projection you call a mind. Italy tossed off Mussolini before Italy proper was invaded, and the resistance in Germany was active before even the failed landings at Dieppe. Japan was never invaded, and its leadership tried to manoeuver out of the war short of a surrender when the admirals who opposed it rose to the forefront. But those elements would never have existed without a preexisting democratic tradition in Germany, Italy, and Japan before fascism arose on the scene, and even the more liberal elements in the Middle East still embrace the concept of the Shariat in a less extreme form. The Middle East is not looking to be "liberated" from Islamic law, which is why the World War II parallel fails.

Oh, and Iran hasn't bombed Pearl Harbour (or any other site in the United States) nor declared war on the United States, as neither did Iraq. That's why we went to war against the Axis and not because of any grand vision to transform Europe and the Western Pacific, which is where the World War II parallel fails again.

And only after the Japanese were assured that we were not going to abolish the Imperial institution did they surrender. That, and not their military defeat, was why the reconstruction of the Axis nations worked. By contrast, Muslims believe in the Shariat to one degree or another as fundamental to any vision of proper government and national identity. They're not looking to overthrow Islam, nor are in fundamental disagreement with the principles of the Faith. This isn't about materialism or prosperity as defined in the West, and trying to impose western-style government and socioeconomics on the Middle East at gunpoint is only going to fuel radicalism, not diminish it. That alone is one reason why attempts to draw parallels to post-World War 2 are doomed to failure and why arguments predicated on that assumption are fatally flawed.

And the United States has no intention of dismantling all the institutions of the Muslim world. Success in Iraq will prove as much. The question is entirely about materialism and prosperity: without instability, there is little to fuel more radical and violent interpretations of the religious zealots, the attraction of whom will steadily diminish as worldly progress is made more possible.

Trying to impose Western-style democracy and materialism is seen as a direct threat to the Middle East's cultural integrity and the Muslim world will fight that to the death. Furthermore, Muslims do not view the western model of prosperity as their ideal; even a cursory reading of the Koran reveals this. Even when OPEC was at its height in influence and wealth, Muslims did not indulge in western-style consumerism as the preferred way of life.

And your proof for this surmise is...? Oh, right —pulled out of your own ass, as usual. Air campaigns can't ravage armies nor bring about their speedy downfall. See Germany, Japan, and Kosovo.

And your proof for war? It’s not there. Precedent is in my favor: Iraq was incapable of striking back at Israel, just as any counterstroke by Iran would be virtually guaranteed to fail spectacularly against American and British armed forces.

I admit war is a surmise, a possibility. Iraq is no example to pin your hopes on a clean mission against Iran on. Iraq had nothing in range to strike back at the Israelis with and was then engaged in its own war with Iran. But Iran has more than the Iraqis did in 1981 and plenty of targets within striking range. That's sort of what makes it a possibility not to be ignored or taken lightly, moron.

But Magickal Transformation via War isn't?

The war is occurring as we speak. The drastic economic downturn isn’t.

I don't know what the fuck you're smoking, but to update you on events: There. Is. No. War. With. Iran. Its economic fortunes, however, are shaky and that is an observable fact no matter how deeply in denial you are.

It's amazing the lengths you'll go to in order to put up your Army of Strawmen. Do you actually believe your drivel, or are you simply so fundamentally dishonest that you actually imagine that your endless lies about my arguments will fly?

You’re the one excusing Iran’s actions as inconsequential because they don’t yet amount to a 9/11, not I.

No, you're the one who's merely lying about what's actually being argued. Iran's actions clearly do not justify the resort to a large-scale military retaliation no matter how big a hard-on you have for war. The 9-11 Commission says so, the CIA says so, and even a passing review of the facts says so.

Sovereignty does indeed exist by definition, whether you choose to recognise the concept or not; the alternative is international anarchy. And as you cannot demonstrate that the Jerusalem Force can in fact overthrow the government of Iran, you have no argument even by your own twisted standards. And trying to twist the Jerusalem Force's actions into acts of war so serious that it requires a general war as the only response belies both history and rationality, and represents a position not even this cowboy White House is willing to put itself behind.

