not exactly a pass the popcorn kind of moment

naturally, i'm glad you wrote it billmon

Posted by: annie | Apr 11 2006 22:13 utc | 1

Indeed, one ironic result of the havoc the Cheney administration is creating in the Middle East is that it has left America's oil protectorates even more dependent on the hegemon to defend them from the forces it has unleased.

that's the crux of its power: america creating problems whose solution can only be posed by america. and also the legitimation of this "solution" follows with ineluctable logic: how could it be any different? what else to do?

just as leaving Iraq grows more untenable each day, even an originally "preventive" nuclear attack can later be made to look "preventive" and still later "defensive" and rational response to the chaos largely created by the u.s.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 11 2006 22:19 utc | 2

I meant preventive and later "preemptive"

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 11 2006 22:20 utc | 3

I just heard this on Air America, Ed Schultz Show. Everyone in my largely anti-war little village in Ohio seems to be going around as if nothing has happened. Perhaps they don't know. It reminds me of a friend's complaint after her older brother died - she said what was hardest to take about it was the non-reaction of others, the way they went on as if nothing had happened, when her whole world (they were very close) had collapsed. But this is not just one family.

I do wonder when we will react. We certainly reacted in 2001. Is is that we don't care, when it's others who are the target?

I will try to free my own mind from its domination by the lunacy and cruelty of the warmongers. Being agitated only seems to feed their will. But I do wish the French would come here and teach us something about communicating displeasure to the government!

Posted by: francoise | Apr 11 2006 22:26 utc | 4

America's success has been built on dealing with one country at a time and using its overwhelming military, economic, covert and diplomatic power to win control one on one. For my mind the most significant event of the last few years was the quick reversal of the Venezualan coup when the rest of South America united against it. It showed that when faced with a united front the US has quite limited capability. The genuis of the US has been in convincing so many people that they are really the good guys which has blinded other nations from the need to unite against it. That illusion has been falling away lately. A nuclear strike on Iran would tear it down instantly and completely.

This make resisting the US an immediate problem for both the leaders and people of the rest of the world. The logical reaction would be the formation of strong regional blocks. We are already seeing this in Latin America and Europe. The current leaders in the Middle East won't do it, but they are American puppets anyway. The sense of urgency created by the bombing may lead to Hamas/Palestinian style revolutions as the general Middle East populations realise that their American Puppet leaders are not just impotent, but a dangerous impediment to forming the united block required to prevent same happening to them.

Posted by: still working it out | Apr 11 2006 22:37 utc | 5

What would the reaction be to a nuclear first strike? Gosh.

If the only deterrent to nuclear is nuclear that is the way the world will go.

France making sure some missiles are pointed at Washington and New York. You can not be to careful.

Every nation scrambling either to obtain nuclear weapons of their own or joining alliances with states that has. Alliances complete with regional nuclear umbrellas.

Gaining independence from Washington becoming the number one strategic goal of all strategical planning. A crazy can not be trusted and inch by inch (not to upset the lunatic) all countries that can will move out of the US gradually shrinking zone of control.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Apr 11 2006 23:01 utc | 6

If such an attack were to be carried out the rest of the world would unite against us. It wouldn't happen at once but it would happen. We would be justifiably seen as a clear and present danger to nearly every other nation state on the planet. If we can attack Iran on such a pretext, no nation is safe.
The Russians would begin a program of massive rearmament, as would the Chinese. Every country that could make nuclear weapons would begin to plan how to make them without being caught. The worlds leaders would beat a path to Putin's door to put themselves under Russian protection for Russia is the only country that can stand up to us. The Russians have 5000 warheads pointed at us now. Within a few years it would be 10,000.The Chinese would put their trillion dollars worth of T bills into nuclear and conventional weapons to confront us and I suspect the Indians, with the fallout from our nuclear strike killing their citizens, would follow suite. We would have a new cold war with most of the world on Russia's side: A truly remarkable achievement. The worlds demand for Russian armaments would make that country an industrial powerhouse again and, more importantly, the new leader of the “Free World”. If you listen closely you can hear Stalin laughing in Hell.
The Muslims never forget and never forgive. At some point in time, they will take nuclear revenge on us. Meanwhile the Iranians will come after us whenever and wherever they could. Southern Iraq will be a most interesting place to be and I suspect that Afghanistan would light up too.
Throw in a few odds and ends like, a popular world wide boycott of American goods, the complete collapse of our image in the world as a decent people, and I’m sure there is a whole lot more, all of it bad, that I haven’t thought of. Centuries from now historians will still marvel at how George Bush was able to take a great nation from the pinnacles of power, wealth, and the world’s esteem to a country that is bankrupt, tyrannical, and loathed.

Posted by: rpe | Apr 11 2006 23:37 utc | 7

all countries that can will move out of the US gradually shrinking zone of control.

this is the problem. any country unwilling to open itself to global capitalist exploitation is impoverished or destroyed. and not only the u.s. is complicit in this domination. one of the triumphs of global institutions is the devolution of the pursuit of domination to non-national actors.

again, it's important to recognize u.s. aggression is not wholly motivated by "national" interests. to a very large extent, the u.s. acts in defense of global capital, in defense of even a swedish way of life.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 11 2006 23:58 utc | 8

There is no way that the oil price will be only $150, it will be 400-500 or more :

All oil in the middle east is under Shiites soil !!! in Saudi Arabia (all oil is in north-East, Shi'a), Kuwait-Iraq and of course Iran.

even if Hormuz stay open (and it is very unlikely) not a drop of oil will be produce if the main Shi'a country Iran is attacked.

the crisis in US will be much worst than 1929, with a gallon at $20 for a very long term.

Posted by: fredouil | Apr 12 2006 0:07 utc | 9

One thing that Bill didn't mention is the likely diaspora as the result of such an event. I can imagine European nations and some Middle Eastern nations forcing out American citizens (or demanding that they renounce their U.S. citizenship as a requisite for staying). I can also imagine that some nations might demand that any of their citizens abroad immediately return home.

I think that you might get capital flight and a swarm over the Canadian border were the U.S. to use a tactical nuke. Fairly well-off Americans might be forced to choose between the U.S. and the rest of the world, and a lot of them might leave as a result.

The dollar would begin its hard landing early and we'd have a massive recession -- more massive than we're going to otherwise have, that is. This might be what saves us, rather than any vestigal scruples the Bush Administration has.

Posted by: no name | Apr 12 2006 0:16 utc | 10

interesting that the financial bomb shelter scenario was going on in Europe right after Bush upped the fear factor for the whole world.

gas prices went up today too. I heard on the radio that they'd gone up, so I thought I'd go fill up my car before the prices went up. Where I live, gas was over 3 bucks a gallon for the first time today...all the stations had already raised their prices.

And yes, I think gas prices might fuel inflation like Weimar Germany. Ppl would cash their checks and go spend them before prices went up.

Don't forget, too, that Neil Bush was part of Silverado and every company that Dubya ran...he ran into the ground.

maybe Dubya wants to pull an own goal to get himself out of trouble... or maybe middle eastern countries see what Bush is doing with Iran and hearing the rumors like everyone else over the weekend with Sy Hersh's article and retired military speaking out against this whacked American govt...and the ppl in it who won't go and sit in front of the white house until the thief in chief leaves.

Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 12 2006 0:25 utc | 11

Only a little OT, but what the hell:

Stalin Has Been Using His Eraser Again

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 12 2006 0:30 utc | 12

i swear sometimes i think billmon is wired into my brain. today has been an iranian smorgasborg for me since i first read one of b's links this morn. there is no news surrounding liz cheneys pre war group, nada. but there are plenty of regime change news if you scratch the surface. the cheneyites are banking on the apathy of the public equally as much as the fear factor to proceed w/their plans even w/limited secrecy. i knew it was true not only w/hershs piece but also the murmerings of mutiney and hope to god the military brass do more than resign. thats the last thing they should be doing, if anyone they would be the only people who could pull any kind of plug on this operation. i think i mentioned the other day how i try to think about this and my mind hits a wall. i have talked about it to my son and he just doesn't get the seriousness of it. maybe he thinks i'm crying wolf. there has been so much outrage these last few years, are we all becoming ammune to the news. the cycles that roll in and roll off the way this will scroll down and get lost in a thread, just another day in the life. digby has a link to the post. when i first read it i wrote susang and ask her to front page it. it cannot be a topic of the week. i would like every blog to highlight it and have daily updates, get very in the face w/the american public for as long as it takes.

i really see this as the possible beginning of the end of life as we know it, maybe even as we don't know it.maybe just the beginning of the end. ok, i really can't add anymore to this thread. what's to say???

one question, would congress have to approve this or does george have carte blanc if he wraps it into the war on terra?

