What is Patriotism under a State Sponsor of Terror?
Chris Lowe
The town where I grew up is about 30 miles from Lexington and Concord; a school friend's house had been built in 1774 by Captain Jonathan Parker, who a year later was one of the Minutemen confronting the British, probably not at the Concord bridge, but sniping at them from behind stone farm walls on their retreat to Boston. Massachusetts celebrated April 19 as an honest-to-god, get out of school holiday, Patriots' Day, and part of the route of the Boston marathon held on that day went down High Rock Street, passing a block from my house, where High Rock crossed Marked Tree Road, referring to a tree marked by Indians in the 18th century that had survived well into the 20th. In school we were steeped in the colonial era and the Revolution as Oregon children of the day were in the Pioneers and the Oregon Trail. We read Johnny Tremaine, but not Little House of the Prairie, made field trips to Lexington and Concord, and Old Sturbridge Village, and Plimoth Plantation, and Paul Revere's house and the U.S.S. Constitution and Old North Church on the Freedom Trail in Boston. (The gift shop at Old North Church was notable for its rock candy.) In state mandated fifth and eight grade U.S. history courses we never made it to the Civil War; mirabile dictu, "accelerated" U.S. history in 11th grade, for those of us let in, got us all the way to World War I.
My father was a closet artist and a professional book designer, so we spent time in museums, and I learned to wonder whether it was the Museum of Fine Arts, the big one with the statue of the Sioux-ish Indian on horseback in chiefly feathered headdress with his arms spread wide and his head thrown back to the sun (or rain, or snow), or the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum a few blocks away, the one built around a Venetian palazzo-like courtyard, that owned the original portrait of Revere by the famous tory painter John Singleton Copley, and which owned a mere copy, simply to wonder at the unfinished portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart in the MFA, which gave the model for the dollar bill, and its companion portrait of Martha, who looked like a nice person, and to appreciate the fine silver crafted by Revere on display at the MFA (two flights above the mummies). Old North Church held another famous painting, by John Trumbull, a heroic battle scene depicting the death of Dr. Warren at the battle of Bunker Hill, really Breed's Hill, as we had all been tutored to know, though the monument remained the Bunker Hill Monument. In the background, also dying, lay the redcoat Major John Pitcairn, held by our family lore to be possibly an ancestor, or at any rate the cousin of one.
Patriotism in my childhood was reflected mostly on holidays, with parades: Memorial Day and Veterans' Day, especially when I was a bit older and in the Boy Scouts, but above all, the Fourth of July. The town had a pretty substantial parade, which varied a little year by year, but had common elements whose repetition was reassuring: floats in general, several high school marching bands, the local Ford dealer riding horseback made up like a plains Indian chief from the movies, his skin somehow colored reddish brown, crossing back and forth the streets along the route saying "How," the kids' bike horde, all wrapped in red, white and blue crepe paper, the bagpipe band (my favorite), the contingent of antique cars. And firecrackers, and sparklers, and the ugle smelly little snake pellets whose appeal I never understood, and the real fireworks on the High School Hill. And the flags, everywhere, on the houses, in the parade, the little ones in our hands. Even after twenty or so years here, off and on, I still am not used to Portland's elevation of the Rose Festival parades and lack of a serious one on the Fourth of July.
One year when I was little, my tricycle got donated to a Fourth of July parade float my father helped make for the Needham Fair Housing Committee, with the theme "Throw Discrimination in the Dump!" My trike formed part of the garbage for the dump-on-wheels; for years afterward there lived in our garage a couple of papier-maché seagulls that my father had made, constructing them around balloons and chicken-wire wings, neck and head, and painting them when dried. Partly on this account, and other related activities by my parents in the 1960s, patriotism in my mind was always connected to the idea of fairness and equality, and the view that if the country wasn't perfect you could and should do stuff to make it better. The one time I marched in the parade was when, at the behest of a high school history teacher and a friend, I got involved in a group that organized local events and re-enactments in connection with the U.S. Bicentennial. Of course the Bicentennial started off early around Boston, with commemorations from the Boston Massacre onward, and peaked early, in April 1975, in Concord. So I marched in our local Fourth of July parade in poorly made knee breeches, a felt hat (round, not tricorn) covering my coincidentally accurate slightly greasy long hair, and a shirt with puffy sleeves, carrying a flintlock musket that would shoot blank rounds, with real black powder, and give a satisfying report and puff of smoke, though I don't know what would have happened if you'd tried to put a lead ball in it and shoot. And I marched in the much longer parade on April 19, 1975, for the two-hundredth anniversary of the shot heard 'round the world, a parade that covered a good deal of a Minuteman-like route from near Boston to Concord, earning me some patriotic blisters from my faux-buckled shoes.
