File this under "statements that are supposed to allay fears that actually provoke them":

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/27/us.gulf.ap/index.html

The U.S. exercises come just four days after Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines who Iran said had strayed into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters.

U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors -- nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters.

What the Navy was trying to say was "no, no, we're not going to blow up Iran over fifteen limeys that couldn't navigate", but what they wound up saying was "15 Brits? Jesus shit, people, we were ALREADY PLANNING THIS TO SHOW IRAN WHAT'S IN STORE FOR THEM".

Anyone want to take bets on the start of the invasion?

-pb

I'd just like to say that I don't care what kind of evidence Bush claims to have about Iran. I seriously don't care. Even if he shows us a tape of Ahmedinejad dancing with glee over IED attacks and taking full credit, I still won't believe it. I'll simply assume that he's fabricated the evidence. And if I'm wrong and he was telling the truth? Well, you can't trust a liar, so it's not my fault he hasn't given me reason to believe him yet.

-pb

Kerry is OUT. Thank gods. I think he would have hurt the eventual nominee just by running in the primary.

John Edwards has a goldfish memory. Well, I was considering him my favorite, but then he goes and says "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table." Good job, John. Talk like that got you to vote for invading Iraq before you regretted it. Now you're talking about possibly invading a country that actually has F-14 Tomcats and a naval force, not to mention will make the quagmire in Iraq look like a romp through Candy Land. Do you even hear yourself talking?

Shit, now who do I vote for? Obama's looking like that door that Jack and Rose bobbed along on after the Titanic went down. It's not much, but it's floating, right? I guess I'm back to Wes Clark, who hasn't declared yet, and Al Gore, who saying "Yes, I'm definately positively sure I will most likely not run, probably".

Please, Dems, do not make me have to vote for Dennis Kucinich again. No offense, DKu, but voting for you in 2004 was a protest vote.

-pb

Poor Neville Chamberlain. He had a great political career. Unfortunately, he's only remembered for one thing: saying "I believe it is peace for our time" and then having bombs fall like rain on London. Any time any nation that we do not have a huge financial stake in does something that we don't like, comparisons are made to Chamberlain appeasing Hitler to drown out anyone demanding diplomacy.

"We can't appease Iraq! Remember when Chamberlain appeased Hitler, and then we had to fight a war against fascism? Better to blow the crap out of Saddam now and have history remember us as decisive!" That worked well, don’t you think? Turns out, “appeasing” Saddam by sanctioning him was working pretty well. No mythical WMDs there, no threats against neighbors for ten years, and no military to speak of.

Now, the same rhetoric is being used against Iran. Of course, it's completely misguided and stupid. Let's take a look at the comparisons between Nazi German and Iran.

Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has expressed a desire to rid the Middle East of Israel. Hitler dreamed of an Aryan nation. Iran literally mean "Land of the Aryans" (although I doubt Hitler would have considered the residents of Iran to be in his model of Aryans, but he was a bit psycho). Hitler was all about new technologies. Ahmadinejad is all about building nuclear... something or other.

But that's pretty much where the similarities end. Appeasement of Hitler was considered stupid because Nazi Germany was an expansionist regime. Iran isn't expansionist. Granted, Iran is the one of the most powerful nations in the Middle East, and as such likes to exert its control, but it has no designs on Lebensraum. What Iran is experiencing right now is a government leader taking advantage of nationalistic fervor, something that the dimwits in Washington seem to know nothing about, despite having successfully tapped into it five years ago to win support for blowing up two countries.

Realistically, Iran's government is about as popular in Iran as George W. Bush is in America right now. That's not saying much. Their government has consistently failed to act in the interests and desires of its citizens. Those desires are for a more Westernized outlook and more democratic reform. Iran is not a seething mass of Islamic jihadis looking to decapitate every westerner out there, as Bush would have us believe. Iranians are screaming for reform. They love our culture. They buy bootlegged, black market American music, they dress like westerners when they can, they like to go out and dance. They want to westernize, but their government is holding them back. Therefore, it's unpopular. It can't deliver, so it's hanging on by an authoritarian thread.

But enter the West, lead by country-bombing America. Iran says "we're working on building nuclear power for civilian purposes, ha ha!" The West says "you can't do that, you signed a treaty in 1968!" Iran counters with "the Islamic Republic of Iran has been around since 1979, so even if that treaty did apply to us, according to it, we're actually allowed to do what we said we're doing! Piss off!" We retort with “Knock it off, or we start bombing Teheran.”

