WB: Babes in Toyland – Moon of Alabama

August 8, 2006

WB: Babes in Toyland

Billmon:

This, of course, brings us back to where we started — with the seemingly indestructable neocon belief that when America proposes the world disposes, simply because we’re the good guys, or the leader of the pack, or both.

That attitude may warm the heart (or other organs) of your average AEI think tank dweeb, but the pope can tell you how well it works when you don’t have the heavy divisions to back it up.

Babes in Toyland

Posted by b on August 8, 2006 at 17:46 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The 82nd Airborne may not be available. Which is the point I guess.
Pentagon Says 82nd Airborne Troops to Be Deployed in Afghanistan

The deployment, to include the 82nd Airborne headquarters staff and various unidentified support units, will total about 11,000 soldiers, the Pentagon said. The announcement gave no indication that this would represent either an increase or a decrease in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, which currently stand at about 22,000.

Posted by: b | Aug 8 2006 17:50 utc | 1

I’m no military expert but isn’t the 82nd Airborne usually the first line of assault? Could this be the begining of ground troops in Iran? Sorry for the naivete of the question, I do not seem to be firing on all cylinders today.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 8 2006 18:02 utc | 2

An attack on Iran frightens me, too. But I wonder about the effect on the American people – the ones ponying up the money and their children in furtherance the neocon’s ideas.
America attacks Iran, the neocons’ polls get a bump – and then what? First thing is that gas prices shoot up – look what’s happening to oil prices over a plumbing problem in Alaska. Then think about the reaction if even one tanker goes down in the Gulf thanks to Iran. Iran doesn’t need to cut off all the supply of oil flowing through the Gulf, just threaten it, for prices to skyrocket.
The one thing that would cause an honest-to-god revolution in this country is gas the Bubbas can’t afford. You can see the red and black banners now – Gas and Roses!
And the next thing that happens is that Iraq goes further south. You can imagine that people might start to think that they support the troops and all, but this didn’t have to happen. You can also see that the ones propping up this Administration and its shills might start getting the idea that they can get their tax breaks, hold all the other bullshit.

Posted by: NickM | Aug 8 2006 18:04 utc | 3

Maybe I should back up and explain why I asked the above, if you believe the Drudge report, –and I have my doubts— these wankers are reporting the following:

WSJ: Scholar Warns Iran’s Ahmadinejad May Have ‘Cataclysmic Events’ In Mind For August 22
Tue Aug 08 2006 10:22:35 ET
In a WALL STREET JOURNAL op-ed Tuesday, Princeton’s Bernard Lewis writes: “There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran’s present rulers.”
“In Islam as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time — Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined.”
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22,” which this year corresponds “to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to ‘the farthest mosque,’ usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).
“This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.”
Developing…

wanker report
However, I am also reminded of the B. Lewis quote from Spring 2003:
“I have no doubt that September 11 was the opening salvo of the final battle.”
Bernard Lewis is a notorious raving rightwing ideologue and originator of the phrase “clash of civilizations” (which Samuel Huntingdon admits he borrowed from him.)
See, Bernard Lewis Revisited

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 8 2006 18:13 utc | 4

Merkins may lurv their big ass SUVs, but most of them aren’t willing to fight for that oil or the profits of the oil companies. The “War on Terror” is supposed to supply the ground troops, but that ain’t working.
The only way the neocon dream could ever have worked is with a draft, and we’re not buying. The neocon dream is over, they just don’t know it yet.

Posted by: donna | Aug 8 2006 18:34 utc | 5

Princeton’s Bernard Lewis writes: “There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons.
Yeah, there’s a fucking HUGE difference — Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons.
What an ass.

Posted by: billmon | Aug 8 2006 18:36 utc | 6

Billmon,
I disagree with a basic premise of your post:
“This, of course, brings us back to where we started — with the seemingly indestructible Neocon belief that when America proposes the world disposes…”
The Bush Cabal does not believe for a moment what it proposes … it is for American PR consumption only. Cheney, Bolton, Rice, etc. and yes, even the idealist Neocons such as Kristol, realize very well how other countries will think and respond to any proposal made. As I said before, the U.S. is making a mockery of the U.N. and “diplomacy”.
The debate is long over whether Bush and all are “ignorant or immoral”. As an engineer, I will state that such a question should never be phrased as an “XOR” because we all know that the answer is they are both ignorant “AND” immoral. Sure many, many Americans believe this PR crap, but many, perhaps more, DO NOT. Americans, faced with such deficient media and corporate collaboration, are now at a point where they need to disregard polls altogether. Not that it matters that much… the PR must continue, with the hope that if a lie is oft’ repeated, it will then be believed.
Perhaps the “left”, who or whatever that is, are bound by their culture just as much, if not more, than the Neocons. To actually believe that Hizbullah fighters would play the “game” put forth by Bush or other World diplomats as described in an earlier post was malarkey on its face. Again, as I responded to that earlier post “Huh? Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules!!” Similar “dangerous attitudes” to the establishment, in times not long gone, is exactly why Bush1 conducted “Operation Just Cause” and Bush1, Clinton, and Bush2 conducted the Iraqi Sanctions and Iraqi Wars. Bush2 was very clear when he said, “You are either with us or against us…” Gee, I guess that statement by Bush2 defines me as a “terrorist” also. Wait…Hold on, …someone is knocking on my door….