But by that April day, I had become quite ambivalent about the whole business. When we marched into the National Park in Concord that contains the bridge, or a replica, to gather up and be addressed by President Ford, the last bit of the route was lined by hundreds of state police in riot gear. They were there to protect the president, and something vaguer like "good order," I suppose, against sixty thousand or so slightly rebellious counter-celebrants who had turned out under the aegis of the People's Bicentennial Commission, launched a number of years earlier by Jeremy Rifkin, who was later famous as an early opponent of genetic engineering. The PBC was consciously counter-cultural, in part a reaction to the stuffy self-congratulation of the official commemorations, but also political, arguing that the Nixon-era imperial United States had lost its way, which rendered the official patriotic assertions of the U.S. as a beacon to the world hollow, and trying to assert a different kind of patriotism as embodied in social movements for equality and against U.S. wars in Southeast Asia (Saigon fell less than two weeks later). As I marched in between the phalanxes of cops, for so I perceived them, rank upon rank, having been brought there by my loyalty to my group and friends, still I thought I ought to be on the other side of those police with the PBC crowd, and emotionally part of me wished I was, despite my friends.
For by 1975 it had been a number of years since opposition to the Vietnam War, the American-Vietnamese War I should say, had radicalized me, in an incomplete, juvenile sort of way. I had been working out my adolescent struggles to define my own sense of morality and justice in the context of coming to understand Free Fire Zones, and trying to grasp the scope and meaning of the statistics of the number and tonnage of bombs that the U.S. had dropped on Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos, of the number of Vietnamese who had died. I didn't hate or blame U.S. soldiers, though I was glad when the draft was abolished when I was 15, so I wouldn't have to face the choice of going or resisting. But I wasn't focused on the U.S. soldiers either. I was focused on the millions, the millions of tons of bombs, the millions of Vietnamese killed. Who I hated was Nixon, and Agnew, and Kissinger, and the faceless others, faceless to me, who directed those bombs (I was too young for Johnson to mean much to me, despite The Pentagon Papers, paperback edition). So too, as a result, I came to hate the claims they made in the name of patriotism, and to think, if that's what patriotism is, if being patriotic means I have to support the great evils being conducted in my name, then I'm not patriotic, and don't want to be. And if someone wanted to accuse me of being unpatriotic for thinking my country had no right to wreak havoc and mass murder on another people, fine, let them.
In the decades since then I've gone back and forth about patriotism. I've focused politically at times on the Whig version of the American story, the one where things aren't perfect, but keep getting better, though as a graduate student in history I smiled with ironic appreciation at Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's more accurate telling of the story, on the occasion of the bicentennial of the Constitution:
I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today.
I've listened, and not often demurred, when others on the left argued that we should reclaim patriotism, not cede the claim to it to reactionary forces who used it to justify arrogant power and false or hypocritical versions of American values. Though the arguments seemed true enough, I doubted if the idea of patriotism could ever be recuperated fully for me in that way. In studying African history and living in Africa, I relearned to be grateful for the comfort of my life in the United States, though only with deeper, more detailed trouble in my mind and spirit at its sources and costs. In opposing recent wars of the "sole superpower"'s imperium, I have not ignored U.S. soldiers, but believed and argued that the prices they and their families and communities have paid form part of what needs repair and reparation, insofar as possible, while knowing that's only so far. I've respected the patriotism of others, and not tried to impose my doubts on my child as she develops her own sense of right and wrong, with the help of parents, relatives, teachers and friends, and of her place in the world.
But, after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, just as I did not think that "everything had changed," seeing instead a continuity with what had gone before, so too I did not experience the surge of renewed or first-time patriotism reported by many people at the time. Instead, if anything has renewed some sense of patriotism for me, it has been the felt need to defend the better parts of the U.S. Constitution against the depredations of Bush administration's unconstitutional and anti-democratic power grabs. It's not quite clear whether that reaction has been despite or because of the fact that the Bush assaults on civil rights and liberties have, as usual, and quite literally, been made in the name of patriotism, including one particularly bald-faced, bold-faced lie: the "USA PATRIOT Act." Whether despite or because, it doesn't seem right to allow them that lie.