Sovereignty can’t exist by definition. Declaring oneself inviolate does not make one so. There are responsibilities associated with the claim to nation-hood, one of which is to take responsibility for managing the state of affairs within one’s own borders.

It does according to 300 years of international law and the UN Charter. Dictating via force alone is not recognised as legitimate; elsewise there would have been no case against Saddam Hussein for conquering Kuwait.

And you can stop beating a dead and useless horse, as whether the Jerusalem Force can overthrow Iran is immaterial to whether they pose a threat to others and should thus be restrained by the government of Iran, which is their avowed sponsor.

Your dead horse, actually. Your original argument about Iran's supposed
"loss of sovereignty" was that the central government was in danger of being overthrown by its military forces and this clearly is not so.

The Jerusalem Force aids, abets, and provides for al-Qaeda with the conscious toleration of the Iranian government. That’s aiding the enemy to a point even the blind could see clearly. You’re the only one defying rationality here.

Even that is in doubt according to the CIA's own investigation and the body of the 9-11 Commission's report. The only thing that has been said as a certainty is that the JF had more extensive contacts with Al-Qaeda than Iraq was accused of having. The full extent of JF/AQ cooperation is unknown, and as far as anything involving 9-11 is concerned non-existent. Furthermore, the precise relationship between the Jerusalem Force and the central government is not in the nature of a direct command-and-control structure and shades more towards the Supreme Religious Council rather than the central government. The arrests of Al-Qaeda lieutennants by Iran in the years following 9-11 indicates that whatever relationship did exist between it and the Jerusalem Force may no longer be in force.

Again, it's sort of amazing just how alike the two of you sound.

This is the best you can do? “Wagh, you’re a mean guy!”? Jesus Christ, Deegan. You’re losing your edge.

You come back with a lame-ass rebuttal like that and you presume to accuse anybody else of losing his edge? I guess you really don't like it when the parallels between your own rhetoric and Mr. Hitler's are pointed out.

Irrelevant. Saddam Hussein not only posed no threat, he was utterly incapable of posing a threat, and Iraq under his rule was deterioriating progressively. Regimes do not endure under those conditions; the only question concerning his eventual downfall was when, not if.

And yet Saddam did not comply with demands to allow inspectors free access to his country without the threat of a major invasion force on his borders. So, yes, Deegan, the use of conventional force is absolutely relevant.

The threat of force was already extant in keeping Iraq locked-down following its defeat in Kuwait, and nothing found by the inspectors either before or after the war justified the use of military force a second time. Hussein was incapable of posing a threat. Period.

As for downfalls, “when” is a highly subjective term. Twiddling our thumbs as we wait for change that may or may not occur based on the hopes and dreams of a man like yourself is not good policy.

Why? Why must we resort to war now? What exactly will happen if we do pursue a cold war strategy instead of direct military action? Why is there no time to allow change to develop as a result of forces already at work? What evidence is there of an imminent threat to the national survival of the United States which makes war an imperative now? You've been asked this question repeatedly and you keep tapdancing around the issue with lame bullshit about "not hoping for the best". Well either put up or shut up: what exactly is the reason why a long-term strategy for blunting the effectiveness of Islamic fundamentalism combined with alternating containment and engagement measures unworkable? What makes war the imperative NOW?

[Patrick Degan]

Part Two

A brutally repressive regime supported by America and returned to power through CIA intervention in 1956 after he had been overthrown in favour of Mossadegh. You help make my overall argument for me. Furthermore, Khomeni's attempt to export his Islamic Revolution and anti-American radicalism was a clear failure and has no connection to the independent rising of the present anti-Western radicalism which came in the wake of Gulf War I. Which means you have no effective point in raising this example.

You were wrong about ’91.

Nice little non-answer.

Only in the realm of your psychotic delusions and not in the record of this thread.