Posted by: Rick Happ | Aug 8 2006 18:43 utc | 7

There’s a slight problem here, Uncle. Ahmadinejad doesn’t lead the armed forces directly, and most of the head mollahs aren’t as fringely lunatic as the prez allegedly is. I doubt they would give the green light. Not to mention that Iran right now hasn’t the nukes – unless it bought some on black market.
Concerning Billmon’s post, the problem is indeed that neocons may believe their own BS. Notably the “we won single-handedly WWII”. They tend to overlook the fact that the US never faced more than 1/4 of the entire Wehrmacht, the bulk of it retreating and fighting the Red Army on the East. Even then the US only won against Germany because it had powerful allies, just as militarily formidable as it was. It was another matter with Japan, which in my opinion goes to show that it was still a weaker enemy than Nazi Germany; and a dramatically overstretched enemy to boot, even worse than Germany. I don’t mean to downplay the role and valor of any army from WWII, but the US greatest military victory was possible thanks to an alliance, because no single power could have won back then. Even if the US faces lesser foes nowadays, it doesn’t mean that unilateralism will win, at least not when fighting several wars at the same time.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Aug 8 2006 18:44 utc | 8

from asia times
“The US wants to put international forces on the ground in the middle of the conflict, before there’s a ceasefire. The reasoning at the White House is that the international force could weigh on the side of the Israelis – could enforce Hezbollah’s disarmament.”
….
“The French were quite fearful that one miscalculation, one stray rocket could set the region on fire. No one in Washington seemed willing to admit that as a possibility.”
of course they aren’t going to admit that possibility. that’s the point of the proposal, to drag other countries (france) into a large scale war. it turns any UN force in to a UN/Israel force against hizbollah /iran. it also sets up france. supposing they do take casualties and don’t support a futher escalation of aggression, they are perceived in a sense abandoning their own interests.
nice catch 22. too bad for the neocons france isn’t buying it.

Posted by: annie | Aug 8 2006 18:54 utc | 9

Uncle Scam, that sounds off —
As usual, in this last debacle, Iran is the winner.
Iran does not have an apocalyptic world view. Iran is not engaged in a mythical clash of anything, it is being canny and calculating. The Leader is outspoken because he can afford to be so, and because he knows what will please the people and he intends to keep the upper hand as best as he can. He does not need to mince words or bow down like Saudi princes who flip flop.
There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons.
I read that as implying that Iran has nukukear weapons, huh!

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 8 2006 18:54 utc | 10

And, Iran is wiling to both make peace w/Israel & assure the world that it won’t develop nukes. Even Chomsky said that Iran offered US to guarantee it wouldn’t develop nukes, in exchange for non-aggression pact from US. Period. USjunta refused.
But that’s not good enough for NeoNuts. This in from wayne madsen. This is the kind of report that sounds reliable.
Aug. 8, 2006 — Senior Azerbaijani government and intelligence officials fully expect a U.S. attack on Iran, according to our Middle East sources. The Bush-Cheney oil cartel have sent former U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan Stanley Escudero as its personal lobbyist to Baku to impress upon Azeri officials the importance of supporting a U.S. attack on Iran. Escudero served as the U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan from 1997 to 2000. Azerbaijan is the origination point for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries oil from the Caspian Sea to the Turkish Mediterranean coast. Escudero’s successor in Baku, Reno Harnish, was recalled to the United States after he became embroiled in a prostitution scandal involving the sale of Azeri girls to the United States. Harnish was the subject of an FBI investigation. Escudero is President of Florida- and Baku-based Shield Bearer LLC, a consulting firm for US oil companies in Azerbaijan, and a board member of the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce, an organization once headed by Richard Armitage and whose general counsel is the son of James Baker. The chamber’s honorary advisers include Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, John Sununu, and James Baker. Richard Perle is a Chamber Trustee. Escudero also serves on the board of Central Asia Energy/Karasu Operating Company, the Azeri subsidiary of Moncrief Oil International.
CNN radio news reported last night that BP had to know 6mos – 1 yr. ago that they would have to do maintenance on their pipelines. And they’ve had the technology to know this for 5 yrs, so who knows when in fact they discovered this. I wonder if the shut down now is to show Americans what happens when there’s the least disruption of oil supplies. Or by shutting down domestic supplies now, they’re trying to dissuade NeoNuts from endangering international supplies.

Posted by: jj | Aug 8 2006 18:59 utc | 11

Also, an interesting piece in Telegraph today. Did anyone ever wonder who is providing the weapons to Iran?? How China’s secret deals are fuelling war
No real surprise there. As a thought experiment, consider that if the NeoNuts were 100% successful. Presto, they took control of Iran & had magical control over all ME oil, like in their wet dreams, w/no adverse consequences. All that would do is set the stage for a war w/China over oil down the road anyway…

Posted by: jj | Aug 8 2006 19:06 utc | 12

“Air Assault” Bush is true to his beliefs. Kill fanatic Muslims. Disarm any survivors. Issue a Cease Fire and send in the French Foreign Legion.
Corporate Media and the White House haven’t grasped after three weeks that their third installment of war on the cheap has exploded into a full blown Holy War. Israel and its patron face a stark choice. Negotiate a comprehensive peace and retreat to 1967 borders or send in every circumcised dick in Israel to kill every soul south of the Litani River.
These are unacceptable choices to a true believer. Instead another throw of the dice, bombing Syria and Iran, will all its tragic farces, seems the only play left for the Bush Brush Cleaning Team.