Then these past weeks has arrived news of the warmongers come out again, hawking their wares, this time against Iran. This week in particular has come the reporting, by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, that Congress has approved President Bush's request for up to $400 million to expand, massively, twinned CIA covert intelligence and Joint Special Operations Command clandestine military operations inside Iran. I expect to write more about that, but inter alia Hersh's sources say the effort involves moving large quantities of personnel, materiel, and money into Iran. The money, or much of it, is being put into the hands of armed opposition groups including groups organized around Kurdish and Azwahi Arab ethnicity, the "Islamic socialist" Mujahedin-e-Khalq, which the State Department lists as a terrorist organization, and radical Salafi Sunnis from Baluchistan who have close ideological and historical ties with the Afghan Taliban and thus Al Qaeda. Coincidentally, or maybe not, there has been a rise in civil violence in Iran, including bombings of mosques and other places, and assassinations of a police colonel and others.
Now, if another country sent large numbers of well equipped people with great quantities of cash secretly into the U.S., or into a U.S. ally, with the aim of fomenting violent civil disorder and instability, and if those persons in turn funded armed anti-government groups and encouraged their violent acts, what would we call it? In all likelihood we would call the people terrorists, though depending on their own actual acts they might in a strict sense only be spies, or if their numbers were large enough, invaders.
But we are liberal these days with the designation of terrorists, so I suspect that is what we would call them. We certainly would call those receiving the money and other support to commit violent acts terrorists, and call the government sending the aid state sponsors of terrorism.
So suddenly, as Independence Day approaches in 2008, my mind carries me back once more to 1975, and I find my doubts renewed yet again. Part of me resists giving up the idea of patriotism. Come else what may, I adamantly refuse to regard the makers of illegal war and traducers of the Constitution as patriots.
Yet my country already has begun yet another aggression, this time against Iran, against law and against what is right. And it has done so acting as a state sponsor of terrorism against another people. And it has done so with assent and concurrence of Congressional leaders of both major political parties, and with acts of financial appropriation by ill-named Defense Appropriations sub-committees of Congress, that are acts of connivance which must include members of both political parties.
I hate that my country is doing these things, over the opposition of a large majority of the people. I hate that we powerless to stop our government from this aggression and anti-civilian violence. I hate that those of my representatives whom I believe oppose these criminal acts also apparently are powerless to stop them. And I hate that others of my representatives, in the sense of leaders of my increasingly nominal party, are so politically craven, so venal, or so politically and morally stupid, that they are assenting and conniving in these crimes. For me, for this Independence Day, they all, taken together, have put paid to patriotism.
Truly and honestly, I wish everyone may have a happy and safe Fourth of July. But give a thought for the Iranians who may not have one, and what we might do about it after the holiday.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 3, '08
I've listened, and not often demurred, when others on the left argued that we should reclaim patriotism, ...
It seems before anyone "reclaims" patriotism that patriotism itself should be defined. In the United States a reasonable definition might be upholding the concept of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice for all that it might someday become a reality instead of a myth.
Then there is the definition attributed to Dr. Johnson: Patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel.
Jul 3, '08
You probably would have been one of those protesters in 1863 howling for the war to end and let the South go. The war was voted on by Congress. The democrats will probably win in 2008 and you will have your dream of cutting and running. I hope you will be happy when terrorists strike here. Its people like you who have little appreciation of history who will condemn Bush for not doing anything when an Iranian atomic bomb goes off in one of our cities.
Good luck!
Jul 4, '08
"The democrats will probably win in 2008 and you will have your dream of cutting and running. I hope you will be happy when terrorists strike here. Its people like you who have little appreciation of history who will condemn Bush for not doing anything when an Iranian atomic bomb goes off in one of our cities." If Chris Lowe is a person who has "little appreciation for history", then I wanna be like Chris. I believe that people who think like Mr. Sarnoff are of greater concern than the Iranians.
Jul 4, '08
Chris, you certainly are a student of history, although a different set of examples and a different point of arrival. I disagree that we are preparing to be aggresive in Iran, had our country been aggresive after the Cole, or the many other Islamic fundamentalist attacks since 1993 (the first attack on the Twin Towers), then we would not be in Iraq or Afghanistan today.