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2006 0:49 utc | 13

I think Iran effectively closing the Straits would seal the deal for a coalition of countries united against the US. If Iran were able to disrupt the shipping lanes then the financial impact globally would be serious, possibly resulting in a full on global economic crisis.

If Iran sat back and took it or if the US was able to "cover" the Straits in a protective fashion (both in the air, sea and landing forces on the Iran side), then I think much of what Billmon says is a possibility. Bush wants to do it - that, I have no doubt. We have lost our moral influence (however illusional it was to begin with) and we have been in Big Stick mode for awhile now - Cheney and Bush can only think of strengthen that Big Stick and the use of tactical nuke would do nicely for them.

Of course on a personal level, as I live overseas, the whole scenarios frightens me no end. I will be purchasing maple leaf patches for my gear and practicing my "ehs".

Posted by: Syd Barrett | Apr 12 2006 1:26 utc | 14

war and peace

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2006 1:53 utc | 15

Count on Billmon to rise to the rhetorical and emotional occasion at the right time. His irony bites; and I'm sure its not easy to encapsulate in words when wringing George Bush's scrawny neck is really the release that's needed.

Me, I'm finalizing the long thought of purchase of a homestead in Canada. I laugh on those fools, or naifs, who only a couple of years ago counseled that such thinking was a sellout. Get real.

Jack Straw said that the reports, any nuking of Iran, was just "nuts". Well,nuts to you Jack and the rest of your jackshit whimpy government. Welcome to the lack of moral fiber club.

Posted by: DonS | Apr 12 2006 1:58 utc | 16

@Annie:

Good Find.

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 12 2006 2:02 utc | 17

he's baaack, billmon has a new post.
can we all hope and pray he's on a roll

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2006 2:19 utc | 18

as a companion to annies war & piece link, here's arkin's piece on CONPLAN 8022 from last may - A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option

Posted by: b real | Apr 12 2006 2:40 utc | 19

A Suez Crisis-style shot across our bow in which China & Russia or some oil producers divert reserves into the money market to make dollar-denominated bond yields spike, with concomitant economic mayhem: that's the last best chance of stopping what used to be us.

Posted by: psh | Apr 12 2006 2:40 utc | 20

dunno what to say or think.

maybe my brain is in deer/headlights mode.

all I can think reading rpe's post upthread is that the armaments mfrs would come out grinning like pigs in clover. and they are transnational -- it's a long tradition even further back than Krupp, to sell to all sides.

does our species have a death wish?

Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 12 2006 3:26 utc | 21

again, it's important to recognize u.s. aggression is not wholly motivated by "national" interests. to a very large extent, the u.s. acts in defense of global capital, in defense of even a swedish way of life.

I disagree. US gets only ~18% of its oil from ME. It's Europe & China that's more dependent on them. This is an xUS gutted economically by Wall Street policies of deliberately destroying our economic base, trying to maintain its relative position by both economically weakening & threatening its rivals. Read Emmanuel Todd's bk. Int'l Capital supported Iraqi invasion since part of the reason for it was to bomb ME into allowing Western Business interests into their closed markets. As Naomi Klein has written extensively, that job has been accomplished. While prob. everyone is furious that this invasion has resulted in vastly increasing power of Shias, I don't see that being behind this. While I remain to be convinced that anyone sane is behind this, this article is interesting.

the U.S. will launch another illegal and deadly aggression on a country that has not attacked, or even threatened to attack, anybody -- not the U.S., not Israel*, not Europe, not its neighbors. The question, like with Iraq, always left unanswered, is what makes the U.S. so determined to create mayhem? The answer has much to do with the status of the dollar and the competitive forces at play. The U.S., a ghost of its former self, economically and structurally in decline, must, out of sheer survival, hit at the competition. That competition has nothing to do with Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran...or even Yugoslavia -- pawns in a bigger game or small fishes in the whirlwind waters of our times. It is about Europe and Asia. Higher oil prices, denominated in US dollars, far from being an impediment to US economy and interests, weaken the competition, and reinforce the comparative advantages of the US behemoth. A country that is by all realistic measurements broke, is going for broke. Creative Destruction: From Iraq To Iran

I also read somewhere online recently that all this Iran-Syria talk reflects the little discussed fact that these are the Only 2 countries in the region where the US does not have military bases.

Posted by: jj | Apr 12 2006 3:41 utc | 22

again, it's important to recognize u.s. aggression is not wholly motivated by "national" interests. to a very large extent, the u.s. acts in defense of global capital, in defense of even a swedish way of life.

I disagree. US gets only ~18% of its oil from ME. It's Europe & China that's more dependent on them. This is an xUS gutted economically by Wall Street policies of deliberately destroying our economic base, trying to maintain its relative position by both economically weakening & threatening its rivals. Read Emmanuel Todd's bk. Int'l Capital supported Iraqi invasion since part of the reason for it was to bomb ME into allowing Western Business interests into their closed markets. As Naomi Klein has written extensively, that job has been accomplished. While prob. everyone is furious that this invasion has resulted in vastly increasing power of Shias, I don't see that being behind this. While I remain to be convinced that anyone sane is behind this, this article is interesting.

the U.S. will launch another illegal and deadly aggression on a country that has not attacked, or even threatened to attack, anybody -- not the U.S., not Israel*, not Europe, not its neighbors. The question, like with Iraq, always left unanswered, is what makes the U.S. so determined to create mayhem? The answer has much to do with the status of the dollar and the competitive forces at play. The U.S., a ghost of its former self, economically and structurally in decline, must, out of sheer survival, hit at the competition. That competition has nothing to do with Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran...or even Yugoslavia -- pawns in a bigger game or small fishes in the whirlwind waters of our times. It is about Europe and Asia. Higher oil prices, denominated in US dollars, far from being an impediment to US economy and interests, weaken the competition, and reinforce the comparative advantages of the US behemoth. A country that is by all realistic measurements broke, is going for broke. Creative Destruction: From Iraq To Iran

I also read somewhere online recently that all this Iran-Syria talk reflects the little discussed fact that these are the Only 2 countries in the region where the US does not have military bases.

Posted by: jj | Apr 12 2006 3:42 utc | 23

Oops - what the Hell is Happening. I posted. Checked even by opening window & it wasn't posted. then 5 mins. later they all show up???

APOLOGIES..for mucking up the thread, but this delayed appearance has never happened.

Posted by: jjj | Apr 12 2006 3:49 utc | 24

it's ok jj . it's happened to me, b can fix it

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2006 3:53 utc | 25

Was discussing this with topic earlier this week, with several wall street types. Like Bill Mon they took the business as usual short term play and horrendous unimaginable blowback long term.

However, what these guys agreed they failed to account for was the sheer size of the world outside the US borders. The more we talked the more they came to understand that the US nuking Iran is in nobodies interest, ever. Not even Isreal and England. The actual outcome we agreed was far more likely, as well as possesing a much lower opprotunity cost, was for the world to act covertly in parallel to premptively get rid of the American administration politically or by force. No Bush or Cheney at the helm no attack.

Impossible you say? Look at what happend to Sharon. Without Sharon the Isreali war machine is in complete disarray. The parallels to the operations of the personality cults of the Sharon administration and Bush/Cheney administration are striking. Does anyone really think that Rove/Addington will be able to govern in their absence?