Posted by: Jim S | Aug 8 2006 19:09 utc | 13

From a comment elsewhere:
“It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22.”
Real World Translation: There is far less evidence for Iran’s Ahmadinejad planning a catclysmic event for Aug. 22 than that the US, urged on by fanatical Millenialist Christian Fundies, is preparing a full-scale military attack on Syria and/or Iran, egging Israel on to provoke Syria to provide a convincing pretext c/o world PR or, failing that, using the opportunity of Mossad-protected Hisbollah retaliatory rocket attacks to justify Israel’s military attack — which the US can then join on behalf of aiding an ally.”
“In Islam as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time — Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined.”
Or, conversely, with minor word substitution:
“In Christianity as in Judaism and Islam, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time — Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Fundamental Christians, the long awaited return of the Second Coming of Christ, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined.”
Dangerous warmonger zealots and reckless political traitors playing Nuclear Chicken, placing their fellow-citizens and untold millions of innocents at risk in order to act-out their power-obsessed fantasies and provide constructive chaos opportunity for even greater profits and exploitation. And not incidentally, to cover-up and obscure the PTB’s long history of fraud, corruption, abuse of power, atrocities, betrayal, racketerring, murder, and war crimes.
We can only hope the oral history lesson of how society failed to defend modern civilization and democracy will survive the rebuilding of libraries and universities, perhaps in a thousand years or more, so as cities are created again and humanity gropes for new institutions of government the same mistakes can be avoided.
Hopefully.
Meanwhile: Pash da boddle, Mates! (My, aren’t those pretty flashing, speckled lights!!)

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 8 2006 19:17 utc | 14

of course the “free world” will line up and enlist in Uncle Sam’s army.
it occurs to me that the whole point of this is/leb fiasco is to seek UN support for the upcoming big war. the neocons knew it would be pointless to gain support for a war against iran, instead they design a skirmish against their proxy. that’s why it would be pointless to volunteer our troops aside from the obvious reasoning.
there is no point otherwise from a strategic view. now that it has become apparent their sceme isn’t flying, the whole thing has been worthless, meaningless, and totally detrimental to their objectives, but they can’t just step back w/their tail between their legs so they are pulling out all the stops.
the lebanese are not only taking the high road, they are thumbing their noses by embracing hezbollah as a legitimate military completely pulling the rug out from under the meme of ‘terrorist organization’. as long as the world sees this as a war between to sovereign nations and their respective militaries, all bets are off.
b. interesting 82 airborn link. perhaps they are amassing in afghanistan only as a guise. those 11,000 troops plus the additional 25,000 (obstensively?)for bagdad equals ??

Posted by: annie | Aug 8 2006 19:20 utc | 15

Amy had on Powerful & Prominent Lebanese Am. to counter NeoNut New Pravda-on-the-Hudson ran this weekend. Richard Debs is former President of Morgan Stanley International and former Chair of the Board of the American University of Beirut.
But he doesn’t seem to get how relentlessly MAD the NeoNuts are. Poor guy thinks there is time for dialogue & reason.
RICHARD DEBS: Well, when you look at what’s going on, in terms of what’s happening to Lebanon, everybody I know, including my Jewish friends, as well, think that this is a catastrophe, the killing of these people. On both sides, mind you. Both sides. In Lebanon there are just more being killed, and the country’s being destroyed.
AMY GOODMAN: And yet, we don’t hear this. There are very few voices on television right now that are speaking out against what is happening.
RICHARD DEBS: Correct. Because it is being — when the House and the Senate passed these resolutions early on in support of anything Israel wanted to do, basically, defense, didn’t mention the humanitarian aspects of it at all. That sort of set the stage for support, apparent support, of the Bush policy in the Middle East. And I think — actually, I think the Democrats made a huge mistake in going along with this position, because you’re right. The official position of the U.S., the White House and the Congress itself is that of complete support of Israel, with no real interest or no apparent interest in what’s happening in Lebanon. And it is put forth — the government of Israel puts it forth as, you know, a major priority of the state and the existence. It’s existential. It’s become to that. I mean, they use those words. So anyone who wants to speak out in opposition to Israeli policy puts himself at risk of being attacked just for that, taking of that position.
AMY GOODMAN: Is there any move within the Arab American establishment here in this country, in the banking community, which you say is, well, beyond Arab American, including Jewish bankers, to make a statement now to speak out? And what role do you think the media plays in all of this?
RICHARD DEBS: Well, I think people have been waiting, expecting this to stop. And when that happens, then we can have a sensible discourse about peace in the Middle East and what we do about it and so forth, the U.S. role.
Who will tell him that it won’t stop til all is lost – at least until people like himself start organizing & demanding that the Junta stop.

Posted by: jj | Aug 8 2006 19:29 utc | 16

Perhaps a sneak attack on Iran would revive popular popular enthusiasm for endless war — it’s one of the reasons I fear it so much.
I more worried about an engineered attack on the US that can be blamed on Iran…

Posted by: bliekker | Aug 8 2006 19:50 utc | 17

Touting for business
Israel’s only chance to reverse this situation and win (which will be at most a limited victory, given previous blunders) in this war is to fully embrace the light infantry approach and fight this at close quarters. This means sending the tanks back to the sheds, slowing down the air campaign (limiting it to counter-battery fire), and reducing the infantry’s dependence of tactical firepower support. Further, all efforts that destabilize the Lebanese state should be reversed. Of course, this will mean higher casualties for Israel and Hezbollah may get resupplied. However, it may limit some of the strategic consequences of failure on the battlefield.
One final note. Before this conflict is over, Israel should invite all the authors of the 4GW manual referenced above, as observers to this conflict. Further, they should then be engaged as consultants on the development of a new field manual for the IDF that supports fighting 4GW forces. Of course, Israel is free to ignore this advice, although I am not sure how many more failures like this it can absorb before it is in a completely untenable situation strategically.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Aug 8 2006 20:10 utc | 18