I do not call those who question our country unpatriotic. Yours is a different version than say mine, but that is just one example of our country and its greatness.
Have a happy fourth Chris! I am off to a good old-fashioned parade in Central Point!
Jul 4, '08
Herschel Sarnoff wrote:
You probably would have been one of those protesters in 1863 howling for the war to end and let the South go. The war was voted on by Congress. The democrats will probably win in 2008 and you will have your dream of cutting and running. I hope you will be happy when terrorists strike here. Its people like you who have little appreciation of history who will condemn Bush for not doing anything when an Iranian atomic bomb goes off in one of our cities.
This is the type of crap-brained screed that paranoid, small-minded, hateful authoritarian war mongers have spouted since the beginning of human time. Your overriding attitude toward life is "get them before they get us."
Your attitude condemns society to unending conflict and inefficient use of time, effort and resources. It allows flawed leaders to distract the populace from their own shortcomings by whipping up fear and hatred against some external bogeyman. It is just the kind of sub-human behavior examined by Huxley in 1984 among the people of Oceania. Huxley was concerned about abominable authoritarian socialist states that use fear and propaganda to distort reality and control the populace. Your way of thinking would allow you to fit it well there. You would be an upstanding party member.
In 1930's Germany, you would have been a great fan of Hitler's aggression. In today's North Korea, you would sing the praises of Great Leader. You are the problem: the modern man with a nature better suited to the Early Stone Age. You are the kind who enable the venal, brutal, thieving leaders who make life hell on this planet.
Jul 4, '08
Right on, Tom.
Jul 4, '08
I wrote a little screed called "The Promise" back in 05. Its too long to post the whole thing so if you want to read it, visit the link.
The lead:
Wage peace, war is obsolete.
Jul 4, '08
BOHICA's link to his full article should be followed. Unfortunately, the Pledge of Allegiance is not the only deception in American education. No teacher would dare say that it has been rendered into an act of national hypocrisy by our elected officials in Congress and state legislatures and the people who continue to re-elect them. Nor will teachers of government and civics share with their students I. F. "Izzy" Stone's dictum about all governments lying.
Jul 4, '08
A War of Aggression against Iran?
Why don't we just nuke the Middle East and start over again. Iran is directly responsible for killing our soldiers in Iraq with supplied weapons and training for militants. You and the rest of supposed "Blue Oregon" and "Blue Whatever" are indirectly supporting their efforts. Yeah Lefties, we didn't fly airplanes into their buildings, we didn't strap bombs on kids and women to blow up markets and buses. When are you blind people going to open your eyes?
Go to Tehran and tell tell them to "wage peace". Go to Islamabad and protest; make signs that say "only dope worth shooting is Musharraf" Lets see how long your head stays attached to your body. Jesus, you people and your sniveling make me sick. You really can't be this stupid, can you?
Jul 4, '08
"There is no challenge greater than the defense of our nation and our values. The men and women of our military --- have signed up at a time when our troops face an ever-increasing load. Fighting a resurgent Taliban. Targeting al Qaeda. Persevering in the deserts and cities of Iraq. Training foreign militaries...But we need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That's why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines."
---Barack Obama, Hope For More Militarism
"The only reason that our military is under such a great "burden" is because politicians like Barack Obama have voted consistently for billions (some award winning economists estimate, trillions) of wasted dollars to continue BushCo's abominable occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of increasing the Pentagon's already bloated budget, a true peace candidate would be calling for immediate withdrawal of forces from these countries so our military can begin the healing processes that need to occur to rejuvenate our broken military so we can have a true defense force and not an imperialistic ready response team to be on constant alert to storm any country at the whim of the emperor to spread corporate imperialism (what politicians call: Democracy) at the end of an M-16 or bombs bursting in air."
--Cindy Sheehan, Ask Not What…
“Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it Popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”
--Martin Luther King Jr.
Jul 4, '08
That's why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.
That is certainly not the kind of "patriotism" this nation needs. Instead of studying law, perhaps Obama should have studied history and learned that militarism and the pursuit of empire have been major factors in the decline and fall of nations.