Concession accepted, asswipe. I love it. You just ignore whatever you don’t like, don’t you? Can’t admit that you think intervention in 1991 was necessary? Can’t admit that the result was anti-Americanism anyway? Aw, poor baby. Caught in a trap and no way out.

Concession non-existent, shitwit. Intervention became necessary only after the U.S. gave a non-committal answer to Saddam Hussein concerning the U.S. reaction to an attempted conquest of Kuwait. Trying to hide behind a screen of empty bluster avails you nought. Even as the situation turned out, withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Araba proper while leaving forces inside Kuwait would have blunted the propaganda Osama binLaden employed about a permanent occupation of the Holy Land by "the Infidels". And as I had already justified the previous war on the grounds of reversing Saddam Hussein's violation of Kuwait's national sovereignty, you again have no argument whatsoever.

Except Saddam Hussein would not have attempted to invade Kuwait without April Glaspie's essentially greenlighting the event by telling him the U.S would have no interest in the matter, and keeping troops in Saudi Arabia long after Iraq was beaten back and bombed into the Stone Age didn't empower Saudi Arabia to defend itself. Surely, that should have been the function of its own army and air force.

For the millionth time, you dishonest fuckwit, Saddam anticipated an American military response. That’s the only reason so many Republican Guard units were tasked with the initial invasion.

And for the millionth rebuttal, Mr. Delusional Dishonest Fuck, had the United States taken a hardline stance against any attempted invasion of Iraq, Saddam would not have made the move:

Link

August 2002, page 49

Special Report

Tales of the Foreign Service: In Defense of April Glaspie

By Andrew I. Killgore

The U.S. Foreign Service has its full quota of intriguing tales, many of them funny—especially to insiders—but some etched in acid and betrayal. That’s where April Glaspie comes in.

Having served as U.S. ambassador to Iraq since 1987, Glaspie unexpectedly found herself on July 25, 1990 meeting for the first time with Iraqi President Saddam Hussain in Baghdad. She knew Saddam never received foreign ambassadors but there she was just the same, sitting across the desk from the Iraqi strongman.

Glaspie’s own career odyssey as the first American woman ambassador to an Arab country was itself an improbable tale. When she entered the Foreign Service in 1966, her chances as a woman of becoming an ambassador were virtually nil. The State Department “culture” was against it.

Somewhere along the way, however, the Department “discovered” that it had very few woman ambassadors, and even fewer deputy chiefs of missions (DCMs, or deputy ambassadors). So the gender gap was narrowed, and Glaspie, who had an outstanding record (DCM in Damascus and a top political reporting officer citation for 1975), was sent to Baghdad as U.S. ambassador.

Glaspie had had barely a minute’s notice that she would be seeing the Iraqi president. She already was deeply versed in Middle East affairs, however, and particularly on the high tension, and the details of its causes, then roiling relations between Iraq and Kuwait.

She reflected on Iraq’s longstanding grudge against Kuwait which went back to 1899, when Britain took Kuwait “under its protection.” The trouble was that Kuwait was then a part of Iraq’s Basra district, ruled by a tottering Ottoman Empire. When Iraq became independent in 1932, Basra, the newly independent country’s main seaport, no longer included Kuwait. So Iraq felt cheated.

Reflecting on the current crisis, Ambassador Glaspie mentally reviewed Saddam’s case against Kuwait: that it was pumping more oil than its OPEC quota allowed, thus depressing oil prices—and, consequently, Iraq’s income from oil exports. The emirate also was impinging on claimed Iraqi territory in the rich North Rumaila oil field and (not stated publicly) had refused to grant “loans” to Iraq or explicitly cancel loans made to Iraq during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. (In 1988 this writer asked Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Nizar Hamdoon if Iraq had to repay. “They have never mentioned it,” he replied.)

Glaspie knew that Saddam had three army divisions mobilized in the south toward Kuwait. She also recalled that 30 years earlier, in 1961, Iraqi leader Abdul Karim Qassem had provoked a major crisis by publicly proclaiming that Kuwait, just then announcing its independence, could not be independent because it was part of Iraq. Qassem had backed down and that crisis had subsided.