The French are avoiding the large part of the blame they deserve in the Babes in Toyland post. They are after all the arch-anti-Syrians. The entire concept of a state of Lebanon is inherently anti-Syrian and a French brainchild. Under Bush Pére and Baker the US took the reasonable stance that this “Lebanon” simply wasn’t viable and handed it over to the Syrians. The French opposed this all the way. They are the original babes in Toyland in this part of the woods.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 8 2006 20:13 utc | 19

Gareth Porter (Historian & Nat’l Security Policy Analyst) agrees w/the reasoning in the Telegraph art. someone cited here this wkend that the purpose of invasion of Lebanon was to get rid of the Hezbollah rockets etc., that would otherwise rain down on Israel when NeoNuts attack Iran.
WASHINGTON, Aug 8 (IPS) – Israel has argued that the war against Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal was a defensive response to the Shiite organisation’s threat to Israeli security, but the evidence points to a much more ambitious objective — the weakening of Iran’s deterrent to an attack on its nuclear sites.
In planning for the destruction of most of Hezbollah’s arsenal and prevention of any resupply from Iran, Israel appears to have hoped to eliminate a major reason the George W. Bush administration had shelved the military option for dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme — the fear that Israel would suffer massive casualties from Hezbollah’s rockets in retaliation for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
One leading expert on Israeli national defence policy issues believes the aim of the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah was to change the Bush administration’s mind about attacking Iran. Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, says Bush administration officials have privately dismissed the option of air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.
But Israeli officials saw a war in Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah’s arsenal and prevent further resupply in the future as a way to eliminate that objection to the military option, says Luttwak.
The risk to Israel of launching such an offensive was that it would unleash the very rain of Hezbollah rockets on Israel that it sought to avert. But Luttwak believes the Israelis calculated that they could degrade Hezbollah’s rocket forces without too many casualties by striking preemptively.
“They knew that a carefully prepared and coordinated rocket attack by Hezbollah would be much more catastrophic than one carried out under attack by Israel,” he says. Was Israel’s Aim to Clear Path for US War on Iran?
Which tells us that this will go on and on, and that NeoNuts won’t agree to Lebanon’s army being deployed on the border.

Posted by: jj | Aug 8 2006 20:17 utc | 20

I think you mean the Oakland Raiders of evil. I don’t remember the Steelers ever embodying that. Raiders, yes….

Posted by: LB Jefferies | Aug 8 2006 20:27 utc | 21

Wind-up for the next Booga Booga?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 8 2006 21:12 utc | 22

they were running around saying, ‘But how can you disagree, don’t you understand? Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.
Isn’t this exactly the mentality that did for the US/French peacekeepers in 1983?

Posted by: Tom Griffin | Aug 8 2006 21:17 utc | 23

Uncle
11 boogeymen from that link. sheesh

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Aug 8 2006 21:33 utc | 24

@jj (regarding link on your post#20 “Was Israel’s Aim to Clear Path for US War on Iran?”)
Yes, maybe all this is happening right on schedule, “just in time” planning. As noted earlier, “It takes time to destroy a nation”.
When Hizballah (and Lebanon infrastructure) is softened up enough, then the next stage can begin.
So many lies, so little time… For almost four f$#$%*ng years, I have heard both Democrats and Republicans alike repeat the same stupid lines over and over again in response to the Iraq insurgency; specifically: “Well, the next thirty days are critical as to (such and such….)” Now I am going to use the same line in response to a possible U.S. Iranian bombing, except this time it is not just BS. The next thirty days ARE critical.
I wonder how many at Moon of Alabama believe that Cheney (and the Neocons) really believe(d) that just a few strategically placed bombs in Iran and then, miraculously, an Iranian government will change to the U.S./Israel’s liking. Did Cheney, Rice, Rummy, or any of the media Neocon pundits really believe their own propaganda that the Iraq insurgency was in “its last throes”, as we were told time and time again?
Nobody is that retarded – neither a listener nor the spinner. For sure, our leaders do not believe their own propaganda, nor do other world leaders. There are games that are played, but some, like Noriega and perhaps even the Hizbullah fighters, are considered as nothing but pawns. Sure removing Saddam from the chessboard was expensive, perhaps more expensive then the Neocons or Cheney realized, but who pays the costs? Did they even consider the greater ties to Iran after removing the Iraqi leaders and military? Who knows, doesn’t really matter anyways …plenty of bombs left for Iran. And if Ahmadinejad or the Mullahs try anything to endanger our permanent bases in Iraq, they will learn the respect that “shock and awe” deserves. Same thought process probably applies to Sistanni. As Rummy will say time and time again, after the fact, “My Goodness … How were we to know if what was unknown was knowable?”
The question being asked appears to be: “What fire will light the way for an excuse to bomb Iran?” Maybe that fire is already started, I just don’t know.

Posted by: RIck Happ | Aug 8 2006 22:15 utc | 25

I’ll just put in my request — with no hope or expectation of it being granted — that Billmon will post his thoughts tonight about the big deal race in Colorado after results become clear.