Jul 4, '08
Yeah, remember when all those Iranians were killing our soldiers before we went into Iraq? That sure sucked. All those Iranians in our country, shooting at us. It was like, terrorists everywhere, just blowing things up like crazy. They were killing more people than alcohol, traffic accidents, and lack of health care combined. I'm so glad we went over and took care of business with those uniformly violent and backwards Middle Easterners. They're all just so bad and hateful. Especially the kids. And, of course, now that we're in Iraq, no one has been killed by terrorists here, which is proof enough for me that it worked. It wasn't our increased vigilance, it was totally the war in Iraq. Like when my house got robbed, so I set fire to the meth house down the street, and no one has robbed my house since, because of that one thing I did. Not because I started locking my house. It was worth every penny borrowed. And all the interest, too. We'd never have figured out anything else to spend it on that would have made us as safe for so long, like bridges or border security or more police or whatever. So, in short, I'm afraid of finding long-term solutions to problems I don't understand. It's much easier and more instantly gratifying to just shoot everyone who might possibly now, or in the future, hurt me in some way. I like living in constant fear of things I'm not likely to ever be personally harmed by. Because I have a totally realistic perception of stuff.
Jul 4, '08
Sleepneat wrote:
Why don't we just nuke the Middle East and start over again. Iran is directly responsible for killing our soldiers in Iraq with supplied weapons and training for militants.
It never seems to end. Gullible Americans buy any line of bullshit that supports bombing, shooting, and otherwise screwing up the lives of people in other countries, particularly if those people have brown skin. Sleepneat's ignorance and naiveté are deadly, not to mention, impoverishing and environmentally destructive. Sleepneat's ignorance and naiveté are evil.
U.S. officials have failed thus far to provide evidence of an alleged pipeline of Iranian weapons to Iraqi Shiites opposing the U.S. occupation.
12:43 p.m.
Jul 4, '08
brilliance is being able to sum things up in a single word, especially one of a single syllable.
great "stuff", Ryan.
Jul 4, '08
I agree with Sleepneat on the "sniveling" of the left and their irrelevance to finding a diplomatic solution in Iran.
If the Iranians suspected that an American/Israeli attack was a high probability, they would be much more likely to seek a diplomatic solution. As soon as President Obama is sworn into office, they know the military option is coming off the table, so they only have to pretend to negotiate until then.
Jul 4, '08
This alleged Iranian pipeline is the new Iraq WMD argument: it's a red herring regardless of whether it's true or not. We have no legal or moral right to be in Iraq, so its neighbors' fear and loathing of us is to be expected. Iran is no imminent danger to us (although we are an imminent danger to Iran).
By depending upon the assertion that Iran is not aiding the insurgency in Iraq, we can only lose the argument, since the Reich will continue to bombard us with "evidence" that they are.
It doesn't matter.
If we want to prevent our soldiers from dying in Iraq or Iran, we should leave (and not just "re-deploy" to Kuwait).
Jul 4, '08
Why don't we just nuke the Middle East and start over again. Iran is directly responsible for killing our soldiers in Iraq with supplied weapons and training for militants.
Those of us getting our information from sources other than the likes of Limpbag, Insannity, O'LIElly and Coulter know that when attacks against American forces in Iraq were at their peak they were committed by Sunnis funded by Saudis - not Shi'ites sponsored by Iran.
Question: Why don't we just nuke the Middle East and start over again?
Answer: Because, fortunately, our national leadership is not quite that insane - so far. However, that assessment could change if McCain moves into the White House.
1:12 p.m.
Jul 4, '08
Chris,
Perfect read for a day like today. I have nothing to ad but to say thank you.
Jul 4, '08
"The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear: Keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real...." ---General Douglas MacArthur
Not that I'm a great fan of Dugout Doug.
One of my favorite quotes is by General David M. Shoup, (former US Marine Commandant and recipient of the Medal of Honor after Tarawa,) wrote in 1966:
Bill Bodden
No we just shoot down their civilian airliners (USS Vincennes), and overthrow a democratically elected government (Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq ) and provide poison gas to their enemy. Seems we are also invading them with some of our Special Forces guys too. We did get them some missiles of their own though (Iran Contra) so I guess they should be thankful for that. Just SOP for the warmongering bastards who run this country.I have "seen the elephant" and understand that war is terrorism with a bigger budget.