The Russsians have already demonstrated they don't care for and will never honor our greenbacks, the Chinese are large enough and well off enough to swallow the complete write off of all the US outstanding debt without any serious long term consequences, while the rest of Asia can rely on China as its economic engine for the next hundred years in the complete absence of all US interactions. However what the Chinese and the Russians can't allow is to let the US place a knife at their collective throats.

Now if you're everyone else in the world what world do you want to be under, a lunatic dictator who uses fear to conquest the world in a never ending bid to compensate for its internal structural problems, or a healthy 100 years of Chinese and Russian growth and trade. Even to the Europeans the non-US option has to look good at this point. There are 5 billion+ non-Americans, the collective IQ and resources are not even remotely comparable. An honorable US had created a virtual US state of the willing compliant far larger than its own populous, however showing drunken rage for almost seven years has shrunk that populous to numbers well below those contained even by its own borders.

The wall street consenus is that the only thing that Team Bush/Cheney is pushing with the war threat is the noose around its own neck.

Posted by: patience | Apr 12 2006 4:02 utc | 26

Just gut level stuff but I wonder what the Iranians in the US are thinking right now. I mean besides the wheeler-dealer types.

Posted by: biklett | Apr 12 2006 4:30 utc | 27

DeA, thats what I say -- such a complex situation to entertain the same (only worse) old lets just bomb them "solution". To at best only achieve a temporary fix -- with unknown ramifications for only god knows how long. Outside all the death and destruction, it is such a depressing assessment of the american people, that they have become so cowed before the status-quo that passes for a government, that somehow if a pretty looking person on the TV says its all in the interest of protecting and or saving american lives, that all is whew! -- well --and so back to the home shopping network and of filling the empty void thats been left when people just gave up on each other ability to acknowledge their mutual humanity. And so have come to view the whole fucking rest of world like the looser down in the trailer park at the end of the road, or if not -- the trailer next door, with a baseless and detached and self satisfied selfish smugness that is at once belied by an internal insecurity so pervasive it unwittingly dispatches them into the open arms of those leaders that would spin their fears into a commodified individuality and self sufficiency that idolizes the winner over and above all others and especially at the expense of any "other". And for some unknown reason, this, unlike the massave immigrant demonstrations, makes us always to late to stop anything until it has already happened, and then its time to move on. You can see why the administration would like to export this so called democracy, this so called lifestyle.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 12 2006 4:59 utc | 28

Well, dare I try again? Gulp...

The wall street consenus is that the only thing that Team Bush/Cheney is pushing with the war threat is the noose around its own neck.

Who the F are they to complain anyway? They built the noose by destroying completely our industrial capacity, including the R&D. They gave everything of value to China for Christ Sakes. Why the bloody hell was this allowed? What is the meaning of real treason anyway?

Is everyone aware that the new issue of Foreign Policy, journo of Foreign Policy Elite brags about how they can pull off a first-strike attack against Russia & China?

Posted by: jjj | Apr 12 2006 6:40 utc | 29

What might happen if the US uses a nuclear bomb on Iran? The hastened end for US power and influence, I think.

All the consequence aren't, and can't be, known. However, some pieces of the answer can be seen as pretty likely, and certain trends already going on may accelerate.

The US End Times fundamentalists wil be enthusiastic, and their numbers will go up. Unpleasant legal, social, and political changes will result. The fellows who think there is a war of civilizations will be delighted - they are already writing pro-war tales like Dan Simmon'short story about a time traveler who visits the author in his study and warns him about Eurabia and a 100 Years' War.

In response to foreign and domestic critics, the US public may become more paranoid and xenophobic. Domestic critics who disagree with US bombing policy will have to be wary.

People who have been working for change in the US could leave in large numbers. Already US citizens are trickling out, and some of them are world-class scientists, such as the couple who left to do stem-cell research in Singapore.

At the same time, foreign graduate students in science and engineering will almost completely stop coming to the US to study. This has consequences in that the US would lose its technological edge.

Currently, many foreign students resent the delays in visas and the hassles when going through airport security, so they pick other countries for graduate work. Colin Powell said in a recent speech that college presidents had been complaining to him about the problem of falling numbers of foreign graduate students.

There was a story recently, in a military magazine, that IN 10 YEARS, there might be a shortage of scientists and technicians necessary to maintain the US nuclear and conventional bomb arsenal.

I think other countries will try to have as little to do with the US as possible. Some may boycott US products. While governments may not encourage the boycott of US products, it may be done by the public anyway.

Unfortunately, whether the US attacks Iran or not, I think it is still on a downward slide - I see too many trends pointing down. But if the US attacks Iran, the slide down will accelerate. Already there are some obvious signs of a weakened US power and influence. For example, the US is very focused on the Middle East. So it is not exercising power in Latin America, and the countries there are making all kinds of trade, military, cultural, etc. links at breakneck speed. Previously, the US would have got rid of all those disrespectful pests like President Chavez of Venezuela who is telling the US ambassador to behave - or else he will be invited to pack his bags.

Posted by: Owl | Apr 12 2006 6:46 utc | 30

Just as The Picture of Vietnam was the young girl running screaming naked down the road burning w/napalm, here's a picture of Iraq. It should be blown up & put on signs @Antiwar demos by Not in My Name. Warning

Posted by: jj | Apr 12 2006 7:03 utc | 31

The "allies" get skimpy. Via John Robb:

Riyadh seeks Russian help to prevent US strike on Iran

RIYADH - Saudi Arabia, fearing that US military action against Iran would wreak further havoc in the region, has asked Russia to block any bid by Washington to secure UN cover for an attack, a Russian diplomat said on Tuesday.

During a visit to Moscow last week, the head of the Saudi National Security Council “urged Russia to strive to prevent the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution which the United States could use as justification to launch a military assault to knock out Iran’s nuclear facilities,” the diplomat told AFP in Riyadh on condition of anonymity.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former longtime ambassador to the United States who is often tasked with delicate missions, met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow on April 4.
...
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal said last week that Riyadh believes Teheran’s assertions about its nuclear activities.

“That is why we don’t see a danger in Iran acquiring knowledge about nuclear energy provided it does not lead to (nuclear) proliferation. Of course, we believe proliferation is a threat,” he said.
...
Bandar earlier visited China, another permanent UN Security Council member with veto power, a trip diplomats in Riyadh believe was also linked to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear activities.

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2006 8:35 utc | 32

Thank you Billmon. It is good to read your words again. I have missed the long writings. It is the reason I keep coming back to your website.

Posted by: D | Apr 12 2006 8:40 utc | 33

Muslims got it easy!

Life is a lark if you're in Iraq

No wonder everyone in the US is upset at the cost of the invasion of Iraq, higher gas prices, Murray J Feeblequeezer FBI Agent listening in to their phone calls , cannon fodder demand impacting on supply of good help. Why can't Wal-Mart give citizenship after 10 years service?

Those damn Ay-Rabs just don't know how lucky they've got it. On TV the other night it said that the people in Baghdad are worried about "Post traumatic Stress Disorder"! Can you believe that, we can't get anyone to cut the grass and these moslems are complaining because before we went over to rescue them from Saddam, 3% of the Baghdad population had post traumatic stress. Now since since we helped em they are trying to say they got upset and 17% of the people in Baghdad have "severe symptoms of post trauma stress"

These types would moan if their ass was on fire and you pissed on it!

Anyway insult to injury, they've got some sort of communistic socialised health system and they are complaining that all the psychiatrists have left Baghdad. There's only 20 something left to treat hundreds of thousands of people. Like that's our fault, when all that's happened is these analysts have left their crappy ten grand a year to treat 80,000 people jobs for proper jobs in the USof A.

I swear I don't know what these people want! Then they complain about the numbers of them that are too dumb to get out of the way of our bullets and rockets n stuff, they reckon we've killed close to two hundred thousand of them. What's the problem? At least that will shorten the queue in the psychiatrist's office.

Now the limeys are trying to squirm out from under their mess and blame the US. The same limey who was all piss n wind when we first went into Iraq was the one on TV whining about stress disorder. Now he's written an article crying over the tough time he reckons the Iraqis are having now we gave them freedom:

"What you don't see is building work. You would expect the capital city of a country which is undergoing a programme of major reconstruction to be full of cranes. It simply isn't happening. Baghdad is not being transformed; it's scarcely changed from the time of the first Gulf War, except for the buildings which the coalition bombed.