Now, Ahmadinejad is no moron. He knows that our threats are laughable. We can bomb, but they actually have an air force and ground defenses. Taking Teheran won’t be like taking Baghdad. Bomb as we may, Iran knows that we simply don’t have enough boots to secure even a little of the country. So the threat of military force is impotent at best. He turns to the Iranian people and says “remember how the West has been telling us what to do for hundreds of years? Remember the Ottomans? Remember the British? See how America is now telling us that even though we are within our rights under this treaty, we must now stop or they’ll bomb us? HOW DARE THEY?” To which the Iranian people say “hey, YEAH! What is up with THAT!?”

Instant popular support. Every time we rattle the sabre, Ahmadinejad’s poll numbers creep a little higher, and he gets a little bolder. Every time we draw a line in the sand, he steps over it, and then we draw another one a little farther back. It’s a vicious cycle that’s fed by us and benefits him.

Now, let’s look at the history behind the US, Iran, and nuclear power. Back after we deposed Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran’s democratically elected leader, in 1953, we installed the autocratic Reza Shah to be our oil-pumping puppet. He said “hey, nuclear energy, that sounds cool!” We said “How ‘bout we sell you a dozen or so nuclear plants?” He said “Sure!”

Of course, he got kicked out of the country by a fundamentalist uprising before said sale (but not before we gave him a squadron of F-14 Tomcats and some other cool stuff). The Ayatollah said “Western stuff is evil!”, and scrapped any ideas of nuclear power. Of course, after going to war with Iraq, it seemed like a good idea, and they started the program up in the mid-80s.

Now we don’t want them to have it, even though we offered to sell it to them before. It’s a different country, right? One that is still bound by that treaty, though…

So why not give them what they want? Let’s appease them into submission. That’s right, hey, give ‘em what they want. Iran wants nuclear power for civilian use? Offer it to them. Offer to install a dozen nuclear power plants.

This would accomplish a number of things: First, it would take away the nationalistic furor that Ahmadinejad has them whipped into. He’s got one talking point, and that’s “we have the right to nuclear power, and they don’t want us to have it”. Take that away, and he’s just a guy keeping them from listening to Bon Jovi.

Second, it would change the Iranian perception of the West. They believe that the nuclear thing is just a front, an excuse. They believe that we want to invade them, and if the pretext of nuclear ambitions goes away, it’ll be something else. Knocking off the sabre-rattling and dictating would go a long way to mitigating that opinion.

Third, it would allow us to make them a partner in the region. Offering them nuclear technology would give us the ability to open a dialog. Obviously, this would not be as simple as “here, take this reactor!” We would have to install it and train them to use it. In exchange, we would demand accountability for it and strict adherence to the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. No developing weapons with it. They say, after all, that they only want it for peaceful, civilian purposes. So, hold them to that.

The stated goal of the administration is regime change in Iran. However, their actions don’t support that goal. We’re strengthening the Iranian regime with every threat. Iran can either capitulate to our demands and be viewed as weak by their neighbors (which is bad for Iran), or they can ride us out, military option or not. We’re showing them a carrot and a stick, but the carrot is rotten and the stick is actually closer to a noodle. If we want Iran to come into the world community, we’re going to have to offer them a lot more than just “do what we say or else”. Giving them what they want won’t be appeasing them. Giving them what they want gives us the power to help the Iranian people become, as a nation, what they want to become.

I've been having a little dance with some conservatives on a tiny backwater forum I found. The current thread started out with the Lowest Common Denominator on the forum claiming that Kerry is a Communist. It has since evolved into a debate on Iraq. I wrote a huge response to the last post, which I'll post here.

http://homepageseek.com/forums/Presidential_Elections/posts/12.html (Check it out, some of it is hella funny)

Original Post:

"Saddam was a snake waiting for his opportunity to strike, just like he did in Kuwait. When the next opportunity came he would have taken it again.
After the Twin Towers were destroyed, we sent a message this time. Even though we couldn't pinpoint the blame on one country, we had to go and push over some rocks to show that we weren't going to sit back and take it again. You have to admit, we have created some deterrence, in at least they know if something happens in this country again under the current administration there will be an even bigger crackdown on their operations. I would say this is why nothing else has yet happened, I won't guarantee this because these people are unpredictable, but I'll tell you they are thinking about possible repercussions. Other tyrannical leaders are also watching their step (Khadafi) because they now realize that hiding terrorists is not worth losing their lifestyle over."


My Riposte:

It's this flawed thinking that caused 9/11.

Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait over economic factors. After their 10 year war with Iran, Iraq’s economy was in shambles. They began to increase their oil production to get back on track, but in response, Kuwait did the same. Iraq was then pumping twice the amount of oil for the same revenue. They pleaded with Kuwait to reduce their output, mainly because without the revenue, they would be hard pressed to repay the $14 billion that the Kuwaiti government had loaned them. They begged OPEC to intervene. When these measures did not work, they massed their troops on the border and threatened to invade. It was a border dispute. We gave our implicit support by calling it a border dispute and stating we had no intention to intervene. Everything that Saddam Hussein did up until January 1991 was funded, supplied and approved by us. (Incidentally, we’d also been selling arms to Iran.) He had no reason to think that we’d do anything else. Since then, we've fought one war in bad faith, and a second war on false pretenses.

The only message we've sent since 9/11 was this: "We have no respect for your culture. We have no respect for your citizens. We have no respect for your basic human rights. Someone threw a rock at us, and since every Arab looks alike, we'll kill you all."

The Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden. We refused their offer, declared them an outlaw regime, and invaded their country. We have killed tens of thousands of their civilians. Our 'allies', warlords in the Northern Alliance, have used us as pawns to kill other warlords. We still have not found Osama bin Laden, and we're not even sure he's still in Afghanistan. He may be hiding in Pakistan, another one of our 'allies’.

We invaded Iraq because of falsified evidence that stated he was capable of hitting us directly. He was not. Even the evidence that supported that claim was shaky at best. Given the proper amount of time, we would have discovered what we now know: Saddam had no WMDs. He had no capacity to hit us. We have now killed almost 30,000 Iraqis in just over a year. Saddam Hussein killed less than 10,000 of his own people per year. We’ll kill more in 10 years than he did in 35. We have turned Iraq into a Jihadi recruitment center. We have allowed Al-Qaida and other militant groups into the country where none existed before. We have not made any significant dent in these group's ability to strike whenever and wherever they choose. Simply because they haven’t struck on American soil since 9/11/01 doesn't mean that they can't or won't.

Do you want to know why they hate us, and why 19 men were more than willing to fly planes into buildings? We’ve been doing worse to them for years.

Their reasons for hating us are simple:

1) We support them against our enemies as long as it is convenient, then we attack them ourselves (Afghanistan against Russia, Iraq against Iran).

2) We support murderous secular dictators while condemning their religious leaders.

3) We actively support, fund, and arm Israel, which has saddled the Arab world with 3.5 million Palestinian refugees, who are a burden and a drain on those other countries. Israel has maintained an Apartheid (and nearly genocidal) policy since its inception as a nation, and has launched wars against its neighbors, taking land, and defying UN resolutions (nearly as many as Iraq).

4) When it suits us, we use overt military force to take what is theirs by right (land, oil, lives)

Their rhetoric confuses us, because it is spoken through the mouths of men whose culture we do not understand. We, as Americans, do not understand that this current conflict actually spans the entire 20th century, dating back to the British colonial empire. We do not understand that economic factors and our malevolent policies are to blame, and our military aggression is like gasoline on that fire.

Every time an Iraqi child is killed by American gunfire, every time an American plane drops a bomb on an Afghan wedding, there's another angry Jordanian or Syrian youth saying 'Enough!', and joining a militant group. We trample over their holy sites. We shame their fathers by pressing their heads to the ground because we do not understand that a Muslim man does not touch his head to the ground except during prayer. We commit abuses at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo that are far worse in their culture than ours. We rape their land. We lay claim to everything they own. We kill their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers. All of this, and we sit in the lap of luxury. Take a look through their eyes. Put yourself in the shoes of that disaffected Jordanian youth. What would you do if someone invaded Canada and kicked all the Canadians out onto your doorstep? What would you do if they invaded New York for its resources? What would you do if they killed your father? We simply have no empathy for what the Middle East has endured over the past century.

Our policies there have not made us safer. They have created a festering wound that will continue to plague us. This administration has heaped piles onto the damage of every administration since World War II.

Was Saddam Hussein a murderer? Yes. Did his policies result in the deaths of nearly 300,000 civilians? Yes. Did he invade another country? Yes. Did he use chemical weapons in violation of world law? Yes. Did we actively support him for 20 years? Yes. Did we give him chemical weapons? Yes. Did we turn a blind eye when he killed his own people? Yes.


If I paid you to kill someone for me, I’d be considered as much a murderer as you. Between the 600,000 Iraqis killed in the ten-year Iran-Iraq conflict, to the 100,000 we killed in Desert Storm, to the 10,000 we killed between then and now, and the 300,000 Saddam Hussein’s regime killed, we’ve got the blood of over a million Iraqis on our hands. And that’s just Iraq. That’s not counting Iranian dead. That’s not counting Afghan dead. That’s not counting Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese dead, killed by US weapons in Israeli hands.

Someday, hopefully, we, as a nation, will learn that you can’t wash all that blood away with more blood.

-pb