Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

Wesley Clark on Iran etc

This is pretty interesting. Would Clark be lying about something like this? Probably not. Is he risking being arrested for distributing classified information? Yes, I think he is, so he must think this is pretty serious to make it worth it.


> I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 30th, 2007 3:56am
On a related subject, here's what I'm thinking about Iran.

Iraq's military defeated Iran in their war.

And the US easily defeated Iraq's military.

Therefore the US would even more easily defeat Iran's military.

Maybe this isn't true, but it probably is, and I bet Bush believes it is true.

Getting in Iran would not be a quagmire the same way it is in Iraq. A lot of violence in Iraq is different factions vying for control. You have lots of Sunnis and lots of Shiites. Plus all sorts of crazy convicts that were let loose from the prisons, who have created street gangs. The Kurds try to stay out of most of this. But then there are Saudi and some Iranian and some Syrian troublemakers running around causing problems. All of these guys think that if they kill enough people maybe their side will gain the upper hand.

Iran is more uniformly Shiite. They have some minorities, but they are just a small percentage and have nothing to gain from creating problems. So they don't. So we would not have that sort of street problems in Iran. However, the religious resistance would be a lot greater than we saw in Iraq. Shiite Ayatollah types would definitely be issuing religious orders in the aftermath to kill all americans no matter the risk, and it would be followed by many.

Even not considering this, even if success is a sure thing, I think it's a bad idea to go in there just because they are zero threat to the US and the US needs to stop fucking with people for lots of reasons. there's the blowback issue, but ultimately it's just none of our fucking business what Iran does.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 30th, 2007 4:48am
It doesn't matter what the administration wants to do, the simple fact is that some things cannot possibly get done.

We'd be like oodles of trillions of dollars in debt or so, if we tried to accomplish that, there would have to be a major draft, etc.  About the only way we could do it is if the Iraqis fought it for us.  hehe.
Permalink Send private email LinuxOrBust 
July 30th, 2007 4:55am
ultimately I agree with you.

I do believe, even now, that the US could take Iran out in a straight war....we seriously rock at blowing shit up and killing people...

I dont think we would have a hope of actually occupying Iran, and I dont think we would achieve anything positive by invading Iran.

ultimately though, we wont invade Iran.

All this talk from the administration and related republican mouths about invading Iran is to achieve one thing only.
it is designed to make the idea of simply bombing the shit out of their nuclear factories seem moderate and reasonable by comparison.

the argument is going to be made thusly:

they are absolutely insane, mad killers, they are terrifying religious nuts, we should kick out their government, we should invade their country, they are constantly killing their own people, they are evil incarnate, we could take out their country by attacking from this direction, we should do it, they are deliberately provoking us, we would be stupid NOT to invade their country, they are paying the terrorists, we MUST invade their country, they are killing innocent Iraqis, OMIGOD you cowardly bastards MUST let us invade their country.  THATS IT WE"RE GOING TO INVADE THEIR COUNTRY NOW!

whats that?  oh, ok.  hey, how about we just bomb the snot out of them?

Permalink pondBacterium 
July 30th, 2007 4:58am
You have a point there, maybe that is the plan.

You know what I used to think was going on?

Now this was before I saw Wesley Clark's thing about we are going to attack Lebanon and 6 other countries (Lebanon, that's a serious WTF), which makes no sense as a plan at all, it's just crazed. The plan to piss off all muslims forever? Crusades 2002? What the hell were they thinking? I thought Bush went in to Iraq mostly to avenge his father's miserable failure there, but what is with attacking half the countries in the middle east?

So that kind of screws up my main theory, but here it is anyway.

Iran's new charismatic, cunning and deranged president is blah blah "Israel must die" and "Let's have a Holocaust didn't happen conference" and other stupid shit. So Israel is really provoked over this. But see, that's the whole clever plan by Adjzidimadawad. Provoke Israel to strike first, then play the popular 'Jews attacked us' card that goes over so well politically in the middle east.

So this makes Israel real unhappy about Iran's nuclear work since if Iran has nukes they theoretically are a threat to Israel. So Israel is going to take them out. Saudi hears about this and doesn't like any of it, who want's to deal with the fallout, political or radioactive? They talk to Bush and say "Bush, you gotta control your Jews!" And he says "I'll talk to them" and Israel sees this as a good thing since they don't really want to do this anyway, it would be a LOT better for them if the US would do it instead. So they play Bush and say "Oh we are gonna do it!" and Bush says "Just hold on a bit and we'll take care of it for you." and they are like "Well, OK, but only because you insist."

The basic problem here is that Bush doesn't understand things, he delegates, and the guys he delegates to are interested in their own personal agendas involving profit, control, or just general evil chaos. There are definitely elements in the US government that would love to see a global nuclear war that kills everyone on the planet, just because it's never been done before and it's an abstract kewl toy for their egos.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 30th, 2007 5:14am
Getting back to the 'could we win' element, I think the focus on 'can we win in iran' is the wrong question. It's like me asking "Can I shoot the president?" or "Can I burn down the neighbor's house while he is at work?" or "Can I lure teen girls to a secret lair and cannibalize them?" Sure, the answer to all these is 'why yes I can', but obviously it would be very very stupid and evil to do any of these things and 'I know that I can do it' is not a very good reason at all to do anything, it's about the stupidest possible reason. Likewise, just being able to bomb the shit out of Iran and spend another trillion dollars is a stupid ass non-reason to do it.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 30th, 2007 5:19am
And getting back to my previous Israel puppet show theory, you know Bush's list of 7 countries is almost a perfect list of the top countries that Israel has issues with and would like to fight.

