Sanding our assholes with 150 grit. Slowly. Lovingly.

Iranian Implication

I picked up the latest copy of Time to shorten my latest flight and read a story about our biggest Iraqi threat.

He's some Iranian whom the U.S. says is working under their government heading a large group of insurgents in Iraq. The report also said that Iranian agents spearheaded an effort during the invasion to flood in and occupy Baathist properties, some cities, and other areas, 'filling the vaccuum left by the invasion'.

It sure sounded a whole lot like laying groundwork for public support of action against Iran. Many of the statements in the report were prefaced with terms like 'unsubstantiated', 'suspected', 'unconfirmed', etc... So why else make the report?

Anyone think we will end up in a tango with Iran?
Permalink I am Jack's infinite id 
August 17th, 2005
If it is the Readers Digest black propaganda then it may well presage some insane attack on Iran. If Iran is attacked it won't hold back and its people aren't demoralised, it wrestled Iraq and spent millions in lives. I doubt the US people have the heart for that kind of war.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 17th, 2005
There are a lot of Iranians that have streamed across the border to have it out with the US and the Iraqis, both of whom they hate with a vengeance.

As far as the nuclear threat goes, I say let every country develop all the nukes they want. But you have to realize that the US will have to abandon our non-proliferation treaties as a result so that we can protect ourselves against this threat.
Permalink Rich Rogers 
August 17th, 2005
> treaties as a result so that we can protect ourselves against this threa

Yes, it's crucial to be able to destory the world another 100 times.
Permalink son of parnas 
August 17th, 2005
The neocons will war with Iran in a heartbeat if they can.

Though, I hope not.
Permalink thompson_gunner 
August 17th, 2005
It's not about destroying the world 100 times. It's about whether every country should be able to make all teh nukes they want. you guys say yes, Iran should be allowed to make all the nukes they want. So I say great, the US should be allowed to make all the nukes they want too.
Permalink Rich Rogers 
August 17th, 2005
I *really* hate the term "neocon" - does it have a literal, useful meaning besides "I hate Bush and his cabinet"?

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 17th, 2005
so neocon is a synonym for Sensible American?
Permalink  
August 17th, 2005
Jack, our boss invited the office over for a BBQ a couple weekends ago. Playing in the background was fox news. Every hour there would be some dramatic agitprop with lots of mushroom clouds describing how we would invade Iran to prevent them from nuking the US. That was about as often as that blond girl still being missing in Aruba.

I'd say the groundwork has already been laid. Of course, we'd need about 2 million troops to occupy the place, and would loose about 100k troops per year. But what the heck, none of the neocons are sending *their* children to die for Halliburton.

Lets check our checklist for invading Ira[q|n]:
WMD on every street corner? Check!
Can launch in 45 min or less? Check!
Will throw flowers at US troops? Check!
Country has oil? Check!
Permalink Peter 
August 17th, 2005
To answer the OP, yeah, we'll see American action against Iran. For now troops are busy though, so until enough Iraqis and Afghans have been bribed and coerced into fighting their countrymen, or a significantly higher number of security functions can be outsourced to third-world soldiers, it'll probably just be calls for harsher sanctions justified by failure to comply with impossible UN inspection programs.
Permalink jz 
August 17th, 2005
Neo-Con has a very precise meaning though its unclear whether those that often use the term mean it quite so precisely.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 17th, 2005
Well, in the words and spirit of Bill Maher..

I'm Swiss.
Permalink I am Jack's infinite id 
August 17th, 2005
"But what the heck, none of the neocons are sending *their* children to die for Halliburton."

See, Peter, I was actually following along until I hit "neocon" - then I discount everything you'd said as a silly "I hate Bush" rant.

To me, it's like writing a treatise on affirmative action, how it hurts the student body, how it devalues the education, then wrapping it up with "and those damn niggers can't read anyway"

It just derails the whole thing. Maybe it's just me?

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 17th, 2005
The US troops are in the middle east to stay. Now, whether that means they stay in Iraq, invade Iran or even some other country (Saudi Arabia), they are there for The Long Haul(TM). This is a direct result of the on-coming world energy crisis (Peak Oil) and is part of the Bush administrations policy of "grab what we can, while we can".

Given our huge dependence on petrol, it doesn't look like its such a bad plan.
Permalink Anon 
August 17th, 2005
Philo:

Anyone in this country who *doesn't* hate Bush at this juncture hasn't been paying attention for the past five years or so.
Permalink Misanthrope 
August 17th, 2005
Pulitzer-winning Seymour Hersh had a pretty unusual segment on the Daily Show, talking a bit about Iran, which people can watch here:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002302.html#002302


Philo, I don't have such a strong reaction to "neocon", but the term that grates on me is "New World Order." It's such a lazy way to waste what's usually an important observation, by plopping a tinfoil hat on it. You always detect a manic overfocus and complete lack of humor, even when the facts are well-researched.

I'm not entirely glad about "neocon" though, as people who use that term are usually skewering more than just the neoconservatives. But whatever turns people on..
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
August 18th, 2005
Saw an article about an Iran war game last year.
http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/archive/14888.html

"After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work."

Presentation that accompanied the war game:
http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200412/2004-12-fallows-iran.pdf
Permalink Joel Goodwin 
August 18th, 2005
Of course Bush wanted to invade Iran. He thought he could stabilize the Iraq situation in a few months, then use that as a base to attack Iran (who really WAS friendly with Al Quaida, I assume).

And I also assume his sabre-rattling (geez, I HATE it when he does that -- threatening military action on other countries if they don't quit developing WMD's) is more of the same.

However, it's taken 2 1/2 YEARS to settle Iraq down, and the job's not done yet. So Iran is probably safe for the immediate future.

And "neo-con", in current parlance, refers to the regrettable tendency certain Republicans have, to drop certain tenets of the Republican party.

You see, Republicans (Conservatives) used to be the party of fiscal responsibility and military restraint. It was the Democrats who got us into Viet-Nam, after all.

The "New Conservatives" now indulge in becoming the world's policeman, and deficit spend in historical proportions. Also, they have left their conservative roots by trying to indulge the Religious Right. The earlier "patrician" Republicans would never have sanctioned the fire-and-brimstone, anti-abortion rights, no-gay-marriage, Creationist, anti-separation of church and state agenda of the red states. They've only done it now because that gives them their majority to implement their other policies.

Now, they still are conservative in their desire for limited regulation, belief that the free market will handle all issues (except when necessary to protect American industry), low taxes, anti-union, anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare/Medicaid.

But the attack-Iraq, fully-fund the military, cut taxes and run a huge deficit so you can SAY you can't afford these social programs, kowtow to the Religious Right -- that stuff is "new" for the Republican party.
Permalink AllanL5 
August 18th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: August, 2005 Other topics: August, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics