I suppose I should be over it by now, but every time something happens like a provocative Iranian missile launch I'm shocked at how hawks are able to spin the continuing failure of their approach to the region as evidence of their own correctness. But the evidence is clear that the Bush administration's approach is leading to a downward spiral of hostilities and that nothing good is going to come from John McCain continuing that approach. The alternative is to try good-faith negotiations. It might not work, but it really might, and that would be much better than continuing this cycle.
« Union Vets Ad | Main | Pickens Plan »
Missile Launch
09 Jul 2008 12:21 pm
Comments (31)
The loss of civilian life on the Iranian side will be regrettable. The loss of life on our side not so much. Volunteer for a fascist, xenophobic military machine bent on delivering domination of weaker peoples and you reap what you sow. I'm not sure how recruiters sleep at night. They could earn a more respectable living selling heroin on grade school playgrounds.
Isn't it just as plausible that the policy is not a failure but is, in fact, a success? Provoking belligerence in order justify an aggressive counter-response? This type of behavior is not uncommon among states engaged in long-standing rivalries.
"Isn't it just as plausible that the policy is not a failure but is, in fact, a success?.........This type of behavior is not uncommon among states engaged in long-standing rivalries."
Posted by Marshall | July 9, 2008 12:39 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nor are torture, forced labor, pogroms, genocide, summary execution of POWs and civilians, theft of treasures, forced relocation of the populace and a host of other crimes. Are these also successful policies?
Let me get this straight ... when Israelis do it, it's out of good faith. When Iranians do it is provocative?
Impartiality is not your strong suit is it?
--Hameed
Let me get this straigh ... When Israelis conduct military exercises, it's out of good will. When Iranians do it, it's provocative?
Matt, impartiality is not your strong suit is it?
thank you.
I don't think the hawks would agree that we're curently implementing their approach to Iran.
"Nor are torture, forced labor, pogroms, genocide, summary execution of POWs and civilians, theft of treasures, forced relocation of the populace and a host of other crimes. Are these also successful policies?"
Steve-
You're inferring a normative element to that statement, where it was intended as a rationalist one. That is, if we move away from the assumption that the administration is averse to hostilities, then the types of rhetoric and pronouncements they are issuing may actually be considered "successful".
Re Hameed
The difference is that the Government of Israel isn't demanding that the Government of Iran go out of business. The Government of Iran is demanding that the Government of Israel go out of business. If it were definitively proven that Iran was not developing a nuclear capability, the Governments of Israel and the US would not be contemplating a preemptive strike.
The fact is that the missiles which Iran is developing are not effective as a weapon against strategic targets unless they are carrying nuclear warheads because of accuracy issues. Therefore, unless the officials in Iran are completely incompetent, they must be developing a nuclear capability to go along with these missiles, else the expenditure is a waste of money.
I'm shocked at how hawks are able to spin the continuing failure of their approach to the region as evidence of their own correctness.
Why? Don't you understand the Republican way by now? First, start with a conclusion. Then carefully build a wall of evidence that supports it, ignoring anything that doesn't make your case. Pieces of evidence that contradict each other are just fine.
Economy looks good? Tax cuts! Economy looks bad? Tax cuts.
Iraq is violent? Stay forever! Iraq is less violent? Stay forever!
Iran wants to negotiate? Ignore and threaten! Iran won't negotiate now? Ignore and threaten!
See how easy? Follow this easy step by step plan, and you too can be a Republican!
Let me get this straight ... when Israelis carried massive military exercises a week and half ago, it was in a good will however when Iranians do it, it's provocative?
Impartiality is not your strong suit Mr Ygelsias is it?
Iranians are doing this to show you that they can take care of the business if US and Israel act foolishly.
Let me get this straight ... when Israelis carried massive military exercises a week and half ago, it was in a good will however when Iranians do it, it's provocative?
Impartiality is not your strong suit Mr Ygelsias is it?
Iranians are doing this to show you that they can take care of the business if US and Israel act foolishly.