Posted by: NickM | Aug 9 2006 0:02 utc | 26

@bliekker
I more worried about an engineered attack on the US that can be blamed on Iran…
You mean like the Lavon Affair in 1954 when Israel pulled a false-flag sabotage operation in Egypt by bombing American and British interests there so that the Egyptians would be blamed?
The Lavon Affair

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 9 2006 1:24 utc | 27

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 9 2006 1:25 utc | 28

By now there are countless reports, from hospitals, witnesses, armament experts and journalists that strongly suggest that in the present offensive of Israeli forces against Lebanon and Gaza ‘new weapons’ are being used.
New and strange symptoms are reported amongst the wounded and the dead.
Bodies with dead tissues and no apparent wounds; ‘shrunken’ corpses; civilians with heavy damage to lower limbs that require amputation, which is nevertheless followed by unstoppable necrosis and death; descriptions of extensive internal wounds with no trace of shrapnel, corpses blackened but not burnt, and others heavily wounded that did not bleed.
Many of these descriptions suggest the possibility that the new weapons used include ‘direct energy’ weapons, and chemical and/or biological agents, in a sort of macabre experiment of future warfare, where there is no respect for anything: International rules (from the Geneva Convention to the treaties on biological and chemical weapons), refugees, hospitals and the Red Cross, not to mention the people, their future, their children, the environment, which is poisoned through dissemination of Depleted Uranium and toxic substances released after oil and chemical depots are bombed.

This is the first I’ve read of such a possibility and I’m not familiar with the author, Paola Manduca. Is there any other confirmation of this happening yet? link

Posted by: lonesomeG | Aug 9 2006 2:04 utc | 29

Thanks for linking to a holocaust denial site, Ensley.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 2:26 utc | 30

malooga
i was about to note that. that even during this bloody crisis – that there exists no confusion, no confusion at all between anti zionism & anti semitism – or between those who oppose the policies of the israeli government
because our arguments need to be harsh & sometimes brutal – it must be very clear where our rigour & fury are based & that they are not sourced from the sites like the one ensley used
the other night even when posting the film about uss liberty & its attempted sinking by the israeli govt in 1967 because it had intelligence about the massacre of egyptians by the israeli army – it is necessary to contextualise those facts
i think especially in a moment where arabaphobia drips from the lips of anderson cooper & his kind while he sucks the cocks of successive spokespeople for the israeli govt – then we have to be especially careful
neither to hasten or lessen our attacks on what passes fpr gouvernance in israel but to be sure we are as precise as we can be
because they are not
tonight the idf has attacked a palestinian refugge camp killing many people, i am sure & there has been killings at a funeral in trye today but cnn leads as usual with its habitual lies

Posted by: r’giap | Aug 9 2006 2:41 utc | 31

To your question, does Israel have the stomach for that kind of fighting:
General Adam was just replaced by General Kaplinsky as commander on the Northern Front. And we know that the madman Halutz went to hospital to have his stomach pains checked.
What do you think? Everything hunky-dory in the IDF? This is going to be extremely painful for Israel.

Posted by: SteinL | Aug 9 2006 2:45 utc | 32

Speaking of questionable sites, does anyone know anything about these sites that are reporting that the young Dragon is awakening, seeing an irresistable opportunity to help drive xUS out of ME w/out risking it’s financial investment in Treasuries, perhaps?
Chinese Mideast Envoy Behind Arab Demands
The mastermind behind the cooordinated Arab demand for an immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon is China’s special envoy to the Middle East, Sun Bigan, who is currently visiting the region.
Sun, who is a veteran diplomat and one of China’s leading Arabists, called Monday for an immediate unconditional ceasefire in the war between Israel and the Lebanese proxy army of Beijing’s non-Arab Islamist ally, Iran.
“Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah should end hostilities immediately to avoid further deterioration of humanitarian crisis in Lebanon,” Sun told a press conference in Damascus following a closed-door meeting with Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Shara.
Sun expressed China’s willingness to intensify “consultation and coordination” with Arab nations.
As China Confidential reported on Sunday, Beijing is maneuvering to become a trusted intermediary–and maybe even a mediator–in the Middle East conflict. Sun is advancing the argument that the United States has lost credibility and influence in the region as a result of its steadfast support for Israel, and that a more neutral power–such as China– is urgently needed to help end the fighting and reduce regional tensions.
The real objective is to weaken the US position–and ultimately drive the US from the region altogether.
Toward this end, China has been a major arms supplier to Hezbollah’s sponsor.
What thinks Barflies??
Things seem to be heating up. This in from the Guardian. Angry MPs demand recall of parliament While Poodlekins, say ahh, no big deal..enjoy your vacations, kids…

Posted by: jj | Aug 9 2006 2:51 utc | 33

because our arguments need to be harsh & sometimes brutal
and let’s now say what has been on many moa minds lately. respect is owed to arabs and persians who want to find their own way through history, even if doing so means finding strength in the passing but effective stupidity of moqtada al sadr or ahmadinejad to act against the demonstrably evil militarism and domination of the great white west.
it’s almost as if the veritable atrocities of 9/11 have also been a cruel lesson in the possibility of change.
it’s not treason but humility to see ourselves drawn deeper and deeper into the wrong side of history.

Posted by: slothrop | Aug 9 2006 2:54 utc | 34

Posted by: jj | Aug 9 2006 2:56 utc | 35

What freaks me out about a war with Iran is what Cheney and Rumsfield will do when they have 100,000 US troops stuck in Iraq fighting a full blown guerilla, or perhaps even conventional war with little air support and no re-supply by land or sea because the Persian Gulf has been shut down.
What will they do when they realise they are about to have a Stalingrad class defeat? I cannot see how they will not resort to nuclear weapons.

