I sought out Martin Kramer in Jerusalem because I knew he would give me an analysis well outside the box on Iranian nuclear weapons. He’s a scholar, not a politician or pundit. And while he certainly has his opinions, he doesn’t conveniently fit into anyone’s ideological category.
I was not disappointed, and I don’t think you will be either. What he has to say is different from anything you’ve read from anyone in the media, including me.
MJT: I assume you read Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic this summer. He asked dozens of Israeli decision-makers and analysts if they think Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities, and the consensus seems to be that the odds are greater than fifty percent that it will happen before the middle of summer in 2011. What do you think?
Martin Kramer: It’s in Israel’s interest to convince the world that the decision-makers are leaning in that direction. The idea is to prompt somebody else to take action, in particular the Obama administration. So there’s a debate about whether or not Jeffrey has been spun.
MJT: Yes, and he mentioned that himself.
Martin Kramer: The whole purpose of spinning Jeffrey Goldberg — assuming that’s what happened — was to prod the United States into taking a more forward position. Americans are taking a forward position already, but the idea here would be to multiply the effect.
But I don’t know. I haven’t spoken to all the people Jeffrey talked to, and there are a lot of variables that we don’t know yet. The timeline is open to question. The intelligence is also being debated. So while I wouldn’t put a percentage on it, plans are definitely on the table. If the Unites States doesn’t act, the moment will come when a decision will have to be made. We don’t know what the arguments will be or in which ways the calculations will shift between now and then. Israel has the option, though, and it’s on the table. I wouldn’t say the odds are greater than fifty percent, but it’s a credible option.
Martin Kramer
MJT: What do you think Iran would actually do with a nuclear bomb?
Martin Kramer: The Iranians have a structural interest in creating doubt and uncertainty in the Persian Gulf. They have a larger population than any other Gulf state, and they don’t have the share of oil resources that Saudi Arabia has. So their first objective would be to create a climate of uncertainty.
Now, the Persian Gulf has been — since the United States took over from the British — a zone that is essentially under an American security umbrella. It is as crucial to American security as Lake Michigan. The United States doesn’t use most of the oil coming out of the Gulf, but its allies do, so the stability of the Gulf has been associated with a steady flow of oil and a price that moves within a predictable range.
The US Air Force flies over Kuwait after Saddam Hussein set the oil wells on fire
Iran wants to create uncertainty there because oil is the only thing it has. Iran has nothing else — some carpets and pistachio nuts, and that’s it. Their population continues to grow, their needs continue to grow, and their grand ambitions continue to grow. So this, I think, is the first thing they would do with it. All it takes is to create a crisis or a succession of crises.
Iran knows it can’t wrest sole hegemony in the Gulf from the United States, but it wants to create a kind of dual hegemony shared with the United States. Nobody knows where the lines would run, but they wouldn’t run just five to ten miles off the coast of Iran into the waters of the Persian Gulf. Iran would like to see its share extend to both sides of the Gulf, to effectively create a kind of push and shove between the United States and Iran.
Khezr Beach, Iran, Persian Gulf
A lot of people on the Arab side of the Gulf will say they feel Iran’s breath on their faces. The United States is there now, but the British were there once, too, and now they’re gone. The Persians are always there and will always be there. So we’ll see a lot of hedging. Iran would be perceived as the rising power and the United States a declining power.
Don’t assume that in the Persian Gulf they don’t hear what we say about this. Obama was famously photographed holding a copy of Fareed Zakaria’s book The Post-American World
MJT: You’re talking about the Arabs here.
Martin Kramer: Yes, the Arabs. And this creates a dynamic where if Iran also has nuclear weapons they will increasingly hedge. Things they allow Americans now — such as basing rights for operations in the Persian Gulf and beyond — will become more and more difficult to negotiate if Iran opposes them. So we would see an erosion of the American position in the Persian Gulf.
I think Iran is a lot less interested in justice for the Palestinians than in establishing their command over the gulf they call Persian.
The Persian Gulf
MJT: We call it the Persian Gulf, too.
Martin Kramer: For reasons of geographic exactitude and custom. But Americans don’t mean it should be dominated by Iran.
MJT: Right.
Martin Kramer: The Iranians do. That’s the longer term objective. And like I said, they’re less interested in justice for the Palestinians than they are in this. They remind me a bit of Saddam Hussein. He said at one point that he would burn half of Israel, yet turned around and instead burned a lot of Kuwait. He wasn’t as interested in being admired by the Palestinians as he was about controlling resources. The Gulf is always very much a resource game. So that would be the first objective of the Iranians. But, of course, Iran also wants to wage proxy wars elsewhere.
MJT: They do have interests in the Levant [the Eastern Mediterranean].
Martin Kramer: They have interests in the Levant, but there’s nothing here that can solve their fundamental problems, which is the mismatch of population and resources. Their game in the Levant is to get around America’s flank. They see Israel as an extension of America, but it’s not their primary area of interest.
Obviously, though, they have an ideological interest here, and they’re willing to fight Israel to the last Lebanese Shiite, but it’s an open question how much they’d be willing to sacrifice themselves directly.
So that’s why I think Iranian nuclear weapons are a world problem as much as, or even more than, they are an Israeli problem.
MJT: The Persian Gulf is certainly more of a world problem than an Israeli problem.
Martin Kramer: Israel has to take it seriously, though. After listening to Iran’s discourse, Israel can’t rule out the possibility that even a small faction could get their finger on the trigger.
It’s a world problem, though, and the world has to ask itself if it can tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran deliberately creating uncertainty, instability, and doubt surrounding the great reservoir of the world’s energy. If a coalition ever comes together to stop Iran, this will be the reason.
The Levant
MJT: What do you think will happen in the Levant if Iran builds a bomb? Will wars with Hezbollah and Hamas be more or less likely, and peace with the Palestinians more or less likely?
Martin Kramer: Those are two separate issues.
MJT: Yes, but they’ll both be affected.
Martin Kramer: Right. It will certainly create a situation where there would be an expectation among the supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas that Iran would act to come to their defense by using its nuclear capabilities to threaten Israel, but I’m not sure Iran wants to do that. We saw during the last Lebanon war that the timing of the crisis was not to Iran’s liking. The Iranians would not have chosen the summer of 2006 to have Hezbollah in a crisis with Israel.
Hezbollah's Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah (left) and its deceased commander Imad Mugnieh (right)
MJT: They were angry about it.
Martin Kramer: They view the Levant as an arena that can be integrated into their larger strategy, not so they can support a strategy that has been independently formulated by Hezbollah. Hezbollah doesn’t deliberately formulate an independent strategy, but Hamas certainly does.
If Iran decides to take the route that Israel and Japan have taken—either nuclear ambiguity or being one screw away from having a bomb—it would be less subject to moral extortion by the extremists in the Levant who would act unilaterally and expect Iran to come to their aid. So an ambiguous scenario wouldn’t increase the possibility of warfare, but if Iran becomes an explicit and open nuclear state, that’s a different story. Even the United States and the Soviet Union went on nuclear alert over an Arab-Israeli war. But you never know. Knowing in advance that it could lead to that kind of escalation, there might be mechanisms which would kick into action before things reached that level.
I do think a nuclear Iran creates a dynamic where Israel, from a strategic point of view, is compelled to keep a tight grip on Jerusalem and a large swath of the West Bank for the simple reason that it creates a deterrent to an Iranian attack. If all our strategic assets are concentrated on the coastal plain around Tel Aviv, we’re vulnerable. An Iranian ayatollah, Rafsanjani, has already noted that Israel is vulnerable to one strike. So how to we change that calculation?
A big country like the United States disperses its assets across a vast continent when facing nuclear adversaries. A small state can’t do that. But within this small state is a prime Muslim holy place, the liberation of which is championed by the Iranians, and it’s in Jerusalem.
The Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, the third holiest site in the Islamic world after Mecca and Medina
So if Israel faces a real nuclear adversary that threatens its destruction and has Islamic fervor as the basis of its ideology—one that holds up Jerusalem as a symbol—it will make all the sense in the world to concentrate every strategic asset it can right next to it.
The Israeli leadership has built a duplicate command center in Jerusalem exactly like the one it has in Tel Aviv in the Ministry of Defense. So why stop at the top brass and the political leadership if you know that over the long term we’ll face a hostile nuclear adversary? It makes sense to load up Jerusalem with strategic assets which would themselves serve as a deterrent to a future exchange. And it’s a lot easier to do than position submarines in the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean.
So the long term effect would be to make Jerusalem central to Israel not only for political and cultural reasons, but also for strategic reasons. That doesn’t mean all kinds of arrangements can’t be made on the ground between Israelis and Palestinians about the day-to-day running of the city. In the past, Israel was concerned about holding the Jordan Valley as its eastern front against an invading conventional army.
The view to the east toward the Jordan Valley from Mount Scopus in Jerusalem
In a nuclear scenario the city itself would become crucial to preventing an adversary from striking a decisive blow which would render it no longer viable as a state. The idea is to persuade that adversary that even if there is a strike against Israel’s concentration of population, Israel will still remain viable.
MJT: It sounds, though, like this would make resolving the conflict with the Palestinians much more difficult.
Martin Kramer: Yes.
MJT: I figured we’d agree, but can you explain why you think that’s the case?
Martin Kramer: If there’s a shift of Israel’s assets from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the struggle over real estate up here becomes even more acute. There will be less leeway for Israeli concessions. Concessions are difficult to make in any case. Local security issues can be, in way or another, finessed, but once they play out in this mega arena of confrontation between nuclear states, flexibility diminishes quickly. It would create tremendous pressure on Israel to maintain its right to decide the future of different pieces of turf close to the city.
I took this photograph of Jerusalem from the West Bank. That's how close it is.
In the past we had the idea that in order for Israel to remain viable we had to settle the Negev Desert and the Galilee because they have large Arab populations.
Eilat, Israel, on the Red Sea at the bottom of the Negev Desert
That was never for religious reasons, it was always for strategic reasons. A nuclear Iran would create strategic calculations for Jerusalem that weren’t there before. There were always other strategic calculations for Jerusalem, but this would create a powerful new one. What would the Israelis and Palestinians discuss at the table once that became a factor?
Linkage is a big issue, but there’s a debate over which way linkage runs. Some say a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would make it much easier for the United States to deal with Iran. But I think the absence of a solution to the Iranian nuclear dilemma places a high premium on Israel holding if not the totality of the occupied territories, at least a sizable bit of real estate around Jerusalem as a strategic reserve.
I say this as someone who has always believed there would be some way to compromise over Jerusalem, but when I see the prospect of a nuclear Iran on the horizon threatening Israel, I say to myself that I want as many of Israel’s strategic, demographic, industrial, and technological assets in and around the city as possible.
MJT: So what do you say to people who prioritize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over Iranian nuclear weapons?
Martin Kramer: I’d like to know more about how this is supposed to affect Iran’s calculations. I don’t think it will. I think they decided long ago that they want to have a hegemonic role enhanced by nuclear capability. A resolution of the conflict here wouldn’t deter them or persuade them from that ambition. On the contrary, they would believe that Israel would grow stronger and would be even more of a threat than it is today. They’re going to pursue this track no matter what.
The theory is that a resolution to the conflict would make it easier to mobilize Arab support.
MJT: Right.
Martin Kramer: But how much Arab support does the United States need that it doesn’t already have? Support from the Gulf Arabs is already guaranteed. They see Iran as a threat directed more at them than at anyone else.
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Persian Gulf
MJT: They do.
Martin Kramer: The Arabs who could conceivably be swayed are the Arabs of Egypt and the Levant, but it’s difficult to envision a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would satisfy all of them. Quite a few formulas will alienate lots of them.
And the question is: are they really necessary? Is it that important to have the so-called Arab street? It’s extremely difficult to turn the Arab street into a strategic asset. Nasser tried to do it. Saddam Hussein tried to do it. Ahmadinejad is trying to do it. Erdogan is trying to do it. It’s flattering, I suppose, to have your poster on walls here and there, but nobody has found a way to turn that into something they can use, and I don’t think the United States has much prospect of doing so either. It’s an intangible.
A nuclear Iran, on the other hand, would be tangible. So I think linkage, in fact, runs the other way.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict only has a chance of being resolved if the Levant can be disconnected from the Gulf. So we have to deal with the Iranian issue first.
Look at the history of the Middle East since the creation of Israel to the present. We have had two separate periods. The first lasted from 1948 until the late 1970s. During this period we had a war between Israel and the Arabs every decade. The Gulf region was stable. The British were there. There was always a concern that the conflict between Israel and the Arabs might create a ripple effect in the Gulf, and it finally happened in 1973 when they cut off the oil.
Then the United States changed its policy. The Americans said they were going to support Israel so staunchly that the Arabs would despair of ever achieving victory and would therefore have no choice but to sign peace agreements. And that’s what happened.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (left) shakes hands with Jordan's King Hussein (right)
Since 1973 there has been no state-to-state war in the Levant. We’ve had intifadas, we’ve had wars between Israel and non-state actors, but we haven’t had the devastation of a state-to-state war. And the oil hasn’t been shut off since then. The oil only gets cut off as an act of solidarity between states, not as an act of solidarity with the PLO, Hamas, or Hezbollah.
So we now have an architecture that works in the Levant, but the Gulf has experienced a succession of wars. The Gulf now destabilizes the region. It has seen the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the latest Iraq war, and who knows what’s to come. And we’ve seen that the instability in the Persian Gulf region has a ripple effect in the Levant. It goes the other way now, and it’s a consequence of the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
Israel is the stake that has been planted in the Levant. Because it’s powerful, it puts a high premium on rationality among all those who surround it. It serves as the basis for the security architecture.
When the British left the Gulf in the early 1970s, the Americans weren’t in a position to pick it up because they were busy in Vietnam. They had their dual pillars in the Gulf, Iran and Saudi Arabia, but one of them collapsed in 1979. And since that collapse, there has been no equivalent of Israel in the Gulf which the United States could use as a fulcrum around which to organize a region. So the pillar of stability has been the American deployment of its own forces again and again and again. They’ve put millions of boots on the ground, and it’s still not enough.
So here in the Levant we’re feeling the wash from the long-term destabilization of the Gulf. It is America’s primary interest to keep these as two separate regions. The regional hegemon needs to make sure there is no cross-contamination between them.
Tel Aviv, Israel
The regions used to be separate. During the British time, the Levant was run from London and the Persian Gulf from India. The Levant was called the Near East, and the Gulf was called the Middle East. These were two distinct zones. We’ve conflated them in the meantime, and it’s in the interest of the United States to disaggregate them again and to keep them disaggregated. Any attempt to project power from one into the other undermines the position of the regional hegemon. That was true when Saddam Hussein fired missiles at Israel, and it’s true when Iran sends missiles to Hezbollah. It’s always the radicals who do the bridging. The same was true with Nasser.
And it compels others to do the same. If Israel acts over the head of the United States against Iran, it will be just the latest example. It’s something the United States can’t afford. It means that every time we have a problem in the Levant, it will create problems for the United States in the Gulf, and vice versa.
MJT: How can the United States drive a wedge between the two regions?
Martin Kramer: That’s easy. The U.S. just has to say that it supports its Israeli ally to keep order in its arena, and the U.S. will take responsibility for keeping order in its arena. Just effectively divide responsibility. If the U.S. flags in its resolve to do that, it will be under pressure from those who are tempted to act outside their arena.
My friend Steve Rosen at Harvard once said it would be shameful if the United States were to leave it to Israel to do what it should do in the Gulf. The Persian Gulf is an area of world interest where America plays the guarantor role.
U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf
If Israel has to act as the guarantor in the Gulf, it will be a sign that America has dodged its responsibility.
MJT: The Gulf Arab states are not-so quietly hoping Israel will do it if the U.S. does not.
Martin Kramer: They’re looking for someone, anyone, to do it.
MJT: They’re the ones who should be the most worried. We don’t hear much about this from the Arab states in North Africa. They don’t have as many reasons to be concerned.
Martin Kramer: That’s a separate area altogether.
MJT: Egypt is sort of a bridge, though, isn’t it? Cairo sides to a certain extent with Israel against Hamas, and we know Mubarak isn’t thrilled about what’s happening in Tehran.
Cairo, Egypt
Martin Kramer: The main problem with Egypt is that its own regional role has been so much diminished. Not only can Egypt no longer project power beyond its borders as it did in Nasser’s days, it can barely control events inside its national borders as we’ve seen in the Sinai. Egypt clearly resents the rise of Iranian power. They don’t necessarily trust anyone as a counterweight. Their approach all along has been that they don’t want a nuclear Iran, but that the way to go about it is to de-nuclearize Israel as part of a grand bargain. They would achieve two goals at once. Both Iran and Israel would be cut down a peg.
MJT: Do you think that’s their sincere approach? Egyptian officials will say this in public, but what do they really think?
Martin Kramer: I think there’s no question they’d like the United States to play the role. They’d much rather have the U.S. take the lead than Israel. They know what everyone knows—the United States would do it much more effectively.
MJT: Of course.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University
Martin Kramer: There would be nothing worse than a botched or half-complete operation. There’s a very strong preference that the U.S. take care of this, among the Gulf Arabs and the Egyptians.
MJT: And, of course, among the Israelis.
Martin Kramer: It’s absolutely central to the strategy to maintain this division. And the only way to maintain it is for the United States to demonstrate tomorrow that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons or to allow Israel to act unilaterally. The Gulf is a zone of American dominance, and the only way to assert that is to do what Carter did with the Carter Doctrine, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. He said there should be no outside power or local power that is allowed to challenge the United States in the Gulf. And a nuclear Iran clearly crosses that line.
If even Jimmy Carter was compelled to issue a doctrinal statement in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan about the Persian Gulf, one would think that Barack Obama would see the need to do something similar. Obama should especially feel compelled to do so because there’s a question mark there. He should declare the Persian Gulf a nuclear-free zone. It’s too much to talk about the Middle East as a nuclear-free zone at this time, but the Persian Gulf is nuclear-free now, and it’s time for the United States to come out and say it should remain nuclear-free.
U.S. President Barack Obama
MJT: I have a hard time imaging Obama doing anything of the sort.
Martin Kramer: Yeah. Well.
MJT: But I suppose one never knows.
Martin Kramer: It would be an astonishing lapse if a man who promised to roll back nuclear proliferation watched proliferation develop in one of the least stable parts of the world, a place where the United States has only been able to maintain even a modicum of stability by a massive projection of its own forces. The region is of prime interest to the entire world for its energy resources. If it becomes nuclearized, it will be the one thing for which Barack Obama would always be remembered by history, and he would be remembered by history as a failure.
Martin Kramer is a fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a visiting scholar at Harvard University. He is the author of Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America
*
I found cheap places to stay in the Middle East, but airfare was expensive, and I still haven’t recouped my costs. I really can’t work as a correspondent without serious help from my readers to cover travel expenses, so please help me out.