Glaspie remembered Saddam’s reassuring words to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had visited Baghdad to mediate the Kuwait-Iraq crisis. She recalled that Mubarak had returned to Cairo via Kuwait and Riyadh to report that Saddam had sounded reassuring. And she knew that Iraqi and Kuwaiti representatives were to meet in Jeddah under the auspices of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia.

Glaspie made clear that differences should be settled by peaceful means.

At their meeting, the American ambassador explained to Saddam that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts such as Iraq’s border disagreement with Kuwait. She made clear, however, that differences should be settled by peaceful means.

Glaspie’s concerns were greatly eased when Saddam told her that the forthcoming Iraq-Kuwait meeting in Jeddah was for protocol purposes, to be followed by substantive discussions to be held in Baghdad.

In response to the ambassador’s question, Saddam named a date when Kuwaiti Crown Prince Shaikh Sa’ad Abdallah would be arriving in Baghdad for those substantive discussions. (This appears in retrospect to have been Saddam’s real deception.)

Ambassador Glaspie then told Saddam that she was planning to go to the United States. In fact she did leave Baghdad a few days later for a vacation with her mother. She learned in London on Aug. 1 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait.

The July 31 Iraq-Kuwait meeting in Jeddah had broken off almost immediately when Kuwait appeared to offer no concessions to Iraq. Kuwait Ruler Shaikh Jaber’s instructions to Crown Prince Sa’ad Abdallah—as contained (explicitly) in Khadduri and Ghareeb’s War In the Gulf: 1990-1991—were adamantly against any concessions to Iraq. In the past, Kuwait always had propitiated the two giants (Iran and Iraq) on its borders. Its hard line in this instance was a disastrous miscalculation.

For her part, Ambassador Glaspie had handled everything “by the book.” She already had received the State Department’s permission to leave Iraq on vacation before the crisis blew up. After her meeting with Saddam Hussain she again sought, and received, State Department approval to proceed with her vacation plans. Ever since, however, the Department—in an effort to avoid any responsibility for the Iraqi attack on Kuwait—has cruelly disavowed Glaspie.

A Cruel Disavowal

The State Department never offered Glaspie another job requiring confirmation by the U.S. Senate. It never refuted or even commented on Baghdad’s misleading version of the Glaspie/Saddam conversation where Saddam tried, entirely dishonestly, to make it appear that the U.S. had not really opposed the Iraqi attack.

In 1993, then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright struck a gratuitously cruel blow against Glaspie when she ordered Ambassador Glaspie to be out of her office at the U.S. Mission in New York, where Glaspie was then assigned, by the end of that day.

April has recently retired from the State Department. She does not know these words are being written. But she needs someone to speak out for her. Her loyalty to the system is notable. She has never spoken a word against the Department of State or against Secretary of States James Baker, he of the diamond-hard eyes, who might have said—but did not—“We all misjudged Saddam Hussain, and ‘we’ includes me.”

Andrew I. Killgore, a retired foreign service officer and former U.S. ambassador to Qatar, is publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

And

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy

One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)

[url]And:[/url]

excerpt:


Glaspie's appointment followed a period from 1980 to 1988 during which the United States had given covert support to Iraq during its war with Iran (see Iran-Iraq War). Although the extent of U.S. assistance to Iraq during the period has been exaggerated (the Soviet Union was always Iraq's chief ally and arms supplier, followed by France), it was substantial. Its motivation was the belief that the Islamic revolution in Iran posed a greater threat to Western interests than did Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime.

Saddam seems to have assumed that U.S. support for his regime would continue once the war had ended, and that it would extend to approval for his plans to achieve Iraqi domination over the Arab world, beginning with the annexation of Kuwait. Before 1918 Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman province of Basra, and thus in a sense part of Iraq, but Iraq had recognised its independence in 1961. After the end of the Iran-Iraq War (during the course of which Kuwait lent Iraq US$14 billion), Saddam revived Iraq's claim to Kuwait, and fomented disputes over the exact demarcation of the border, access to waterways, the price at which Kuwaiti oil was being sold, and oil-drilling in border areas, to provide a pretext for military action.