Posted by: still working it out | Aug 9 2006 3:02 utc | 36

Thanks for linking to a holocaust denial site, Ensley.
Sorry Malooga, I didn’t have time to research the background of the entire site, I was merely looking for the Lavon affair story. Does Wikipedia meet with your approval for the account of the Lavon Affair?
Lavon Affair

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 9 2006 3:07 utc | 37

re Stein’s point. I’m not sure that the normal calculations apply in considering the current battles. The point of the exercise is to bait a trap w/Syria & Iran to give Am. NeoNuts the opening to assault Iran. As such, Israel may be better served by buying time, and getting their populous accustomed to war, suffering & privation, to motivate the reservists draft they just utilized, and to prepare them for the serious shit that’s likely to hit the fan from Iran. To that end, having missiles raining down day after day may get the populous worked up into the blood drenched lather that may be necessary for such a massive & suicidal undertaking.

Posted by: jj | Aug 9 2006 3:12 utc | 38

Sounds credible to me. I have heard from a few sources that the Chinese diplomats are a alot more knowledgable and capable than their counterparts from other countries.

Posted by: still working it out | Aug 9 2006 3:20 utc | 39

The War Party
What exactly is “left-wing” in the political spectrum? As Billmon notes, the only real opposition to this latest/coming fiasco seems to come from WITHIN the Pentagon or even from the right. Today it appears that war with Iran is closer, not farther.
It has been almost a week since Billmon posted the above … has anyone noticed any visible cracks in the Democratic Leadership positions?
Maybe Lamont will change his tune about U.S./Israeli actions now that he is the winner in the CT Primary. I understand there is not strong Republican opposition in the CT fall senate election so perhaps he will be braver.

Posted by: Rick Happ | Aug 9 2006 3:21 utc | 40

ensel
it was a comradely gesture by malooga – it wasn’t an attack on you
but speaking of attacks who is this motherfucker anderson copper who in the middle of a blood & profane war – offers us gq ‘reporters diaries’ – that are an obscene affront to the events of which he is supposed to speak
their vanity is not only vulgar it is a form of vengeance against arabs who nver have a name for them
& as slothrop sd a moment ago respect is owed the arab people
now

Posted by: r’giap | Aug 9 2006 3:27 utc | 41

Maybe Lamont will change his tune about U.S./Israeli actions now that he is the winner in the CT Primary. I understand there is not strong Republican opposition in the CT fall senate election so perhaps he will be braver.
Not a chance — he has to beat Liebeman AGAIN.

Posted by: billmon | Aug 9 2006 4:03 utc | 42

Billmon, the mere gesture of Lieberman not honoring the primary results could very well alienate the 48% of Democrats who were willing to vote for him today. And while the Republican candidate is not a strong one, he is still a Republican while Lieberman is “neither fish nor fowl…”

Posted by: Ensley | Aug 9 2006 4:10 utc | 43

@slothrop #34 (*and others in the conversation referenced at #34)
very useful discussion going on at the Michael Berube
blog about the politics of supporting the underdog in imperial struggles, and whether or not it matters if the anti-imperialists are chaos-vendors as well.
But most especially, follow this link to Moishe Postone’s paper(pdf!!). It’s invaluable. A key excerpt:

cThe reemergence of imperialist rivalries calls for the recovery of nondualistic forms of internationalism.
However objectionable the current American administration is and it is deeply objectionable on a very wide range of issues the Left should be very careful about becoming, unwittingly, the stalking horse for a would-be rival hegemon. On the eve of World War I, the German General Staff thought it important for Germany that the war be fought against Russia as well as France and Great Britain. Becaise Russia was the most reactionary and autocratic European Power, the war could be presented as a war for Central European culture against the dark barbarism of Russia, which would guarantee Social Democratic support for the war. This political strategy succeeded and resulted in a catastrophe for Europe in general and for Germany in particular. We are very far from a prewar situation like that of 1914. Nevertheless, the Left should not make a similar mistake by supporting, however implicitly, rising counterhegemons in order to defend civilization against the threat posed by a reactionary power.

Postone makes an essential distinction between movements that avoided attacking civilians (Vietnam National Liberation Front, ANC, etc.) and those that sought to attack civilians because they were part of the enemy (IRA, Hamas) – and notes that only the former approach leaves room to live together in peace after the fighting. He notes a shift in Left goals from social transformation to resistance to power, and points out that this is a shift in the left from well reasoned opposition to capitalism to more fetishistic approach to history that seeks to attack whichever voodoo doll is taken at the moment to stand in for capitalism. At this moment that would be first and foremost the US and Israel. One cost of indulging in simple opposition is that one gives up on the goal of transfroming the world in a way well informed enough to actually grapple with history and act with knowledge that history is not mere contingency, but that historical forces drive history. When the Left gives up on its old goals of transfroming teh world positively, it allows the Right to appropriate all the rhetoric of positive transformation (witness Bushovik Freedom and Democracy).
I found his analysis very useful for anyone concerned to actually aim for a better world, concerned to not ignore how history works. Please do check it out.

Posted by: citizen | Aug 9 2006 4:24 utc | 44

And in more direct response to what slothrop said specifically – of course people need to work out their own pathways forward in history.
But if you thought that killing of civilians is a pathway by which Chaos Capitalism makes use of even identifiably anti-imperial forces, wouldn’t you want to say so to the parties involved?
If war on civilians is meant to be counter-hegemonic, but you concluded that the world is not dominated by the increasingly fictional United States, but rather by increasingly powerful supranational arrangements, wouldn’t you want to honestly respond that the problem is not whether the end justifies the means, but that the means will not get you there?

Posted by: citizen | Aug 9 2006 4:36 utc | 45

What thinks Barflies??
the United States has lost credibility and influence in the region as a result of its steadfast support for Israel, and that a more neutral power–such as China– is urgently needed to help end the fighting and reduce regional tensions.