If you see a US patrol, you should brake sharply and keep away from it. The gunners on the vehicles kill people every day for getting too close to them. Every Iraqi has a horror story about a friend or relative who misunderstood an instruction, often in English, and was shot at."

See what I mean this brit is blaming us for Iraqi drivers not being able to read a sign written in plain english:
DANGER STAY BACK.

"Hey limey at least we didn't gas them".

Posted by: | Apr 12 2006 9:03 utc | 34

@patience:

I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced that the rest of the world combined could knock the current administration out of office without setting off World War III. One thing that leftists (in the U.S.) and nearly everyone else in the rest of the world keep forgetting is that the Bush administration is not rational. Not even when they try to be rational. Those parts which are not too damned foolish to figure out what needs to be done are insane, or at least so crazed with personal short-term greed that it makes no difference. It's happened time and time again -- situations have arisen in which normal people think, "oh, they have to do such and such, because the alternative is so obviously awful" and they go ahead and take the alternative.

So when trying to predict the U.S. reaction, basically: any statement which begins "the Bush administration can't be dumb/crazy enough to..." is false. So: nuclear strikes against China for upsetting the economy? Heck, nuclear strikes against southern California for having so many immigrants and being so liberal? Stupid! Crazy! And therefore something to be careful about. And don't forget that the minute things start to go wrong, the Bush administration will be not merely crazy, stupid, and paranoid, but also desperate. This is not a good thing.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Apr 12 2006 9:04 utc | 35

Anyone who states that Thukydides' point wasn't that Athens has just been overreaching, but that Athens failed because it didn't go into full genocide mode is a complete nuts.
Athens cluelessly tried to conquer an island the size of Sparta's empire, and failed because Syrcause itself was nearly on par with Sparta and Athens' militaries.
His whole point about Melos and other crimes of Athens is that Athens ultimately failed for stopping to be the good guys but behaved just as badly as Sparta, but not even toward its enemies but even toward its allies, which logically ended up turning to the other powerhouse.
You have to be a pretty sick mind or an idiot to see things completely the other way around...

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Apr 12 2006 9:30 utc | 36

that's the crux of its power: america creating problems whose solution can only be posed by america

a kind of Münchhausen by proxy?

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 12 2006 10:23 utc | 37

Simon Jenkins in the Guardian: If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran

This week's most terrifying remark came from the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. He declared that a nuclear attack on Iran would be "completely nuts" and an assault of any sort "inconceivable". In Straw-speak, "nuts" means he's just heard it is going to happen and "inconceivable" means certain.

A measure of the plight of British foreign policy is that such words from the foreign secretary are anything but reassuring. Straw says of Iran that "there is no smoking gun, there is no casus belli". There was no smoking gun in Iraq, only weapons conjured from the fevered imagination of Downing Street and the intelligence chiefs. It is a racing certainty that Alastair Campbell look-alikes are even now cajoling MI6's John Scarlett into proving that Iran is "far closer" to a bomb than anyone thinks.
...
As for a casus belli, there was also none in Iraq. Tony Blair had to beat one out of the hapless attorney general before his generals would agree to fight. But Iran's casus belli was set out in unambiguous terms by the prime minister in his speech to the Foreign Policy Centre in London on March 21. Blair was updating his 1999 Chicago doctrine of global intervention. Then it was justified by humanitarianism and was optional. Now it is vital for the "battle of values ... a battle about modernity". Those who are not of our values are to be subject to pre-emptive attack.

Blair demanded that the west become "active not reactive" against alien values (obviously Islamic) as "we risk chaos threatening our stability". The crusade against them was "utterly determinative of our future here in Britain". He accepted that Britain should seek international agreement before going to war, but should still fight without it. People were crying out for democracy. We must bring it to them since "in their salvation lies our own security".
...
The much-vaunted neocon campaign for a secure and liberal democracy in Asia is in retreat. It is ailing in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. What might have been gained through security and friendship has been wrecked by the war in Iraq. War puts a premium on paranoia and encourages existing regimes to crack down on dissent. These may be rogue states, but it is time for the west to decide again which are "our rogues".

One country in the region that has retained some political pluralism is Iran. It has shown bursts of democratic activity and, importantly, has experienced internal regime change. If ever there was a nation not to drive to the extreme it is Iran. If ever there was a powerful state to reassure and befriend rather than abuse and threaten, it is Iran. If ever there was a regime not to goad into seeking nuclear weapons it is Iran. Yet that is precisely what British and American policy is doing. It is completely nuts.

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2006 11:07 utc | 38

In my world, Bush and Ahmadinejad would be locked in a room somewhere and they could shake their weenies at each other until one or the other fell off.

@ biklett - last week I petitioned in my office for old newspapers for a new puppy. An employee that just arrived a couple of weeks ago brought me some that included a paper in Persian. I asked her if she is from Iran. Yes. I have been wanting to ask her how she feels ever since but don't know her very well yet. How would I feel? It boggles my mind.

Posted by: beq | Apr 12 2006 12:13 utc | 39

For years, we've been asking the question: What happens if a tyrannical madman gets nuclear weapons?

We now know the answer: He makes plans to attack Iran.

(Credit to Randi Rhodes, who said something to this effect on her show last night)

Posted by: Joe F | Apr 12 2006 12:48 utc | 40

bilmon welcome back. New you would'nt let this one pass - it could be the mama of all tipping points.

Doz anyone no what the command chain wuld be for authorizing such a nukular strike ? And where doz congress come in ?

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Apr 12 2006 13:17 utc | 41

Foreign Affairs article on US nuc-u-lar supremacy (referred to above):

"It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.

Nuclear stalemate is over! We can win! Yay!

Fucking insaniacs.

Kubrick and Sam Fuller, it turns out, were not artists, but documentarists.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Apr 12 2006 13:22 utc | 42

Doz anyone no what the command chain wuld be for authorizing such a nukular strike ?

that is a pretty scary thought! as far as I know the president has the unlock codes for the weapons and probably could order their launch. What is the difference between launching one nuke or 200 conventional missiles? If he has authority for one, he has authority for the other.

congress is there to rubberstamp the decision. If they wanted to change the course all they have to do is stop the funding. it is that simple.

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 12 2006 13:23 utc | 43

From reading this page it is pretty apparent that if not Iran somewhere is going to get nuked by the US pretty soon. Take a look at what has been written.

Discussion about whether or not a bunch of Iranians should be melted until they are nothing but a congealed pool of their constituent parts is confined to how doing that may negatively impact on the US.

One can presume from this line of discussion that if a way can be found of obliterating a large group of people whose nation's interests are inimical to the US's, without causing such extreme 'blowback', that would be fine.

Many people appear concerned about the way the rest of the world may treat them next time a bus load of middle aged americans is cluttering up some otherwise peaceful foreign community with whining complaints about why aren't things done the same as they are 'back home'.

Many 'foreign' people would be justified in drawing from this attitude that americans believe if the extermination of a few thousand people could be spun or sold to the rest of the world, as long as there is a concrete advantage for american citizens, it would be a perfectly fine thing to do.

Shame on those americans who think that way; because the extermination of a large group of people and things by the US is only a matter of time unless americans see other people as people first, the uniqueness of any person foreign or otherwise second, and the consideration of whether harming any other person is a plus or a minus is accepted for being what it is.

That it is an unconscionable example of failure as a human being.

Anyone who depends upon someone else's death for their life, or another's loss for their gain, has failed in the business of living. They can't make their own way so they steal somebody else's way.

That is how simple and straightforward this debate is. Anything else is the sort of moral relativism that kids use to justify killing another human 'because he came into my territory'. In other words; What I did may not be that good but what he did was much worse because 'he got in my way'.

I'm not even sure how many people around here recognise that spending all the money and resources the US does on weapons, having such a large standing military force, and spending so much time and energy judging others is not a sign of wellness.

Yet rather than believe that I suspect many see the problem as being not having enough to care for the sick and indigent in the US.