You can make a one-time donation through Pay Pal:
Alternatively, you can make recurring monthly donations. Please consider choosing this option and help me stabilize my expense account.
If you would like to donate yet don’t want to send money over the Internet, please consider sending a check or money order to:
Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312
Many thanks in advance.
Is Jerusalem really the third-holiest site in Islam? I have no knowledge of the topic, but I’ve read that Shia Islam places greater importance on the tombs of the saints and imams.
It sounds, though, like this would make resolving the conflict with the Palestinians much more difficult.
Why do people persist in speaking of conflict resolution with the Palestinians when this is precisely not what the Palestinians want?
More precisely, when “conflict resolution” means, for the Palestinians, the disappearance of Israel.
Or if it’s still not clear: The disappearance of Israel is the definition, for the Palestinians, of “conflict resolution”.
That and nothing else.
“Conflict resolution” is a magnificent distraction, which enables the pressure against Israel to build up (from all sides) and which enables Israel’s enemies (including her “partners in peace”) to get stronger.
“Conflict resolution” is a tactical ploy by Israel’s enemies to increasingly delegitimize Israel by making it appear as thought they are interested in peace, even while making non-negotiable demands which would lead to the destruction of Israel (which is why they can’t be implemented unless Israel agrees to self-destruct).
“Conflict resolution” is, in brief, a Trojan horse. It is Czecho-Slovakia, round 2.
And it’s why the conflict will continue, must continue. Abd it’s why the Palestinians see quite clearly that it in their interest that the conflict continue.
Until Israel is gone.
And so one must once again ask:
Why do people persist in speaking of conflict resolution with the Palestinians when this is precisely not what the Palestinians want?
Barry Meislin: Why do people persist in speaking of conflict resolution with the Palestinians when this is precisely not what the Palestinians want?
Denial.
Anyway, some of them do want a reasonable resolution to the conflict. They aren’t a monolith. Maybe someday most of them will want it. I don’t expect that to happen any time soon, but I do expect it will happen eventually.
Mr Totten,
How inconsiderate of you to post such an interestin article just when I have to go out.
Is Jerusalem really the third-holiest site in Islam?
Yes, but it’s a bit of a nonsensical claim. My recollection is that the Prophet’s spirit is said to have ascended to heaven from God’s holiest temple, which was later interpreted to be the Temple of Solomon… the Temple Mount. So when Muslims invaded the Holy Land, they built a mosque on that location which is now Islam’s third holiest place. Since neither the Prophet nor his followers ever made it to the Holy Land during his lifetime, I have trouble understanding how the Temple Mount could have been designated an Islamic Holy Site. It seems a bit like Hindus claiming the Vatican one of their most important spiritual centers or something equally silly. Maybe the Jews should claim Medina, just to get even.
Craig – al Aqsa wasn’t originally constructed as a mosque, more a of a tourist/pilgrimage attraction built to compete for revenue with Mecca. It also served the purpose of establishing Islamic dominance. Islamic invaders have always converted or usurped the structures of pre-existing cultures, often turning them into mosques in order to forever deny access to them by the native culture. Even the Kaaba was originally a pagan shrine. The Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple-palace, which like many of India’s temples, palaces, etc., was turned into a tomb.
As for Medina, what would you say if I told you it was a Jewish city? Yathrib aka Medina was founded by Jews. It remained a Jewish-dominated city until Muhammad showed up.
The point is that even using the term “conflict resolution” is to misrepresent the situation.
Just as using the term “peace talks” is a perverted misrepresentation of reality.
Or “negotiations”. Or “peace” for that matter.
Perversions all. Obfuscations all.
And all with the same deluding effect.
“Islamic invaders have always converted or usurped the structures of pre-existing cultures, often turning them into mosques in order to forever deny access to them by the native culture.”
Christians did the same. Many churches are on the sites of pagan temples.
Christians did the same. Many churches are on the sites of pagan temples.
Did you just make that up, Don? As far as I can recall from my reading of history, the only people in Europe who were converted to Christianity by force were the continental Saxons… at the hands of Charlemagne in the 8th century. Can you list some pagan Saxon temples that were converted into Churches?
You know, Don, it isn’t always necessary to say “everyone else does it too”. Christianity was not spread by the sword.
Israel’s been ringing the alarms about Iran since 1992. In fact, Iran was one of the Israeli justifications for the signing the ill-fated Oslo Accords – to quickly stabilize the Levant with peace agreements in preparation for the Persian menace.
I disagree with Mr. Kramer on Obama. If anyone should take responsibility for the current situation, it’s GWB and Bill Clinton since most of this developed on their watch.
“The Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple-palace, which like many of India’s temples, palaces, etc., was turned into a tomb.”
This is not true. The Taj Mahal was built as a mausoleum by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan between 1630 and 1648.
Where did you hear that it was originally a Hindu temple?
I find it interesting and darkly amusing that two intelligent men can have this discussion without reference to the core fear that drives the discussion. Iranian hegemony, linkage between the Near and Middle East, unstable nuclear players–everything but the plain expression of the true horror only hinted at by the image of American jets flying over burning wells deliberately set alight by an unstable player.
A nuclear exchange in the Persian Gulf would result in factories shut down and lights out in the West. Perhaps permanently. Red Adair and his crew can snuff burning wells. Nuclear contamination of a large part of the world’s oil reserves is another matter. Put their backs to the wall and the mullahs wouldn’t hesitate.
The imperative for the west has been clear since nine-eleven-oh-one. Drill, drill, drill, coupled with a Manhattan Project style search for alternative fuels. We have wasted a decade.
The problem with theories like this is that they have no foundation upon which they are built.
Going back to the beginning of the interview: “The Iranians have a structural interest in creating doubt and uncertainty in the Persian Gulf. They have a larger population than any other Gulf state, and they don’t have the share of oil resources that Saudi Arabia has. So their first objective would be to create a climate of uncertainty…
“Iran wants to create uncertainty there because oil is the only thing it has. Iran has nothing else—some carpets and pistachio nuts, and that’s it. Their population continues to grow, their needs continue to grow, and their grand ambitions continue to grow.”
So… what does Iran have to gain by extending its sphere of influence? If it doesn’t have enough oil, why does it rely on the importation of refined oil instead of building refineries (which the West has asked Iran to do for energy instead of building nuclear plants) and using the ocean of oil beneath its surface? If it needs some other resource – I dunno, food or something, not that Iran’s population is starving – why couldn’t it trade for it with other nations instead of trying to start an arms war with the ensuing economic sanctions? Certainly Iran doesn’t need more land, like how Israel is actually running out of land within commuting distance of its economic center, Tel Aviv, causing housing prices to rise above what the average Israeli can afford?
Why does Iran need a NUCLEAR WEAPON in order to sustain a growing population? Why does Iran need to fight an American base presence in the Gulf?
The only non-Israeli reason to do such a thing is if Iran plans to invade Saudi Arabia and Iraq, to take control of a very significant (albeit small) percentage of the world’s oil supply. The fact is that the world is dependent on oil. I remember reading something along the lines of a 3% drop in the oil supply of the US is enough to cause a crisis, that 5% is enough to cause total economic collapse, and that Iran + Saudi Arabia + Iraq adds up to about 10% of the supply (something like those numbers).
What is Iran’s stated goal? To resurrect the Caliphate and assert the global domination of Islam. They will start by attacking American interests west of the Himalayas – Israel and the Gulf, to assert regional dominance and thereby allow Iran to walk all over the US without even firing a bullet. Europe will be conquered by demographics, the Near East will be destroyed by terrorist proxies, and Iran will bomb the US off the face of the planet, after terrorism has the American populace begging their leaders for concessions and peace. This is Iran’s current long-term strategy which will allow them sufficient time to draft an army of hundreds of millions of shahid soldiers with which to conquer India and China, and then wipe off North Korea. Then, Iran will have the world peace that the Koran calls for. It begins by the fact that the only remaining “righteous” country in the world with any kind of sizable military is the United States, because Europe has been done-in by a Liberal sense of morality, Israel is too small to become a superpower, and Russia relies on the age-old maxim to never wage a land war in Russia.
If the US, the EU, and Russia were all willing to actually step up and wipe out terrorism as Bush called upon them to do after 9/11, if the US actually declared war and instituted the draft it needed to draft with its allies adopting similar measures, we wouldn’t be in the situation we are today. Afghanistan would not be a 10+ year war with 20 million soldiers swarming the Afghan mountain ranges. Iraq would not have been a 7 year war with a dubious post-game. Instead, the end of 2010 could have been marked as the end of (radical) Islam and the start of cleansing military campaigns in North Korea and Dubai. Why did this not happen? Liberals.
So yes, Mr. Kramer, I agree with your conclusions about the beginnings of a proper course of action. I do not agree with you on the motivations for Iran’s behavior nor do I agree with you about how to conquer the disease and not merely the symptoms.
Interesting photo of the fighters over the burning wells circa Gulf Storm. (Lifted from Wikipedia?)
Three are F-15′s (in the middle), two are F-16′s (closest and furthest from the camera).
The F-15E that is closest to the camera is wearing tailcode SJ of the 4th Fighter Wing, North Carolina.
The middle aircraft (F-15E third from camera) is also wearing tailcode SJ.
The third F-15 (a C/D model), white, fourth from camera, has tailcode BT which indicates 36th Fighter Wing Bitburg Germany.
The F-16 closest to the camera has tailcode NY, indicating 174th Fighter Wing, Air National Guard.
The F-16 that is furthest from the camera is the interesting one. No tailcodes visible. This might indicate either a non-US aircraft or one of the temporary spare aircraft assigned to Doha AB.
THROWING
HAMMERS,
R
“Drill, drill, drill…”
David, we saw what drill, drill, drill accomplished in the Gulf of Mexico this year…
FS – http://www.gavinpotenza.com/worst-oil-spills/
KEEP
DRILLING,
R
You need to develop a sense of proportion. Doesn’t require a degree in higher mathematics.
Above addressed to Former Student. (Basket weaving? Advanced somnambulence?)
Render: Interesting photo of the fighters over the burning wells circa Gulf Storm. (Lifted from Wikipedia?)
Yes. All the photos I use were either taken by me or pulled from Wikipedia, because I don’t need a license to use them.
Craig: Did you just make that up, Don?
He did not make that up. I’ve personally seen mosques that had been transformed into churches in Spain and Cyprus, and pagan temples that had been turned into churches in Italy. I’m sure it happened in other places, as well.
11. Marge – A widespread misconception which is not supported by either physical evidence nor contemporaneous records: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm
“Put their backs to the wall and the mullahs wouldn’t hesitate.”
David, we saw in 2003 that the mullahs hesitated and begged Bush for talks after the US rolled into Iraq. You need to develop a sense of proportion. Doesn’t require a degree in higher mathematics.
blash: Why did this not happen? Liberals.
Um, no. The reason it didn’t happen is because only a miniscule fraction of Americans would think it’s a good idea.
I don’t recall the Republicans campaigning on a platform of sending 20 million draftees to Afghanistan. You do remember that all branches of the government were controlled by Republicans before 2006, right?
The reasons for keeping Jerusalem under Jewish-Israeli control are intrinsic. If Dr. Kramer can rationalize doing what should be done in any case on strategic grounds, that’s fine with me. The troubling part is in the constant resort to different tricks to forestall the IRG, all on the theory that it will think as Westerners or Israelis would. In other words, Kramer is at least in part accepting the Iranian acquisition of the bomb, then trying to provide disincentives for Iran to use it. This might work, assuming the Mullahs think as we instruct them to think. They almost certainly don’t.
And therein lies the problem of all these analyses and speculations. They are built on projection of various ‘non-believer’ (non-Shiite-IRG) worldviews and value systems.
To the point of not putting people in ideological boxes, Michael, you might well consider those words as applies to your habit of doing the same.
Indeed, FS. And they’ve been talking and talking all the years since, slaughtering our young men and women and developing nuclear weapons capability all the while.
Your point seems to be that the Mullahs are rational and sensible folk, reliably incapable of of radical craziness in the name of their faith. I disagree and I believe my skepticism is well grounded.
I’ll end here. My oldest just took her doctorate from Harvard with distinction. My other two are in graduate school. Regression to sophomorics is unappealing.
Given this scenario, why isnt the US doing more to faciliate the independence of Kurdistan? The usual explanation is tha Turkey wont like it, but under Erdoganojad, Turkey is lost to us and is an Iranian enabler, kind of like Sweden or Switzerland to Nazi Germany. The Shia Arabs of Iran fit more with the Shia Arabs of Iraq that with their Persian overloards, and the Baluchis have legitimate need for their own state as well
It’s an interesting analysis, but Iran is not alone in their desire to use the threat of nukes to destabilize the region. Germany is Iran’s second-largest trade partner, after China. Other European nations also trade with Iran. Russia and Pakistan are supporting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
We use the fanatically intolerant Saudi terror-supporting regime as our pawns in various trade/influence wars: Europe, China and Russia use the fanatically intolerant terror-supporting regime of Iran to play their games.
It’s interesting to analyze the problems that will arise if we don’t attack Iran, but it’s also necessary to analyze the problems that will arise if we do. Our terror supporting Saudi “friends” will be empowered, as will the various sunni terror militias they support. The Russians and Europeans will react as they did during the Iraq war – they’ll attempt to politically isolate the USA, and they’ll move their nuclear/trade show on to another America-hating pawn, like Syria or Venezuela. The Pakistani terror supporters may increase their attacks against America or India.
No matter what we do, if we keep playing this game according to the rules we, Europe, Russia, China have set up, everyone loses but the Islamist fanatics and terror supporters. It would be interesting to read an analysis of how to stop playing these games.
MJT,
You wrote in #3: “Anyway, some of them do want a reasonable resolution to the conflict. They aren’t a monolith. Maybe someday most of them will want it. I don’t expect that to happen any time soon, but I do expect it will happen eventually.”
I’m not aiming to argue with you here. Some few probably do want what we might describe as a reasonable resolution…but I am curious: what circumstances or events would you think would cause the …”it will happen eventually”? What do you think needs to change?
MJT: “I’ve personally seen mosques that had been transformed into churches in Spain and Cyprus…”
If you’re referring to the Great Mosque of Cordoba, it was an “ordinary” mosque before it was the Great Mosque, and it was a church before it was an ordinary mosque. That’s the generally accepted reason why it faces the wrong way.
Although, in fairness to the discussion at hand, the church building was purchased, not expropriated by force.
del: What do you think needs to change?
Regime-change in Syria and Iran, the implosion of Hamas and Hezbollah, and ideological exhaustion. That’s one scenario.
Whatever ends up happening, though, it will be a long time from now and is impossible to predict.
Mr. Totten, I just thought you should know that you were mentioned despairingly in a blog post over at Mondoweiss. You should feel honored. Anyone they feel like insulting must be doing something right.
The post above should have the word disparagingly, not despairingly. I clicked on the autocorrect without paying attention.
9 – Craig
“Did you just make that up, Don? As far as I can recall from my reading of history, the only people in Europe who were converted to Christianity by force were the continental Saxons? at the hands of Charlemagne in the 8th century. Can you list some pagan Saxon temples that were converted into Churches?”
I thought this was well known.
Google “English churches on Pagan sites” for examples.
For instance this article.
Conversion doesn’t have to be by the sword to be effective. A common method is to convert the tribal chief, who will enforce the conversion of his followers. I think this is how much of the original spread of Islam in North Africa happened.
Building a new sacred building on a known sacred site is a good way to lock the new religion into place.
I thought this was well known.
Well known? That Christian invaders erected Churches on the sites of the occupied people’s previous religious centers? No, that’s not well known at all. I already pointed out that the whole idea of “Christian invaders” in Europe in nonsense.
Google “English churches on Pagan sites” for examples.
The Anglo-Saxons were worshipers of the Norse Gods when they invaded Britain, and when they converted to Christianity a couple centuries later it was THEIR OWN pagan cites that they transformed into Churches – voluntarily. That’s just one example, but you will find the same or similar in just about every case in Europe.
Building a new sacred building on a known sacred site is a good way to lock the new religion into place.
Yes, that’s how the Christian Jews conquered Rome. They invaded, and built Churches on all sites of all the pagan Roman gods… this is well known. Isn’t it? And Constantine as a tribal chief was a hell of a get!
Come on, Don. I never knew you to be intellectually dishonest. Why start now?
MJT,
He did not make that up. I’ve personally seen mosques that had been transformed into churches in Spain and Cyprus…
Muslims were the invaders in those cases, and their religion was an imposed foreign ideology, so the indigenous people are free to do whatever they want with their own land after the invaders are driven out.
.. and pagan temples that had been turned into churches in Italy.
By invaders? Or by Italians?
Another great article; very informative.
Thanks Michael.
#34 Craig – Doesn’t anyone remember the Inquisition? The mass conversions of Jews and Muslims, the habit of burning people alive, torturing them, etc.?
There was also the Mexican inquisition, which meant more people-burning, torture, etc. Then, of course, there were the Crusades. Nothing justifies the use of terrorism and it’s mostly Muslims behaving badly now, but the Crusades were not a high point for Christian culture. Even the Man for all seasons, Thomas More, had heretics and reformers burned alive.
Christianity and Islam are both imperialistic religions. Both have a history of using forced conversion or extorted conversion to gain political and economic power.
Thanks for publishing this interview. I’ve been busy like a maniac since Sept. 1, behind on rading and blogging, but I made sure to read the entire interview carefully.
1. It makes me want to know more about some of your statements about the Arabs in the south shore of the Persian Gulf. How are they expressing interest in the USA action to “take care of Iran” and its nuclear weapons manufacture? Here in the USA, we do not hear much from those guys in Oman, Dubai etc.
2. It also makes me want to read up on the nuclear alert in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. I remember hearing about it at the time, but I have never studied into it.
3. I also wonder why you and Martin Kramer did not discuss the “take care of Iran from within” factor: Greens, Moussavi, PersianKiwi, and all the rest. Seems like it would be MUCH easier to know what is happening in that group than in Iran’s nuclear manufacturing. I keep waiting for something to break in Yazd or Mahshad or Zahedan or someplace like that. So…. Can you do another interview, “Part 2: If Iran Gets the Bomb Before the Green Revolution Succeeds?” That’d be great.
Good article Michael that I’m still reading as Jury Duty has grabbed me away.
An interesting aside – The NFL wants certain “hits” to be banned. Forget that players have been trained for decades on hitting high. Now many protest saying hitting low near the knees is far more dangerous and career ending. Players are pretty mad. Football is not flag football.
The point? Another example of our bizarre notion of “proportionate force”. Well, The Giants reversed their slide and scored 31 unanswered points after they lowered the boom on Roma. I’m not talking cheap shots. Football is controlled violence. Maybe next they’ll try and ban boxing, but given the rating of extreme fighting, I rather think not…..
Later for a reply to the Iranian mess discussed above. I don’t see Stuxnet however, stopping the fueling of the reactor. I can only wonder what the next Israeli salvo will be….and China/US relations are at a low point which means Iran has a new friend…..
#36 —- Muslims murdered or killed more than 350 million people. Do you understand that number? And that goes back to where the numbers represented enormous percentages of world population. 180 million of them were Indians.
Gaddafi recently apologized for his watered-down version of Muslim slavery of Africans and then held up Europeans and Americans as outdoing them in the 18th century. He left out the part that even then Muslims brokered much of the slave trade and and he ignores the continued abuse of Africans by Muslims.
One more time – Muslims have killed more people than Stalin, Hitler, Crusades combined. Get your scales right.
Jews killing Muslims? That doesn’t even represent .5% of the number of Muslims murdered by Muslims. And while I’m ranting, Lefties claim a half million killed by US forces in Iraq. Wikileaks show that isn’t close to the number and that most Iraqis were killed by insurgents and Iraqis themselves. And it confirms the Iranians involvement with much of the terrorism and death. We knew that in 2007, but media suppressed the evidence. I posted a map of Iranian supplies and terror in the thread below…..
Mary,
Doesn’t anyone remember the Inquisition? The mass conversions of Jews and Muslims, the habit of burning people alive, torturing them, etc.?
I’ve brought up the inquisition many times on blogs. Even on this one, a couple of times. I don’t see how it is relevant. Muslims invaded Spain and converted the population to Islam by force (which IS relevant to this discussion) so the Spaniards were in no way invaders of their own land, and imposing a foreign religion on the occupied population. What they were in fact doing is getting rid of that invader and his imposed religion, using extremely brutal means.
There was also the Mexican inquisition, which meant more people-burning, torture, etc.
I don’t know anything about that, sorry. I suppose it’s possible that the Spanish missions were built on Indian holy sites but I’ve never heard of this.
Then, of course, there were the Crusades. Nothing justifies the use of terrorism and it’s mostly Muslims behaving badly now, but the Crusades were not a high point for Christian culture. Even the Man for all seasons, Thomas More, had heretics and reformers burned alive.
The Crusades were an attempt to free the Holy Land from Muslim occupation, and to relieve the Eastern Orthodox Church which was under assault by Islam. The Holy Land was Christian and Jewish long before Muslims arrived on the scene. Again, it seems you are using the reaction to invasion and coerced conversions as an example of invasion and coerced conversions. This is illogical.
Christianity and Islam are both imperialistic religions. Both have a history of using forced conversion or extorted conversion to gain political and economic power.
I disagree. Were the Franks “coerced” into becoming Christians? Were the Norman vikings coerced into becoming Christians after they invaded France? Were the Anglo Saxons coerced into becoming Christians after they invaded Britain? Those were the most powerful factions in Europe at the time Europe became Christianized, so if they were coerced then who coerced them?
And before them it was the Goths and the Vandals who became Christians. They were romping on the whole known world at the time, so who coerced them?
And before them it was Rome that became Christian, while Rome was at the height of its glory. Was Rome coerced into becoming Christian? That’s the most absurd proposition of the bunch
Really interesting article. Lots to think about. The Middle East is very complex. (Heh, and Einstein gave up on quantum physics because it was too frustrating, too weird?)
From the article: “So that’s why I think Iranian nuclear weapons are a world problem as much as, or even more than, they are an Israeli problem.” I fully agree. That’s why I’ve said for years that Iran is our (U.S.) responsibility, not Israel’s. About the last thing I want is for us to be involved in another war but, well…I’ll probably be pushing for it.
Render – You are a wealth of unique information here. I enjoy your posts.
Mary Madigan – You have a very interesting website. Looked at it last night.
Man, are we having one windstorm here near Lake Michigan – all day long. Gusts to 60 mph. Heard there was a tornado about 15 miles from here. Supposed to last another 24 hours.
Almost forgot, for Terry: Marrakech Journal, Part II http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250934/marrakech-journal-part-ii-jay-nordlinger
As usual, this is an excellent, thought-provoking piece. I think Kramer has some very interesting ideas, especially in regards to the Near East/ Middle East paradigm. Jerusalem as strategic center is also a unique vision, yet something about it seems unrealistic. If Iran one day decides on unleashing Armageddon, I doubt that the Jerusalem holy sites will stand in the way. They don’t care about the Palestinians either and would be willing to sacrifice them, just like they fight to the last Lebanese Shiite.
#39 – The Jews have suffered the most from Islamic and Christian imperialism. They were usually the target of forced conversions/extorted conversions, dhimmi laws, terrorism, pogroms and inquisitions. But others have suffered too:
http://markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html
Some of the recent-history “Christian” killings on this list are inaccurate – yes, the Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis are christian, and yes, priests and nuns encouraged the killings, but the French government caused the most problems by arming and otherwise helping the Hutu machete wielders.
But otherwise, the list seems pretty accurate. Christianity has a horrific and bloody history. This is pretty much common knowledge
I could be mistaking, but I believe in the picture labeled:
“The Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, the third holiest site in the Islamic world after Mecca and Medina”
Temple Mount is not really visible.
I think Temple Mount itself would be some short distance to the right of Al-Aqsa mosque, which is shown in the middle of the picture.
Or Al-Aqsa is part of Temple Mount too?
Mary, you can rant about Christianity’s brutality all you like but you’re just changing the subject and I’m not going to take you up on the new topic. The claim was made by Don Cox that Christians invaded other countries (he referenced Europe specifically) and converted the local populations by force, and one of the methods used was to erect Churches over top of existing pagan shrines.
I think that’s a claim that is entirely unsupported if one does even a cursory examination of European history between the first and the tenth centuries AD.
If somebody wants to take up my challenge I’d like something better than “do a google search” as a counter-claim. I’d also like people to quit changing the area of contention into something they find more convenient.
“Christianity and Islam are both imperialistic religions. Both have a history of using forced conversion or extorted conversion to gain political and economic power.
I disagree. ”
umm, Craig, you may want to revisit Spain’s conquest of the “New World.” You know, the “Gold, God, and Glory” bit at the point of a sword. It’s more recent. Granted, the “indigenous” Indians were not considered human by the church, and I suppose the California Mission experience was an improvement over, say, Cortez, but the self deception regarding peaceful “conversions” on your part is breath taking. Imperial Islam is, well, just more of the same but contemporary, and apparently returning in force from a temporary time out–controlling a good deal of the the worlds “black gold” doubtless helps in the resurgence.
1. Using the threat of a nuclear Iran (now present) as justification to keep control of all of Jerusalem and much of the West Bank is novel, and another nail in the coffin of the two state solution.
2. As to goading Obama to bomb Iran because he would be considered a failure if he doesn’t, I say “hell no!”
Leo, this is from wikipedia:
After the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 637 CE, Umayyad Caliphs commissioned the construction of the al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock on the site.[1] The Dome was completed in 692 CE, making it one of the oldest extant Islamic structures in the world, after the Kaabah. The Al Aqsa Mosque rests on the far southern side of the Mount, facing Mecca. The Dome of the Rock currently sits in the middle, occupying or close to the area where the Bible mandates the Holy Temple be rebuilt.
I think it is the location that is considered the holy site, not a specific structure built on it.
Craig: “The claim was made by Don Cox that Christians invaded other countries (he referenced Europe specifically) and converted the local populations by force, and one of the methods used was to erect Churches over top of existing pagan shrines.
I think that’s a claim that is entirely unsupported”
I do not know whether it is factually true or not and I never before thought about it, but I find it entirely plausible, natural and logical. Christianity is dominating religion and there is nothing strange if it would try to remove all remnants of heretic thought wherever possible. BTW, Christian desire to dominate is probably single greatest root of anti-Semitism. So, do not blame me for not being particularly surprised if it will eventually come out as true, nor I’d care much either.
#46 Craig – you disagreed with my statement that “Christianity and Islam are both imperialistic religions. Both have a history of using forced conversion or extorted conversion to gain political and economic power.”
You don’t need to do a google search to know that this is true. If you attended school, if you have read any form of history, or if you read newspapers, you’d know this is true.
I recently visited Yorkminster in England. The minster was built in the 700s on a site that was originally a roman fort. The church and the entire area were trounced by numerous invaders. When the Normans were done trouncing in the early 1000s they repaired it (in the Norman style). Then the Danes destroyed it a few decades later, when they were attacking, but it was again rebuilt by the Normans, in the Norman style. During the Reformation, Protestants looted the church and destroyed part of the structure. Under Elizabeth I more tombs, windows, and altars were destroyed. In the English Civil War York was attacked and besiged, and fell to Cromwell.
After that, things settled down for a while, but someone tried to burn the place down in the 1800′s
And that’s just the history of one church. Forced conversions, murdering heretics, building a religious shrine to one’s victory over the rubble of the defeated is what European history is all about.
“Leo, this is from wikipedia …”
Craig, thank you very much for clarification.
…but the self deception regarding peaceful “conversions” on your part is breath taking.
What I find breathtaking is that you’re ignoring the Christianization of Europe and how it occurred, despite the fact that you were the one who brought it up and despite the fact that I issued numerous specific challenges and asked for your explanation.
If you want to discuss Christianities influence on the much later Western colonial period that’s up to you, but I’ve never seen anybody try to claim that Western Imperialism was fueled by Christianity before. And it’s not what we were arguing about.
Why make such controversial claims and then start dodging soon as anyone takes you up on them? You don’t like Christianity. I get it. That doesn’t give you a carte blanche to re-write history.
BTW, neither Christians nor Muslims were first Abrahamics to apply “covert/leave/die” formula.
I recently visited Yorkminster in England. The minster was built in the 700s on a site that was originally a roman fort. The church and the entire area were trounced by numerous invaders. When the Normans were done trouncing in the early 1000s they repaired it (in the Norman style). Then the Danes destroyed it a few decades later, when they were attacking, but it was again rebuilt by the Normans, in the Norman style. During the Reformation, Protestants looted the church and destroyed part of the structure. Under Elizabeth I more tombs, windows, and altars were destroyed. In the English Civil War York was attacked and besiged, and fell to Cromwell.
Can you even explain to your own satisfaction what that paragraph has to do with coerced conversions and building churches over the pagan shrines of an occupied people? This is getting absurd. You seem to be having a discussion with yourself and framing it as a counter-claim.
“convert/leave/die”
Sorry.
Mary, you haven’t come close to the numbers killed by Muslims. Next you’ll be including Hitler as “Christian”. I’ll even throw in Mao and you still don’t come close. And that’s not to say Christianity did not have a bloody history. Islam however still does…
Back to reality, we see more of Iran’s intention. No wonder the Israelis and Kurds are on the same page: http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=22746
Roland from Defense Tech? \
Iran places facilities in areas they think Allies don’t have the balls to strike. Try around their new reactor and at Qom. Now what will Muslims thinks if Iran hits facilities Israel builds next to the Dome?
Goad Obama? Good grief. Is he really one that can be goaded? News Flash: Afghanistan and Pakistan are giving us the finger. Relations with China are bad and stumbling. Iraq is a target. NK appears to be preparing another nuke test. Turkey refuse to field a missile defense. Hizb’Allah threatens to take Lebanon if the tribunal indicts them. MB threatens Egypt. Iran plots terror and seeks nukes they do not have yet (contrary to your claim). At this rate, Democrats are going to have to GOAD Obama not to run in 2012. Right now, Bush era seemed peaceful……
#57 And that’s not to say Christianity did not have a bloody history. Islam however still does…
Exactly
I think not Craig….
P.S. this one is for you: http://minx.cc/?post=307307
Yes Mary, but 180 million Indians? And now all these years later this? http://www.palwatch.org/
Of course Christians didn’t have WMD before their reformation. I rather doubt the world (and/or) Muslims will survive the opposite situation with Islam.
http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=42432
Most of the violence Mary Madigan refers to were ethnic. Even today many of the so-called Christian conflicts – Northern Ireland comes to mind – are about ethno-nationalism. Religion is often just a cultural marker for an ethnicity. Other times it’s a marker for other differences – class, regional, etc, though those differences often have an unspoken ethnic component too.
You don’t like Christianity. I get it.
She seems to hate Europeans too.
To clarify Roland, goad would not be the right word to use based on Michael’s interesting interview. Mr. Kramer is making the case that it is in US interests to prevent Iran from expanding on its present course with the aid of nuclear deterrence (not to mention clandestine placement of WMCs via terrorist proxies). After all, a related mess is brewing in SA. Many experts have said given a strike, the US could do it far better. Even Arabs would prefer that to Israel. So it isn’t really goading, is it? And look who is mad at Wikileaks -IRAN, AFGHANISTAN and IRAQ!
The sad part, based on the idea in the link above, is that for Obama, this is all a domestic political calculation, rather than any principle. I haven’t seen the gravitas to pull off a US strike.
Last one, dinner calls….
I don’t see striking Iran on the list…..
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/22/armchair_warriors?page=0,10
Roland,
Its unlikely that putting Muslims into a target zone will deter the mullahs.
They’re the same one who sent tens of thousands of children in to Iraq to clear the mine-fields, with a “key to Paradise(plastic, made in China), around their necks.
So its unlikely he cares how many Palestinians get nuked. However, a mosque may be something else again. It depends on their apocalyptic vision.
I think that not even a repeat of 9/11 would goad Obama.
#61 Coisty – All history is the story of battles, slaughter, forced conversions, extortion and political manipulation. Christianity and Europe were no different from everyone else. Talking about that fact doesn’t mean that I “hate” anyone.
“Put their backs to the wall and the mullahs wouldn’t hesitate.”
LOL … Yeah, right. In 1991, in 2001 and in 2003, Mullahs (AND Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) were drinking Imodium AD by the gallon and changing their underwear three times a day.
Dikehopper,
Do you live in Traverse City?
My daughter spent 4 years at Interlochen, finished 2 years ago and now is at CalArts.
We used to drive up there about 4x/year to visit. It was a beautiful drive, there and back via different routes. Even made it to the Cherry Festival one year.
Small world!
And tell me, former student of history @ #10, who were the Presidents of the United States in 1991, 2001 and 2003; the ONLY Presidents of the United States who put the fear of God into Mullahs and all other Muslims in the Middle East and in southeast Asia in the past 40 years? Or did your clueless, Progressive college professors neglect that part of your education?
Mary,
You’re clearly a Christian bigot. We get it. Should we rehash Joshua and Judges? Battles, slaughter, extortion, and political manipulation? All there…then we can move on to Samuel and Chronicles, and and and…
That’s simply the history of man and his fallen nature – whether Jew or Gentile; Atheist, agnostic, or Muslim; religious or irreligious.
And if you had the power or authority, you’d be following suit with the wicked routine, mixed in with a dose of really intense dialogue every 28 days…
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101026/national/omar_khadr
remember when this ass became the poster boy for MoveOn in their claims that Gitmo was the Gulag for the unfairly detained?
Yesjb, yes, maybe a Mosque and the historical importance might make the Mullahs think twice, but then that is just a guess. It might very well split the Muslim world in two.
Yes, Obama’s not so goadable, but as a practical narrssasist, I suspect he might eventual try a different suit -the only one left, or should I say right…lol
Mary, you’re compounding your distortion with another false moral equivalency argument. While you are right about some similarities of behavior between religions and societies over time, you do miss an essential difference. Nor would Stalinism of the Russians or the Nazism of Germany be comparable to Rome or even Hinduism…No the chapters and civilizations of history are not “all the same”.
I guess you don’t believe in progress or perhaps even cultural evolution…
narcissist….that is lol
Great piece, I’ll be reading more of your work in the future. As for Americas role in the middle east I’d state that our founders were explicitly against nation building. Why is it the US’s role to police the middle east when we can’t even secure our own borders. I think, regardless of the mid east situation, we need to refocus our priorities.
umm, Craig, I didn’t bring up the “Christianization” of Europe. And if you’ve never encountered works on the influence of Christian religion and theology and values on western imperial projects, that’s your problem, not mine. I merely question the peaceful nature of the Christian “conversions” that you apparently assume. I do grant you that there is a difference between Christ riding the cross, a Roman torture and execution device, and Mohammed riding a horse and carrying a sword to spread the “gospel.”
#64 YesJB
You are right about people not deterring attack: Kramer’s point is that Jerusalem is a safe(r) zone becuase Iran might be hesitant to bomb the Dome of the Rock, so it makes sense to move as many strategic assests and people as close to it as possible.
As to what it would take to provoke Obama, I think you are also correct that a 9/11 like event that has nothing to do with Iran would not be sufficient cause to invade Iran. Why would it be?
Kramer, of course, engaged in the same kind of appeal to the manliness of the U.S. in his exhortations to attack Iraq in 2001. The argument may have succeeded against Iraq. I would hope the rest of us have learned something from that experience and that we would hesitate to pre-emptively invade Iran just because Martin Kramer would think less of us.
This wonderful scholarly discussion will receive my attention tomorrow.
Tonight I can say that I finally understand the mouthings of Ahmadinejad. If the Iranians develop nuclear weapons, even dirty bombs, they hold the entire world hostage to their intentions. To contaminate the oil fields of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia with dirty bombs or destroy them with nuclear explosions would not be preventable by anyone. They can use missiles, bombers, trucks or camels to place the weapons and the people of the world become zombie servants or frozen desserts. No sane national leader or government should allow this development.
I do understand the logic but i also mentioned that much depends on the historico/religious attitude of the mullahs in control. If they feel that destroying the Mosque of Omar is really the will of Allah, then so be it. In that case, I think Maxtrue is quite correct. It will split the Muslim world.
Furthermore, I don’t think one man’s opinion is enough to justify invading Iran, but I also believe that the Allies should have stopped Hitler when he took over the Sudetenland. To now see what I’ve always believed to be true about Iran’s covert actions in Iraq verified, and to see that nothing was ever done against Iran to send them a very meaningful message to stop is the reason that I have little faith in the foreign policy of the US. How many American’s, Iraqis and others were killed there because of Iran? How many years was the war prolonged?
I will make a very pessimistic analogy now. I hope I am mistaken.
I think the US should prepare for Operation Sea Lion with no Churchill at the helm, only Lord Halifax, Neville Chamberlain and Edward VIII on the throne.
Roland wrote, “I would hope the rest of us have learned something from that experience and that we would hesitate to pre-emptively invade Iran….”
I would guess that Roland has no skin in the game.
Allowing the Mullahs to have the power of life and death over the planet is probably not the best possible solution to this difficult problem!
#69 Tex – I’m a Christian bigot because I don’t believe that Christians are better than everyone else? Thanks for the logic-free jargon-laden response
Crying over the spilt milk of 5,000 years…
Maybe one day we’ll all be collectively smart enough to worry more about the living and the near future then we do about things that we did not see happen and cannot ever undo, no matter how hard we try.
Future historians long after we have passed beyond caring might very well consider that this war began sometime between February 1st, 1979 and November 20th, 1979.
===
I think Craig might have a point regarding the Saxon pagan temples. There are few, if any, Christian churches, Roman or otherwise, built directly over top of those known sites. Those that are were usually more for geographic reasons (that’s where the roads/valley’s/passes/rivers met) then for anything else. I think most of the Saxon pagan rituals were conducted at temporary locations as well (I’m probably mis-remembering at least some of this, it’s been a long time since I took ancient English history). I would assume much of the Norse conversion would have followed the same pattern (adding fjord’s to the roadsetc equation above) since it too came from the top down.
Of course, ultimately I have to wonder how any of this is really all that important in the 21st century. Just as I have to wonder at the idea of attempting a moral equivalency between a 2,010 year old religion (itself spawned from a religion well over 3,000 years old) and a 1,400 year old religion. All of which are fractured into thousands of versions, variants, sects, cults, and sometimes just plain freak shows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8EOX9k6430
Perhaps my wondering has something to do with being just one of 12 million or so remaining, knowing just how small a number that actually is in comparison, and how quickly it can be extinguished.
Islam, in any of its guises, has never been shy about attacking and even destroying its own holy places. Bunching up any crucial control facilities or personnel in one location is asking for and tempting disaster.
Decentralize, disperse, and multiple redundancy.
===
ORDER
OF THE
DAY,
R
“She seems to hate Europeans too.”
And coisty hates Jews. So what?
#51 Mary Madigan:
“If you attended school, if you have read any form of history, or if you read newspapers, you’d know this is true.”
I attended school, and the history was only enough to say they “taught” it.
I’ve read history books. In fact, I have a rather hefty volume of Spanish history, covering prehistory to the middle 1980′s. And I daresay you know nothing of the differences between the expansions of Christianity and Islam, especially in how they were financed. You don’t think it’s odd how the eastward expansion of Islam was financed by opium, and its westward expansion was financed by the caffeine-laced kola nut? Oh, and don’t forget the origin of the word “assassin”. Islam, as practiced, considers the drug trade just another revenue source.
I’ve read enough newspapers to know that most of their writers have absolutely no clue concerning the matters about which they write.
If those are the authorities to which you appeal, you indeed have no case to make.
#42 Dikehopper.
Thanks for the link, Part II.
I always get a kick out of the first impression Westerners get of my former home town. The total cluelessness is hilarious.
religious historical antecedents:
“Of course, ultimately I have to wonder how any of this is really all that important in the 21st century.”
Me too, as interesting as it is. Being the least knowledgeable audience member, and a fellow student of history, all I’ll request is adherence to (relevant) facts, please; inquiring minds will sort them out.
Terry: I always get a kick out of the first impression Westerners get of my former home town. The total cluelessness is hilarious.
I’ve never been there, nor have most of the rest of us, so why don’t you tell us what he gets wrong.
And try not to be so jaded and negative. Millions of people love Marrakech whatever its faults.
Terry, your reaction to Nordlinger’s Marrakech journal reminds me of Beirut. Many local people hate it (though many also love it), but almost all foreigners love it, even foreigners who live there for years. I love Beirut. There is nowhere else in the world I would rather visit.
I understand, though, why lots of local people despair of the place. If I were stuck there and could never leave, I’d have a very different opinion of it.
Í’ll add my two cents to this discussion.
Prof. Kramer raised a number of points that I question.
1. Population pressure: Iran’s population is no longer growing, in fact, population growth is below replacement level. Iran had a ”baby boom” years ago. Iran’s problem is economic mismanagement & stagnation, not population growth.
2. I don’t buy the ”Jerusalem is a deterrent idea” – I don’t think there is any deterrent. Eventually, Iran or elements of the regime will be tempted to use atomic weapons in a first strike. This is an inherently unstable situation.
Jerusalem is important for many reasons, but deterrence is not one of them. It is an unsupported assumption.
3. The Jordan Valley: Prof. Kramer says, ”In the past …..” referring to the strategic importance of the Jordan Valley. It is not ”in the past” – it’s as important today as ever.
4. America & Obama: Who in their right mind would trust Obama? The Obama administration will do absolutely nothing to stop Iran. They subscribe to the ”containment” theory, in effect, they have tacitly accepted the idea of a nuclear Iran, empty speeches notwithstanding.
I don’t think Obama is interested in world affairs at all. Just when he is forced to. Otherwise his whole agenda is in manufacturing a new America.
#84/85 Michael Totten.
You perhaps misunderstand me – I love Marrakech, I miss it very much. But, I miss the real Marrakech, not some imaginary tourist perception.
I didn’t comment because I thought it was off-subject.
Terry,
Ah, okay. I did misunderstand you.
I’m still curious, though, what you think Nordlinger got wrong, off-topic or not. I generally enjoy his work.
#89 Michael Totten.
Mr Totten, I see you are determined to make me work.
I enjoyed Mr Nordlinger’s account although I’m not at all familiar with his other work. I really do enjoy the first impressions of Westerners to Morocco, partially out of nostalgia, since as I said, I really miss my former life. Life in Eilat does not even vaguely compare to life in Marrakech.
Marrakech is a city that you both love & hate at the same time. And, Moroccan society is very opaque, it is very deceptive, what you see is not reality.
Marrakech is a tourist destination for Moroccans much as Eilat is a tourist destination for Israelis.
My family is not originally from Marrakech, Casablanca is my home town & my mother’s family is from the North, Fes & Larache. I moved to Marrakech to retire. Marrakech is unique even for a Moroccan.
So, if you will be patient, I will re-read Mr Nordlinger’s little travalogue & I’ll comment afterwards.
Re: #68
“And tell me, former student of history @ #10, who were the Presidents of the United States in 1991, 2001 and 2003; the ONLY Presidents of the United States who put the fear of God into Mullahs…”
Please refer to comment #21. Although GWB did scare the hell out of the Iranian (and Syrian) regime, it was only temporary. After 2003, the former went back to the 1980s/90s Lebanon playbook and waged proxy war against the US in Iraq. The moment of negotiating from a position of strength was lost and it was the Bush administration who missed the opportunity. I’m not going to pass judgment on the wisdom of the Iraq war (we will see its effects only in the long term), but it’s hard not to notice that there was an opportunity cost – namely, dealing with Iran and placing sanctions much earlier.
By the way, I find it highly entertaining that you assume I’ve been brainwashed by liberal professors.
On topic: I am fairly fascinated by all this magic military thinking. The Israeli threat of attack is a bluff, most military analysis says that Israel doesnt have a chance in hell of taking out the Iranian nuclear capacity, even if granted overflight permission from Saudi Arabia. At best it would set them back 3 years. The potential for fallout is enormous. So, somehow, an already overstretched US military is to leave both its flanks (Iraq and Afghanistan) vulnerable, as well as pony up enough new forces to “take care” of Iran. This on behalf of a nation whose government is openly supporting the opposition party in the US and even refuses to grant small favours to its main ally, an ally that refuses to let its nuclear weapons be inspected. Has anyone run a cost-benefit analysis of this idea?
Off topic: Gary, I think it fair to say that you are on shaky ground when it comes to christian history. Most of the churches in my country is built on old pagan temples (hovs) and the same goes for Sweden and Denmark, as well as England. If you consider much of the forced evangelization during the colonial ages, I think you will find that christianity is capable of both genocide and religious imperialism. The famous quote is: “before the Belgians came to Congo, there were 25 million congolese. When they left, there were 8 million, but they were by god christian”.
This on behalf of a nation whose government is openly supporting the opposition party in the US…
Heh, if anyone needed any proof that you were absolutely, positively and irredeemably clueless, this gem should (on several levels) leave no doubt…
Mr. Totten,
Why would Iran do anything with a nuclear bomb? You think they’ll actually use it? For what purpose? Suicide? Kim Jon Ill is far crazier than any Tehran mullah and he hasn’t even bothered to touch his nuclear weapons for anything. In fact, having them hasn’t even helped his position out much at all. What makes anyone think Iran is crazier than the North Koreans? Maybe Americans should stop listening to the Israelis. We might just find a more peaceful world then.
Dan- lets assume for a moment Iran isn’t crazy (the regimes own words on the subject notwithstanding)- you don’t need to use a nuclear weapon for the weapon to have huge implications. Think of how provocative Iran is NOW as far as financing terrorist groups and seeking destabilization of regimes in the region. Isn’t it a fair assumption that they will finance much more terrorism once they have a nuclear umbrella protecting them from conventional attack?
This entire point may be moot, however. Iran has loaded the fissile material into their reactor. If it is blown up now radioactive material will spread all over the civilian population. I don’t think even Israel is willing to countenance that… much less Obama.
Well Fnord, throw in the Congo and even Rwanda and you still don’t approach the death unleashed by Islam, do you?
Experts say Israel doesn’t have a chance in hell? Which experts, Ackerman? Lang? Your “at best” would give allies three more years of building up further force and increased oppositional forces which already are calling for the Mullah’s heads. The potential for fallout is exactly the reason to deter Iran. Some time back when things were very heated, both Iran and Hizb’Allah warned against attack stating operatives abroad had prepared terrible surprises ready to unleash. Was that a bluff too Fnord? One thing these two succeeded in doing was to make Western citizens aware of their thinking. If you believe Iran would not try to pre-position deadly assets around the world as insurance, then you are blinded more than I already think.
As for Israeli effectiveness, are you prepared to state what Intel Stuxnet has extracted? Do you know how much is really known about the location and defense of Iranian facilities? Are you certain of the reaction by Arabs of Iranian attempts to close the Gulf’s oil traffic or even attacking Saudi facilities?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG01Ak01.html
Of course, this doesn’t include a number of Israeli assets we have talked about: Heron, special penetrating bombs, silencing Iranian air defense etc. It also doesn’t include any US ROLE IN SUCH AN ATTACK. Are you saying a US strike would cripple Iran’s program? Are you saying the the DOD which is supposed to fight 1 and a half MAJOR wars couldn’t devastate a program unprotected by advanced air defense?
Democrats put up quite a fight to discredit efforts in Iraq. They denied Iran was playing any role. They stood behind the 2007 NIE report. They cried how Iran had its hand open for sincere negotiation…lol. Were you part of that Fnord? One by one, the claims are being refuted.
Dan, the NK and Iranians are working together. Yes, stop listening to Israel and start listening to Iran….
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2010/10/01/DT_10_01_2010_p24-254239.xml&headline=Israel%20Increases%20Port%20Security
I think you are a bit clueless of the stakes and the game of chess. But then that’s just my opinion…
#89 Michael Totten.
Mr Nordlinger sees the immediate present, no past, no future. What he sees as ”exotic” or striking, noticeable, as ”Moroccan”, is just poverty dressed in a jellaba. There is more than one Morocco. As I’ve often said, it’s as complex a society as any Western country.
I loved the first stereotype, Marrakshis like to sing & dance, nothing worries them, they enjoy life ….. what a joke, most people are worried about where their next meal will come from. Yes, in general, Moroccans like to have a good time, weddings & holidays are loud, lively, & people have a great time. Also true, people don’t think about the future, I think that’s an attitude all over the Middle-East. But, people have many immediate pressing economic concerns on a daily basis, they’re plenty stressed out.
Then, he says that Marrakech is polyglot. Right, where tourists go, it’s very polyglot. Otherwise, the vast majority speaks Moroccan dialect, many speak Berber also, but few speak even French apart from a few common words.
He mentions young boys selling ”cartons” of cigarettes on the street. Wrong.
They carry a carton filled with many brands of cigarettes & they sell one cigarette at a time. Most people cannot affort to buy a pack of cigarettes, they buy one cigarette to smoke with their coffee or tea in a cafe. Actually, there are many guys of all ages that go from cafe to cafe selling just about anything you could think of.
This is because there are no jobs, unemployment is at a staggering level in Marrakech.
Marrakech was a caravan destination & a market town for the entire south of the country. The square that Mr Nordlinger describes is called Jema’a L’fna & up until the 1960′s was still authentic. Today, it has degenerated into a tourist attraction, it’s completely phoney, there are a lot of people because lots of unemployed go there to waste time or to hustle tourists. He says he saw a porter carrying so many animal skins you couldn’t even see the man – that’s because the man is cheaper than hiring a donkey.
He saw butcher shops in the medina but I don’t know where he got the idea that they sell tongues. There is a special shop where they sell sheep’s heads, another shop where they sell cow’s feet & sheep feet, yet another that sells only tripe (cow’s stomachs & lungs. No tongues.
Then he says there are shops that sell gazelle heads. This is called l’attar & what they sell is traditional medicines & dried herbs, various dried lizards, some minerals used to burn, the smoke chases away ”jnoun” (evil spirits), spices, amulets, love potions, & mixtures for sexual potency. The gazelle heads must be 50 yrs old, they don’t sell them. Maybe a long time ago, they used gazelle horns in some noxious remedy. When I was a kid, people also bought poison for their ”friends” – this charming custom has since gone out of style.
What he said about the taxis is an half-truth – yes, they don’t use the meter with foreigners sometimes so they can cheat them. But, they do it to Moroccans too. And, generally speaking, taxis stop for everyone, they don’t refuse to pick up bitchy Moroccan ladies because they can’t cheat them. This is just crap people tell to tourists.
What Mr Nordlinger describes is the public visible side of life. That’s not Morocco. The real Morocco is private, the customs & traditions of the various groups take place in the home, among family & close friends.
#67 yesjb – I did live in Traverse City but moved away about seven years ago. I now live about 20 miles south of Holland. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the area, here’s a glimpse
I’ve always loved the Lake Michigan shoreline. And always had the attitude “Why not live where other people vacation?”
…..
Nordlinger’s pieces were just a light-hearted look, quick observations, at his visit to a conference. I’m sure he didn’t intend them to be taken too seriously. Here is part 3: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251122/marrakech-journal-part-iii-jay-nordlinger I expect that when his trip is over he will write a serious commentary about it.
…..
The only thing I will say about the discussion above on ancient grievances and responsibilities is to quote Render (above):
“Crying over the spilt milk of 5,000 years…
“Maybe one day we’ll all be collectively smart enough to worry more about the living and the near future then we do about things that we did not see happen and cannot ever undo, no matter how hard we try.”
Or maybe I should have quoted Rhett Butler.
…..
I am presently doing what I can to help get Democrats voted out of office. Here is a very good Victor Davis Hanson column that I will use: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-great-divider-2/?singlepage=true
“This on behalf of a nation whose government is openly supporting the opposition party in the US and even refuses to grant small favours to its main ally…”
#92 Fnord, I’d like to see proof of open support for the Republicans. A ten month settlement freeze, unprecedented even in any Israeli left wing coalition (Rabin, Peres, and Barak never paused them) was attempted. Just because it wasn’t renewed doesn’t mean squat.
Very good interview. Two points in response:
“The Levant was called the Near East, and the Gulf was called the Middle East. These were two distinct zones. We’ve conflated them in the meantime, and it’s in the interest of the United States to disaggregate them again and to keep them disaggregated”
I don’t think the problem is terminology, but technology and reality. As long as missiles and money for terrorists can reach the Levant from the Gulf, and as long as jets can reach from Israel to Iran there will be no real disaggregation.
Re your suggestion for making Israel survive an Iranian attack:
A lot of the IDF’s bases are in the south and near the Golan, so they can survive attacks on the Tel Aviv area and allow “second strike”. But the demographic, economic, industrial and technological mass is centered on Tel Aviv and is highly vulnerable. Without this, the country cannot live.
Moving assets to Ylem can help, but there is simply not enough space for bases, factories, and agriculture. Also, it may sustain damage and fallout from a detonation (G-d forbid) near TA. And you have assumed the twelver Shiites who run Iran, who are motivated to start the ultimate war to reveal the hidden imam, would not be willing to kill some Sunni apostates in an attack on Ylem (G-d forbid).
Speaking strategically, the only rational option to protect Israel is to spread mil and civilian assets into the hilly areas in the center of the country, both North and South of Ylem – Yehuda and Shomron. The hills and valleys provide good protection against WMD, and there is plenty of space and fertile land (the land is only 6% developed – 2% settlements and 4% by Arab cities).
I forgot to post this
about the sexual perversions among the Taliban and al Qaeda. I covered this subject a few years ago in a newsletter. What this piece doesn’t cover is their acceptance of, their practices of, sex with young boys. These people are sick in more ways than one.
Dan,
Correct me if I am wrong but I have never heard the North Korean’s publicly state it was their avowed intention to develop nuclear weapons for the specific purpose of destroying a specific nation. So apparently Kim Jong Ill is not a crazy as the Iranian Mullahs. More evil perhaps in daily conduct but certainly not crazier.
Martin Kramer’s analysis is that it’s a beautiful analysis of Iran’s rational geopolitical position. That’s its fatal flaw.
As long as the Iranian regime is in place, there are decision makers who regard the return of the 12th imam (and the doctrine that states that the return may be brought about by purity and zeal in bringing Islam to the dar al-harb,) the Koran’s and the Hadith’s apocalyptic and anti-Semitic statements to be at least as factual as a USN carrier group.
They will soon have nuclear weapons, and it seems certain that important men among them also regard as factual Khomeini’s teaching that if the price of the redemption is that Iran is destroyed, it’s well worth paying because the true victory is not in this world.
“Maybe Americans should stop listening to the Israelis. We might just find a more peaceful world then.”
Talk about clueless.
Dan, I’m sure you already don’t listen to Israelis.
But a more peaceful world…did you mean Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria etc etc.
No doubt its all the fault of the Jews and the cyclists!
#97 Dikehopper.
Thanks for the Part III of Nordlinger, he’s enjoyable to read. I understand that he means to be light-hearted, believe me, I don’t take him for a fool. In Part III, he makes some good observations, of course, they might be new to Westerners but they are commonplace observations in this part of the world. Change comes very slowly to this region, the cultural inertia thing, & I might add, within our own context, much that seems mistaken in a Western sense actually works well within our context.
“92. Fnord
On topic: I am fairly fascinated by all this magic military thinking. The Israeli threat of attack is a bluff, most military analysis says that Israel doesnt have a chance in hell of taking out the Iranian nuclear capacity, even if granted overflight permission from Saudi Arabia. At best it would set them back 3 years. The potential for fallout is enormous. So, somehow, an already overstretched US military is to leave both its flanks (Iraq and Afghanistan) vulnerable, as well as pony up enough new forces to “take care” of Iran. This on behalf of a nation whose government is openly supporting the opposition party in the US and even refuses to grant small favours to its main ally, an ally that refuses to let its nuclear weapons be inspected. Has anyone run a cost-benefit analysis of this idea?”
3 years would be a good thing. Besides how do you know with such certainty that the setback will only be for 3 years? If the US were to in fact attack the sites with the intention of creating maximum damage it would no doubt kill the largest number of technicians, engineers and scientist possible during the raids. More than any infrastructure damage that would be the real set back. By the way what “small favors” do the Israeli’s not grant the US? Perhaps you can enlighten us with which “small favors” the Saudi’s do not grant the US who after all is the guarantor of Saudi Arabia’s existence? As for nuclear weapons inspections, by whom and for what purpose? Do the Pakistani’s allow their weapons to be inspected? The Indians? The Chinese? What exactly is your agenda?
The Israeli bomb, if it exists, has not started a nuclear arms race with the Arab countries. Israel in Arab eyes is an affront to the Arabs but not an existential threat. An Iranian bomb on the other hand will in all probability result in one or more of the very wealthy Gulf Oil States acquiring nuclear weapons, either by internal development or by purchases as the Arabs see the Persian’s in a different light. An Iranian bomb would probably be an export godsend to either North Korea or Pakistan, probably both.
As for the ‘opposition party’ crack, come next week that party will the majority party in our ‘parliament’. it will be Obama who will be then be the head of the opposition party.
Fnord – “I am fairly fascinated by all this magic military thinking.”
R – Imagine that. You and Anan make such a nice couple.
Fnord – “The Israeli threat of attack is a bluff, most military analysis says that Israel doesnt have a chance in hell of taking out the Iranian nuclear capacity, even if granted overflight permission from Saudi Arabia.”
R – Not entirely. Missiles do not need or care about overflight permission.
Fnord – “At best it would set them back 3 years.”
R – Based on what post-strike analysis? It might instead set them all the way back to the stone age. But nobody will know that until it actually happens, if it happens.
Fnord – “The potential for fallout is enormous.”
R – So is the potential for an accidental China Syndrome even without a counter-proliferation strike, given the quality (or lack thereof) demonstrated by other Iranian high tech projects and computer security attempts.
Fnord – “So, somehow, an already overstretched US military is to leave both its flanks (Iraq and Afghanistan) vulnerable, as well as pony up enough new forces to “take care” of Iran.”
R – Those flanks are already vulnerable and have been since the day they appeared on the battle maps. The existing US Army is stretched, but not over-stretched by a long shot, the USAF and USN aren’t even breaking a sweat, yet. In 1939 the US Army had 189,000 men, on Dec. 7th 1941 the US Army had 1.6 million men, by WW2′s end the US Army had 8.2 million men under the colors. Ponying up new forces is not a problem for us, how about you?
Fnord – “This on behalf of a nation whose government is openly supporting the opposition party in the US and even refuses to grant small favours to its main ally, an ally that refuses to let its nuclear weapons be inspected. Has anyone run a cost-benefit analysis of this idea?”
R – Provide a reliable link demonstrating this support for the “opposition” US party. For every small favor denied as you claim, I can demonstrate a massive favor granted by Israel to the US, can Norway say the same thing? Who is inspecting the nuclear weapons stockpiles of France, England, India and Pakistan? Who is inspecting the US nuclear weapons stockpiles? The IAEA has repeatedly discredited itself through its own incompetence and fraud. Cost-benefit analysis? How about you get Spencer “plate glass” Ackerman right on it and then get back to us? Ask him to do a CBA on the effects of an Iranian dirty fizzle bomb in Tel Aviv harbor, the Chesapeake Bay, or Oslofjorden while you’re at it. Maybe you can get Jason Siggler to help him out…
R – I have been writing constantly and consistently for almost a decade now that Israel by itself does not have the physical conventional military capacity or ability to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program and no amount of overflight rights will change that. Any military analyst worth reading will have the same conclusions, including those who advise the Israeli government.
R – Oh, and tell your government to stop using the Israeli designed upgrades on those Norwegian F-16′s since you neither appreciate or acknowledge “small favors.” One more thing, stop your illegal occupation of Swedish (or Danish) land and remove all Norwegian forces from Afghanistan.
OVERNIGHT
SENSATION,
R
cubanbob,
Correct me if I am wrong but I have never heard Iranians publicly state that it was their avowed intention to develop nuclear weapons for the specific purpose of destroying a specific nation.
yesjb,
Iraq was not a threat to us. Iran is not a threat to us. Sudan is a terrible mess, no doubt. Zimbabwe is not a threat to us. Nigeria is not a threat to us. So yeah, it seems if I don’t listen to Israelis I’ll be more at peace with the world than not. Frankly I’m not sure what your examples are supposed to mean. Iraq was a threat to Israel. Iran is a threat to Israel. The Sudan is not a threat to Israel. Zimbabwe is not a threat to Israel. Nigeria is not a threat to Israel. What’s your point dude?
#97 Dikehopper
Hello neighbor, my wife and I moved to the Fennville area this past April from south of GR.
MJT, I’ve been a regular reader for 3(?) years, love your stuff, enjoy the comments.
>”Christianity and Islam are both imperialistic religions.”
Except that one stopped being imperialistic centuries ago, and the other is beheading people right now. Today.
So there is that slight difference to consider in your completely insane analysis, Mary.
The fact of the matter is there is no peace possible, and as soon as the Israeli Left comes to that conclusion the better off Israel will be. The jihad of conquest being waged against Israel is a lesser jihad of the greater global jihad, and like the greater global jihad at large, there is no peace possible as the main goal of Islam is to subjugate the world via the imposition of Sharia. Hence, there is no peace possible for Israel and also for the non-Islamic world.
Dan – http://render64.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/congressional-resolution-on-iraq-passed-by-house-and-senate-october-2002/
We cannot hear you, you seem to have something in your mouth that looks and smells like Pat Buchanan’s talking points. Try again when you learn how to swallow…dude.
FIVE
COLUMNS,
R
My point DUDE is that you mentioned “a peaceful world”, nothing about “a threat”, so my response was to your comments, not some change to your arguments to hide your cluelessness. And I was only getting started about the peaceful world you have in your fantasy imagination if it weren’t for those pesky Jews!
Hey, but don’t worry you’ll soon be threatened by Iran and its running dogs, Hezb’allah, Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood etc..
When the bombs start exploding in Time Square (they’ve already tried) or maybe in Iowa or wherever you live you might wake up from your fantasy, but maybe not!
“clueless” is an understatement!
yesjb,
Don’t try and link my comments to anti-semitism. I can thoroughly disagree with the Israeli position and not be anti-semitist. Watch yourself, yesjb.
You’re showing your lack of knowledge of Middle Eastern/South Asian affairs by trying to conflate threats to Israel from Iranian sources and threats to Times Square from Pakistani sources. As Iran and Pakistan are not one and the same, your point doesn’t work. Try again.
Render,
Not sure what your point is. Congressional resolutions mean nothing when they’re based on false evidence. Iraq was not a threat to us.
Render, yesjb, & others.
How do you manage to have the patience to reply to these guys? Really, I admire your patience, I lost mine long ago. As yesjb says, ”clueless is an understatement.”
“Iran wants to create uncertainty there because oil is the only thing it has. Iran has nothing else—some carpets and pistachio nuts, and that’s it. Their population continues to grow, their needs continue to grow, and their grand ambitions continue to grow.”
Actually, that’s incorrect, the population explosion is over, their birth rate is now way below replacement level, and now they face an impending demographic collapse.
“Iran is dying. The collapse of Iran’s birth rate during the past 20 years is the fastest recorded in any country, ever. Demographers have sought in vain to explain Iran’s population implosion through family planning policies, or through social factors such as the rise of female literacy.
But quantifiable factors do not explain the sudden collapse of fertility. It seems that a spiritual decay has overcome Iran, despite best efforts of a totalitarian theocracy. Popular morale has deteriorated much faster than in the “decadent” West against which the Khomeini revolution was directed.
“Iran is dying for a fight,” I wrote in 2007 (Please see Why Iran is dying for a fight, November 13, 2007.) in the literal sense that its decline is so visible that some of its leaders think that they have nothing to lose.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB24Ak02.html
“OH, EAST IS EAST AND WEST IS BEST….” (after Kipling)
——————————————————-
# 96 – Terry, Eilat
“Iran has nothing else [oil] — some carpets and pistachio nuts, and that’s it.”
——————————————————————————-
The same is true for all Gulf countries. From Kuwait all the way down to Oman (and beyond i.e. Yemen) these “countries” produce absolutely nothing that can be exported other than their vaunted oil and gas. They are barely able to provide even the basics for their populations. All their clothing, for example, is imported (of course, that’s true of the USA too, but for different reasons) as is their food and so on.
In fact, Iran is the one country in the region that has something to offer in so far as “tourism” is concerned. The city of Isfahan is absolutely resplendent. The southern city of Shiraz – the city of poets (and wine, I might add) – is magical. (The gardens are magnificent). I’ve been to both so I speak from experience.
I’ve read Mr. Nordlinger’s 3 part essay on Morocco and like # 96, found it light-hearted and interesting. But what he said in general, could be said of any 3d world locale you might care to name. Ever been to Lima (Peru)? Or Mexico City? How about inner Shanghai. Talk about inhaling toxic fumes etc. Ever been to Dammam in Saudi Arabia or Manama in Bahrain? Yuuuk.
I’ll admit that Morocco (in Arabic “Al-Maghrib” meaning “The West) is indeed unusual for an “Arab” country.. For one thing, the “Arabic” they speak (at least the colloquial – they can switch to “standard” Arabic if need be) is totally incomprehensible to other Arabic speakers. Nordlinger is correct in wondering if one can palpably state that it is part of the “Middle East”. It really isn’t. It’s like saying that the Phillipines is a Western country because it is predominantly Roman Catholic, something like that.
It’s also perhaps the most liberal Arabic speaking country, barring perhaps Lebanon. A little dirty secret which I’ll spill here: Moroccan “girls” are among the most highly sought after “professionals” in the Persian Gulf countries and they dominate the “night trade” in that area (I should say THIS area, since I live in the Gulf). They like ‘em heavy and flashy and they really are that. [The trade used to be dominated by Slavic girls for several years…Ukraine, Belorussian and so forth…..highly prized for their light skin, but that’s no longer the case….but that’s another story].
My point is this: The Iranians will never develop their nuclear facilities to the point that they have nuclear weapons. This is not because of “sanctions” etc. but for a very simple reason…..The Russians won’t let them have it.
Mary, you conflate and excuse alleged past bad behavior (as other point out you do not distinguish ethnic vs religious violence) with current bad behavior proven. You must be deaf to not hear the stated goals of the Islamic radicals.
Fnord, the notion that the US Military is stretched thin is absurd. Ground troops maybe, but we have vast unused resources just floating around and sitting in silos.
I never see much discussion of mounting a serious fifth column in Iran.
Terry, Eilat – Israel,
You ought to be bowing at my feet because my taxes pay for your security. Maybe when Israel stands on its own two legs without American taxpayers providing your security you could be as insulting to us.
Dan,
Iran is obviously a threat to Lebanon and Iraq, as it sponsors terrorist armies inside those countries, terrorist armies that could easily have killed me on a number of occasions.
And the Gulf Arabs think Iran is a serious threat to them. Do you think they’re wrong? When serious analysts discuss the real possibility of the Persian Gulf bristling with nuclear weapons, is your response, “Hey, what could go wrong?”
In the real world, it’s not all about the Jews.
Michael,
Is Israel a threat to any Arab nation? because if they are, why hasn’t Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons changed anything in their realpolitik calculus? The same goes with Iran, which is a very rational player in the Middle East. There is obvious distrust and hatred between Shi’ite Iran and Sunni Arabic states. I don’t doubt that, and it will lead to continued conflicts down the road. The question is, what does this have to do with America? Iran is not a threat to us, not even with a nuclear bomb. Your conversation here is based on Jeffery Goldberg’s piece about how America should bomb Iran. (And of course Jeffery Goldberg will be first in line to have his taxes raised to pay for this third war….).
Do you really think America or Israel have any capability to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb? And so what if they do? So what if Saudi Arabia follows suit and gets their own. Frankly I would not be surprised if they already have nuclear bombs hidden away in their deserts. Saudi Arabia is awfully close to the American military and American political influence. I, frankly doubt reports that they don’t have a nuclear bomb already. I don’t have a problem with Iran taken more seriously by Israel or America or any other country in the world. It puts more responsibility on Iran to get leaders who are not going to take their country over the brink of death. You guys on the right speak as if the world will end because Iran has a bomb. And y’all claim liberals are weak-kneed…yeeesh!
By the way Michael,
Haven’t you noticed an eerie pattern in the last 20 years or so? At first the threat from Iraq was hyped, always pervasive, always present, to the point that after 9/11 America decided to attack. Now we’re hyping a threat from Iran, always pervasive, always present, neverending threat. Why is this? Can America not live in peace with the world around it? Not everyone wants to kill us. And even if everyone wanted to kill us, that doesn’t mean we need to kill them. When it comes to threat capacity, Iran is pretty weak.
Furthermore, don’t you find it interesting that Iran is supporting our man in Kabul? The enemy of my…uh, my friend’s friend is my enemy? Why would Iran support Karzai if Iran is working against American interests in the Middle East? Not to mention also that Iran is highly supportive of our man in Baghdad too. The friend of my friend is my enemy?
Like I said, maybe it is time for America to stop listening to our friend in Tel Aviv who cannot seem to contain his anger at his neighbors, whether deserved or not.
#118 SodaJerk.
Sexual tourism is a major industry in Morocco, not surprising that it would also be an export. Much of this trade is not exactly voluntary – many are lured by phoney offers of employment as secretaries, maids, etc.
You said that Moroccans could switch to standard Arabic – actually, few people in Morocco master standard Arabic, only people with a fair amount of education can manage to partially speak standard Arabic. It’s very true, however, that Arabs from other countries can’t understand our dialect, aside from Algerians & Tunisians who speak a similar dialect.
Dan: Can America not live in peace with the world around it?
That’s just pathetic.
Have you ever noticed that all our enemies are mass murderers and war criminals?
Michael,
#125,
Who gives a damn if they are mass murderers and war criminals. Does it warrant that we spend billions or even trillions of dollars to go after them? Does it warrant that we end up killing hundreds of thousands of innocents in the process of chasing after these “mass murderers and war criminals?” Somehow we end up losing the nobility of our cause, Michael.
Furthermore, Iran, as a state, is not run by mass murderers or war criminals. Or are you changing the subject to al-Qaeda?
Israel should target Mecca, Medina, and all the other religious centers of surrounding Muslim states. Once the mullahs feel the hot terror that is fusion, they will moderate.
Dan, merely claiming the false proposition that one can disagree with Israel’s existence and not likely be antisemitic doesn’t buy you much credibility. Perhaps you’re a Post-Zionist?
It is you that has failed to prove your claim that threats to Israel are not aspects of the same threat to the US. http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=125&id=42507&t=Egyptian+Muslims+accuse+Christians+of+complicity+with+Israel
As for Iran, it did in fact fire on US naval forces in the 80s and Reagan took some harsh action. The “new understanding” Reagan won through threat of force was that the Mullah’s for the first time since their coup would agree to “allow” reformers to run for office. It was the beginning of the very movement which is clenching the Mullah’s throats today.
And Iran murdered many Iraqis 2005-2010 after blinking when Bush first invaded. Even the infamous 2007 NIE report the Democrats hailed states Iran discontinued their “secret” nuclear weaponization program shortly after Bush invaded Iraq. Do you really want to argue that as well as the actual offer Iran made for “peace”? Try Google.
We now can prove the Left Wing aided Iran in masking their action in Iraq which Bush wanted to stop with the Kyle Bill. The Left called the anti-Iranian claims
http://www.longwarjournal.org/maps/Ramazan-Corps-Southern-ratlines1.php
lies (as they do most “claims” other than their own including their infamous claim that Qaddafi’s “irrigation tunnels” were just that). We all know why Qaddafi gave them up and it wasn’t listening to your logic. After all, we were at peace with Libya…or were we? It is you who seem clueless about what is and was really going on.
Despite our faults, the war I assume you agreed with (WW2), will unravel into the same multi-polar mess we know happened in the 1930′s unless some tough leverage is used to avoid the trend. The cancers left alone however will be more widespread and WMD lethal than the Nazism that grew in the 30s. This IS speculation, but given the reality of WMD, the anti-Western geopolitical forces at work in SA, Central Asia, the ME, the Far East, this trend can quickly become greater “havens” of terror, even on the US border. I don’t know what “peace” you’re talking about, but the US recently identified Iran as the number one terrorist sponsor in the world. Hizb’Allah has already been detected crossing our Southern Border. Pakistan, contrary to what Biden, Richardson and Obama predicted, is falling apart and the likely haven for OBL. The same threat that faces Israel is quite capable if unopposed, to shred US interests regionally through insurgency and terror. Huge ship loads of weapons have been confiscated coming from Iran. The US reports increased cooperation between NK military scientists and Iran. The direction of this multi-polar mess seems obvious. It seems coupled to the global impression that America is on the decline -surely a winning political mantra Dan.
Of course, you would have us believe that these enemies are really indifferent neighbors….
By the way, that word “enemies” has been used by Obama himself this weekend, except he was calling Republicans that word. I expect that both you and Obama might not be so happy in a week. And for all the Centrist Liberals and Indies, it is a bit of sweet revenge.
If either you or Fnord bothered to check out polling data http://people-press.org/report/666/ you would see a majority brewing that has real problems with Obama’s FP. Part of this is his preference to calling the GOP enemies rather than the real ones…….
which the majority of Americans continue to see as a threat to the US far beyond any threat to Israel..
Decoupling
Enemies
Aids
Deception
PacRim Jim,
Let’s rephrase that:
Iran should target Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and all other places in Israel. Once the Israelis feel the hot terror that is fusion, they will moderate.
What do you think? Will that work?
Dan: Who gives a damn if they are mass murderers and war criminals.
Because you’ve convinced yourself that it’s our fault we have enemies.
Mass murderers and war criminals always have enemies, and it’s their fault. We’re the superpower, not Belize, so we make enemies by existing.
If you think bombing Iran is a bad idea, fine. I’m horrified by the idea myself, but your argument is contemptible.
Oh, and by the way, every country in the Middle East except Syria and Qatar considers Iran an enemy. So why are you singling out the most liberal country in the Middle East for opprobrium? Has it ever even occured to you that it’s Iran’s fault that it’s on everyone’s shit list?
PacRim Jim: Israel should target Mecca, Medina, and all the other religious centers of surrounding Muslim states.
Don’t be ridiculous. Destroying other people’s religious centers is not what Jews do, it’s what totalitarians like the Taliban do.
Anyway, Saudi Arabia is way down the list of Israel’s problems right now.
Michael,
To some degree, our actions in the Middle East have pissed a great number of people off. But them turning to become our enemies is not our fault. They make their own free choice to resort to violence against us. It still doesn’t change the fact that regardless of whether or not there are mass murderers or war criminals out there, we don’t have to go after them simply because they exist.