Posted by: annie | Aug 9 2006 5:21 utc | 46

So:
who lost the Middle East?
Who will play Tailgunner Joe for this generation?

Posted by: citizen | Aug 9 2006 5:52 utc | 47

citizen, an interesting read, though it seemed somewhat lacking in recommendations about what “the Left” should support. I certainly agree with his statement that we should beware countering one hegemon with another, especially “enlightened” Europe – hell, especially anyone, but Europe has a history.

Posted by: Rowan | Aug 9 2006 6:02 utc | 48

They can quibble over who lost the ME, but it’s clear that China will win w/out a shot necessarily being fired…recall how they wanted to fund expats to make connections internally to foment overthrow of Iran…and Saudi Arabia was said to be on the list after that??
Well – looks like they’ve already gotten started on Saudi Arabia –
PARIS (AFP) – The son of the last ruler of part of present-day Saudi Arabia said he was setting up an opposition party in Paris to seek democratic rule in the oil-rich kingdom.
“We announce the birth of the ‘Saudi Democratic Opposition Front’ which will struggle by peaceful means for the establishment of democracy in the country,” said Prince Talal Mohammad al-Rashid, son of the last ruler of the independent Rashidi emirate which reigned in the northwestern region of Hail from 1835 to 1921.
“The Al-Saud (family ruling Saudi Arabia) must either respect liberties and introduce democracy or give up the power they usurped,” Prince Talal, who has been living in exile in France since 1980, told AFP.
Talal, son of Mohammad II bin Talal al-Rashid, said his opposition group would launch a satellite television channel within three months which will broadcast from a European country to “call on Saudis to rise up against the tyrants and usurpers plundering public funds.”
The Rashidi emirs, who were ousted by the Saud family during its struggle to unite Saudi Arabia, are a branch of the Shammar tribal confederation.
Prince Talal, who has retained his title, said that the confederation was backing his new movement.
He said his group, with “some 2,000 active members, mostly in Saudi Arabia,” would coordinate its activities with other opponents of the Saudi government at home and abroad, chiefly the London-based Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA) which calls for a regime change in the kingdom.Welcome to the universe of PetroYen!

Posted by: jj | Aug 9 2006 6:36 utc | 49

Conservative magazine: Bush, Rice at odds over Israeli war
Looks like Condi is not part of the inner circle – very tight club indeed.