If medicare had enough and everybody in the US got a decent education these people imagine it would be perfectly OK for USA to have has many different ways and means of killing as many different foreigners as it chose.

Sorry but it's not OK and if you're so concerned about america's standing in the world (which let's face it is about 50 years after that horse bolted) then consider this.

Many non US citizens don't have much time for russia or china but at least they recognise that both those nations are no longer in the my dick's bigger than yours, I've got more balls/bombs than you, game, anymore.

So they encourage those countries to keep up the good work and are less inclined to criticise either of those countries than they were.

Posted by: | Apr 12 2006 13:36 utc | 44

Simon Jenkins (piece in Guardian today, Apr 12, that Bernhard linked to above) has appropriated my line from the Target Iran thread, viz. :

In any case, the fact that UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said US military action against Iran is "inconceivable" means that it's now a dead cert.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Mar 14, 2006 7:20:16 AM | #

Suggested new Moon tagline: "Read it on MoA one month before it appears in The Guardian."

Posted by: Dismal Science | Apr 12 2006 13:39 utc | 45

The commodities markets also appear to think that the game's afoot as prices reach record levels.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Apr 12 2006 13:44 utc | 46

Doz anyone no what the command chain wuld be for authorizing such a nukular strike ?

From what I read:

Presidential order to one of the Commands. In this case Central Command/Abizad. The Joint Chiefs of Staff would NOT be involved.
---
As of timing AEI shill Gerecht slipped some:
Council on Foreign Relations told of U.S. plans for Iran strike

"Clearly at some level, the British don't feel that the military option will come into play until, at the very earliest, the late summer," Hugh Barnes, director of the Iran program of the London-based Foreign Policy Center, said.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw agreed. On April 9, Straw told the British Broadcasting Corp. that a military strike against Iran was not on the agenda.

"They [the Americans] are very committed indeed to resolving this issue by negotiation and by diplomatic pressure," Straw said. "And what the Iranians have to do is recognize they have overplayed their hand at each stage."

At this point, the Western sources said, Britain and the United States have agreed to seek support from China and Russia on UN sanctions on Iran.

They said the two countries hope to draft a unified Security Council resolution on sanctions before the G-8 summit in July.

Should that fail, the sources said, Britain and the United States would prepare for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. They said the plans would allow London and Washington to prepare for the prospect of a Shi'ite backlash in Iraq.
...
At the Council on Foreign Relations discussion, Reuel Gerecht, a former CIA operative in the Middle East and now with the American Enterprise Institute, said the Bush administration would wait three months to determine whether the Security Council was prepared to sanction Teheran. In July 2006, Gerecht said, the military option would undergo open debate in Washington.

"We have not had that debate," Gerecht said. "We are going to have that debate. I think we should have that debate sooner, not later, so we don't have to get bogged down."

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2006 13:46 utc | 47

Some of the best marketing minds are already being tapped to sell this one to America's TV viewers. Anyone opposed to it will be made into a freedom-hating terrorist sympathizer who is content to see America go to hell in a handbasket.

And the same folks who were out in 2003 with their "Support our troops in Iraq" signs will be out with posters reading "Support our nukes in Iran".

Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 12 2006 13:52 utc | 48

Posted by: | Apr 12, 2006 9:36:07 AM:

From reading this page it is pretty apparent that if not Iran somewhere is going to get nuked by the US pretty soon. Take a look at what has been written.

Discussion about whether or not a bunch of Iranians should be melted until they are nothing but a congealed pool of their constituent parts is confined to how doing that may negatively impact on the US.

Many non US citizens don't have much time for russia or china but at least they recognise that both those nations are no longer in the my dick's bigger than yours, I've got more balls/bombs than you, game, anymore.

So they encourage those countries to keep up the good work and are less inclined to criticise either of those countries than they were.

I have to say that I find both of these comments ridiculous. Knowing ppl who post on this site, it is remarkable, or maybe a lack of knowledge or willful ignorance to say that the only thing ppl care about is the US image when ppl face the possibility of nuclear attack.

Do you really think people here are not horrified by the very thought of this happening to ANYONE???

And beyond this remark, there is the seeming ignorance of reality with a remark about Russia and China.

China, Brazil, India, to name three, are poised to become superpowers in their own regions because of economic strength. China has a hold on the US via dollar holdings and cheap goods to fuel a consumer economy.

if anyone thinks China is not aware of this, or that China doesn't use this...I have a little island called Taiwan to sell to you.

As far as Russia-- well, since prostitution is a major industry for females in the "new economy" --maybe they have to make backdoor deals right now instead of running the bluff.

finally, to think that remarks on this site indicate any future...you should go back and see all the predictions about the 2004 election.

but other than that, thanks for the insight.

Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 12 2006 14:40 utc | 49

As ususal, a brilliant post on the disconnect between reality and corporate media. Since politics is now show business and spin, the closest we can get to seeing our future is the original “Dead Zone” with Martin Sheen playing George W Bush pushing the button.

I am still in denial. Surely, this is just a game of Chicken. Except, in 2002 and 2003, the same game was played and a head on crash occurred.

Westerners still think in terms of States. The Iraq Invasion has started a religious insurrection between the Sunni and the occupying Americans. A first strike nuclear of war will start the Clash of Religions that will make a large swath of the world from Morocco to Indonesia uninhabitable with circles of no go zones in North America.

Posted by: Jim S | Apr 12 2006 15:30 utc | 50

misanthropy, cynicism & fatalism do not offer any solutions. it's not too late for a preventative/preemptive attack on the minority interests making these threats. waiting for moral standards to be set from the top-down only eats up valuable time. there's already been millions in u.s. streets in the past few weeks. what more catalyst/example is needed?

Posted by: b real | Apr 12 2006 15:34 utc | 51

Is there anything else?

Posted by: beq | Apr 12 2006 16:14 utc | 52

please forgive the long quote, but i feel i must delurk for a bit to share, again, from Mayer's book, published in 1955, "they thought they were free". from the cover: How and why 'decent men' became Nazis - the life stories of ten law-abiding citizens.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security."...

You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even talk, alone; you don't want to 'go our of your way to make trouble.' And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, 'everyone' is happy...."

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens of hundreds of thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked.... But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D."

Posted by: selise | Apr 12 2006 16:19 utc | 53

b real - yes, i pray (and i'm agnostic) that the example of true responsible citizenship, as demonstrated recently by immigrant communities and their supporters, will show the rest of us the way.

Posted by: selise | Apr 12 2006 16:24 utc | 54

the biggest demos ever, all over the world, were held before the war. no effect.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 12 2006 16:33 utc | 55

on third or fourth thought...I wonder if all this talk about nuclear weapons isn't psy ops to try to incite that promised attack on the U.S. after the offer of truce. Psyching out both Iran and the ppl in the US.

what's a city in the U.S. to the Bush Junta when they would have an excuse to go in "legitimately" by tying such an attack to Iran?

I cannot help but remember the revelation of "Operation Northwoods" by the JCS back in 1963. And if there's any truth to the Silent Coup theories (they were wrong on Haig as deep throat) The JCS were berserk because Nixon and Kissinger were going behind their back to negotiate with China and to talk with the North Vietnamese --while leaving them out of the loop.

From the Silent Coup guys, the military was pissed because such actions put the troops in greater danger, over the long term, b/c a plan for withdrawal needed the JCS imput.

As far as the nuclear option...it is incredible that this is part of the "unofficial" -leaked- national "conversation" -- what needs to be done, imo, is to unite with the native americans, the hopi and others mentioned here. Hopi land is where uranium is mined.

I feel that there must be a response, a national response, by people in this nation, to this sort of talk.

I find it incredible that Nixon covered up others' crimes and illegally spied on Americans and both of these were grounds for Republicans to go to him and tell him to resign because he would lose an impeachment vote...and now the House has a contingency that wants to use the recent protests on immigration law to round them all up and arrest them (a comment by some idiot..John Hostetler yesterday.)

If bush told this republican congress to line up and suck his dick and spit the cum into the next person's mouth, no doubt the jostling to be the first in line wouldn't have to do with the consequences, but the honor of showing their loyalty to Bush no matter what.

Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 12 2006 16:33 utc | 56

b real- I marched in Washington, in my city, in my state capital, I called my reps, I emailed the White House, I stood on street corners with signs, I attended candlelight vigils...the last one before the war, at least 1% of my city showed up...that may not sound like much, but supposedly 20ppl are represented by every one who gets a call, etc...

But, yeah, I'd do it again. I'd go camp out in Washington as a mother against the madness....and get hauled off to jail.

...knowing that the liklihood that any of those things would stop the Bush junta is about slim to none.

I would like to shut down mining operations on Hopi land and I wish they would invite other ppl who share this land with them to come to their sacred sights. Maybe that would get through the b.s of "reality" tv.

Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 12 2006 16:41 utc | 57

who knows what is possible? large numbers in the streets may give impetus/reinforcement to those who are in better positions to have critical affects on slowing & stopping this crusade. or it may be the force itself. there is not one solution to ending this predicament. mass direct action - not sanctioned rallies like we saw prior to the iraqi invasion - is just one thing that most people can do to try to effect change. and it usually works in the lower half of the americas. we can always find excuses not to do something or scare ourselves into acquiescing to the 'perceived' status quo, and it's a sure bet that things will never change for the better. hopefully enough people will realise that we are the answer we've been waiting for.

Posted by: b real | Apr 12 2006 17:06 utc | 58

protesting is important for a variety of reasons - but, in addition to protesting, i think we also need to consider how we may be effective in actively resisting - by that i mean nonviolent action.

Posted by: selise | Apr 12 2006 17:34 utc | 59

Quoted from Gerecht above:
In July 2006, Gerecht said, the military option would undergo open debate in Washington.

Hell - this is to preempt domestic elections. Iraq & war on terra have lost their luster, ergo...

Posted by: jj | Apr 12 2006 18:08 utc | 60

Is this the new marketing claim?

In a piece about a British Foreign ralations conference we find this:

Richard Haas, a former White House national security adviser and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the United States has drafted a military option against Iran. Haas said the option called for a limited military strike that would destroy Iran's nuclear facilities without seeking to overthrow the regime in Teheran.

"It would be a preventive military option, not preemptive because there's no imminent threat of use [of nuclear weapons]," Haas said. "But something more limited, to basically destroy or set back their nuclear development — a classic preventive military strike."

According to the DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms a preemtive attack is "initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent" while a preventive war is "A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk."

A "classic preventive military" military strike? What is that? Examples? What is difference to war of agression? Is there one?

Just wondering...

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2006 18:11 utc | 61

Speaking of Nixon, Silent Coup, etc...Cheney & Rumbo learned from NIxon the importance of destroying the CIA, and the seizure by any means necessary of both houses of Congress. Don't know why no one has written bk/essay assembling everything in one place. Take the Senate by Murdering Senator (Wellstone) & rigging elections - Hagel, Cleland. DeLay illegally packs House of Reps...Then do something that involves Israel, so AIPAC will terrorize any potential opposition into silence..so critical mass can be avoided, allowing the few truly courageous to be maligned in the usual fashion...

Posted by: jj | Apr 12 2006 18:17 utc | 62

The latest demonstrations were held on a week day, in effect having/implying also a work stoppage/general strike. The demonstrations have totally screwed up the republican attempts to politicize the issue in advance of elections -- resulting in the meltdown of their own bill in congress. These demonstrations have been EFFECTIVE, because they have threatened in real terms that (as of yet) cannot be co-opted. There are some lessons here.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 12 2006 18:18 utc | 63

b-, that figures. They're selling it to the sceptical as being like the Israeli attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities - no worry, just a surgical strike.

Joe Cirincione, of the elite think tank - Carnegie Endowment for "World Peace" - was interviewed on Ed Schultz' prog. on Monday during my 3 mins. of Air america radio for the quarter. He said that This is NOT about Nukes, it's about regime change - that Condi has been saying this for last 2 wks.

Googling about trying to find that in writing, I merely found some mealy mouthed bit from him about how there has to be a full discussion - has this guy learned nothing? But, I found something as interesting. His analysis of the effects of Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuke program. Unbeknownst to me, it had precisely the opposite effect. It accelerated Iraq's nuclear development. It merely went underground.

There is no need for military strikes against Iran.  The country is five to ten years away from the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs.  Even that estimate, shared by the Defense Intelligence Agency and experts at IISS, ISIS, and University of Maryland assumes Iran goes full-speed ahead and does not encounter any of the technical problems that typically plague such programs.  

But it will have to be diplomats, not F-15s that stop the mullahs.  An air strike against a soft target, such as the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan (which this author visited in 2005) would inflame Muslim anger, rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular government and jeopardize further the US position in Iraq.  Finally, the strike would not, as is often said, delay the Iranian program.  It would almost certainly speed it up.  That is what happened when the Israelis struck at the Iraq program in 1981. No Military Options

Posted by: jj | Apr 12 2006 18:36 utc | 64

Some corrections to Bill's post @ Bilmon on April 11 "Mutually Assured Dementia"

While it's unclear to me whether Cheney is still Rumsfeld'd underling, the statement "(Cheney may have his finger on the bureaucracy, but Shrub is still the one with his finger on the button)" is clearly false. After all Shrub's foreign experience prior to assuming the Pretzeldency was 1) doing alcohol and nose candy in Mexico, and 2)bird hunting in Scotland. Anyone aware of any other experience outside the US? And it was Cheney, not Shrub, who gave the order to bring down aircraft on 9/11.

The statement "There simply isn't a precedent for the world's dominant superpower turning into a rogue state" also overlooks the obvious example- Germany under the Third Reich. As to what the world would look like after that event, WWII suggests the general effect. And whether dictators give a damn.

Refusal to recognize that we are not in WWIII is akin to not recognizing civil war in Iraq. But then w/ all the Hollywood illusions, video games, Madison Avenue hype, it is hard to get excited by events that have not yet crossed the moat separating us from the rest of the world. And is the line between actual and virtual reality all that clear?

Posted by: erichwwk | Apr 12 2006 18:51 utc | 65

With all this talk about a "nuclear" strikes, could this be just a plot to get agreement to non-nuclear strikes?

Thesis - Antithesis -> Synthesis

conventional attack - no attack -> maybe attack later
nuclear attack - no attack -> conventional attack

hmmm ... I am sure some Dem Senators would settle for such a "bipartisan compromise".

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2006 19:20 utc | 66

There simply isn't a precedent for the world's dominant superpower turning into a rogue state" also overlooks the obvious example- Germany under the Third Reich.

was germany ever the world's dominant superpower?

Posted by: annie | Apr 12 2006 19:31 utc | 67

re the stmt Cheney may have his finger on the bureaucracy, but Shrub is still the one with his finger on the button

back in december someone here pointed out evidence that cheney was carrying the football on his visit to afghanistan

After Mr Cheney entered the parliament chaotic scenes erupted when Afghan security guards insisted on searching the Americans' bags - including a briefcase containing America's secret nuclear bomb codes. An angry White House official ordered the guards to "open the gate now", an AP reporter said. "These are the vice-president's military aides."

Posted by: b real | Apr 12 2006 19:49 utc | 68

was germany ever the world's dominant superpower?

Not the world, but in Europe. The US was a bit isolationist, England was a dying empire and by 1936 Germany was in the top place there.

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2006 19:55 utc | 69

Hmmm Nuking Iran

I believe there is a high probability of war with Iran because key people in the administration desperately want it, but I don't believe it is inevitable. I hope there will be a sufficiently large public outburst of opposition, eg thanks to Hersh's and other's revelations, to make it impossible. The dire situation in Iraq of course is making it more difficult, and I hope there will be strong voices in the administration and influential republicans that will recognize the likely disastrous consequences and oppose it. Or perhaps influential old-timers like Bush Sr. and Scowcroft will be able to dissuade President Bush.

However I believe there is very little time: an attack may well happen within the next 2 weeks, while Congress is in recess. There is no advantage to those that want it to happen in waiting.