Marshall, as a nation we are coming around to a position accommodating many of the transgresssions I listed whereby they're legitimate means of dealing with a rival (enemy?). While such policies are, as you say, not uncommon to see them rhetorically excused at any level is disturbing. We torture. We've conducted forced relocations. We kill civilians when methods of avoidance are available. We turn a blind eye to theft of treasures. And we provoke belligerance to further our hegemony. All of it makes the Pledge of Allegiance a recitation of a joke. You are correct that this administration considers their policies a success. If war results it's more fun than sex. It is their orgasm.
We've gotten to the point when negotiations aren't just a good idea, but they're all we have left. With the Treasury Department quickly running the gamut of Iranian entities to sanction, good faith, unconditional talks aren't just a good idea in principle, they're the last option short of military confrontation. But administration hawks think an attack is more desirable (on what basis? awesomeness?) than talking, so there's no point in making that argument.
"The difference is that the Government of Israel isn't demanding that the Government of Iran go out of business. "
Wow, the naivety of your comment is astounding. I assume you are one those AIPAC financed news consumers?
Jewish neocons have been shaping up US foreign policy regarding Iran for a long long time. Google 'regime change' and read the results for yourself.
Hameed,
You are either dumb or racist, you choose.
If it were definitively proven that Iran was not developing a nuclear capability, the Governments of Israel and the US would not be contemplating a preemptive strike.
Difinitively prove that they are not developing a nuclear (I assume weapon) capability? That's a recipe for going to war. Good luck proving the negative, Iran.
And the fact that Iran's current crop of missiles are inaccurate doesn't mean that they must be developing a nuclear warhead for them (which, BTW, is more difficult than just slapping together a POS 20kt bomb), they could simply work on improving the guidance system.
2008--If it were definitively proven that Iran was not developing a nuclear capability, the Governments of Israel and the US would not be contemplating a preemptive strike.
2002--If it were definitively proven that Iraq was not developing a nuclear capability, the Government of the US would not be contemplating a preemptive strike.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it (as my high school history teacher used to say).
Re Hameed
Mr. Hameed makes the same mistake as other Israel bashers on this blog make, namely that the Government of Israel and the neocons are 100% aligned with each other.
1. It has been stated by Lawrence Wilkerson, Douglas Feith, and Danial Kurtzer that the Government of Israel was not in favor of the military action in Iraq as they didn't consider Saddam Hussein to be the threat that the neocons did.
2. The Government of Israel has disagreed with the neocons in the US Government about the advantages of regime change in Syria, which change by the way is favored by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and possibly Iraq. It could be argued that this reluctance on the part of the Government of Israel is the only thing keeping the Assad kleptrocracy in power.
As to Mr. Hameeds' smear about my taking gelt from AIPAC, I have yet to receive buck one from them. I suspect that Mr. Hameed is probably a sockpuppet for Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Mullahs in Iran.
Bush is a secret environmentalist. Cranking up the price of gas due through his bellicosiity with Iran spells the death of SUVs and cleaner air. Plus the resulting depression will reduce the output of manufacturing caused pollutants.
Way to go, Georgie.
SLC is as usual both full of shit and a liar.
First, as DaveNYC correctly points out, it's cheaper to improve the reliability and accuracy of your missiles than develop a nuclear warhead for them. It also fits my theory that Iran is developing the future capability to have nukes should some future Ayatollah decide Iran can have them - as the current Ayatollah has decided they will NOT.
Second, SLC repeats the proven lie that Israel didn't want to attack Iraq. What Israel wanted in early 2002 was to attack IRAN. They only came around later in 2002 when the neocons assured them that Iran would be next.
SLC has been told this and shown the reports by Flynt Leverett and ignored them repeatedly, demonstrating that Zionist freaks are born professional liars and intellectually dishonest scum.
As for what Bush is doing, listen to the Seymour Hersh interview:
Seymour Hersh: US Training Jondollah and MEK for Bombing preparation
http://www.prisonplanet.com/seymour-hersh-us-training-jondollah-and-mek-for-bombing-preparation.html
Hersh explains that the aim of the US covert operations inside Iran is to create a pretext for attack with the goal of regime change. “The strategic thinking behind this covert operation is to provoke enough trouble and chaos so that the Iranian government makes the mistake of taking aggressive action which will give the impression of a country in acute turmoil”, he said. “Then you have what the White House calls the ‘casus belli’, a reason to attack the country. That is the thinking and it is very crazy.”
On Iran’s role in Iraq, Hersh points out: “There is absolutely no clear evidence known to the American government that the Iranian leadership has any interest in provoking trouble with the United States in Iraq by sending in people to cause mayhem or kill Americans. There is just no evidence for it.” He continues further on: “Frankly, the guys I know in the inside– in the Special Forces, high up in DoD, high up in the intelligence community–if you push them hard enough, they tell you that Iran has been more of a force for stability in Iraq than negative”.
He explains how the Bush Administration’s policy of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” has led the US to support the Baluchi organisation Jondollah and the MEK (Mujahideen-e-Khalq a.k.a PMOI), both of which have clear track records of terrorist activities including against the US. He reiterates that the US has been giving arms and cash to the terrorists in the MEK for years and reveals that “most of the [MEK] leaders have been taking our money and cashing it in an awful lot of bank accounts in London.” He also reveals for the first time that the US has trained MEK teams in the state of Nevada and that “they do a lot of crazy stuff inside Iran”.
Hersh warns that “we have been moving cruise missiles there for a few months now”, and that the US military is ready. “Our submarines are there, our destroyers are there with cruise missiles aboard, our aircrafts are there, our soldiers are there” to attack Iran within “10 to 12 hours” of the go-ahead order by President Bush, he says, stressing that troops have to go on the ground in Iran in order to destroy Iran’s defensive systems.
He finally points out that Bush “is going to be a very active president, I am afraid, until 11:59:59 seconds on January 20, 2009” and raises the alarm about an “October surprise”, a military attack on Iran, in particular if Obama continues to have a lead in the polls.
Listen to the whole interview here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=92025860&m=92028303
.Volunteer for a fascist, xenophobic military machine bent on delivering domination of weaker peoples and you reap what you sow I'm not sure how recruiters sleep at night. They could earn a more respectable living selling heroin on grade school playgrounds.
Posted by steve duncan
Shorter Duncan - "But of course as a liberal Democrat I support the troops. And how DARE you even think to question my patriotism!"
Bollocks to good faith negotiations. We don't need to negotiate anything, just declare a unilateral cessationof hostilities with Iran.
We welcome Iran into the fellowship of sovereign nations and lift the sanction we have on them. We applaud the continued evolution of the government of Iran and its responsiveness to the will of the Iranian people, who, without interference from outsiders must pursue that evolution as they desire. If the Iranian people want to spend economic resources on a nuclear weapons program the US trusts that the leaders of Iran will continue to safeguard the peace and prosperity of their country and of the region by respecting the rights of their neighbors and without recourse to mutually destructive violence. We recognize that US and Iranian interests coincide in many areas and welcome the opportuity to explore cooperation in such areas.
The United Sttates is a friend to the Iranian people and to the government they have elected. That should be our Iran policy, not good faith negotiations, or bombs.
And the fact that Iran's current crop of missiles are inaccurate doesn't mean that they must be developing a nuclear warhead for them (which, BTW, is more difficult than just slapping together a POS 20kt bomb), they could simply work on improving the guidance system.
Posted by daveNYC
No military MRBM or ICMB is militarily useful without a nuclear or biological warhead. Short range, cheap, high throw weight tactical missiles and accurate cruise missiles may be fitted with conventional warheads or WMD, but never MRBMs or ICBMs, Not even super-accurate USA strategic missiles.
You build the missiles, it means you want a way to get your WMD somewhere once that parallel military path is working. Pakistan, France, China, India, N Korea, Israel (and Iraq before it was stopped) all had missile programs working in parallel to their nuke bomb work.
Unless a missile program is clearly non-military use (Brazil, Japan, Arienne)and has been inspected and evaluated as such, you have signalled clear intent to have a WMD program, seek parity or a military edge by having missiles that can defeat a foes land, naval, and air military countermeasures against other WMD delivery methods.
Ford as usual is full of shit.
A missile program can be used to deliver any sort of weapons system. There are many countries who have long-range missile systems and no WMD programs or who have both conventional and WMD MRBM systems.