Posted by: Rick Happ | Aug 9 2006 7:05 utc | 50

Sorry Malooga, I didn’t have time to research the background of the entire site, I was merely looking for the Lavon affair story. Does Wikipedia meet with your approval for the account of the Lavon Affair?
I didn’t mean to snipe at you personally, but I did intend a sharp rebuke so that all of us will be careful with our sources at this critical time.
I know how it is when writing a post and you need a link and you do a quick google to find one. But we should take care to stand behind the sources we use.
I am a staunch anti-Zionist, and am as appalled as any here at the actions of the Israeli government, and the regretably misguided support of its citizens. If anything, I am even more appalled as current events continually evoke my erstwhile happy childhood memories of times spent at Hebrew school and synogogue, with loved ones and community, supporting the state of Israel — simply because it was the religion I was born into — to be little more than a slew of hollow lies, distortions, and thinly disguised racism and superiority. My past, instead of providing a nurturing base, haunts me like a mocking ghost, which refuses to retreat before explanations like “ignorance” or “fear.” I demand more of my past, more of my present, and more of us.
Saying that 5-6 million Jews did not perish intentionally during WWII has the equivalence of those, like Bush, who still put Iraqi deaths at 30,000, when we know that the truth is more like 250,000, in addition to over 1 million displaced (4%), perhaps an additional million wounded, and birth defects up over 1000%.
Man’s inhumanity to man is exceeded in impact only by Man’s inhumanity to the rest of the nurturing life-sphere — and together these two represent the most vexing of problems we must solve, philosophically, morally, psychologically, spiritually, politically, and practically, if we are going to exist on this thin margin, 100 miles between rock and space, of the planet we call earth.
While I have not yet had the opportunity to read Michael Berube’s
blog about the politics of supporting the underdog in imperial struggles, let me say this:
There are only four possible futures for mankind:
1) Extinction.
2) The type of capitalist globalisation currently being pursued, which will inevitably lead to extinction, or a controlled totalitarianism.
3) Communalization, the countervision of globalisation, which is based upon ecological sustainability, and decentralisation.
4) A sort of stone-age existence lived by the accidental survivors of a late-stage industrial cataclysm.
The odds are that one of these scenarios is bound to play out within the next 50-100 years.
The United States is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. Yet, it is equally true that the paths of development that China and India have chosen to take are equally as destructive and suicidal in the long run.
One must be very careful how one reads history and the lessons one takes from it, for if we misread history we will surely be working against the very causes we believe in.
There is much misreading of history going on in regards to today’s conflicts, even by the radical left.
Perhaps we would all do well to read Susan George’s prescient book, “The Lugano Report,” in which she imagines the “masters of the universe” sitting down 10 years ago to address the question, “How can we preserve capitalism into the 21st century?” They conclude that, considering the limits which the planet is facing, the only way to preserve this system of inequality which provides them with unparalleled comfort is to, in a controlled fashion, rapidly decrease the population of the earth. This startling conclusion, and its implications for policy in our world, is groundshaking.
And that is where I consider us to be today. It is the only narrative that makes sense of Bush’s actions and the Democrat’s and Europeans’ complicity.
Postone makes an essential distinction between movements that avoided attacking civilians (Vietnam National Liberation Front, ANC, etc.) and those that sought to attack civilians because they were part of the enemy (IRA, Hamas) – and notes that only the former approach leaves room to live together in peace after the fighting.
There is no peace in this world.
The capitalist mechanism is destroying life faster than any single war we focus our attentions on. Rich Westerners consumption patterns are complicit in the deaths and immiseration of those in the third world which Postone refuses to even acknowledge exist. Every act of procreation in the developed West is a death sentence to several in the enslaved south. How should the underdeveloped world’s victims not see this as a willful act of civilian murder? Just because that murder comes from structural immiseration, or starvation, or at the hands of a proxy army, and Postone refuses to countenance it, how is that less than an act of civilian murder?
Of course his facile military analogy is wrong. What about Germany, Japan and the USuk? Oh, right, powers CAN attack civilians and later make peace, resistance movements can’t. We know the term for that type of thinking.
This is a misguided leftist (fascist) critique for why others should not confront power from which he is benefitting. If he were a Lebanese civilian, who had lost his family and everything else, and he were to say this, then I would take the time to listen to him.
Much better analyses of Israeli societies complicity — particularly the moribund so-called “anti-war left”, who never saw a war they didn’t like, and the war itself (better than Billmon’s current musings)can be found in the writings of Dr. Ran HaCohen.
He notes a shift in Left goals from social transformation to resistance to power, and points out that this is a shift in the left from well reasoned opposition to capitalism to more fetishistic approach to history that seeks to attack whichever voodoo doll is taken at the moment to stand in for capitalism.
Social transformation and resistance to power are two sides of one coin. There is no social transformation without resistance to power, none, for power is never ceded willingly.
He is correct that proper understanding of the system is necessary. I recommend, again, Susan George’s concise “Another World Is Possible, IF…”
But to denigrate resistance to war, imperialism, and the US killing machine to “voodoo doll fetishism” is appeasement of the highest ivory tower intellectual order.
A non-violent response would be preferable. Should 1 1/2 million displaced Lebanese begin peacefully marching abreast to the Israeli border demanding withdrawal and peace, and continue marching despite Israeli attacks, it woulld have the potential to transform history.
But this is a fantasy. The Israelis have ensured this to be so by destroying the infrastructure required to support such a march.
The Israelis have, by their bombing campaign, intentionally delimited the range of possible responses from one of complete aquiescence to violent resistance. And when one limits the responses to naked agression so, one should not be surprised to see those with nothing left to loose, embrace their humanity and lash back fearlessly.
The Nasrallahs and Sadrs of this world are demanding their right to lived free of molestation. Who are we to sit back in our comfortable air-conditioned offices facing our laptops — whose heat is disbursed by Congoese coltan procured from the end of a gun; whose rubber and gems and gold, and almost everything else we possess, are wrested from others under-slavelike conditions; whose very land we occupy was stolen by decimation — to deny them?
Who are we to condemn the Nassrallahs and Sadrs of the world to death while we work out a cleaner, more bloodless, method of resistance?
He heartlessly confuses his fight with their fight, and then denies them any support or sympathy.
His fight is against capitalism. Their fight is against an active killing machine. And yet their lifestyle, even if won through guns and bullets, is far more ecologically sustainable than his. They were not poisoning the earth. He is.
But a fool such Moishe Postone could never accept this attack on HIS legitimacy. Is he willing to forgo his comforts and salary in order not to support the killing machine with taxes? Or is he content to sanctimoniously pass judgement on the actions of those whose back is literally against the wall.
The cosseted left stinks of deceit and hypocrisy more than the venal right ever could.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 14:13 utc | 51

to bookend maglooga’s post…
Henry Kissinger’s bible: On Preserving Capitalism in the 21st Century: The Lugano Report

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 9 2006 14:24 utc | 52

I just read Berube’s idiocies, and am sorry that I was so restrained in my criticism above.
But here on this blog, where we condemn Israel’s response while desiring Hezbollah’s disarmament and wishing that all parties in the region would acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, we try to avoid that kind of sloppy either-or thinking.
Sure sounds like sloppy either/or thinking to me. Only by making Hezbollah’s disarmament contingent upon Israel’s similar disarmament. Otherwise this is merely coded for Israeli hegemony over Lebanon.
Then there is the “Israel’s right to exist” canard. This has been disproven over and over again; they have recognized it repeatedly. And usually foung themselves attacked militarily directly afterwards by an Israel that does not want peaceful co-existence. Israel doesn’t want the Arabs to acknowledge their right to exist; it wants them to have to get down on their knees and lick their Israeli assholes. (Sorry, but it is true.)
The statement “Israel’s right to exist” is grammatically similar to the construction “Support our troops.” Support our troops to what? To defend our borders, or to kill innocents on the other side of the globe. This is the real question. “Israel’s rightto exist” as what. As a peaceful neighbor, or as a wrathful and vindictive, regional hegemon, bent on over-lordingthe Arab world. That is the question that fools like Berebe, whose “resistance” is as diaphanous as the wing on a dragon-fly, dare not confront.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 14:31 utc | 53

another piece that sorta goes along w/ one of the currents in malooga’s post is derrick jensen’s humorous jab at environmentalists using the plotline of the movie star wars to make a point about effective vs ineffective resistance.

Posted by: b real | Aug 9 2006 14:50 utc | 54

citizen
only to say if 9/11 demonstrated anything, it was the ocassional vulnerability of power to the same terror practiced by power itself.
one can now hope for the necessary embarrassments required to urge the u.s. to claim victory and go home.
otherwise, blowback’s gonna be a real bitch.

Posted by: slothrop | Aug 9 2006 15:46 utc | 55

Back to Main