It was in the context of this situation that Glaspie had her first meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on July 25 1990. What was said at that meeting has been the subject of much speculation. At least two purported transcripts of the meeting have been published, both apparently based on versions released by Iraq. The State Department has not confirmed the accuracy of these transcripts, and they must be treated with caution.

One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?" Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." Another version of the transcript (the one published in the New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying: "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi [Chadli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly." When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. The transcript, however, does not show any explicit statement of approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion. Indeed Glaspie's opening question ("Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?") would suggest that Glaspie (and presumably therefore also the State Department) did not know the purpose of the troop concentrations and was concerned about them.

The transcript also shows clearly that when Glaspie expressed the hope that the Iraq-Kuwait dispute would be "solved quickly," she meant "solved by diplomatic means." The references to solving this problem "using any suitable methods via Klibi or via Mubarak" make this clear. Nothing Glaspie says in the published versions of the transcript can be fairly interpreted as implying U.S. approval of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

It is possible to ague, however (and many have done so), that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving tacit approval of his annexation of Kuwait. Since it is not now possible to know what was in Saddam's mind, this matter cannot be resolved. Saddam was a dictator who had never visited a western country, and who lived a in a world where disputes were routinely resolved by force. It is therefore quite possible that he wrongly interpreted Glaspie's remarks.

It seems unlikely that Saddam would have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States, but Glaspie can only be criticised for not giving such a warning if it can be established that she knew that Saddam was planning an invasion. There is nothing in the transcripts to suggest this.

The most that can be argued is that, given the Iraqi troop build-up in the Kuwait border area, she should have been instructed by the State Department to give Saddam an explicit warning. Glaspie later testified that she had given Saddam such a warning, but no mention of this appears in the published transcripts. This is hardly surprising since these transcripts were released to further Iraq's ends.

Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in September 1991: "It seems [likely] that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait." Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institute, writing in the New York Times on September 21 2003, disagrees with this analysis: "In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest." James Akins, the American Saudi Ambassador at the time, offered a slightly different perspective, in a 2000 PBS interview: "[Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That's standard. That's what you always say. You would not have said, "Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed." She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat." In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: "We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid." In July 1991 the State Department's spokesperson Rick Boucher said at a press briefing: "We have faith in Ambassador Glaspie's reporting. She sent us cables on her meetings based on notes that were made after the meeting. She also provided five hours or more of testimony in front of the Committee about the series of meetings that she had, including this meeting with Saddam Hussein." The cables that Glaspie sent from Iraq about her meeting with Saddam are apparently still classified.

And:

excerpt:

On July 31 (2 days before the invasion of Kuwait), the US Assistant Secretary of state John Kelly testified on Capitol Hill before the Middle East subcommittee of the House of Representatives. Aimed at clarifying the attitude of the Bush administration to the escalating crisis in the Gulf:

Representative Hamilton: Defense Secretary Richard Cheney has been quoted in the press as saying that the United States was commited to going to the defese of Kuwait if she were attacked. Is that exactly what was said? Could Mr Kelly clarify this?
Assistant Secretary Kelly: .. We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country...
Hamilton: Do we have a commitment to our friends in the Gulf in the event that they are engaged in oil or territorial disputes with their neighbors?
Kelly: As I said, Mr Chairman, we have no defense treaty relationships with any of the countries. We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations...
Hamilton: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait, for whatever reason, what would be our position with regard to the use of US forces?
Kelly: That, Mr Chairman, is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I can't get into. Suffice it to say that we would be extremely concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of "what if" answers.
Hamilton: In that circumstance, is it correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage US forces?
Kelly: That is correct.
Hamilton: That is correct, is it not?
Kelly: That is correct, sir.