Jul 4, '08
Bill Bodden
I find it difficult to comprehend how this statement above is linked to my name. It looks like something I never said was attributed to me.
My point about not being so insane as to nuke the entire Middle East did not excuse the lesser horrors committed in our name which could have included maintaining sanctions that cost an estimated half million Iraqi children their lives.
Jul 4, '08
It's outrageous how the liberal democratic bloggers are trying belittle and discredit a patriot like John McCain. The main point regarding John McCain's military service goes to CHARACTER. Admirable character is when a POW, surviving in miserable conditions, chooses to remain in prison additional years, because an early release wouldn't be fair to his fellow prisoners. I know that Wesley Clark, Obama, and these criticizing bloggers wouldn't have the heart to do it ... they can't even recognize the importance of such an honorable commitment... even though their very freedom of speech, to complain on this blog, was won and protected by the same people with the courage to walk the walk ... not just talk the talk!
Jul 4, '08
Bill, Sorry I pasted from my clip board wrong, meant to quote Sleepneat.
Jul 4, '08
altoonaharold wrote:
I agree with Sleepneat on the "sniveling" of the left and their irrelevance to finding a diplomatic solution in Iran.
Find a diplomatic solution to what problem, altoonaharold? I assume you know the U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work. You do know that, altoonaharold, don't you?
Now, Harry might write that Iran has as much right to nukes as the US, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and India and would have an arguable point. I doubt antoonaharold would find that argument convincing, though. On the other hand, perhaps altoonaharold is bright enough to realize that if there is no problem to negotiate, then then is no need for threatening violence in order to convince Iran to negotiate. That is, unless the nonexistent problem requiring negotiation has the same purpose as Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, which the Bush administration considered too imminent a problem to be solved by mere negotiation. In that case, the fact that there is no Iranian nuclear weapon program is of no more important than the fact that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. All that matters is that enough ignorant and gullible Americans will sit still for unjustified aggression by their government. Hell, they won't just sit still, they will cheerlead for the carnage.
Jul 4, '08
Civiletti:
The IAEA and Elaine Sciolino of the New York Times don't share your benign view of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Irrespective of what anyone believes: the Israelis will eventually take action against Iran with U.S. backing, or without. The IDF will act sooner rather than later if only because of the bellicosity of the Iranian Regime and the current transfer of wealth taking place due to high oil prices: Iranian air defenses are getting stronger day by day.
Recent analyses suggest the IDF has the strategic capabililty necessary to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure with a high probability of success. That probability declines with the arrival of each state-of-the-art Russian S-400.
Jul 4, '08
Oh my, it is the IAEA's job to be concerned. The nature of that concern was explained in a later NYT article:
...the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have come to worry that Iran — before suspending its work nearly five years ago — may have made real progress toward designing a deadly weapon.
The concern is about progress Iran may have made more than five years ago, hardly reason for prompting negotiations through threat of military force.
Then you write [with a straight face?]:
The IDF will act sooner rather than later if only because of the bellicosity of the Iranian Regime
The bellicosity of the Iranian regime? Come now, compared to Israel and the US, Iran behaves like a bunch of Quakers! In how many countries have we and Israel operated militarily the past five years? How about Iran?
You write as if Israel's ability to attack Iran is a good thing. You sound quite bellicose to me. Does the Israelis speak in such terms? If so, perhaps Iran has good reason to strengthen its air defenses; damn good reason.
Jul 4, '08
Very nice post, Chris. And it makes me feel good that the right-wingers show up to demonstrate how disconnected from reality they are. Every now and then I think conservatives are going to pull it together and stop acting all crazy and weird. I worry that they may move close enough to sane that people will vote for them again. Then I listen to talk radio or read some blog postings and I feel better.
It's going to be a good election.
Jul 4, '08
Quoting Tom Civiletti
It never seems to end. Gullible Americans buy any line of bullshit that supports bombing, shooting, and otherwise screwing up the lives of people in other countries, particularly if those people have brown skin. Sleepneat's ignorance and naiveté are deadly, not to mention, impoverishing and environmentally destructive. Sleepneat's ignorance and naiveté are evil.
That's right dude, I'm evil and naive. So now it's a race war that evil whites are waging on brown skinned, peace loving, circle dance doing people. This post shows Obama's base and the ones who will be the most disappointed when he can't pull out his Light-worker wand and solve the worlds problems.
You Tom, live in the world of fantasy, the world that sees America as the most racist, hateful, warmongering nation. The shit that comes out of your mouth and the other Lefties, Iran and our enemies love. Those like you Tom, along with Obama's butt buddy Bill Ayers; with your stupidity and rhetoric, helped to kill American servicemen in Vietnam, that's a fact that North Vietnamese Generals counted on to help them drive out the US and murder thousands of South Vietnamese and Cambodians.
The race thing shows how simple minded you are, and prone to moveon.org's bullshit infusion at each post.
Jul 4, '08
Although Tom C. is correct in his assumption that, "Harry might write that Iran has as much right to nukes as the US [or] Israel...", I do not support the "right" of anyone to have nuclear weapons.
But those who already have nuclear weapons have the duty to dismantle under the terms of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Failing that, it's hypocritical for them to demand anything of anyone else.
I disagree with Oh my's contention that, "...the Israelis will eventually take action against Iran with U.S. backing, or without." Israel will do nothing against Iran without U.S. backing. Israel is a client state of the U.S., totally dependent on its one significant ally in the world for military, economic and political support. If we say, "Don't go", they won't go.
Obama's pandering at the AIPAC convention and his assertion of "all options on the table" for Iran suggest that he will not choose to rein in Israeli hawks. So, it's not the "Gullible Americans [who] buy any line of bullshit..." who we have to worry about, but rather the ones with elite educations who support Obama.
Jul 4, '08
re sleepneat's "Obama's butt buddy Bill Ayers"
Is your anal sex fantasizing just about Bill Ayers and Obama? Your comments are giving you away: "The shit that comes out of your mouth", "pull out his Light-worker wand", etc. Very kinky.
Jul 4, '08
sleepneat,
I wrote that your ignorance and naiveté are evil, not that you are. I abhor the sin, not the sinner [my Catholic upbringing, most likely]. I linked to a news story which explained that there has been no documentation of arms coming from the Iranian government and going to Shiite militants in Iraq, but you write that I live in a fantasy world! It seems you are not only ignorant and naive, but also reality resistant. You have decided who is good and who is bad, and do not want facts muddying the crystal clarity of your hatred.
As to Obama, his statements suggest he is much closer to Shrub on Iran than he is to me, so basing any conclusions about Obama based o what I wrote is quite silly.
The Iranians may be your enemies, but they are not mine. Their government leaves much to be desired, but then, so does mine.
As far as the "race thing", let's do a little experiment. You list all the nations with majority European populations that the US has invaded or bombed since the end of WWII. I will reply with a list of nations with a majority dark-skinned population that has suffered the same experience. Then we can discuss the "race thing." OK?
Jul 4, '08
Harry Kershner wrote:
But those who already have nuclear weapons have the duty to dismantle under the terms of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Failing that, it's hypocritical for them to demand anything of anyone else.
I agree.
Jul 4, '08
tick, tock, tick, tock
Israel's nuclear arsenal is the single biggest reason that Iran has (mostly) engaged in proxy warfare against Israel. When Israel attacks Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure, the first wave attack will likely be limited to non-nuclear weapons. If a follow on attack is necessary (because the targets were not destroyed), or if Iran retaliates with a strategic missile response, then Israel is likely to respond with a tactical nuclear strike against Iranian command and control centers. If the Iranian retaliation persists, then an Israeli strategic nuclear response will likely result: Iran would cease to exist, and the price of oil would exceed $500/barrel.
Israel will do whatever it takes to maintain the State of Israel, even if it means vaporizing Iran and plunging the world into economic calamity. Even the Civelettis of the world should hope and pray that Iran is not actually trying to weaponize their nuclear program: because WWIII is the likely outcome if the Iranians don't blink.
Jul 4, '08
You know, sleepneat, the worst thing about how all the hippies personally killed American G.I.s with their patchouli-stained hands in Vietnam is the horrifying "domino" effect that followed. The sudden wave of communism that engulfed all those countries when we left. I don't know if we'll ever be rid of that threat. And now we have to fight the Muslims. I guess all those hippies won't be laughing into their bongs anymore when we're all bowing to Mecca.
11:31 p.m.
Jul 4, '08
Chris, you certainly seem to know how to bring out the right-wing weirdoes.