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2006 19:57 utc | 70

Keep reading what you're saying people. This whole subject has been reduced to an abstraction of whether Cheney is Rumsfeld's boss, whether Bush lies, whether it's a ploy to kill lots of people with 'conventional' weapons, but no one is talking about what would happen to a family sitting around the dinner table after a day of being at school, working in the local/store/office, cooking and cleaning or sorting the sheep or tilling the fields or any of the things ordinary people do, when there is a sudden bright flash followed by a bang that most won't even hear.

They will be a puddle before the noise gets to them.

Rather than talk in these terms I wouldn't be suprised if someone came in and patiently explained that this was a 'bunker buster' a nuke that would only have 'limited collateral damage' the numbers of melted people might only be in the hundreds not the tens of thousands.

Any abstraction rather than talk about this horror for what it is.

Maybe tell me again that other nations are building bombs. yeah I wonder why that is. Since the USuk Israel is the only mob with nuclear weapons who go about the joint raping looting and pillaging at whim, perhaps those countries have found that their people don't feel secure unless they can make it plain being treated like Iraq is not an option.

But I'm starting to fall into abstraction by arguing against the abstractions posted here.

None of it matters. You mob can all be offended and go back to discussing who's up who and who's paying the rent in Washington, a fine game if you're sure your lives aren't on the line, and the rest of the world will conclude that most people in the US have lost touch with their humanity. I don't wish it on anyone because being in the group that have been dehumanised by the larger group is not a place to be.

Or you can act like the human beings you are and get in touch with the real issue here which is the casual, insolent taking of others lives.

If people in the US stop talking about this act of horror in the abstract terms they have been encouraged to, and start considering the real people who are going to die, no asshole in Washington will dare to nuke anyone.

Posted by: | Apr 12 2006 20:46 utc | 71

If people in the US stop talking about this act of horror in the abstract terms they have been encouraged to, and start considering the real people who are going to die, no asshole in Washington will dare to nuke anyone.

Ack! - hoe do we get there?

Posted by: b | Apr 12 2006 21:11 utc | 72

I made 11x18 copies of a picture of the Highway of Death that I gave out to at least 50 people. Same with a picture of a baby who died in a bomb. I made flyers with that baby and Bush next to her, sneering over his shoulder and placed it around my city every afternoon, and every morning someone had come by and torn down those flyers...the first picture was before the war, the flyer was after.

please do not tell me what I think or feel. It is the height of arrogance.

I will post what I like on this site and if you want to be the hall monitor, well, so be it. I'm done with you.

Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 12 2006 21:22 utc | 73

slothrop,
again, it's important to recognize u.s. aggression is not wholly motivated by "national" interests. to a very large extent, the u.s. acts in defense of global capital, in defense of even a swedish way of life.

But there is a point where capitalists living in Sweden will start to fear the US military force more then want its protection. And that is the point when they will try to inch by inch move out there interests from the US zone and into what will be (by the power of nukes and MAD) the french or european zone. Even capitalists disagree and this makes capital disagree.

Patience formulated it clearly:

The more we talked the more they came to understand that the US nuking Iran is in nobodies interest, ever.

beq,
In my world, Bush and Ahmadinejad would be locked in a room somewhere and they could shake their weenies at each other until one or the other fell off.

I so wholeheartedly agree. I liked Saddams proposal to settle the conflict mano-a-mano. Not that he would have made such a proposal had he not been outgunned, but anyway.

Anonymous @ 9:36
Discussion about whether or not a bunch of Iranians should be melted until they are nothing but a congealed pool

I do not see any dicussion on wheter a bunch of Iranians should be nuked.

I see alot of discussion on the topic of what happens if they are. If the Bush administration are crazy enough.

b,
With all this talk about a "nuclear" strikes, could this be just a plot to get agreement to non-nuclear strikes?

Thesis - Antithesis -> Synthesis

This makes sense in a reality based world. So I will cling to it. Unfortunaltely the Bush gang inhabits another world. Nevertheless I stay in the realitybased world.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Apr 13 2006 0:06 utc | 74

skod

like a broken record I insist the form of domination characterizing u.s. aggression responds primarily to the interests of a global capitalist class.

I'm mystified why so many on the left resist this analysis.

but, you know, I'd love to live in sweden any day.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 13 2006 1:10 utc | 75

Maybe slothrop is more right than not. I think -->'s point is also well taken and in the same vein. In the history of US imperialism, the prime motivation (gernerally) is alawys the same, and that is to secure enough sphere of influence to serve the needs of capital. This drive is justified in many different ways, usually aimed and presented in terms amicable to the identity of population. As in iraq the conveyer belt of shifting justifications have run the gamit, ranging from security needs, to spreading freedom -- but have never been outlined as securing market opportunities, gaining control through production agreements, or the development of military platforms to do the same. So what we often get bogged down is analysis and discussion about the justifications for the project, as opposed to the project itself. And while obviously there is a need for this kind of deconstruction, it can easily take up all the oxygen, leaving the facts on the ground diminished by the rhetoric.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 13 2006 2:23 utc | 76

No one is trying to be the hall monitor. Be done with me by all means at least anger is emotion. But continual situational analysis of the horrors that have been perpetrated over the last couple of years has done nothing other than encourage more horror.

I'm including myself in this, that is the person I am angry with, if you want to be angry at me or george bush fine but understand that will change nothing. All this abstract chatter has done nothing other than make the horrible mundane. We have been enabling these deaths by calmly analysing the machines instead of absorbing the outcome.

After all the energy that was put into resisting the war in Vietnam, once "our boys" came home nobody cared to be reminded of the horrors that the chemical warfare is still perpetrating, they are too busy studying the newest methodolgy of death.

Warren Anderson the bloke who used to run Union Carbide skips between his 'place in the Hamptons' and his luxury Caribbean mansion. He can't go anywhere else because he still wanted in India for murder. But how many of us even thought about the children still dying in poverty and misery in Bhopal when Dubya and the Indians were shaking hands.

All Union Carbide along with other US corporate thinking did was throw a bit of money at a few influential Indians and walk away saying 'they had done their bit" Blind Freddy could see what would happen next.

How were a bunch of people who were too powerless to stop a mob of foreigners building a poison factory in their midst before they got decimated, ever going to get that money out of the people who had been complicit with the foreigners in poisoning them?

In the end it is just what we as individuals can do.

It is apparent that no one outside the US will be heeded. If I were american I would fight like hell (metaphorically of course) to get sufficient funds and capable people together to go to Iran and film stories of the mundane existences of some of the families who live around at least one of the obvious sites that these assholes are going to nuke.

it would take a great deal of bravery because even though in theory the US is not at war with Iran, the people in control recognising how powerful this could be will go apeshit. But probably not to the point of death apeshit as that would cause undesirable 'blowback'.

Anyway once americans became as familiar with 'these people' as they feel they do watching any other reality TV show what chance would those pricks in Washington have of nuking that 'nice little kid who always forgets to eat with his correct hand' or whatever.

Discussing these horrors in any way other than by considering those who are likely to be melted as living, breathing, thinking, entities with all the strengths and weaknesses that people have only contributes to the likelihood of their demise.

Posted by: | Apr 13 2006 2:32 utc | 77

u.s. aggression responds primarily to the interests of a global capitalist class.

i had an aha moment during the ports deal dialogue here where i started grasping this concept. it took me awhile, but finally sunk in.

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2006 2:36 utc | 78

They key word in slothrop's comment is primarily. Through that one can drive a truck. Beyond that there are rivalries between different nations & individuals w/in that larger class. And who w/in them has the leverage to decide who gets what & on what terms - see Iraq.

Posted by: jj | Apr 13 2006 2:46 utc | 79

Discussing these horrors in any way other than by >b>considering those who are likely to be melted as living, breathing, thinking, entities with all the strengths and weaknesses that people have only contributes to the likelihood of their demise.

please discuss this topic as you see fit, meanwhile i'm organizing the only way i know how (local group meeting w/senators etc) but i can tell you, chances are we will not be discussing the details of melting bodies. but we can do that here if you like. link to photos of some. personally, i can do the mental visualization in my head. how can you tell what another is considering, even the implication that people are discussing w/out considering the people involved, this is an accusation i don't think you need to make here.