See here for one of China's::
http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/missile/df25.asp
And note China's reasoning:
The 1980s conflicts with Vietnam over the sovereign of the disputed Nansha (Spratly) Islands in the South China Sea made PRC military planners realise that the PLA was incapable of operating far from the country’s coasts due to its lack of long-range strike aircraft, aerial tanker, and aircraft carrier. However, this deficiency could be partially offset by short- to medium-range ballistic missiles, which could provide an ability to deliver conventional firepower quickly over extended distances.
This is very similar to Iran's problem - they have a potential conflict with Israel where Israel can strike them from long range using fighter bombers and submarines with cruise missiles and they cannot retaliate effectively due to intervening countries and lack of the same systems.
It's also likely that Iran is doing in its missile program what I suspect they did in their nuclear program - developing the capability in advance of any decision to actually deploy such weapons. In other words, doing what any other country under the same degree of threat as Iran would do - plan for the future. Not the same thing at all as directly intending to build and deploy a nuclear weapons delivery system.
A Web site I found with an analysis of the Indian and Pakistan WMD programs noted these options for missile development:
India's purposes:o demonstration as a regional power
o demonstration of technical prowess
o demonstration of threshold status
o demonstration of a government's commitment to national security
o calling card to China
o rattling the US cage
o deflating more ambitious and dangerous proposals
* Pakistan's purposes:
o demonstration of independence from Indian hegemony
o demonstration of technical prowess
o demonstration of threshold status
o demonstration of a government's commitment to national security
o deflation of more ambitious and dangerous proposals
All of which could easily apply to Iran, especially as it is threatened by Israel's Jericho missile development and actual existing nuclear weapons.
Ford is as usual projecting his own psychotic biases on everyone else.
"No military MRBM or ICMB is militarily useful without a nuclear or biological warhead."
Nonsense.
Don't drown yourself in delusion grandeur fed to you by jewish neocons.
Chris Ford IS a neocon. Well, he's actually a Ku Klux Klan member who is also anti-Semitic - or is that redundant?
Basically, he's a troll here.
"No military MRBM or ICMB is militarily useful without .."
Most of military stuff is plainly useless, so once we start proving stuff based on such a premise, we can prove that US government is in fact in hands of a clique of Martians, because only then this, this and this makes sense.
Re Richard Steven Hack & Chris Ford
Attached is a link to an article in todays' Washington Post on the subject of the Iranian missile launches.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071000024.html
The money quotes, which dispute the claims of Mr. Hack and support the claims made by myself and Mr. Ford are as follows:
"John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense consulting group, said that missile, which has been adapted from an old North Korean model, clearly is being refined to deliver nuclear weapons.
"If they are not developing nuclear weapon for this missile, why are they continuing to test it? It is worthless otherwise," he said. "They are still working on a delivery system, which is a major piece of the puzzle of the nuclear program."
Peter D. Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist who was formerly chief scientist for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that the missile's accuracy is poor and that it could miss its target altogether. A missile with a nuclear warhead, by contrast, would not need to be accurate, since it would destroy an area far beyond its range of accuracy. "
I don't know anything about Zimmerman but John Pike is about as far from being a warmongering neocon as it is possible to get.
Chris Ford IS a neocon. Well, he's actually a Ku Klux Klan member who is also anti-Semitic - or is that redundant?
Basically, he's a troll here
Comments closed July 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
- war on drugs works the same
- war on terror began the same way (i.e., shut down counter-terrorism for eight months --> 9/11 --> excuse to execute a long-held plan in M.E.)
- selling voodoo economics works the same
- selling abstinence only education works the same (i.e., it doesn't work --> unwanted pregnancy --> opportunity for vapid "morals" talk that doesn't solve shit)
- anti-abortion politics works the same (i.e., keep failing to ban it, despite controlling federal govt. for years --> blame powerless liberals --> get more votes from the superstitious Cult of the Fetus crowd)
So, just why would you be shocked, Matt? If their motto is that government can't be the solution, then their policies should be designed for maximum failure relative to their putative goals and maximum profitability for the right people in terms of the policies' actual outcomes.
Mission accomplished.
.
Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 9, 2008 12:31 PM