(broadcast on the BBC World Service 31 July, 1990)

And:

excerpt:

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was stunned by the vehement response. He had expected a casual reaction from the West to his occupation of Kuwait, based on what U.S. ambassador April Glaspie had told him a week earlier, when she said, "We have no opinions on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Angry journalists confronted Glaspie, clutching copies of the transcript of her session with Saddam, accusing her of giving him carte blanche to take over Kuwait. At one of these sessions a rattled Glaspie replied, "I didn't think . . . the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."

Glaspie soon was removed from her post.

The final statistics show the brief war killed more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers, wounded another 300,000, with 150,000 Iraqi soldiers deserting and 60,000 taken prisoner. The war claimed 148 American lives, another 458 were wounded, and 121 were killed in "non-hostile actions" – victims of "friendly fire." Eleven American women died in combat. The cost of the war to the West has been estimated at between $63 billion and $72 billion US.

And:

Miles Seeley says: "I was puzzled and angered in 1991, and still am, by Ambassador Glaspie's reported remarks to Saddam. I do not know if what she said was an instruction from Washington or her own idea. No Arabist I know, and no one who knew anything about the butcher and warmonger Saddam, would have spoken in that way. Whether intended or not, the remarks led Saddam to believe the US would not interfere if he attacked Kuwait, which he promptly did. It did not take "20/20 hindsight" to figure that out. Therefore, in my view it is not a canard, nor does it "border on libelous" to label her statements a terrible mistake. I understand Messrs Terzian's, and Simon's desire to defend a colleague and the Department of State, but that does not excuse the error".

Ronald Hilton - 2/18/03

And as for the vaunted Republican Guards, they got mauled and were pulled out as quickly as possible under the cover of the oil well fires. Like the rest of his military forces, the Republican Guards were a pathetic joke on the battlefield.

As for Saudi Arabia, their own army and their own air force were pitiful shells before the Americans arrived to aid in their training. In fact, despite our best efforts, they remain mired in corruption and incompetence.

Doesn't say much for our success at transforming the Arabs, does it?

If the nuclear question was the sole reason for a Cold War, there would have been no reason for the United States to engage in copious foreign aid in every region challenged ideologically by communism, nor engagement in brush-wars either through the CIA or directly (and disasterously) in Vietnam. Even without nukes, trying to bring down the Soviet Union militarily was not a practicable option; despite the fact that for the first twenty years of the Cold War, the United States had overwhelming nuclear superiority.

I repeat: a multi-faceted war is not necessarily a “Cold” War. The Cold War was reduced to smaller engagements because of the threat of mutual destruction. The War on Terror isn’t.

Trying to hide behind semantics to avoid the general point won't help your increasingly threadbare position. Once more: the invocation of the term "cold war" refers to strategic approach and not historical example of any previous such long-term engagement.

Nice little non-answer which misses the point.

You make no point. If we don’t pressure Musharraf, we don’t get anywhere anyway.

And if he one day refuses to cooperate with us, what then, shitwit? Bomb Pakistan?

[Vympel]

Patrick, Axis is sure to argue that on PBS Frontline with Tariq Aziz (former PM)

Link

he said:

Q: What was your assessment of what America would do when you moved on Kuwait?

Aziz: Our analysis was that it was foolish of Kuwait to threaten Iraq, if it was not pushed and backed by the United States. How could a tiny emirate like Kuwait challenge Iraq in that way, if it did not agree on that with a super power?

The United States at that period was becoming the sole super power, the Soviet Union was at its weakest point and we knew very well that that was an American plan, because Kuwait could do the economic war....

Q: But then why did you go ahead knowing the Americans would fight a war?

Aziz: We were expecting an Israeli aggression or an American aggression or both, during that period, regardless of whether we go to Kuwait or not. That was our analysis, that was our conviction, that the United States, after the weakening of the Soviet Union, when George Bush started to feel that he's the most powerful leader in the world. He decided to take over this region. He decided to put his hand on the oil reserves. He couldn't do that successfully fully without destroying Iraq and destroying the military power of Iraq and removing this nationalist, patriotic leadership.