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2006 2:50 utc | 80

the euro-anglo diaspora benefits from u.s. militarism. mostly, this occurs in the forced immiseration of workers in the "developing world."

it's not a minor point of debate, mere fodder for theory. understanding this "totality" of the "movement of capital" helps to avert the useless demagogeury of some here the world is improved by the destruction of america, among other things.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 13 2006 2:59 utc | 81

I understand your concern about over-analysis facilitating the normalisation of atrocity, even though I think your specific criticisms are misplaced in this particular corner of cyberspace. Unlike the Freepers or those maniacs at Little Green Footballs, it is our humanity, not our nationality, that brings us here to discuss these things in the first place. Nobody regular contributor here, no matter what part of the globe they call home, is advocating the slaughter of other human beings even if they speculate about the consequences such an abominable act would cause.

Most importantly, though, your refusal to sign your posts is just petulance, Debs. I'm as hot-headed as anyone, but at the end of the day you're either walking away or you're not. I decided that I placed a higher value on community and camaraderie than I did on juvenile pride. If you really believe that analysis is detrimental, then don't contribute... but if you are going to continue to make contributions to the debate, then let's stop playing games and genuinely talk to one another, okay?

Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 13 2006 3:02 utc | 82

though, I enjoy a bit of useless demagogeury now & then.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 13 2006 3:22 utc | 83

They key word in slothrop's comment is primarily. Through that one can drive a truck. Beyond that there are rivalries between different nations & individuals w/in that larger class. And who w/in them has the leverage to decide who gets what & on what terms - see Iraq.

@JJ:

Don't disturb it with complexities. Christ, JJ, you could drive a Stennis class carrier through the gaps in most of Slotrop's arguments.
Sloth's on a roll. Let it be.

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 13 2006 3:26 utc | 84

groucho

I've been waiting a long time for you to back up your mouth. but you have nothing except repeated certainty I am always wrong.

you are a moron.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 13 2006 3:36 utc | 85

That being said, Sloth is probably correct on the overall critique of globalization and the deleterious effects 21st century capital generally.

And I will agree with Sloth that illegal immigration to America is a much small movement in the larger symphony.

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 13 2006 3:43 utc | 86

also, there is a public record here of my ideas. suit yourself, groucho, to find all my failures. I have been right more often than not. this can be easily proven.

really, you've offered zero knowledge here for more than a year or so. this too is easily proven.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 13 2006 3:43 utc | 87

Gee this tread sure lives up to the title.

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 13 2006 3:55 utc | 88

Thanks for your 12:19:56 PM post & reminder, selise. "they thought they were free" indeed.

Here's one back atcha' :

The empires of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome all rose to prominence through the might of arms, flourished for a season, then collapsed in defeat. In every instance a major factor leading to their downfall was their selfish greed and gross immorality, first infecting the leaders and gradually spreading to include the general population.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 13 2006 4:29 utc | 89

yikes, moroms, zero knowledge,outing debs, Stennis class carriers,public record...

i sure as hell hope nobody's keeping track of all my flubs.
when the heavy weights start throwing punches its time either clear the bar or buy another round. wake up tomorrow and start all over again.

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2006 6:34 utc | 90

I owe you a round annie for the beautyful/wonderful art I didn't have a chance to comment on. Lets just slink over in the corner behind the Jazz piano and down some shots while the big boys heat up...hehe

Of course as the saying goes, all the artist's heretics, lusty women, madmen, and poets are the true antenna of the human race. We are the ones whom haven't yet lost our humanity.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 13 2006 6:49 utc | 91

sound good to me uncle, just don't let me start singin', you'll never shut me up. and thank you very much btw

i'll take a double cuervo, wash all those worries outa my head

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2006 7:03 utc | 92

I'll slide a shot your way as well, annie, for all the beautiful art I haven't had the words to praise.

But just out of curiosity... who said anything about Mormons? *insert smiley face here*

Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 13 2006 7:10 utc | 93

mormons? mormons don't drink!

glad your back monolycus.glad billmons back too, for as long as it lasts.

Make me an angel that flies from Montgom'ry
Make me a poster of an old rodeo
Just give me one thing that I can hold on to
To believe in this living is just a hard way to go

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2006 7:24 utc | 94

slothrop,
u.s. aggression responds primarily to the interests of a global capitalist class.

The problem I see here is that I do not see how nuking Iran would be in the interest of the global capitalist class. I see it as detrimental to the interests of a huge part of the global capitalist class.

On the editors pages in swedish mainstream papers there are always the mantra from the right that US serves our interests too, the US in charge is better then China, therefore we should not emberras our guardian by point out minor faults. This is the elite talking with the elite and to the people. But there would be no necessity of such mantras if not other situations were possible, where US would no longer serve in the interest of the big parts of the capitalist class.

Maybe I lack the imagination and pure inhumanity of our rulers, maybe there is a upside for the capitalist glass globally with nuking Iran. Do you see it?

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Apr 13 2006 12:43 utc | 95

slothrop

i do not accept your thesis - this thesis of transnational capital without any specif nationalist interest - nor a heirarchy of interests

at certain times & in certain moments the sharp edge of the empire does possess a national character, & necessities that are 'primarily' national

the imperialism whoch has destroyed the hopes, desires, leaders & people of the third world in the twentieth century & who are accelerating the bloodshed - has a name, possesses a specificity & is a result of it dark history as emmanuel todd or anatol lieven points out

military power does not fall from the skies = its rationzle is to conserve & expand national interests

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 13 2006 13:18 utc | 96

u.s. aggression responds primarily to the interests of a global capitalist class

No, not really. The people running the US aren't that smart. If you'd said "secondarily to the perceived interests of a global capitalist class" you might get somewhere.

US aggression responds primarily to the short-term interests of the crony capitalists in power there and their close in-group. Everyone and everything else is secondary. Their supporters may feel that they're acting in their interest but their supporters are just as susceptible to propaganda as anyone else.

Your narrative is too grand: these are gangsters we're talking about.

Posted by: Colman | Apr 13 2006 13:37 utc | 97

if any part of the ongoing "projection" of american power is "national" it is the maniacal defense of american consumption. that's all. for this, an entire capitalist class stretching from shanghai to zurich to san francisco happily extracts surplus values from investment bubbles inflated not only by raw speculation but the blood sweat & tears of workers the world over.

pulling the plug on this unreal arrangement benefits no one, even the chinese accountants, in the "first world." that's for sure.

colman

"grand narrative" is a famous defamation of any explanation proposing to inspect a social totality. it has always been a disingenuous way for people who don't know much to dismiss the hard work of analysis for belief in this or that nature or mythology or "just the way it is"; it has also been an epithet used by power to demonstrate to the powerless that capitalism is not itself a "grand narrative" and "form of life."

you can be sure, colman, late capital is a system of domination enduring through time and space to arrange the affairs of gangsters and polished statesmen alike, whether they like it or not.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 13 2006 15:21 utc | 98

military power does not fall from the skies = its rationzle is to conserve & expand national interests

in the guise of national interest couldn't a regime use the military to suppory, impliment and carry out global dominance to the primary benefit of the global capitalist class? every indication of the current policies points towards
more self interest instead of national interest. i fail to see how the gutting of the economy could be in the interest of the nation. it seems like they are just using the US as real estate, a home base.

Posted by: annie | Apr 13 2006 15:30 utc | 99

I need to add what is obvious but easily forgotten: capitalism is characterized by shortsighted goals, which would seem to demonstrate colman's point. but the longterm consequence of this shortsightedness is contradiction, the most impoertant of which is the benefits of accumulation are contradicted by these persistent crises of overproduction. of course, as we all know, one of the cute solutions to overaccumulation is war and death. and, to be sure, this crisis is hardly peculiar to "american" accumulation. what is only peculiar is the crisis is "solved" by american monopolies on violence. but, if "we" don't do it, the swedes surely would.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 13 2006 15:30 utc | 100