(The exception being Libya I think, Libya was taken off the list after Qaddafi 'spilled the beans' about Iraq's WMD etc... which proved to be maybe a honey pot, do you think?)
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 30th, 2007 5:27am
"you know Bush's list of 7 countries is almost a perfect list of the top countries that Israel has issues with and would like to fight."

yes, it is.  I no longer believe that is coincidence in the slightest.  the obvious influence groups like AIPAC(sp?) have had on american foreign policy is impossible to refute.

The more I think about what happened the more I see a 'perfect storm' of incompetence, greed, malice, stupidity and manipulation.

the main participants seem to be oil moguls, israel, PNAC as the main contenders with a back drop of the shiite and sunni oriented countries in the middle east...Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and so forth.

Its fascinating how the desires of the PNAC, the Oil Moguls and Israel all seem to dovetail on the middle east.
I believe that bush was successfully convinced that the middle east..more specifically Iraq...was a necessary step also for american foreign policy.

911?  I dont particularly believe in Al Queda or 911.  Al Queda denied responsibility initially, which surprises me...usually terrorists are entirely happy to take responsibility.
But regardless, if you have sufficient resources its not hard to find a bunch of religious nutters and convince them that they should kill themselves for their cause...all you need to do is convince them that your beliefs are aligned with theirs.
Or maybe the attack was real, who knows, but either way there is no question it opened the gates to the existing 'perfect storm' of conditions.

Once they had their chance, they took it...all that pressure was aligned and pointed at the white house, and bush was persuaded one way or another.

I think the pressure has been blocked one way or another...the US army is clearly on the verge of either collapse or outright revolt, the ideas and plans for building a democracy from the PNAC that were attempted in Iraq have failed completely, bush has maybe understood that there are no WMD and almost certainly never were any, Israel is maybe discovering that the removal of Saddam has actually increased their danger by removing a danger to Iran, the Oil Moguls appear to have lost their bid for Iraqi oil...the Iraqi government is proving very resistant to allowing them access...

so far, total failure.

what is the next step for bush?  follow the vision and push ahead into the other countries?  hold and admit (to himself if to no one else) a mistake?

Israel is desperate for something to counter Irans growing strength, Saudi Arabia is increasingly nervous of Iran, the unrest in Iraq is almost certainly pushed along one way or another by Iran. The Oil Moguls would have another chance at convincing Iraq that they should acquiesce.

Its really not a hard case to make, if only the army and the US public could be convinced.

What would be required? I think a thorough bombing of the infrastructure would be sufficient, and might even work as a push for the Iranians to get rid of their bosses.

I think bush will do it if no other way out presents itself.
Permalink pondBacterium 
July 30th, 2007 6:18am
> Libya was taken off the list after Qaddafi 'spilled the beans' about Iraq's WMD etc.

tru! Qaddafi made off like a Tripolian pirate. that's what happens when you make an Iphigenian sacrifice. but where are the Homeric gods?
Permalink worldSmallestViolin 
July 30th, 2007 6:53am
reference for those trying to folllow along...

Permalink Practical Economist 
July 30th, 2007 7:09am
Compare and contrast:

Permalink Practical Economist 
July 30th, 2007 7:11am
There was a favela song .. "The girl from Iphigenia." It wasn't as successful as the beach version for some reason.
Permalink worldSmallestViolin 
July 30th, 2007 7:33am
Ipanema... but you knew that.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 30th, 2007 7:40am
that's the successful doppleganger.
Permalink worldSmallestViolin 
July 30th, 2007 7:41am
>Iraq's military defeated Iran in their war.
It was a stalemate. The US was supplying weapons and intelligence to Iraq, and Iraq still managed to tie for second place. As saint ronnie said "a pox on both their houses."

>Getting in Iran would not be a quagmire the same way it is in Iraq.
In Iraq, there were groups who benefitted from a US invasion (the shiites and kurds spring to mind). In Iran there will be no such groups outside of the kurds. The minor differences some ethnic groups have now will disappear as the Great Satan invades. You're talking about invading a country that thought nothing of charging machine guns until they melted, or sending children to tap dance across mine fields. A US invasion of Iran would be as useful as the German attack on Stalingrad. To successfully invade Iran would take about 10-15 million US soldiers, which is about 10x the size of the US military. If all you want to do is kill lots of "sand niggers" or "camel humpers" then yes, we can nuke them, but since there are lots of valleys and other terrain features, we'd have to use up far more nukes than if the place were flat.

Further, 5% of world oil exports come from Iran. The last time their oil production went offline (in 1979), world oil prices only doubled as Saudi oil was able to take up about half the lost oil production. There is no surplus Saudi oil production to take up the slack this time. Almost every leasable oil rig in the world is over in KSA at this time, and they still haven't managed to budge their production up at all. Gwahar is in decline, and they aren't going to be able to hide it much longer - 30% of what comes up at the wellhead is water from injection.

Iran has 3 times the population of Iraq and 4 times the land area. Unlike Iraq, Iran occupies 3 dimensions.

>Now this was before I saw Wesley Clark's thing about we are going to attack Lebanon and 6 other countries (Lebanon, that's a serious WTF), which makes no sense as a plan at all, it's just crazed.
If you look at it from the viewpoint of US security, then yes, it is insane. If you look at it from the viewpoint of Israeli security, then that explains why Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya and Syria are on that list. If you look at the list from an evangelical/Left_Behind viewpoint, then you'd include Sudan, Somalia and Iraq.
Permalink Peter 
July 30th, 2007 9:58am
Iraq's military didn't "defeat" Iran in their war.  After 8 years, Iraq gave up in exhaustion.  If they HAD "defeated" Iran, the First Gulf War would have been to free Iran, not Kuwait.

I mean, you need to be careful when you're re-remembering history.  Otherwise, you might learn the wrong lessons.  Again.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 30th, 2007 10:16am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics