A couple of nights ago, my friend Brian sketched out the “all of our efforts over the last three years have been a build up to a war with Iran” scenario for me, and it sounded pretty convincing, especially because he pointed out that having military footprints in Afghanistan and Iraq means that our army is well-positioned to attack Iran.
My only response was, “Bush wouldn’t have the audacity…,” but of course he would! His entire Presidential career has been little more than a demonstration of his audacity. As Brian said, “Over 750 signing statements, a law approving waterboarding, illegal domestic spying, sending more troops when EVERYONE says it is a bad idea…”. On that last, Brian continued, “He’s not sending 20,000 troops to defend Baghdad. He’s sending 20,000 troops to be in the region for the invasion of Iran.” Again I said that he wouldn’t!, but of course he would; of course he would.
And now this in the New York Times: “President Bush has authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to take whatever actions are necessary to counter Iranian agents deemed a threat to American troops or the public at large, the White House said Friday.”
This shit is scary.
52 Comments
This is a non story that does not mean that we are going to start a fight with Iran. This is for Iranian agents that are in Iraq its not like he is giving permission to go into Iran and snatch people. There is no way we go to war with Iran right now, shit congress is talking about shutting off funding for Iraq.
As far as Congress goes, they ain’t talking about nothing more than a non-binding resolution that says, “Hey Mr. President, we don’t think is a good idea, but we’re not actually going to do anything about it because we don’t want any of the fucking idiots who we believe make up this country to think that we don’t support our troops.”
As for Iran…believe me, sir, I’m right with you. I don’t want to believe that President Bush, with a 30% approval rating, would even consider attacking Iran, but it’s not like his track record demonstrates a willingness to face up to reality.
And you know — you know! — that his adminstration is not above lying and propagandizing to get what it wants (see yellow cake uranium in Africa, Al-Qaeda and WMDs in Iraq, etc.). Hopefully, if and when they start, the media won’t kowtow like it did the last time, but then again, that assumes the media isn’t complicit to begin with.
Anyway, I hope, hope, hope that you’re right.
But you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think there’s at least some cause for alarm.
I am not sure, with a 30% rating and the history of lies , lying and propaganda would do any good. The only thing that could get us to go to war with Iran would be a 9/11 like attack with Iran claiming responsability for it, a video of them planning it, and then invading our country through mexico.
You would also need a draft becaus there would not be enough troops for us to invade Iran and protect our supply lines in Iraq, Afghanistan and kuwait. Unless we nuked the whole country, I guess.
But back to the main point that this action by the president is just a way to try to keep security in a place where there is none. In fact wouldn’t this be the case with any person in Iraq there trying to cause harm to US interests?
That’s why this story caught my eye. I mean, has the military been stopping in the middle of a firefight to yell out, “Hey, you over there! Are you Iraqi or Iranian?” and if the latter, have they been holding their fire? Of course not. So, why the press release?
The paranoia in me says its because the administration is starting the propaganda war right here. It works something like this:
1. “We give our soldiers permission to kill Iranians deemed a threat to the U.S. soldiers in Iraq.”
2. “We’ve traced the source of most of the insurgents’ armaments and they are coming from Iran.”
3. “The latest intelligence from Iraq shows that over a high-percentage of the insurgents are of Iranian descent, and that thousands more spill over the Iraq-Iran border almost weekly.”
4. “In order to secure Iraq, we must prevent the Iranian agents from ever crossing the border.”
5. “If we don’t fight them in Iran, we’ll be fighting them in Iraq.”
6. “Fellow citizens, I’ve just given my generals to begin airstrikes on Tehran.”
I hear you but logistically it would be almost impossible to do especially without help and I do not see that coming. We can’t secure Iraq now, what happens when we move the troops into Iran or even on the border or Iran? Afghanistan doesn’t matter because I do not think we could stage a ground war through the mountains and into Iran. Iran supplies China with oil and China is not going to want to see that interrupted and would start throwing its economic weight around. This was just a warning, mostly toothless
Personally, I do no see us in Iraq in 18 months, at least with the amount of troops we have there now. The republicans know if they are going to get into the White House they need to be getting out of Iraq and Republican Party survival is more important then Bush and Iran. In about 6 months everything will be geared towards the White House Bush knows this, his staff knows this and they are not going to be doing to much more to fuck things up for McCain.
It depends on who is in the White House. Is it the Republicans or is it Bush? By which I mean, are Bush and his cronies more concerned with their own agenda (whetever its motivation) than with that of the Republican party? It seems from his record, it’s the former. While he talks to the Republican party, he hasn’t done much to actually help it out, for example, running up huge deficits and not actually doing anything for the Evangelicals.
This is the same political machine that trashed McCain back in South Carolina in 2000. I wouldn’t put it past them to ignore the needs of the party to satisfy the needs of their…wallets, egos, ideology?….agenda.
No because a lot of these guys still want to be in politics, and when Bush is done they will need the party. They could trash McCain back in 2000 because they knew they would get the nomination and probably trashed him to get it.
This is all moot anyway because it would be impossible to do anyway. It’s like fighting over if Bush wants to ride a unicorn or not. Maybe he does maybe not but is doesn’t matter because it can’t happen. Bush and his cronies might have had a problem with nation building but the actual war part they did pretty good. There would be no way to actually win the ground war.
“but the actual war part they did pretty good”? - what’s that supposed to mean?
how is this war even remotely close to being pretty good?
It took less then a month for Baghdad to fall and for the Iraqi army to be defeated. The US is good at ground wars; it is our lack of planning on what to do after that has caused this shit show.
We are not good at nation building, as it is evident in Kosovo and the surrounding areas that still do not have reliable electricity and water and we have been rebuilding there for 10 years.
The administration knows that we can not invade Iran because we would have to go through Iraq and it is not secure enough for that, and that is why they won’t invade.
it took less than a month for baghdad to fall and for the iraqi army to be defeated?
what iraqi army?
we dropped some televised bombs and then invaded.
i have never seen any footage of the u.s. army fighting an iraqi army. just roadside bomb footage and people in civilian clothing carrying dead people down the street. footage of a u.s. soldier firing bullets down a beige road or into buildings. kicking down doors.
so, now, after the first month or so was over, after we’ve defeated this mysterious “iraqi army” - scratch that - after we’ve defeated the saddam loyalists and baghdad has fallen. what? we go into other neighborhoods and create an insurgency much more powerful than the “iraqi army” ever was.
why? lack of planning?
lack of planning?
plans that literally failed?
basically what i’m trying to say is. - the war in iraq is still a war. - long after that first month was over.
it’s never been “pretty good”. - it’s been the exact opposite of that. - at best.
why? lack of planning?
lack of planning?
grrr.
i have to go back to regular grammar minus the capitals. i just attempted it in the comment above. after being spam for two tries of corrections on the original dot dot dot hyphen thingy i usually do.
i finally get in. after a half an hour or so of corrections and i splirk it all up with repeating myself and failing miserably at an attempt attempt at trying to be be miss rupp rupp.
oh rupp.
how comes i never saw that nudie magazine?
The cat hopped over the fence.
The dog was about to lick my foot, when, out of nowhere, it spotted the hopping cat.
The dog runs across the room and jumps out of the window in an attempt to chase the cat over the fence and into the woods. It succeeds, but, in the process, creates an insurgency of cats.
Sorry.
So I see some comments about needing more troops in order to support another war front. I would like to point out that our government utilizes a company called Blackwater. This is a private security firm (read that as mercenaries) currently there are approximately 48,000 Blackwater “troops” in Iraq. These are the “soldiers” that were killed and burned in Fallouja and hung from the bridge. These are also the same “troops” that were deployed to NOLA when Katrina hit and they needed more security personel. More recently, the helicopter that was recently shot down and 4 Americans were killed, these were Blackwater employees that were killed.
The main problem I see with people and this administration is that everyone thinks that Bush will not do something because of his approval rating, this is obviously not the case since the man does not care about that. Bush has been quoted as saying he does not have to follow Congress if he feels that their judgement is in error.
We have a president who has been systematically weaking citizen power, weakening the power of Congress and at the same time pulling more power into the presidential office. Please do not think for one moment that this man will not expand this war into Iran, they do after all have our oil under their soil.
Dave are you kidding or do you really think he had no army?
They had more troops then we did there, probably somewhere in the 400,00 range and around 2000 tanks. You only saw what the media wanted you to see.
400,000 or 40,000?
That doesn’t really matter. There is still a war going on and I find it hard to believe that you defined “the actual war part” as turning out “pretty good”.
It’s not “pretty good”. It never was. The U.S. never won the “month long” war against this powerful Iraqi Army that you speak of. The U.S. only expanded the war. They brought it into the streets. They killed civilians. They took sides.
The war didn’t end after Baghdad supposedly fell. The mission was never accomplished. Never once has it been “pretty good”. We (and I hate saying we) didn’t create an insurgency out of love and understanding. We created it by bringing death and destruction to the Iraqi people in a war that has never ended since the occupation began.
We have got off topic here, the main point was invading Iran. The goal of us invading Iran would be the same as it was in invading Iraq, toppling the government. That is what we accomplished in Iraq. We did that fairly easy, when you do somethin easy that means it went pretty good. The reason you do not think Iraq had an army is because the US eliminated them in 3 weeks, and that (in the terms of war) is pretty good. If you think a mad man like Saddam wouldn’e have an army your nuts.
The time right after Bahdad fell people actually liked us, then we failed to get them things like electricity and water, and then people who had nothing to do with Iraq (al qaeda) started to blow shit up. This caused us to not be liked and the rest is history.
But Dave if you really think the violence there right now is because of us, then if we left all the violence would stop right? There would be cheering in the streets and victor parades right? No there would still be violence, if you notice US soldiers are not the only ones targeted. Most of the violence now has less to do with us and moer to do with groups of people who do not like each other. Us being there is probably keeping the violence down.
So, the reason we won’t invade Iran is because it’s not a good idea? Do you really think the fact that it’s a bad idea would prevent this administratioin from pursuing it? I’m not talking rational people, here. I’m talking about this administration, which is (apparently) made up of people who motivated by something that is desparately irrational, whether it’s their wallets or their ideology is no matter.
“The time right after Baghdad fell people actually liked us, then we failed to get them things like electricity and water, and then people who had nothing to do with Iraq (al qaeda) started to blow shit up. This caused us to not be liked and the rest is history.”
People who had nothing to do with Iraq (like the U.S. and Al Qaeda) started to blow shit up. Al Qaeda isn’t the sole reason why people in Iraq don’t like us. We’re the reason. We created this mess. Not Saddam. Not 9-11. People usually take responsibility for their actions. People have a choice.
This war was never about “freedom” or “toppling Saddam’s regime”. This war was never about fighting Saddam’s Army. Again, “the actual war part” is still a fucking war and it’s pretty fucking far from ever being “pretty good”.
And of course I’ve noticed that U.S. soldiers are not the only target. Still. That hasn’t stopped us from fanning the flames for over four years and joining in the killing spree.
“People usually take responsibility for their actions. People have a choice.”
What I meant by that was that this administration had a choice. They made the wrong decision. This entire fight for freedom has been the back-bone of this administration’s deceit and downfall. And noone is taking responsibility other than the president himself taking it upon himself to claim responsibility before he goes back to his lavish lifestyle of prime rib and golden toilets.
Baghdad fell?
No. My friend. You are sorely mistaken.
To be fair, the Iraq war has had three distinctive phases.
The first was the invasion of Iraq, which is pretty much what Justin is referring to as “the war part.” While it bled into the second phase, I think we can call agree that the invasion ended with the creation of the Green Zone in the middle of Baghdad and the democratic election of the Iraqi provisional government.
The second was the period between the election and the bombing of the Samarra Mosque in February of last year. The plan for this second phase was supposed to be country-building. We would sweep up the remaining insurgents while the rest of the Iraqis figured out what kind of government they would have, how their economic markets would be set up, and just basically figured out how to go about being Iraqis in a free Iraq. This phase did not go well.
The third phase is starts with the bombing of the mosque and last up to the present day. Even President Bush acknowledges that the bombimg of the mosque changed everything, sowing the seeds that have led to the current civil war. No one is really quite sure how to get out of this phase, but everyone pretty much thinks that the President’s plan to inject 21,000 more troops into the country is a bad idea.
I think we can all agree on this three phase thing, even Colin Powell.
“So, the reason we won’t invade Iran is because it’s not a good idea? Do you really think the fact that it’s a bad idea would prevent this administration from pursuing it? I’m not talking rational people, here. I’m talking about this administration, which is (apparently) made up of people who motivated by something that is desperately irrational, whether it’s their wallets or their ideology is no matter.”
I am saying even the administration knows that an invasion of Iran would not work. Kyle you are right about the three phases and like I said in the case of Iran we could not win any of these phases and the administration knows this.
Dave, if we had a better plan to help the Iraqi people after we took control of the governmental duties we would not be in as bad of a situation. We did not and here we are. You say we are still in a war, and we are from peace, but in a traditional sense if you take one of the combatants out of a war the war should end. In this case that would not happen. In fact it would get worse. We are more in a security role then a war role right now. Dave this war was all about toppling Saddam, more then anything else.
I am not saying war is good, I am saying that if the aim of something is accomplished in a short time then it went pretty good. Our aim was getting rid of Saddam, which we did.
But let’s say that Bush is crazy and wants to invade. He would have to get this done before 2008 because he and his crazy ass are out then. There is no way for us to get the troops in place in time for this to happen; there is also no way to get congress to pass the appropriate bills to get the money for this to happen. Without the money there would not be any blackwater “security†troops, and chances are those guys would not want to actually be in a invading war situation anyway.
This is all moot unless something huge happens.
I understand that Justin refers to the first month and the initial invasion as “the war part”.
I’m arguing that this entire mess is STILL a war. You can’t say that the first phase went “pretty good” considering the first phase led to what is happening in Iraq now.
I would even argue that even if these three phases are the highlights of the occupation, it’s still an occupation, and, people have been getting their head blown off in between these bookmarked phases. Most of the Iraqi civilians, the insurgents, and the U.S. troops lost their lives outside of these phases.
What it all boils down to is this administration making the decision to go into Iraq in the first place.
Behind a shield of speculation, lies, and manipulation.
Dave if during the first 2 weeks the US forces retreated from Iraq the Iraqi forces would have cheered and had a party. If we left now the place would burn.
We might still be in a war but it’s not against the same enemy so it’s not the same war
Of course, it’s still a war, but it’s an unconvential war (as almost all wars will be from now on — unless China decides they want to tear shit up). The first phase was conventional; this third phase is not.
All I’m saying about the phases as that they set up milestones for a conversation to progress. The first phase went as well as the invasion of a soveriegn country can go. The second phase was terrible, leading to the third phase, which is chaos.
This administration did not expect a third phase. As the President said in his State of the Union, Zarqawi saw the reality on the ground (the elections) and changed his tactics (incite widespread sectarian violence). We didn’t expect this. The question is, can we do anything about it, or was bombing the mosque Zarqawi’s checkmate?
As for this being a “different” war, well, I wouldn’t go that far. We’re still fighting the same people (those who don’t want us there), but now that group of people has grown tremendously, to the point where it might as well be the whole country.
We are fighting people whose goal is to hurt Americans, its not the same. Some of the people are not even iraqi and have no interst in Iraq.
Brian 45,000 troops are not a lot and those troops probably would not want to invade another country. They are there for securing not for fighting. They would rather not fight is what I mean. I guess we could use them for security but they are being used not to drive around the Iraqi big shots and secure supplies that are need for the rebuilding of important places.
Iran has the most powerful army in the region and while they are a decade or so away from nuclear missiles they do have the shabab-2 and shabab-3 missiles which would cause us some problems. Shit they could hit Iraq with those things could hit Baghdad right now.
The problem is there would be nobody protecting the rest or Iraq. We can hardly get trucks of concrete from one place to another without something blowing up never mind a 10 mile long supply line.
If this was 2002 and Iraq was secure I would be a bit worried, but these is no way logistically that we could do this in the amount of time left in his presidency. Also congress will not give him the money, there is no way.
We are fighting people whose goal is to hurt the Americans?
Before this energy draining war in Iraq even took place we were after a band of “rogue” terrorists led by the infamous Osama Bin Laden who “masterminded” the attacks of September Eleventh.
And now, long after the cowboy’s f*^$-nut of an administration blew it’s conch and convinced the Congress and the American people that we NEEDED to tromp off to war in the name of National Security and survival and freedom or whatever the new fucking word was on any given day of the president’s tirade of lubing up the world for a giant %ss f*+&ing, we’ve assured the Jihadists of recruitment which would have been much more difficult to find if we showered the Middle East with love instead of this revengeful reply of dropping millions of dollars worth of privatized missiles and the zillions of stray bullets that can just as easily find a child than it can a terrorist.
If we showered them with love. If we dropped books or packets of vegetable seeds instead of bombs. Literally. Jihadists would be few and far between.
This is so text book story tale that I don’t even have to remind anyone as to what happens to the bully.
I’m tired of arguing.
I love you.
Showered them with love. Thats great. Then we can all hold hands and have free love. I would love to live in that world. I am sure Saddam showered those same people with love, or the love of the US he showered them with everyday.
Clinton showered people with love too.
Justin,
The 40,000 “troops” I am referring to are not military personel. They are employees of a corporation with a $300 million dollar NO BID contract. They are not required to follow the same protocol, procedure or course of action that legitimate military has to follow. These are professional soldiers, they have no other purpose than to fight.
Now to address the comment about their goal is to hurt Americans. Ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer feels that we have completely misread their intentions and the whole purpose of the 9/11 attack, given the mans previous job with the CIA was infact to search for Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden [URL=http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=7394]Full Article[/URL]
It is American ego that thinks this is soley about our way of life, if it soley about that then I would have to say that the terrorists have done a bang up job changing our way of life for the worst all with the help of our own government.
This talk of Bush not having the time left in office is moot, we are currently in a “military engagement” this is just short of a congressional declaration of war. Now, let us consider this, if there was another terrorist attack during his presidency and we had a proveable target (see Faux News for media support)then it is possible that a full declaration of war could occur. So what you say? Then the next president will have to deal with that? Nay my friend, in times of declared war, presidential elections can be suspended and the current president stays in for another potentially full term. Too many steps you say? FEMA is the first step in declaring a police state, they declare an area a national emergency, once this occurs then a police state can be instituted and elections suspended. So if another terrorist attack were to occur on US soil, that area would become a national emergency as would the rest of the country and police state would be instituted. Since Patriot Act and Homeland Security act gives the federal government the right to use US military on US soil, this is not much of a stretch to consider.
Didn’t anyone ever wonder why FEMA was moved under the auspices of Homeland Security? or why police departments have been becoming militarized over the last 10 years?
Hmmmm *strokes goatee*
One other thing about those “troops” the Blackwater employees, you say they would not want to invade another country. If that is where their employer sends them and these men are very well paid then I suspect they will invade, subdue, nullify any and all targets per their corporate memo.
Consider this, if these men are only security force to protect dignataries, then why would they need to have secret or higher clearance? Why be required to have honorable discharge? would not law enforcement be just as qualified for a security detail?
here is an interesting article about Blackwater down in NOLA.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml
*evidently no html tags here?*
Yeah.
What was I thinking? Love and Kindness?
My bad.
Let US be the terrorists for once. Show’m who they’re mess’n with.
Anyway.
They’re just a bunch of savage sand niggers who never had it so good until we came in with our marvelous peace offerings. I remember the days. When Saddam was in power and the world was in absolute chaos. Thank God for George W. Bush. Thank Jesus. Someone, finally standing up to those lunatics. I’m glad that the Iraqi death toll is so high and that just about every other country wouldn’t mind dropping a nuclear bomb on the United States if they had the chance. They’ll never understand. They’re not white.
Fuck’m.
Torture every single one of them. All them towel-heads is all the same. Children. Adults. Terrorists.
Go Bush!
This message was brought to you by the Bush Foundation.
Brian, I understand that blackwater are ex-troops but let’s say you are an ex soldier and you are offered a job providing security. You accept and go now with security there is a certain level of danger and your cool wit that, but invading Iran would be a whole different level of danger. Most of these guys would say I got out of the army because of this. They have to have all that clearence and honorable discharges because they help secure high level officials in Iraq. MAybe the company is scared that is the guy was a fuckup in the army he would be a fuck up here. IF the guy is shady whats to stop him from being a double agent? Thats like saying why don’t people at banks hire convicted theifs. But even if they stay that is not enough troops to invade Iran.
If there was a another terrorist attack of the magnitude of 9/11 or greater I still do not think congress goes to war and if they did vote to keep Bush on as president. All this would happen only if there was another terrorist attack and it would have to be bigger then 9/11. I guess lets just hope that Kyle’s article that there is no real threat is true and we will all be done with Bush soon enough.
Dave I do not think that us giving them love would make them like us. We have become an enemy over there for a lot reasons, mostly our own doing, but some not. Rich leaders of rich countries have to have someone to use as blame to their people on why they are poor. They blame us. If it wasn’t that it would be Isreal.
Osama doesn’t like us because Saudi Arabia turned him down when he asked to defend Saudi Arabia when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The Saudis picked the US, Osama felt disgraced and declared us enemies. No matter what we do he will hate us, I think we pulled out all our troops out of there but he still hates us.
Hey, is there any chance to find common ground here?
Let me know if we can all agree to this:
* Going into Iraq was a mistake, and as idiotic as it may have been, it seems like it was an honest mistake spurred on by the blindness of ideology and economic lust.
* The first phase went as well as an invasion could go (thousands of innocent people dead)
* The second phase was horrendous (though predicted by many who were not blinded by ideology and economic lust)
* This current, third phase is chaos, and absolutely no one has any idea what it’s outcome will be (if we follow Bush’s path, most people say our path is descending spiral of death and destruction; if we pursue other strategies — i.e., diplomacy — there may be some hope, though no one really knows).
Okay, if we can all agree to that, let’s address the Iran issue.
* It makes absolutely no sense for the Bush Administration to invade Iran
* The hope that the Bush Administration will realize this is somewhat unfounded, given the administration track record of acknowledging reality
* Despite their track record, however, the Bush Administration may not have enough power to pull of such a brazen affront to national opinion
* The legal maneuvers of the administration, on the other hand, help to ensure that national opinion doesn’t really matter, since the administration has created a legal environment whereby it can silence its critics and militarily occupy domestic soil.
* The chance of the administration taking such a drastic step, however, seems slim, if only because it has never happened before (though this “fact” is questionable during the period of the American Civil War)
* Despite its lack of historical precedent, all the chess pieces are in place for such a move.
* Consider that we now have a military footprint that surrounds Iran: Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
* Consider that it is now legal for the the President to use the military on domestic soil
* Consider that it is now legal for the President to imprison dissenters without trial
* Consider that the President and his friends have a powerful hold on the national media
* Consider that the American public (myself included) has proven itself capable of being distracted by bread and circuses, that the American public (myself included) will hesitate to take physical action provided there is food on our plate, a roof over our heads, and something good on cable
* Consider that this President has shown absolutely no regard for decency.
* Finally, consider that the only thing stopping the President from doing what he wants is all that is good in the hearts and minds of the American people.
If there isn’t enough there to at least create a sense of caution towards any and all comments regarding Iran from our President and his administration, then I don’t think you’ve been paying attention.
I’m not saying that we will invade Iran. All I’m saying is that we should start paying close attention to the Administration (and the media’s) portrayal of Iran, because there is a chance — a chance!, mind you — that they could be setting the public up for another war cry.
To not think that — in other words, to think that the Administration and the media are speaking the truth in regards to everything they say about our intentions toward Iran — well, I think that’s just naieve.
I”ve always felt that the “comments” section should not be used as a message board persay (someplace where you can vent, spout off, and or otherwise make your beliefs known)….but rather a place to continue the discussion created in the post, ask questions to the author, and/or bring other people into the discussion….
That’s how I’ve always understood it….Well, some of the comments I’ve read above feel more like message board posts, not written for any other purpose than to let everyone know how they feel about something….
I think Kyle’s last post makes this point even clearer, he is obviously trying to bring various message board material back into some kind of a discussion…
That’s not to say that Fluid Imagination shouldn’t have its own message board …..but the comment section should be a little more conversation driven, and less about personal exclamatories.
I am not saying we should ignore this, I would just say that there a many other things that should take precedent over this. Iraq, new orleans, the pats not going to the superbowl, global warming, ect. There is a chance of many things, but I would say this is slim as of right now.
Also try to stick to facts and not opinions,”Consider that this President has shown absolutely no regard for decency”, is your opinion and really should be stricken from the record. You think he isn’t decent(and could probably back it up) some people think he is (and could probably back it up) and when people fight about stuff like that the true issues get left behind.
I am not sure what military presense we have in saudi arabia and turkey, I was under the impression that we had pulled out 99% of our forces from those countries. Turkey wouldn’t let us use their bases when we invaded Iraq why would they let us use them if we invade Iran?
If this whole thing is predicated on their being another large scale terrorist attack on US soil then we might have a lot more to worry about then this.
I agree that there are a bunch of topics that we should keep our eye on (speaking of which, what happened to Justin’s Ramblings this month?), but I don’t agree that this shouldn’t be one of them. Perhaps it’s not the most pressing, but my idea of bringing it up now is to at least create a little yellow light in your heads whenever you hear this administration address the Iran issue.
As far as the decency of the President is concerned, the single issue that I am pointing to is his legalization of torture. I don’t care how nice he seems or how fun it might be to have a beer with the guy. He fought for the legalization of torture. He’s not a decent human being because of that. And in my mind, the same goes for anyone who agrees with him. They may seem nice and all, but if they condone torture, then they’re simply lacking a basic element of human decency. To my mind, this isn’t an opinion. In the modern era, this is a fact.
As far as the military bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey: According to the Base Structure Report of 2003 (PDF), the DOD owned 761 buildings in Turkey and none in Saudi Arabia (on the other hand, we are leasing almost 40,000 sq. feet in the UAE). According to this non-official website, we have the 39th Wing of the Air Force stationed at Incirlik Air Base, which is owned by Turkey (official site for the base: http://www.incirlik.af.mil/). The same unofficial site says the Army’s Central Command was hq-ed in Saudi Arabia, but the official site of the Central Command (http://www.arcent.army.mil/) says it has bases in Kuwait and Qatar. Regardless of whether we’re in Saudi Arabia then, we’re in Kuwait, which is close enough for government work.
Creating a yellow light is one thing, creating hysteria is another. lol
It is still your opinion, decency is an arbitrary word that is different for everyone. I don’t condone it at all but if someone believes that torture gets information from bad people that saves the lives of good people is different then people who torture people for fun. Hey Jack Bauer totures people all the time and he is an american hero.
What we have in Turkey and what Turkey will let us do when it comes to invading Iran are different things but that really does not matter. I agree Kuwait is close enough but that also does not matter. Congress would not approve a war, the Army wouldn’t be in place to even fight this war for at least 9 months, and the invasion part would take years. Iran is huge.
Sorry about the ramblings have had writers block, no hisatch does that to me. lol
Words are not arbitrary, not anymore than the shape of a hammer is arbitrary. Words, hammers, these tools come into existence not in a flash, but over the course of a long history. The current shape of the hammer is the evolutionary cousin of a blunt rock. Its shape is motivated by aesthetics, efficiency, and the other values of industrial design. As it is with words: They come to us motivated by their etymological DNA and by their use in practice.
In decency’s case, we find its origins in a Proto-Indo European (PIE) root that means “to take, to accept, to receive, greet, be suitable.” Over the course of its history from then until now, it gets entangled with concepts of class and rank, as in such an action not being decent among members of one’s station. This meaning is still present in today’s usage, where it has connotations of appropriateness. The PIE root gives the modern usage its connotation of generousness.
Let us consider torture then, and see how it would fit into that matrix.
As for the meaning of decency that places us in the neighborhood of appropriateness, torture shows itself to be condemend by all of Western civilization. It is banned in international law and in almost every country. But beyond Western morality, it has no practical use for the reasons explained in this article:
So not only is torture not appropriate morally, it isn’t even appropriate strategically.
Now let us consider how torture fits into a meaning of decency that involces itself with generousness. One of the legal principles that this country is founded upon (and for which its ideal still receives great respect worldwide) is the principle that an accused individual is innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, our system of criminal law (though not criminal practice) assumes that all but the most hardened criminals are capable of postive reform. All of which is to say that (in principle) we are generous towards our criminals. We acknowledge them as human beings with rights of their own, with lives of their own, and with wills of their own. We believe, frankly, that even with their bodies in prison, our prisoners never stop being free.
Torture has no place in the treatment of our criminals. Torture denies the most basic right a person has, the right to be secure in their person. It turns a person from an individual who experiences the world as a subject into an object containing a piece of information, into a locked box that must be smashed and smashed until it finally breaks. There is no generosity in torture. There is only the taking of another’s basic human dignity.
So no, Justin, I don’t think torture does fit into a fairly constructed concept of human decency. I think torture is a demonstration of human decency’s polar oppositie: human depravity.
Kyle what I am saying is that what ou think is decent does not define decent for everyone. What is decent is different for eveyone on this planet. Torture is banned by every country but I bet a lot still do it behind closed doors. So if torturing a bad guy saved the lives of a lot of good people you are still against it right?
Also make sure that you include the 65 senators and 265 house members when you talk about this. They agreed with the president so I guess your defination of decent is in the minority.
First, that’s not what “I think.” It’s an exploration of the historic concept of decency. What I’m trying to show you is that “decency” is not an arbitrary word. We actually mean something when we use it.
Now, I’m not saying that we all share a common class of actions that are decent. For example, I have no problem farting in front of my girlfriend. Other people might think such a thing would be simply not decent, not appropriate of a person of my station. I hear that. As with all things, decency is relative.
But it’s not a free-floating signifier. We can’t say “decency” when we mean “pickle,” — well, not that we can’t say it, but that we won’t be understood. And what I’m saying to you is that including torture in the matrix of decency makes no sense. Not just to me, but generally. It simply doesn’t fit.
This isn’t a question of majority and minority. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who voted for that bill — and this includes that fucking hard-on John McCain, who sold his soul to acquire the nomination — lacks a basic element of human decency. But hey, big news flash: Politicians aren’t decent human beings. News at 11.
But aside from that, explain to me how torturing a person is decent. I dare you.
As far as “torturing saving the lives of a lot of good people…”. It simply doesn’t. Take a moment and read this article: Torture is inhuman, illegal, and futile. It’s a response to an academic paper published in the S.F. Law Review that (apparently) came out in favor of torture. Give it a read, because it talks about how torture actually works in the world, and not how it’s depicted on TV.
But beyond that, seriously, I dare you. Explain to me how torture is decent.
Kyle, let’s use TV and the FCC for an example. They tell us what is decent are you saying that you agree with what they consider decent? If decent isn’t different for everyone then we should all agree, a pickle is a pickle right? I have a feeling what you consider decent and what some 56 year old sunday school teacher from texas are going to be two different things. I am sure people can make the arguement that abortion is not decent.
And now it looks like my prediction came true.
” You think he isn’t decent(and could probably back it up) some people think he is (and could probably back it up) and when people fight about stuff like that the true issues get left behind.”
I hear what you’re saying about the relativity issue. I do. Which I thought I made clear in my last comment.
But we’re not talking about a nipple slip here. We are not talking gratuitous use of the word “fuck.” Nor are we talking about abortion. We’re talking torture. It’s a very specific thing that involves causing physical and/or psychological trauma in another individual to get what you want. All I’m asking is how such a thing fits into a reasonable understanding of decency.
You’re right though, this is a tangent off the Iranian issue, but it’s a tangent that I think is important, since the fact that the President (with the help of a Republican-controlled Congress) approved its use has some bearing (in my mind) on his state of sanity, whereby — he is missing a crucial element of it, an element that might have prevented (when the time comes) an inrrational invasion of Iran.
Well Kyle if we want to get down to the real nitty gritty of this, decency is is a fluid term that means “conformity to the recognized standard of propriety, good taste, modesty, etc.”
The standard is usually set by the majority, just like laws which according to my constitutional law class is the groups morals set as rules with punishment. This was approved by the majority of who are elected with the majority of the people in this country.
Its not like we are doing it for fun. I guess the main question is, Is it wrong to do nondecent things to protect the greater good of people. I know that article but I bet I can find a bunch that says it does work.
Also where is the list of the torture methods that were allowed, I do not think we are talking medieval torture here. I want to see what we are doing before I give my final opinion on things.
One more thing on decent then I am done, hypothetical situation, a guy was involved in with bombing a building that killed a bunch of people. We have information that there is another bomb in a school and the only way to get the information is to make the guy stand naked and awake while blearing Dr Dre. The chronic album. Now is the decent thing to do let the kids die and the murderer be comfortable in jail?
The specific methods mentioned in the email as having been approved by the unnamed Executive Order and witnessed by FBI agents include sleep deprivation, placing hoods over prisoners’ heads, the use of loud music for sensory overload, stripping detainees naked, forcing captives to stand in so-called “stress positions,” and the employment of work dogs. One of the more horrifying tools of intimidation, Army canines were used at the prison to terrorize inmates, as depicted in photos taken inside Abu Ghraib.
This is the torture that was approved or atleast what I could find. After reading this I agree that we sould stop it because this wouldn’t make anyone talk. When I think of toture I think of pulling fingernails and other horrific things, what we do isn’t torture its more like pledging for a frat.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16911972/
The U.S. is also building up its military presence in the gulf in what it says is a show of strength directed at Iran. A second aircraft carrier is heading for the region, and Patriot missile batteries are being deployed.
ahh so yeah, what was I saying again. lol
I still don’t think it happens unless something really big sets it off but with another aircraft carrier being sent there, that is like a floating army, it seems the invasion part would go better then before. I personally think its just for show. Now if Iran launches one of their big ole missles at an aircraft carrier…….
I’m only just hearing about this now. I haven’t read the article you linked to. I haven’t followed any news on this besides what we’ve been talking about. And that little excerpt you just mentioned scared the shit out of me.
Here’s what I think is happening. This is not some controversy over Bush wanting the oil for his cronies back home. Perhaps that is it, perhaps money does drive this whole fucking planet and anyone who says different only says so because they don’t have any money and they’ve never been in the driver’s seat. But if it’s not about the money, it’s about whipping around a big fucking dick.
Here’s what President Bush and his generals are doing right now. They really don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are too dangerous, and we know better than anyone else because we’re the only fucking country that’s used them. We really know what they can do. They can give you the biggest fucking hard-on you’ve ever seen, and everyone in the fucking world looks at you, like, look at this fucking guy with a hard-on, and next thing you know, all eyes are on you.
You got a lot of power when that happens. And you think to yourself, hey, wait a second, everyone’s looking at me, everyone must really like me, they must really like the kinds of clothes I’m wearing, the kind of politics I’m spouting, and what kind of work I’m doing. They are really, really interested in what I have to say.
And it’s been like that for going over half-a-century. For 50 whole years, we’ve been the one everyone has been looking at it. But you gotta ask yourself, are they looking at us because they like us, or are they looking at us because they’re scared of us.
I think Iran, and they’re going with the second thing. And they’re saying, Hey, USA, the world doesn’t really like you; they’re just afraid of that big fucking bomb that you’re carrying. Think I’m wrong? Well then, I’m gonna get me a bomb of my own. See where their eyes fucking turn. See what kinds of words they’ll listen to then.
And America saw this, and was like, “What, what?” And was like, “Uh-uh, fuck you. All eyes on me.”
Then someone snuck up behind America and real soft like, whispered, “Iran’s only talking like that because you haven’t blown shit up in a while.” So America was like, “Fuck, you’re right,” and he stormed off over to some guy who he never really liked anyway, a guy that used to fight with his dad, and he was like, “Hey everybody, wanna see how big and fucking strong I am?” And then he beat that weak little fucker to the ground. Then he looked up, and was, “What!? What!? That’s right! I get shit done. I’m America and I accomplish my mission.”
But while he was looking up, he didn’t realize that the little fucker on the ground tied his shoelaces together. But everyone else in the room did, and they’re like, hey wait a second, who is this guy, anyway? Does anyone really know him? I mean, we’ve all been at this place for a while, but this guy, he’s only been around for a couple hundred years, and we only noticed about 50 years ago. He don’t know shit about this situation. And they’re starting to look around again, trying to figure out, Hey, when shit goes does, who can I turn to?
And America sees rest of the world doing this, and he sees how Iran is still over in the corner trying to get its own big dick to wield around, how it’s trying to be the big kid over on the other side of the room, especially now, since that other big kid over there ended up puking his belly up and all his strength went spilling out.
And you know what this move is, right here? This sending of the aircraft carrier to Iran? This surrounding of the entire country by the United States Military? This is America being like, “Here it is fucker. You’ve heard the rest of the world talk about our strength. Well here it is. Chest-puffed, arms flexed, with the hand on the holster. How about now, motherfucker? You really gonna build that bomb?”
And that is exactly what I think is happening inside the head of our Commander in Chief. He’s not concerned about the money. He’s not concerned about the oil. He’s concerned about someone else thinking they got the right to be the big guy.
Of course, you gotta ask yourself one question: Who’s the guy doing the whispering?
Well its not the “bomb envy” thing that has got the Administration wound up its the comments that they would share their nuclear weapons with sudan. I mean we might think that some people in the middle east are but, the people in sudan are nuts.
BUt I really think we lose any war we start with Iran right now unless we drop a bomb. We can not send a ground force there andd their nuclear factories are secure from this generation of bunker busters. There is an interesting theory on Iran. Its rather long.
“Lets look at the bigger picture. Pretend you are playing a strategy game like Command & Conquer or Rome Total War. Get a map in front of your eyes and notice how the US empire is missing a key piece of the South Asian puzzle - the one piece that lands it on the Caspian Sea and gives it total control of Central Asia without having actually to occupy it. In geostrategic lingo they call this kind of puzzle piece a ‘pivotal point’. The name of the piece is Iran of course. Now imagine you play with the Russians - the Caspian sea is your lake. It controls the oil and gas capacity of Kazachstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan which in turn are the sweet candy the Chinese are after. Everyone with a little bit of brains playing the game knows that the stakes in Iran are not about nukes, or oil supplies for the US - it has more than enough oil in its current colonial assets. The game is also not about Russian oil - its reserves are on its own starting territory. The stakes are about oil and gas supplies for China. The game I am talking about is for control over the center of Eurasia and Zbigniew Brzezinsky even wrote a book about it (The Great Chessboard I think it was called). According to the gameplan sketched above, the US interest is to create a colony in Iran, just like it did in Iraq and Afganistan, which in turn will alow it to control the navel of Eurasia. It also must try and split the Russian-Chinese alliance which has now effectively formed, and finally it must totally surround Russia - the country with the strongest hand. The Russian and Chinese interest is accordingly to deny this at any cost. I repeat - at any cost. Obviously the Russians and the Chinese interest at the moment is common - to push the US away from South Asia, regain control over central asian oil and gas and disrupt any US alliances in the region. Apparently the Russians and Chinese are already working on that as Iran was just this past month made a member of the SCO - the Russian-Chinese security and cooperation org, which also has for members all the other Central Asian republics with the exception of Turkmenistan. The group just met in China for military talks and they have joint military excercises in souther Russia scheduled soon (which curiously are supposed to involve only air-defence tactics). They have successfully pushed the US out of Uzbekistan which was the key pivotal point - the one with access to all the others. They are also on their way to push the US out of Tajikistan and Kyrgyztan. If things keep going as they do, I would not be surprised if both Russia and China officialy locate some military forces in Iran by the end of the year. From a strategic perspective the loss of Iran will be a major disaster for the Russian-Chinese central asian policy, and that is why I think they will actively try and deny that opportunity to the US.
Should a major war in Iran become inevitable it is almost certain it will escalate way beyond airstrikes and into an attempted ground invasion. In that case it would be possible that the Russians help the Iranians equip the Moskit and Yakhont systems with nuclear warheads. As I wrote before these systems were originally designed to take out US carrier groups and if equipped with a nuclear warhead (max capacity 300 kiloton apparently) a single missile can hit the carrier and wipe out the entire supporting fleet as well. Should that happen the Iranians can always claim the nukes were their own, and anyways there is nothing the US can do to the Russians at the moment. If that scenario sounds science fictional to you (as it sounds to me today) its interesting to note that rumour has it a very similar wargame was played out in the naval academy and they reached a situation where there were russian and chinese forces in Iran and had to stop before escalating and losing everything.
On a side point: provided Iran is left on its own and a ground invasion comes into play I seriously doubt the US can pull it off in any conceivable way. I actually think the only conceivable way for the US to win any kind of war with Iran is with multiple nuclear strikes at military and civilian targets. Iran is not Serbia and hollowing out most probably wont even start to work as a strategy. Once the marines land in Khuzestan we can expect human waves and all kinds of martyr mayhem as someone already noted.
Also, I havent seen commented anywhere the involvment of Turkey. While in the case of Iraq Turkey was passively opposed the invasion, this time I would expect a very different stance. I wont be surprised if they decide to occupy northern Iraq and deny the peshmerga any hopes of greater Kurdistan.
Finally, in the long run the US doesnt have any strong cards - time is against the US in this game. ”
sweet
For Bush, I think it’s about the big dick.
For Cheney and everyone else, I’m down with that theory.
Put them both together and there you have…the facts of life…the facts of life.