Which argument would that be? That we shouldn’t bomb Iran because they’re not a threat to us? What’s contemptible about that? Iran isn’t sending anyone over here to attack us. And in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan, why is anyone surprised that Iran might want to influence the future of those two countries. It’s not like they share the largest borders with Iran…oh wait…If America has interest in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has by far the greater interest what goes on next door. And frankly, in both countries, it seems Iran sides with us against the terrorists…just sayin’.
So what? Just because they are on everyone’s shit list makes them worthy of being bombed? now THAT’S contemptible.
Maxtrue,
#128,
heh, you mean like sell them arms? wow, harsh…That Reagan dude sure knew how to deal with mofo terrorists…uh….
Ah, the dreaded specter of Nazism. I was wondering when it would first appear in any discussion related to the Middle East. Y’all just can’t avoid them eh? Every threat in your eyes is Nazism reborn. Grow up dude.
That is your most accurate statement.
Dan the DUDE,
I never said anything about antisemitism, so don’t put words in my mouth or create a straw man to beat down.
But its clear you really know nothing about politics, history or the middle east, or arguing a point cogently, just like Obama.
What a coincidence!
Dan, the gist of your argument seems to be, in terms of foreign policy, in favor of non-interventionism. Am I right? I disagree with that position, but I still consider it to be an understandable, honorable one. But jeezopete, you are presenting just about the worst argument I have ever seen for that position. And I mean *ever*.
OK, I am going to break my own rule on civility, guys. You are right. Dan is, well, at least a little bit clueless.
(Heh, I suspect that even our good friend Charlie, who is also largely a non-interventionist, may be cringing at Dan’s remarks.)
————–
#110 Bolt – Hiya, new neighbor. I moved here in March. For such a small town, we sure do have some pretty good restaurants, yes? Hope the windstorm didn’t do you any damage.
“When the barbarians come, they will make the Laws” (Cavafy)
————————————————————-
To: # 120 DAN
–>“You ought to be bowing at my feet because my taxes pay for your security. Maybe when Israel stands on its own two legs without American taxpayers providing your security you could be as insulting to us.”<—
This is one of the dumbest comments I’ve read on PJmedia. Lemme tell you why.
1. First of all, I’m not Israeli – I’m not even Jewish, so when I make comments on PJ, I do so with some trepidation, given the general topography and demographics of this blog site. (However, most of my university professors were Jewish, but that’s another story).
2. Anybody who knows anything about the Middle East knows that Israel stands alone at the cusp, the forefront, of holding back the barbaric Saracen onslaught against Western civilization. For this reason alone (there are others), you are beholden to Israel more than you can possibly imagine.
3. When push comes to shove in that part of the world – and it’ll eventually come to pass – the only country that the US can count on to let our jet fighters land and refuel, no questions asked, is Israel. What’s going on in the Middle East is much larger than simply the Saracens against the state of Israel – much larger.
4. You can rant and rave about your “taxes” going to support Israel, but I assure you, if it weren’t for her brave warriors, it won’t be “Terry in Israel” who will be bowing at your feet….it’ll be, if not you, your grandchildren, who will be bowing 5 times a day towards the Holy City of the heathen barbarian, chained forever around the neck as a vassal and a slave.
Mary Madigan
There was also the Mexican inquisition, which meant more people-burning, torture, etc.
Don’t confuse Christianity with the politics of nominally Christian people behaving badly. Nothing in Christian teaching supports this kind of thing.
Then, of course, there were the Crusades. Nothing justifies the use of terrorism and it’s mostly Muslims behaving badly now, but the Crusades were not a high point for Christian culture.
Ah, the U.S. lack of historical education. The Crusades were a response to the Muslim invasion of the Holy Land, and they actually behaved pretty typically for warriors of the time. The Muslims, on the other hand, were pretty good at being brutal.
You realize, don’t you, that when you accused Dan of being anti-Semitic, which he wasn’t, you were revealing your frustration in your inability to present valid arguments? And what’s more, you were, in effect, conceding that you had just lost the argument, also.
I don’t agree with Dan. But you were so lame that he was chewing you up and spitting you out all evening.
In fact, you were so lame that I had to resist a temptation to play devil’s advocate and to side with Dan just for the fun of it, figuring that it was too late to save you from drowning anyway.
Before you argue with Dan again, you better call in some heavyweights, or at least some reinforcements.
@Dan,
“Furthermore, Iran, as a state, is not run by mass murderers or war criminals. Or are you changing the subject to al-Qaeda?”
I do not want to alarm you but you might have a brain tumor…
You see,a tumor such as a glioblastoma might grow in your frontal lobe.The frontal lobe is located at the front of the brain and is associated with reasoning, motor skills, higher lever cognition, and expressive language.
I do recommend a MRI over CT scanner because tissue differentiation is better with this rather new technique.
Whereas CT copes only with tissues densities (Hounsfield units),MRI detects the water content of the various organic tissues and many tumors are very hydrated.
Send me the pictures ASAP and I will refer you to a professional neurosurgeon,the procedure might be a little “touchy”….
Dr Trumpeldor
You can argue the violent history of any religion against another all day long.
The fact that SOME PEOPLE SUCK, and will use any excuse to rape pillage steal and conquer is a known HUMAN phenomenon, regardless of any religious doctrine.
So, to honestly decide who’s DOCTRINE is or isnt violent, you have to examine the DOCTRINE itself.
So, to very simply settle just who’s religion is more violent, lets ask the respective leaders a basic question….
Jesus?
Dude, what am I supposed to do?
“Open your heart to the Lord, my father. Love your neighbors as you love yourself, be kind, dont lie, steal or cheat, war is not the answer. Love is salvation”
Mohammed?
Dude, what am I supposed to do?
” First off, call me dude again and I’ll cut your tongue out.. Second, bow down to me, put your freaking head on the GROUND at my feet.
Now, follow me OR ELSE, no questions asked, EVER… got it? Take this sword and make EVERYONE ELSE follow me too, or else kill them. You can keep some of the stuff you steal, and rape the hot chicks after you’ve killed off their men. But I get first crack at the REALLY hot chicks, and all the top shelf designer stuff you snag.
If anyone asks how we justify this, LIE YOUR ASS OFF. Tell them whatever, just take their stuff and kill them if you have to. I dont have to justify this…its MY way, or else I’ll kill YOU, got it? Dont diss me, EVER, and kill ANYONE who does, because guess what? Yup, I’ll find out, and kill you”
That, ladies and gentlemen is the end of that.
Jesus NEVER expoused violence, the fact that violence was ever done in his name is a crying shame, completely inconsistant with his teachings.
Mohammed was VERY CLEAR in his calls for murder, rape, beheading, torture and looting. His very own personal actions and behavior completely discredit himself, and all of Islam, as ever being a “religion of peace”
CASE CLOSED
Dikehopper,
#135,
To this point the two positions I have taken on here is that bombing Iran is not a wise position to take, and going after mass murderers and war criminals simply because they are mass murderers and war criminals is not a good idea. I have not indicated what actions to take toward Iran except that we should not bomb them. You guys are projecting on me that which I have not said, and thus set up your own little straw man to pummel. I have not advocated non-interventionism. I indicated that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. I indicated that Iran is currently not a threat to the United States. Thus intervening against them is not in our national security interests. If that’s what non-interventionism has degraded to, then we’re a pretty frakked up society. No one has made a cogent argument as to what is the interest for the United States to have any military action against Iran. Iran supports our people in both Iraq and Afghanistan against al-Qaeda terrorists. Iran mourned with us on 9/11. They’ve got a fairly repressive society, but frankly it’s not anymore repressive than Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis are supposedly our bestest buddies, or something. The only difference is that Iran is belligerent toward Israel whereas Saudi Arabia is not. That’s the ONLY difference. Thus, we must be Iran’s enemy because Israel tells us to be Iran’s enemy. And I posit that we ought to stop listening to Israelis because they’re off their rocker on this one.
Dan, you’re rather a smart one aren’t you? I think Reagan sold them defective missiles. Isn’t that right?
1984 Saudis shoot down two Iranian fighters with US AWAC help
Operation Nimble Archer
Operation Earnest Will
Operation Praying Mantis
Operation Prime Chance
My reference to Nazism and Stalinism was as a comparative tool. I placed the casualties of Jihadism in a class of their own. I guess you still find any comparisons between radical Islam and Nazism humorous because you still lack a serious rebuttal. Forgetting the past however seems central to your spin…..
Speculation based on reason and actual facts is far better than prognostication based on bullshit. For what reason did the Mullahs consent to “reformers” in the 80s? In what way are the enemies of Israel not the enemies of America? Why will Iran refrain from terrorism as witnessed from Argentina to Afghanistan? How could that record be good when mixed with WMD and WMC? On what planet did Iranians not kill US troops in Iraq? I don’t really expect any coherent answers…..
As for Israeli-US military bonds: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab5e18a65-addf-490f-b632-27f95f2f647c&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Shared Threats
Shared Hardware
#138…that’s pretty funny. Heavy weights are needed? Qods targeted US soldiers in Iraq. They have supplied materials to the Taliban. They supply Hamas and Hizb’Allah and have been involved in plots to assassinate nationals in Europe and Sunni leadership in the ME. Their activities stretch from Azerbaijan to Somalia, Argentina to Sudan and Yemen. They are working with North Korea to develop WMD and their delivery systems. Now I really need an expert to make the case Dan is dishonest in his characterization of Iran? Perhaps I need a meteorologist to tell you now the temperature in Manhattan is almost 75 degrees…..
As far as antisemitic, Dan’s brazen attitude towards Israel and his defense of Iran is indicative of someone who regards Israeli Jews with such twisted logic, what else would YOU call it? You’re asking us all to accept one could have such a view and not see how that would not lead to the death of many Jews. Dan does know many Jews live in Israel, yes? You note I did not accuse Dan of being an antisemitic. At best however, he gives wind to the very notions Jew haters promote. You want to argue that? His inability to see this is obviously intentional, so a betting man would no doubt place his mark on at least Dan’s serious self-loathing were this bright bulb actually be Jewish. Hell, I’ve seen worse….
His indifference to the plight of women in Iran would also make him a favorite at NOW parties, beyond his appeal at AIPAC conventions. When J Street doesn’t want you, you must be pretty hardcore…..
“You’re asking us all to accept one could have such a view and not see how that would lead to the death of many Jews.”
And yes, that is exactly what you are asking….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11634885
Norinco rockets were originally a Chinese product stolen from the Russians. Iran and North Korea have them, so it will be interesting who sent these weapons to Nigeria. Any bets on Iran? The Taliban are receiving them as well.
In Iraq, Iran supplied AQ suicide vests. http://globalnewsblog.com/blog/2010/10/23/somalia-wikileaks-how-iran-devised-new-suicide-vest-for-al-qaeda-to-use-in-iraq/
In Somalia the record is rather clear going back to 2006: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2006/11/irans_involvement_in.php
But of course besides Michael, we all need experts to put our claims into credible form……
That is, I rather think Casual Observer doesn’t have the balls to make such a claim to Michael….
Oh, and Dan, who exactly is planning to disturb your peace?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/10/27/ST2010102705265.html?sid=ST2010102705265
Later all….
# 119. Lester Mary, you conflate and excuse alleged past bad behavior (as other point out you do not distinguish ethnic vs religious violence) with current bad behavior proven. You must be deaf to not hear the stated goals of the Islamic radicals.
After 9/11, I did extensive research on the infrastructure that supports Islamic radicals, and their goals. A few facts about Islamic radicals:
1. Islamic radicalism and the tactics they use has roots in Saudi Wahhabism. In 1921, when the Saudis were a bunch of Bedouins scrounging a living in the desert and eating camel spiders Winston Churchill described them thus: “The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practise themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children” Churchill and T. E. Lawrence were totally opposed to the British plan of letting these fanatics, who were hated by the majority of the Muslim population, take over the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. They preferred rule by the more sane Hashemites (Jordan) But the British, who prefer to back the strong horse, (no matter how psychotic that strong horse may be), backed the psychos. We are, unfortunately, stupid enough to listen to British advice. The Saudis, a very traditional people, have not changed through the years.
2. Radical Islam as we know it is a relatively recent phenomenon outside of Saudi Arabia. It’s based on a mishmash of the fascist philosophy that formed the Muslim Brotherhood (allies of the Nazis), Saudi Wahhabism and the political philosophy of Egyptian misanthrope Sayyed Qutb. Their true goals are pretty standard: to get more lebensraum, to get money and power and to rule the world. But they use Qutb’s writings to give their plainly political goals a religious spin.
3. Islamist radicals get what they want by using terrorist threats to extort money and concessions, and by selling drugs and oil. They have few military talents, but they are adept at the use of smoke and mirrors. They hide behind the skirts of religion, they promote the use of the bigoted and brutal Sharia laws to hide their imperialist goals and they claim to be committing these crimes against humanity in the interests of the Muslim people.
4. Despite the fact that Islamist radicals have killed more Muslims than anyone else, and despite the fact that Islamist regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia are openly despised by the majority of Muslims, the terrorists and their supporters have managed to convince the gullible western world that all Muslims are potential terrorists.
If we want to fight the terrorist infrastructure, we will target both the Saudi (sunni) and the Iranian (shi’ite) terrorist infrastructure. We’ll use our knowledge of their cities and daily schedules and our extremely effective and deadly technologies to destroy or weaken them to the point where they’re harmless. We’ll stop using these rabid pit bulls as pawns in our trade/king-of-the-hill wars with the Russians, Chinese and Europe, and we’ll find another way of dealing with our problems.
If we want to destroy our economy and the trust our democracy needs to thrive, we’ll alienate all potential allies within the Muslim world by blaming them for the crimes committed by the regimes they despise. We’ll condemn everyone who doesn’t agree with us and we’ll turn every discussion of political Islam into a holy war. We’ll also ally with our enemies in Saudi Arabia, and we’ll do whatever they ask.
To understand the goals of Islamic radicals, I’ve talked with people who hold various religious and political beliefs in the Middle East. I’ve had conversations online and in person with Lebanese secular fascists, Jordanian bedouins, Kurdish rebels and Israeli settlers. I’ve walked, alone through Hezbollah’s temporary camp in Beirut (2006), and learned that they aren’t kind to their children, or each other. So, yes, I have spent some time learning about the goals of radical Muslims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9x8rBKC4BE
===
Dan – “To this point the two positions I have taken on here is that bombing Iran is not a wise position to take, and going after mass murderers and war criminals simply because they are mass murderers and war criminals is not a good idea.”
R – Your first position is one shared by more then a few pro-Israel commentator’s here, but you were/are too wound up in your very obvious derangement syndromes to acknowledge that. Your second position is utterly insane, and one that you would not be taking if we were talking about Mormons being openly threatened with extermination and genocide instead of Jews.
Dan – “I have not indicated what actions to take toward Iran except that we should not bomb them.”
R – And you came in here with talking points that sound far more like Pat Buchanan then all but the most extreme far-Left Democrats. After all, you did accuse Bill Clinton of lying back in 1998. Maybe you should have read the entire post that I linked to above? With your reading comprehension glasses on? There are no lies in either of those documents.
Dan – “You guys are projecting on me that which I have not said, and thus set up your own little straw man to pummel.”
R – Pointless generalization and group punishment on your part. Like to try again?
Dan – “I have not advocated non-interventionism.”
R – That is exactly what you are advocating. Or have you not thought through your dangerous concept of leaving mass murderers and war criminals unpunished?
Dan – “I indicated that Iraq was not a threat to the United States.”
R – Then you are either lying or you are defending Saddam and his minions, or you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about. Or all of the above…
Dan – “I indicated that Iran is currently not a threat to the United States. Thus intervening against them is not in our national security interests.”
R – Then, once again, you very clearly haven’t a clue of what you are talking about. And you certainly came to the wrong place at the wrong time to demonstrate that.
Dan – “If that’s what non-interventionism has degraded to, then we’re a pretty frakked up society.”
R – See Pat Buchanan. He’s yours, not ours.
Dan – “No one has made a cogent argument as to what is the interest for the United States to have any military action against Iran.”
R – Actually, every single one of the other Persian Gulf nations and every single one of the nations who purchase their oil through the Gulf have made that argument, repeatedly over the last three plus decades. We, the US government under both parties, have chosen to seek other alternatives since 1979. How has that worked out?
Dan – “Iran supports our people in both Iraq and Afghanistan against al-Qaeda terrorists. Iran mourned with us on 9/11.”
R – I’m not sure you could possibly be more wrong about that. The Iranian government supports, arms, trains, and directs numerous terrorists around the world, including al-Qaeda. That is confirmed, well documented and beyond any shadow of a doubt. In no way, shape, or form does Iran support us directly anywhere for anything, they won’t even cooperate against drug smuggling across the Iran-Afghan border. Iran, through its government, did not mourn 9/11 by any possible definition of the term. (Googlesearch terms: Iran 9/11). In case you didn’t get the memo from Tehran, their official position is the same as that of the Troofers; that is, it’s all the US’s fault, a great Jewish/Israeli conspiracy, and we deserved it. That official position from Tehran is unchanged from 2001. Just as the Iranian declaration of war against the US is unchanged since 1979.
Dan – “They’ve got a fairly repressive society, but frankly it’s not anymore repressive than Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis are supposedly our bestest buddies, or something.”
R – The above, my friends, is the very definition of a moral equivalence fallacy. It is also a fairly standard talking point of Pat Buchanan’s.
Dan – “The only difference is that Iran is belligerent toward Israel whereas Saudi Arabia is not.”
R – You must live a very sheltered or otherwise artificially limited life to think that (did your mission in Antarctica?). There are no Jews left in Saudi Arabia at all, nor are any allowed to enter Saudi Arabia (how could that possibly not be belligerent?), yet there is still a large Jewish community living in Iran. Iran is extremely belligerent to Mormons, and yet Saudi Arabia has found ways to tolerate the LDS.
Dan – “That’s the ONLY difference. Thus, we must be Iran’s enemy because Israel tells us to be Iran’s enemy. And I posit that we ought to stop listening to Israelis because they’re off their rocker on this one.”
R – You do realize that you just implied a super-secret Israeli conspiracy to control both of the main political parties of the United States and the entire US government? We are Iran’s enemy because the Iranian government declared war on the United States (that’s us) on November 4th, 1979 and never retracted it. No further commentary is necessary on that point. It doesn’t matter if Israel, or Great Britain, or France tells us that Iran is our enemy, the Iranian government has already informed us of that, and the Iranian government takes great pains to remind us of that on a fairly regular basis.
R – Guam is not going to tip over anytime soon. Feel free to make up some new fantasy material when you run out of canned talking points from the extreme left and extreme right.
U-238,
R
Absolutely and completely agree with everything in Mary Madigan’s #148 (or so).
UNEQUIVOCALLY,
R
Those underestimating Israel’s capabilities would be wise to knock their heads against a strong wall, tape their mouths and sit in a corner for a few hours. Maybe get yourselves a glass of water to sip from.
I particularly enjoyed the fancy footwork from Dan. All the inverted two-and-half double-flip back-handstand stuff comes down to ‘it’s Israel’s fault and if it weren’t there or our friend all would be well.’ Love it…as someone wrote above, all the time the US security forces are catching people with Muslim names trying to do things in or to America. Never stops, is only increasing, and arguments that this is really connected to the Pals are stretched past the breaking point.
As for the topic of Iranian rationality, motivation, etc., you can say it’s all theory and speculation. After all, no one can read the minds of A-jad and the Mullahs…no, wait, they tell us frequently what they think. Khameini himself – the top dog – has said that destroying Israel is worth a few nukes on Iran. And the inspiration of that despicable regime, Khomeini, said to a world unwilling to listen in 1979 that he could care less about Iran, that he was more than ready to see it destroyed in the march towards the worldwide Islamic revolution and gov’t. No one listened, and they’re not listening still.
We’re all afraid, but the answers is not to dismiss the beliefs of the IRG or to obsess about Those Evil Settlers, who are not at all evil, merely patriots trying to stop an ambivalent gov’t and fairly self-absorbed public in Israel from creating even more security and identity problems in Israel. And, yes, those things do matter when facing such enemies and such a confused, indifferent and at times terrible hostile outside world. Terry, thanks for the tips on Morocco.
Stuxnet happened. If the US does not want to stop the Iranian nukes, Israel will.
#151 Larry in the Silicon.
I haven’t seen you around much lately.
I don’t know if we have the military capacity to take out Iran’s nuclear program with conventional means. I think it might require unconventional weapons, at the least, tactical nuclear weapons. I also think that this is a very difficult decision for Israeli leaders, to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
I don’t see how they can avoid it, though. They can’t risk a failed operation.
In the long run, even a successful operation will most likely only buy time. Not that there is anything wrong with buying time.
But, eventually, Iran & others in the Middle-East can obtain nuclear weapons if they so desire. In order to deter such an eventuality, the solution can only be the destruction of the Iranian regime.
As you said, no one can read the minds of the Iranian leaders. The whole discussion is BS since there is no acceptable level of risk.
“Gary, I think it fair to say that you are on shaky ground when it comes to christian history.”
I didn’t weigh in with a single word on “christian history”, fnord. Can’t say I’m surprised you’re on heavy drugs, you dimwit.
To Terry and Larry,
A nuclear EMP attack might be effective.
These consequences are hypotheses of effects on specific targets of electromagnetic explosions in the stratosphere:
-On a city, an area inhabited or industrial space: loss of electric power means, communication tools. Paralysis may extend over several months;
-On a command center or a sensitive military zone : even if these places are largely protected and shielded against this type of attack, the slightest flaw can allow the electromagnetic blast to hit its target. This can produce a loss of means to defend a country and a black out of monitoring stations;
-On a zone of military conflict, the standing armies are highly dependent on information technology and communications and electric power, they would be much weakened without the transmission of information;
- Submarines near the surface and subjected to pulse would be severely compromized and might even sink;
-On medical facilities, thousands of people benefitting from intensive care, or major surgery would find themselves deprived of such aid and in danger of death;
-All aircraft, civilian or military, would stop responding, people on board would be doomed .
Sorry for the coarse translation from French…
#154 Trumpeldor.
I’m not much of an expert on military techniques. I’ve read about this & I suppose it would be a good first move, to be followed by missiles & later, bombing with aircraft on specific targets. In any case, I’ll leave it to experts on how, I just know it must be done. And, it must be an attack massive enough to severely limit Iran’s capacity for retaliation. This is very complicated because we will have to deal with Hezbollah & Syria at the same time. My fear is that Netanyahu & his side-kick Ehud Barak are not up to making such a decision.
Terry and Larry, Trump and others…I have been advocating for some time that Israel focus on technology that could thwart Iran without nukes. Stuxnet is an example but there are some other ideas we have kicked around. I am thinking some serious kinetic weapons with possibly Heron the carrier. Ballistic missile could suffice for that role as Russia and China don’t have Israel on a nuclear trip wire for such trajectories. Obviously, defense against RPGs has been an Israeli effort as well as defense against short range rockets. The truth is that Israel must improve their capital losses from an inefficient economy so they have the bucks for this kind of research including DEW, cruise missiles and a better space program.
I’ve had my response to Dan, so if you’re planning more brainless comments, don’t expect replies from me. Life is too short, yes?
Good comments Render as usual.
And didn’t my gut answer this question yesterday when I first picked up this story? Dan, Fnord, Casual Observer…there goes your arguement and gee, it didn’t even take an expert to blow a hole through the bullshit offered up here: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/nigeria-intercepts-13-iran-missile-containers-possibly-destined-for-gaza-1.321505
I guess Israel does this sort of criminal bullshit spreading violence where ever they can. Iran has already said it would help by any means available those countries willing to oppose the US. How is that a friendly country?
The denial of terrorism by Iran is standard fare with the hate Israel crowd. Slowly however, more Liberals are waking up: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j2YRmHMEMmM3wpkvCgOWnNVv8Glg?docId=N0021951288230768208A
Iranian leadership mourned with Americans on 9/11? What complete crap. Ahmadinejad just came to NYC and told Americans Israel and America were involved in 9/11. A few visitors here must have their heads so far stuck up their asses, they missed that one. They must have also missed intelligence reports that indicate Iran arrested 3 American hikers in Iraqi territory. Maybe its time we had a President that would go to bat when our citizens are subjected to criminal behavior whether South of the Border or overseas…..
Terry, Trump and Max – I confess, like Terry, that I don’t have expertise in technical issues enough to say ‘this will work’ or ‘that will work.’ As usual, Terry makes a telling point (Terry, I’m getting ready to return to Israel so I’ll be on-line less and less, if I know what’s good for me) – it is not enough to deal with the Iranian capacity. It is necessary to decapitate the regime. This is the extension, or full measure of requirements, that indeed implies Israel needs cooperation and assistance from other parties. Of course, this assumes an American Admin ready to do the political heavy lifting. I see no such readiness in Obama. Perhaps he is fooling us, and maybe Dennis Ross is absolutely right when he tells American Jews that Barry is in charge and will come to the fore. Maybe this is what is really being discussed behind closed doors – whether all potential actors in a coalition against Iran can agree to the extent of the plan. I’m sure that’s part of it.
But, like Terry, I believe that Israel will have to accept the consequences of failure to get backing and coordination for larger objectives. I think this is what Bibi and his close advisers are dealing with – if we are to go it alone, what do we try to do? Now, if I think about some of Michael Ledeen’s pieces, then I can surmise there is a sort of compromise plan already in effect, that some of us have thought about or guessed at – it’s a sort of leapfrog game in which those attempting to throttle Iran’s ambitions mix disruption of the regime (or perhaps support to or hope in Persian dissidents) with piecemeal, staggered and incremental attacks. In other words, a combination of waiting for regime disruption while helping dissidents perform sabotage while doing some on your own…all the while preparing for the big day. Again, I wish I could be the optimist and adopt Ledeen’s faith in the Iranian people or the national will based in pre-Islamic identity, etc., but I am deeply skeptical. So, this plan, which essentially posits retardation of Iran’s technological efforts with hope that the revolution will come, is only useful as an interim, and compensatory, alternative to taking the decision.
Here again, I am with Terry in terms of skepticism about Bibi’s will, or at least the overall picture with Ehud Barak planted squarely in the middle of it. So, while I believe in Israel’s technical and military abilities – with almost as much but not quite as much faith as Adina Kutnicki – I also know it is a matter of will. Israel in ’48 and ’67 had tremendous will with meager (relatively) physical abilities. Like an athlete summoning reserves of character in a big game, she called on it all. So did Britain in WWII, with assistance. One other point, I do believe that Israel has assets on the ground or angles of attack that are not usually mentioned. But I don’t know what they are exactly; it’s more of conclusions I’ve drawn from reading posts and articles in the past.
I wish us the best. I very much want us to survive, and I hope that our leaders in Jerusalem are savvier and more conscientious than they give appearance of being. I still have hope for Bibi’s will, but am not certain about it.
Pretty coherent post Larry.
#145 Yes, Mary you have some good observations in that post. I don’t agree with them all, but its a start…
Thanks, Max. You have some very good ones also. Be well.
#157 Larry in the Silicon.
Indeed, good post.
On the first point, to eliminate the regime, it is necessary to cripple the Revolutionary Guard. I don’t think Israel can accomplish this task. At best, we can kill the upper echelon of the regime or at least, many of them. Only America can successfully accomplish this but I have no faith in Obama, none.
I follow Mr Ledeen’s reports but I doubt if the Iranians can overthrow the regime, at least, not in the time frame we’re talking about.
I mentioned using nuclear weapons because we cannot risk failure no matter how unpleasant that idea is – in for a penny, in for a dollar, you can’t fight a war half-way with limited means & limited objectives, once you start, winning is all.
You mention that we must accept the consequences of failure – I tend to think that if we don’t act, that will be failure.
Terry, even the use tactical nukes in a desert where hardly anyone would get killed from the explosion or fallout is a line hardly anyone would be willing to cross. Israel would become dangerously isolated even if the casualties were very low. I don’t think there’s any chance of it happening. Israel would be less isolated for waging a war against the IRGC even if ten times as many people get killed.
Anyway, there’s nothing stopping Israel from sending commandoes in to sabotage the facilities on and under the ground. It doesn’t all have to be done from the skies.
Don,
umm, Craig, I didn’t bring up the “Christianization” of Europe.
Yes, you did. When you mentioned building Churches over Pagan shrines it was pretty obvious you were talking about the Christianization of Europe. When you specifically told me I should google for Churches on the sites of Pagan shrines in Europe, it was more than “pretty obvious”. And when you gave me a link to an article about Churches in England built over pagan shrines, it was ABUNDANTLY CLEAR
You continue to duck and weave, rather than defending a claim you yourself decided to insert into the discussion.
And if you’ve never encountered works on the influence of Christian religion and theology and values on western imperial projects, that’s your problem, not mine.
Dude, you’re the one who doesn’t want to get into specifics. You speak in generalities and repeatedly change the subject, the accuse me of being uninformed?
I merely question the peaceful nature of the Christian “conversions” that you apparently assume.
I just “assume this”, eh? There isn’t any historical record to refer to? The first to adopt Christianity as a people were the Armenians. How is it that the Armenians were converted, Don? At swordpoint?
Let me clue you in a little. The first Christian churches – ever – were built in Asia Minor. Some of the sermons given in those early Churches are documented in the Bible. Who do you think was attending those sermons?
The Armenians were converted through evangelism.
As were the Greeks. As were the Romans. As were the central and northern Europeans.
The only mystery here is how you presume to discuss matters you seem to know very little about. I do admire your audacity to imply the only reason we disagree is that I haven’t studied the right sources. You obviously aren’t that comfortable with your sources (if you actually have any sources at all) or you would have offered a counter to the narrative I put forward.
I do grant you that there is a difference between Christ riding the cross, a Roman torture and execution device, and Mohammed riding a horse and carrying a sword to spread the “gospel.”
That’s a pretty huge difference, Don. When Christians become brutal and violent, they are going against the teachings of Christ. When Muslims do the same, they are following the Prophets example.
Terry, thanks. I am afraid it will come to that with much more dilly-dallying. I hope Bibi is tough enough to be letting various states, including the United States, know that this is possible. I agree that Israel can not of course dismember the core structures of the Guard. Ledeen’s hypothesis is that – as I understand it – they are and will self-destructing, with help from internal dissidents. Ledeen doesn’t seem to believe CIA, Mossad, etc., are helping with this at all. I think he’s a bit off in that assessment.
I also agree about killing many of the leadership. That is certainly possible. I would like to believe this happens coincidentally with the sort of strike Michael Totten speaks of, but, again, it is a question of balancing interests of physical survival versus isolation and so on. As a hawk, and one returning to live in Israel, I would prefer isolation to the end of Israeli sovereignty. Most of the Israelis Michael hangs out with are of the more cautious variety. I would also pre-empt Michael and agree that your and my positions are, by conventional wisdom, ‘extreme.’ Then again, Churchill was a pariah in England until Chamberlain messed up (and no, I am not forecasting either of us as Israeli Churchills, though Bibi and Barak would be better men would they listen to those with similar views).
#162 The US has plans for an expeditionary force if it gets to that point for exactly the reason you mentioned Michael. My advocating for kinetics is that you get .3 – .4 kilotons = SPEED x MASS with existing technology however expensive. Spending money on F-35s won’t get you to that powerful a sortie.
My worry is however, Israel may consider the use of smaller, “cleaner” nukes allegedly offered the US to nail Saddam’s bunkers in Iraq. If they were to exist (and really contain residual radiation), would their use (and the use of a nuclear EMP detonated at a “safe” distance) be acceptable? Would it cross the threshold? Whose threshold? And if Israel had a rock big enough to produce a .4 kiloton blast, would using it be vilified as a WMD?
Perhaps the time has come to consider these questions….
#162 Michael Totten.
I’m aware of the seriousness of using tactical nukes, I’m sure Israel’s leaders will have a very difficult decision in this regard. If it’s possible to accomplish the job without them, good. Not being a military expert, I only mention it as an option if necessary. But, I would repeat, we cannot risk failure. If I have to choose isolation vrs. survival, survival wins.
You know, I was in business & part of my function was risk management. Without getting into the boring details, I had to juggle all kinds of risks, do my homework, & weigh each risk. Some risks could be ignored, either as improbable or not having serious consequences. But, risks that could have put me out of business, I took very seriously & I did whatever I had to do to manage them, very often this did not make me very popular.
A nuclear-armed Iran can put us out of business. All the discussions, all the theories of deterrence, all the analyses by ”experts”, are not persuasive when weighed against this kind of risk.
Michael Totten, Maxtrue, & Larry.
Anyway, no matter what Israel does, the condemnations will come fast & furious.
The object of the game against us is to limit our options & make self-defense impossible.
Terry – too bad for you, you grasp the bottom-line, stark realities. I personally am pretty good at not thinking about them much of the time. Indeed, the game against Israel is a deadly one. There are many more actors than Muslim ones. The purpose of both Saudi Arabia and the United States, among others, is to defang Iran in a manner that does not legitimate Israeli self-defense in the future; in other words, keep the game stacked against us eternally. It is this we must fight against.
I wish you would exploit some contacts and attempt to represent your views to some of the policymakers. I have a few ‘right-wing’ Israeli politician friends on Facebook (like Micky Eitan), but I doubt they would help. Maybe they would. Maybe I’ll write him a note.
Craig: Christianity got its start in the Roman world through peaceful evangelization. But once Christianity became politically dominant, all competing creeds were forcibly suppressed, including classical paganism and Mithraism. Many former pagan temples were converted to churches. The Emperor Theodosius completed this process in the last years of his reign (388-395).
In central and northern Europe, there were missionaries. But the missionaries preached to the rulers. When the rulers adopted Christianity, any holdouts in the country were converted by force. See the life of Saint Olaf of Norway.
There are several well-known episodes of mass conversion by the sword. Charlemagne’s conquest of the Saxons is one. Another is the Baltic Crusades of 1150-1350. It is certain that no pre-Christian religion other than Judaism was ever tolerated in Christian Europe.
Kramer, being a rational person, assumes everyone else acts rationally too. Big mistake, as anyone who has been in a street fight will tell you.
#168 Larry in the Silicon.
Years of experience, it sort of burned the self-deception out of me, let’s just say, I’ve been around the block a few times, I’ve heard all the BS too many times. And, I learn from history, you know the quote from Kohelet, ”there is nothing new under the sun.” He was a wise man.
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/anglo-saxon_remains-churches.htm
“When Christianity in England was young there were no parish or village churches. Instead, carved crosses were erected at convenient sites for itinerant monks or priests to preach to the inhabitants. These crosses may have been put up at sites which were already regarded as sacred in pagan worship. Later on, churches were built at the same spots, preserving a continuity of worship. Some of the finest crosses still to be seen are at Ilkley (West Yorkshire), Gosforth and Irton (both in Cumbria), and Bakewell (Derbyshire).”
2010
CALLING,
R
Rich Rostrom,
Craig: Christianity got its start in the Roman world through peaceful evangelization.
Yes, and not just there… all throughout Europe and the middle-east, that was the way.
But once Christianity became politically dominant…
But that’s not what we are arguing about. Don’s assertion was that Christianity was spread through conquest and that invaders were forcibly imposing Christianity on the locals as was done in Islam. And that one of the methods used was to try to stamp out the religion of the occupied people by erecting Christian churches over-top existing religious shrines.
I think that’s all false, and can easily be proven false. Don could even prove it false himself if he was willing to make the effort. He’s obviously made a conscious decision to ignore the facts in this case and go with what he’d like to believe, instead.
I’m a protestant, and my ancestors fought against the abuses of the Catholic Church for more than a century of warfare. I’m not a big fan of what happened with Christianity in Europe once it got established. But we aren’t arguing about that… we’re arguing about the methods by which it became the established religion in Europe in the first place.
…all competing creeds were forcibly suppressed, including classical paganism and Mithraism. Many former pagan temples were converted to churches. The Emperor Theodosius completed this process in the last years of his reign (388-395).
OK. That’s a case of the rulers imposing their will on their subjects. Which happened every day and in every way, back in those days. Where is the coercion on those rulers from the outside? Who was even CAPABLE of coercing the ruler of the Roman empire? Or later, the leaders of the Frankish tribal confederation? Or the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon tribal confederation? Before that the Vandals and the Goths converted to Christianity… they were evangelized by Arian, who was later branded a heretic. May not be coincidence that they decided to pillage the Eastern and Western roman empires shortly afterwards, but who knows? In any case it’s highly unlikely the Romans had much pull with the barbarian tribes that were “at the gates”, right?
There are several well-known episodes of mass conversion by the sword. Charlemagne’s conquest of the Saxons is one.
I already mentioned that. And I’m pretty sure it’s the ONLY one, so it’s a bit misleading to imply it’s just an example of something that was commonplace.
Another is the Baltic Crusades of 1150-1350.
Those were military campaigns against Eastern European pagans – and eastern Orthodox Christians, by the way. That’s not the region or the time period we’re talking about, but it is an example of ethnic cleansing done under the (thin) guise of Christianity.
It is certain that no pre-Christian religion other than Judaism was ever tolerated in Christian Europe.
I don’t disagree. But that’s outside of the scope of this discussion.
Just for the sake of argument, though – there’s a pretty good reason why pagans were not tolerated in Europe. A lot of people are complaining how brutal European Christians were, but nobody is mentioning how much MORE brutal Europeans were, when they were pagans. Look how peacable the Norse became after being converted to Christianity? Those horrific and terrifying savages known as the vikings became a bunch of over-sized teddy-bears almost overnight, and the vikings were never heard from again. And they weren’t even the worst of European pagans… they were just the last holdouts. I’m not so sure Europe would have turned out better, without Christianity.
Render, there was Christianity in “England” before the English arrived by way of the Romans.
From wiki:
As the Roman occupation of Britain was coming to an end, Constantine III withdrew the remains of the army, in reaction to the barbarian invasion of Europe.The Romano-British leaders were faced with an increasing security problem from sea borne raids, particularly by Picts on the East coast of England.The expedient adopted by the Romano-British leaders was to enlist the help of Anglo-Saxon mercenaries (known as foederati), to whom they ceded territory.In about AD 442 the Anglo-Saxons mutinied, apparently because they had not been paid.
Big mistake
Craig – Yessir.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7419293-archaeology-and-society
http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Britain-Early-England-B-C/dp/0393003612
Y’all are making me reach way up high on the bookshelves.
MATRES
CAMPESTRES
TRIO,
R
What is missing in this interview is Iranian people views and their relationship with the Iranian government and how that fits in overall picture.
Iranian mullahs are seeking the A-bomb to stay in power. Its give them leverage to suppress their population.
Larry and Terry:
You aren’t suggesting that there is a conspiracy to keep the Jews nailed helpless and suffering to a cross, are you?
Render, I don’t know which mattresses you are referring to but the decision to bring in the Anglo-Saxons as mercenaries might be the original “epic fail”. I bet the dude who made that call felt a bit like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kPXdtz_c4
http://www.jstor.org/pss/20189872
Three goddesses of the parade ground, a favorite of the Germanic Celtic Roman Imperial Guard.
…and a bit more difficult to find on the web then I thought…
SIGH,
R
David, interested in hearing your thoughts in a slightly less cryptic form….although I am guessing your view.
P.S. I meant by “contain” -to keep at bay, reduce the effect. Some credible reports claim such weapons reduce residual radiation to the point ground zero is clear of dangerous radiation within 3 to 4 days. Considering Pakistan, Russia, France, India, China have all engaged in such pursuits, I’m not sure why this hasn’t come up given the topic of consideration…..Israel is believed to have tested a neutron bomb in the early 80s in collaboration with South Africa.
What North Korea and Iran might be working on….. http://bos.sagepub.com/content/66/3/38.full
And some facts on terrorist dirty bombs:
http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb.mit.edu/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RS21528.pdf
“I don’t agree with Dan.”
Of course you don’t agree with Dan. You *are* Dan.
“Dan – “Iran supports our people in both Iraq and Afghanistan against al-Qaeda terrorists. Iran mourned with us on 9/11.””
Dan = anand???
“Iran supports our people in both Iraq and Afghanistan against al-Qaeda terrorists. Iran mourned with us on 9/11″
Don’t confuse Iranian people with Iranian government. Yes, Iranian mourned with us on 9/11. In contrast to that Iranian Mullahs supported al-Qaeda. Both Iranian Mullahs and Al-Qaeda share same views when it comes to interpretation of Islam.
Dan and Anand are definitely different people.
Assuming everyone else is acting rationally isn’t rational; it’s dangerous. Ask a combat soldier, a cop or a psychiatrist.
A bit off-subject, I ran across a blog called NewsFlavor that had some interviews supposedly with someone high up in the Democratic Party, an anonymous source, about Obama & the inside working of the administration. The posts paint a very odd picture of Obama, very odd. Here is the link:
”White House Insider: They Were in Shock at the President’s Behavior.”
http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/white-house-insider-they-were-in-shock-at-the-presidents-behavior/
Can this be for real?
Sixty-Five Years of Circling the Drain: Happy Birthday, UN! : http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sixty-five-years-of-circling-the-drain-happy-birthday-un/
Claudia Rosett has had some great columns on the U.N. through the years, but I can’t find an archive (site) that includes all of them.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/23267/venezuelas_troubling_nuclear_ties.html
Well Chavez isn’t Ahmadinejad, but they’re both assholes America should take seriously……
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11651469
Russia and the US go after Afghanistan drugs.
As NK prepares nuclear site, shots are fired between South and the North. Gee, and I thought Obama was going to restore some sanity to the world, or was that Jon Stewart….
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/28/Lebanon-called-hyper-dangerous/UPI-59421288311868/
Pretty much what Israel has been saying…
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/101027/world/britain_children_names_islam
Booth would be pleased……
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44354.html
surviving in the Middle
I hear you, Terry. It’s a jungle out there…
Max, I believe the S Africa reports came out about ’78. It’s not really that believable considering that most people believe Israel had a working bomb by ’67. Although I suppose it might be true if there was a need to test a newer version.
“Critical to this is also the disbanding and disarming of all militias. Militias holding arms in Lebanon today is an intimidation in itself, particularly when it is paired with reckless and irresponsible rhetoric.”
Let us know how that works out for ya, Terje Roed-Larsen.
I’m not sure which I find more annoying… reckless and irresponsible rhetoric from Hezbollah and the IRI or hollow and meaningless rhetoric from the UN.
What if the Palestinians declared statehood, and what if many Western nations recognized it? http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=193192
David Horovitz has long been my favorite commentator on Israeli/Palestinian/Middle East issues. He has a pretty deep understanding of the issues, and knows how to stick to reality in his columns.
Actually, I’ve thought about the ramifications of the Palestinians successfully declaring statehood for some years now. (I’ve thought it might be, I’m not sure, less meaningful than some people do. There are border disputes between states and states do occupy other states.) But Horovitz gives us some more things to think about.
You realize that’s David Horovitz of the J Post and not David Horowitz of Front Page Magazine and Santa Barbara?
In any case, ‘reality’ is what emerges. Horovitz (of the Post) is of the uber-pragmatic school of ‘we can’t win, we can only manage the draw.’
Reality is what your background, experience, education and beliefs teaches. The pragmatists keep telling us that they know the solution because they are free of emotion, etc. I have read Horovitz’ columns off and on for years. To me, he’s a well-meaning defeatist, a pure ‘political Zionist’ without a real understanding of our claim to the land or the full nature of Muslim Arab opposition to a Jewish state of any kind.
For many years I was careful, made an effort, to listen to people from both sides of any issue before I made up my mind. I subscribed to both liberal and conservative newspapers and magazines.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve done a lousy job of this in the past few years, but I still think it’s important. And come on, guys, admit it – some of you could do a better job, too.
So I’d like to make a suggestion by using an example.
Before Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave his recent speech at the UN, I decided I could at least see for myself what the man had to say. So I sat back in an easy chair, had a couple of drinks, and turned on some relaxing background music while I watched him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYNK8A_bXwA
It wasn’t so bad. Try it.
Dikehopper,
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve done a lousy job of this in the past few years, but I still think it’s important. And come on, guys, admit it – some of you could do a better job, too.
I grew up in a hippy household in the late 1960s and 1970s. I only ever heard one side of every story, both at home and in school with my hippy teachers. I had to learn about the other side of every issue on my own, which I did because I was an avid reader even back then. As a teenager, I was more conservative on political issues (meaning not social, I’m pretty liberal on social issues) than my parents. I think that was pretty typical for my generation.
I don’t really have much interest in hearing what the far left has to say on anything. I’ve heard it all before, and I’ve heard it said by people who were far more dedicated to their ideology than today’s left. I will listen to what virtually anyone else (besides the far left) has to say. Problem is that most Americans who are leftists reject that label and claim to be “moderates” and “liberals” so it takes a bit of work to weed out the asshats from the rational human beings.
Ignore the rhetoric; examine history’s gift, the results.
Craig – Heh, I issued a newsletter for 10+ years and people learned that I often make a dramatic lead-in to a joke. My punch line to the post above was the music video. Completely blew everything I said previously. As I once said to Charlie, “sooner or later, you’ll learn not to trust me.”
But anyway, my family background was the exact opposite of yours. A very violent background. And negative attitudes about blacks, Jews, Germans, Japanese, Holocaust denial, racial and religious groups, on and on. But for some reason, I never bought it – from my very earliest memories.
I have a fairly strong suspicion that one of my grandfathers was involved with the Klan. But I never, from my earliest memories, gave a squat. I always realized, from my very first consciousness, that I am me, not anyone else, not anyone who came before me.
I never automatically bought into anything anyone told me, including my own parents. And I tried to teach my own daughter the same. “Don’t believe anything I say. Come to your own conclusions.” And she turned out to be a very fine human being.
Dan, you’re wrong that Iran has no beef with the United States. As I recall, their slogan is “Death to America.” How can Americans NOT consider it a threat when that regime is also hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons? And the “best” case scenario is that the Iranians will “only” use their nuclear weapons in order to dominate a part of the world that is crucial to the US’s vital interests (i.e. stability in the Persian Gulf).
Iran mourned with us on 9/11? Spit. Some individual Iranians did, and bless them; but not the regime. In fact, Ahmadinejad recently said the US blames most of the responsibility for 9/11. God you make me sick.
Also, Iran has harbored members of al-Qaeda: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jun/10/20030610-125659-6237r/.
I’m also curious as to whether you think the US should pullout all 30,000 or so troops from South Korea? According to your rationale, why should the US let South Korea get us embroiled in a war with the North who, after all, doesn’t really have a beef with us? I mean, all the North wants to do is reunite the peninsula. If it wasn’t for the US’s stubborn support for the South, we could have peace with the North.
COME AND
PLAY
DAN
Larry, you wrote: “You realize that’s David Horovitz of the J Post and not David Horowitz of Front Page Magazine and Santa Barbara?” Well, gee… I do get the two mixed up a lot. I have trouble with my “v’s” and “w’s,” they look so much alike. Just like I get Helen Thomas and Clarence Thomas mixed up – they have such similar names. But I’m working on it.
“Reality is what your background, experience, education and beliefs teaches.” Well, yeah, a person’s concept of reality is largely based on those things, don’t you think? Although I have a personal problem with “beliefs,” such as Nazism, Islamofascism, Scientology, etc. Do you agree?
“The pragmatists keep telling us that they know the solution because they are free of emotion, etc.” Do you think that decisions are better based on emotion? Well, go to one of the “peace rallies” in San Francisco. Or to any neo-nazi rally. You’ll find a lot of thoughts based on emotions.
My best friend, for about 30 years, was politically and ideologically the opposite of me. He was very liberal and I was very conservative. Yet we remained best friends. That’s not at all unusual. People who share the same values and goals in their personal lives often disagree on political issues.
Once, during an argument, my friend said that I was a “pragmatist,” and he didn’t mean it as a compliment. But I, fool that I am, took it as a compliment.
The word “pragmatic,” from Roget’s Thesaurus: “Having or indicating an awareness of things as they really are: down-to-earth, hard, hardheaded, matter-of-fact, objective, practical, pragmatical, prosaic, realistic, sober, tough-minded, unromantic.” That’s me, except for the “unromantic” thing. I love romance. I can provide references. But I’m also pragmatic. So I remain single.
Thesaurus antonyms to pragmatic: “ambiguous, doubtful, dubious, equivocal, fluctuating, indecisive, not positive, uncertain, vacillating.” In other words, not “Having or indicating an awareness of things as they really are.” Are you saying that these things are you?
Some dictionaries use the word “idealistic” as an antonym to pragmatic. I was certainly more idealistic, and less pragmatic, when I was very young than I am now. I haven’t forgotten the ideals, very fine ideals, I had even as a pre-schooler. But I tempered them as I grew older. As most people do. (And now the Social Security Administration classifies me, officially, as an “old fart.”)
But, anyway, suicide bombers are also idealistic. A virtue?
That reminds me of something I heard my father say about idealism when I was very young, it went something like this: “If people were perfect, communism would be the best system there is. But they aren’t, so it isn’t.” Even at a young, tender age,I understood immediately.
You also wrote: “To me, he’s a well-meaning defeatist, a pure ‘political Zionist’ without a real understanding of our claim to the land or the full nature of Muslim Arab opposition to a Jewish state of any kind.” In an earlier thread, you said something along the lines that I (and MJT) have a position that depends on Israel losing. I asked you to explain. I ask you again, Larry. Explain what you mean. Let’s have this out. Why do you think that I (and MJT) am insufficiently supportive of Israel?
S-5000 (maman) – I don’t think he’s coming back from #149. (it is zombie season though…)
GOING
FOR
DISTANCE,
R
181. Gary Rosen
“I don’t agree with Dan.”
Of course you don’t agree with Dan. You *are* Dan.
LOL. Does that make sense to you, Gary? Think about it. That’s screwy.
Now, if I agreed with Dan, I [might be] Dan …, or arnand.
That conjecture is consistent with your other irrational comments,
Dikehopper, I skimmed your reply. Based on the over-reaction – as if I was personally attacking you because I was explaining the different David’s – I am tempted not to reply. I simply believed you had confused the two.
So here’s the answer – Israelis (and I am one) whether Sabras or Jews like me born anywhere else – have as much right to security and to express national, religious and cultural identity freely in our homeland as you do in America. That’s because of Hashem, it’s because of the Jewish mission, which is to establish a state that can be not only refuge but beacon; that can be a base to advocate and propagate the Jewish message, which necessarily includes reference to Torah and Judaism. It’s because we get our butts kicked constantly in the Golah. So part of my insistence on that security is because I have seen how quickly – and in how many situations – ‘friendly’ Gentiles will turn on Jews. Because as a young kid growing up in an assimilated family, I had to learn the hard way – and relearn – just how much intrinsic Gentile opposition there is to Jewish identity and dignity.
I see a huge problem with a huge Muslim population living in areas that Israel must control, basically for good. So my point of departure was basically security and also the belief – buttressed by lots of evidence – that backers of Palestinian statehood have a problem with reasonable Jewish aspirations for homeland and security. And I think that’s true. People – including leftist Israelis, that truly believe the can create a Pal state now and expect Israel to have security alongside it, are deluding themselves.
A guy like Horovitz only wants to maintain the status quo. The s.q. of today is a mildly improved version of the Oslo years, which were a nightmare (’94-’05, let’s say, when the suicide bombings and shooting more or less stopped). It’s not acceptable to me. Yet the political ‘solutions’ that you think of come out of a mindset that says that Israel must constantly justify her right to security and existence, that the nations of the world have the right to dictate to her (at least the US does), and that her existence depends on int’l support, particularly ‘friendship’ with the US – which usually translates to accepting American dictates on key issues. We can see from Dayan-Meir accepting American dictates before, during and after ’73, and we can see from Oslo – particularly as regards Clinton’s involvement – that bowing to American advice proves to be lousy for Israel.
I hope your question is answered. You seem to me to have almost deliberately misread my remarks out of hyper-sensitivity or misplaced anger. I don’t dislike you, I disagree with your view. That’s it. I have a problem with Michael because I think he slandered me by claiming that I don’t believe that Palestinian Arabs exist, when clearly I was making a different point – that they exist and and are not a nation. Certainly not one with which Israel can coexist.
My comment to you above was written with basically no reference (as I recall writing it) to our previous argument. Yet you took it as a frontal attack. You answered with great ‘vigor’ twice (I think it was twice).
Finally, the statement that we are a product of our experience, education, beliefs etc. I think is self-evident. Again, that you took it as me discrediting your life’s experience and world view is your problem, not mine. I did not intend any such meaning.
Dikehopper, the more basic points – and this has nothing to do with you as an individual – are that I know that a majority of non-Jews are prejudiced against us, some quite deeply, and that these are wars of values and cultures. Christianity attempted to usurp Judaism, Islam usurped both. We Jews will move heaven and earth – not to replace either or both of you – but simply to get ourselves back to a position in this world where future mass assaults on Jews, individually and collectively, will be very painful, and difficult.
And that requires, in my view, a new relationship between Israel and the US, and a diminishing of the subtly corrosive impact of official American ‘friendship’ on Israel (as it is currently expressed). Many pro-Israel Americans – and I agree that you and Michael fit in that group generally – have a lot of difficulty accepting that their friendship towards the Israeli people is not accurately reflected in American policy.
Good luck to you, and I hope you relax a bit.
ACO, if you don’t agree with Dan why don’t *you* make the arguments against him, instead of engaging in content-free taunting of the people criticizing him? It’s pretty obvious that you in fact do agree with him and are pretending to be “objective” in order to give yourself credibility. It’s a typical sock puppet move which is why I think you are Dan.
Larry in the Silicon – My previous post wasn’t just an overreaction, it was plain dumb. Out of line.
I shouldn’t have been posting about *anything* Friday night. I caught some sort of bug. My head was throbbing, I couldn’t get warm…but that was no excuse. I just wasn’t thinking.
(As a consolation, God did punish me for it. I spent half of Friday night planted on the toilet. Yesterday was terrible, too.)
I apologize.
Now, I’m going to see if I can handle an egg and toast.
Um, okay, Gary @ #207, whatever. Our three-year-old has essentially the same, um, unusual rationales that you do. It was during a conversation with him yesterday that, SHAZAM, I realized how you think, too.
What you have going for you in your favor is that you are already so ditzy that, as you grow older and get dementia, nobody will be able to tell.
Dikehopper @ 208 – Was that your excuse when you made the BIG mistake of harrassing my girlfriend, Dianne, too? As I recall, you had diarrhea (of the mouth) on that occasion, too. And she sure plugged you up real quick, better than Imodium AD ever could.
And here I was thinking that Dikehopper and Larry In Silicon think so much alike that they HAVE TO BE the same person posting under two different names.
This place is already so strange that who would be surprised if what we just witnessed there was Larry and his sock puppet having a conversation with each other?
ACO – In the earlier thread I said that Dianne introduced snark (“snide remarks”) to the comments. She said I misinterpreted her remarks, said I should lighten up, and called me “Grumpy.” I accepted that by responding with self-deprecating humor – saying that I wasn’t Grumpy from the Seven Dwarfs, that I was Dopey. End of story.
However, your comments are definitely snark, that is, snide remarks. Or are the smiley faces supposed to mean that you didn’t mean what you said?
Ah, more revisionist history from Dikehopper; e.g., it wasn’t that fibber who called himself Dopey, using self-deprecating humor. It was ANOTHER poster named Maxtrue who called him dopey for making such a jackass out of himself with his ill-conceived, unprovoked, quite inappropriate and snotty attacks on my girlfriend, for which others here chastised him, also.
Still trying to save face, still fibbing to cover your sorry ass and still not man enough to admit to your obnoxious and senseless blunder, eh dufus? You’re a real piece of work. Gee, why do I suspect that you are a liberal? END OF STORY.
I’ll let you have the last word. Although since you’ve already dug yourself into a deep hole, I suggest that you stop digging before you become this site’s resident putz.
Actually, I don’t want the last word, AKO/Dianne’s boyfriend/Brian. I would rather you keep making comments – in the same style as your last few posts. You fill an important function here – how the other side thinks. Don’t stop.