So, just to launch a pre-emptive attack on that line of argument:

While we're taking Mr Aziz at his word (and ignoring that the above is after the fact)

Q: And during the build up of American troops in Saudi Arabia, was there discussion among the leadership of 'Let's make a deal, let's back down'?

Aziz: We were reviewing the situation all the time. Whenever there is a political or military development, we used to review the situation, but we didn't think that there will be a change in the strategy and tactics of George Bush and Margaret Thatcher.

You know, at that time, until the resignation of Margaret Thatcher, she was telling everybody that 'we will attack Iraq even if Iraq withdraws from Kuwait,' you know that. She was asking for the dismantling of Iraqi armament even if Iraq withdraws from Kuwait. . .

and

Q: In August or July 1990, if George Bush had said, 'Do not invade Kuwait or we will fight you', what would you have done?
Aziz: We would have told him, tell the Kuwaitis to stop threatening Iraq, to stop their wrong policies, deliberate wrong policies against Iraq and we will not go to Kuwait, very, very simple.

Q: And if they didn't stop?
Aziz: That means that the war has already started and you have to act.

[Kurgan]

About the thread starter. Yes, barring extremely dark humor in very poor taste, yes, that's an idiotic point of view to have.

Sadly there are many people on the internet who appear to parrot this viewpoint: ie: all the world's problems can be solved by big bombs.


While these people may be beyond rational thought and any sense of human decency, I'd ask them:

Did we have perfect peace during the Cold War when we had all the big bombs pointed at everything and everyone?

20th century history is drenched in the blood of millions. Clearly slaughter on a massive scale hasn't done anything to promote peace or stability in the world. We're still fighting and terrorism is still alive and well despite all of the actual USE of the forces that these folks propose we use to "win" the "war on terror."

It's really sad and pathetic. I'm glad that there are still people willing to tell these bomb-happy folks to stfu...

[MKSheppard]

By contrast, Muslims believe in the Shariat to one degree or another as fundamental to any vision of proper government and national identity. They're not looking to overthrow Islam, nor are in fundamental disagreement with the principles of the Faith.

Lets get this back on track.

Do you think a nuklear solution to the Middle East Problem will work? Quite frankly, teh logic is compelling; No country, No problem.

[MKSheppard]

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/a ... storyid=80

Iran Focus

On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.

The sentence was issued by the head of Neka’s Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs’ Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.

In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.

The judge personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her “sharp tongue”.

Hmm, I wonder how hard it would be to surgically remove the Iranian
leadership with a series of initations over Tehran?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

What was the crime?

[MKSheppard]

What was the crime?

Consensual pre-marital sex. The guy got 100 lashes. But because she talked back to the judge, the judge had her hung.

[SirNitram]

By contrast, Muslims believe in the Shariat to one degree or another as fundamental to any vision of proper government and national identity. They're not looking to overthrow Islam, nor are in fundamental disagreement with the principles of the Faith.

Lets get this back on track.

Do you think a nuklear solution to the Middle East Problem will work? Quite frankly, teh logic is compelling; No country, No problem.

If by 'Work' you mean 'Enrage the rest of the billion Muslims in the world into out and out uprising, including in your own territory', then yes. Those who aren't as thick as two short planks got this pages ago.

[MKSheppard]

Those who aren't as thick as two short planks got this pages ago.

Actually, it long ago devolved into a Kast/Degan match with no real
value, so I'm trying to get it back on track.

[Durandal]

By contrast, Muslims believe in the Shariat to one degree or another as fundamental to any vision of proper government and national identity. They're not looking to overthrow Islam, nor are in fundamental disagreement with the principles of the Faith.

Lets get this back on track.

Do you think a nuklear solution to the Middle East Problem will work? Quite frankly, teh logic is compelling; No country, No problem.

Sure it'd work. In the same sense that nuking your state and every other Southern, red-neck state would "work" in eliminating Christian fundamentalism.

[Patrick Degan]

About the thread starter. Yes, barring extremely dark humor in very poor taste, yes, that's an idiotic point of view to have.

Sadly there are many people on the internet who appear to parrot this viewpoint: ie: all the world's problems can be solved by big bombs.

The members of Gen. Onan's Screaming Couch Potato Brigade, you'll find, never have any difficulty fighting any war to the last drop of other peoples' blood.

[Kurgan]

About the thread starter. Yes, barring extremely dark humor in very poor taste, yes, that's an idiotic point of view to have.

Sadly there are many people on the internet who appear to parrot this viewpoint: ie: all the world's problems can be solved by big bombs.

The members of Gen. Onan's Screaming Couch Potato Brigade, you'll find, never have any difficulty fighting any war to the last drop of other peoples' blood.

Harsh, but sadly true... ; p

I've seen the "nuke mecca to stop al qaeda" argument done before, needless to say that wouldn't solve a bloody thing, in fact it would make things far worse.

[MKSheppard]

I've seen the "nuke mecca to stop al qaeda" argument done before, needless to say that wouldn't solve a bloody thing, in fact it would make things far worse.

Not if you do a proper and full laydown. IE, remove the Muslim world
from the face of the earth. We certainly have the nuclear arsenal to
do it; it's just a matter of ruthlessness.

[muse]

Not if you do a proper and full laydown. IE, remove the Muslim world
from the face of the earth. We certainly have the nuclear arsenal to
do it; it's just a matter of ruthlessness.

So ummm...how many time have you read The Big One and Crusade? 50?

[Gandalf]

I've seen the "nuke mecca to stop al qaeda" argument done before, needless to say that wouldn't solve a bloody thing, in fact it would make things far worse.

Not if you do a proper and full laydown. IE, remove the Muslim world
from the face of the earth. We certainly have the nuclear arsenal to
do it; it's just a matter of ruthlessness.

Out of curiosity, how many warheads would that take?

[MKSheppard]

Out of curiosity, how many warheads would that take?

Saudi Arabia would be easy; only 7 Desalination plants provide most of
their water, and most of the population is in cities.

the key point to remember when targeteering is that placing a
device everywhere can be terrifyingly effective in wiping out
a population, you can severely fuck a country up with far
less; so that they fall into a feudal state. For example, did you
know that in America, all of the major cities are just 3-4 days
away from total starvation?

Also, the thermal pulses of the devices will do a lot of damage,
and will severely overwhelm hospital's abilities to care for the
survivors.

[Stark]

Shep advocating mass murder to solve problems? NEVER! I refuse to believe it!

[MKSheppard]

Shep advocating mass murder to solve problems? NEVER! I refuse to believe it!

So what's your solution to solving the problem the Islamic world poses to
civilisation?

Degan has said as much that they won't ever get democracy, Islam does
not permit it; the only true form of government is that ruled by sheriat
law, and we can see how nice that is, in both Iran since 1979 and in
Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Our presence in the Middle East, along with that of Israel is merely a convient
fig leaf that the islamofascists use; if we suddenly withdrew , and Israel disappeared
from the Earth, they'd celebrate for a week, before they started ranting against the
dedacadence of THE GREAT SATAN and how American companies like Pepsi-Cola,
or whoever the fuck is corrupting their countries, and preventing them from acheiving
the perfection of Sheriat law as put down in the Koran.

And I do so love the way that Durandal and the like like to throw out the typical "there
are christian fundies too!" strawmen whenever someone talks honestly about how
fucked up Islamofascism is. Nevermind how people who bomb abortion clinics are
put on trial, and sent away to do hard time; yes, we must be a nation of christian fundies,
nevermind that Judge Moore lost his 10 commandments bullfuckery.

Yes, Durandal, you're right about the evils of Christian Fundamentalism, we must find
and kill Jerry Falwell before he leads his army of fanatical followers onto Washington DC,
to kill all the heathens, and institutes a more perfect Christian government, which starts
with killing all the sodomites. Oh right, I'm sorry, such a thing has.......zero possibility of
ever happening.