Jul 5, '08
oh my,
So, are you suggesting that Israel is a ruthless paranoid state that would kill millions of people to prevent another nation from doing what Israel has already done? If that is what you are suggesting, do you lament it or support it? Since you suggest that Israel is a grave threat to US interests, do you believe the US should act to prevent the destructive Israeli behavior you predict? If so, what sort of US action would you support? Should the US threaten Israel with nuclear destruction unless Israel gives up all nuclear weapons? If the scenario you predict is realistic, and if the US thinks the way you suggest Israel does, this would seem to be the course of action we should expect from the US.
Jul 5, '08
What about the environmental terrorists, the air-conditioned, breeding masses? What is civility in the face of that animal?
Democracy and patriotism presuppose civility.
Jul 5, '08
Civiletti,
Your logic fails to distinguish allies from adversaries. If Iran (our adversary) is unable to persuade Israel (our ally) that it's remaining dual use facilities do not threaten Israel, then Israel will destroy them. Despite the likely rise in energy prices, a successful Israeli attack on Iran would delay a nuclear armed Iran by (at least) five years. That's a good thing.
Given the recent hostility the Iranians/Syrians have directed against Israel, there is nothing paranoid about them fearing an Iranian or Syrian nuclear capability. If you studied a bit of Israeli History, you would know that Israel's Arab neighbors have waged war against Israel (frequently beginning with an unprovoked attack) and encouraged terrorism and economic boycotts. Iran's leadership has repeatedly suggested that Jews/Israel should be wiped from the map: they have nobody to blame but themselves when Israel strikes first.
Jul 5, '08
The IAEA and Elaine Sciolino of the New York Times don't share your benign view of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
After Judas Miller's columns in the New York Times on Iraqi WMDs, anything in that paper should be regarded with considerable skepticism.
Jul 5, '08
Iran's leadership has repeatedly suggested that Jews/Israel should be wiped from the map:...
This is another example of buying into an erroneous translation of Ahmadinejad's statement. Reference Pepe Escobar's The US-Iran sound bite showdown
Jul 5, '08
Oh my wrote:
Your logic fails to distinguish allies from adversaries.
Alliances need to work for the parties involved. Even in marriage, the closest of alliances, when ones partner is dangerously abusive, it is time to get out. If Israel would act as you suggest it would, it is certainly time for the US to end our alliance with Israel.
I agree with the non-interventionist approach of Tom Paine, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who said in his 1801 inaugural address:
peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.</i.
As far as recent hostility, I do know that Israel has bombarded Lebanon and Syria recently. Is this the sort of action that makes the Israelis feel insecure? Bill Boden provides a link above concerning the [intentional?]misunderstanding of Iranian statements on Israel.
I doubt you will find on Blue Oregon lack of concern for the security of Israel. You will find plenty of distaste for Israel's aggressive and sometimes brutal behavior, supposedly in defense of its security. You will also find resistance to the distortion of fact, reason and fairness you bring to the conversation.
Jul 5, '08
Jul 5, '08
Tom,
There are always going to be differences among translators, but Amadinejad's repeated references to the end of zionism leaves little room for debate. It's silly to suggest that Iran has not challenged Israel's right to exist or threatened the State of Israel. More important than their pronouncements, their actions via proxies (like Hezbollah and Syria) are overtly hostile towards Israel, and leave little room for nuanced debate. Iran is a self defined enemy of Israel, and Israel simply will not allow it to acquire nuclear weapons. Here's the wikipedia summary. It includes multiple quotations translated by the official Iranian news service, IRNA, such as:
Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."[67]
"You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene."[69]
3:44 p.m.
Jul 5, '08
Bellicose warmongering leadership is the most common preference of fearful people.
Leaders or wannabe leaders use this simple and ancient tool to drive irrational choices, i.e. selecting the fearmonger to keep them safe.
<hr/>All of the above fits both Iran and the US and scores of other nations to a T.
The specific lies that they use and fears that they call up are only culture specific garnish to make the dish more palatable to the target audience.
<hr/>Again, the only possible justification for American Exceptionalism is the degree to which we follow our founding principles and the documents that spell them out.
You can't even see the moral high ground from septic tank we and our beloved allies are swimming in.
Jul 5, '08
There are always going to be differences among translators, ...
Some get it right, some get it wrong. American main stream media have been getting it wrong on the Middle East for decades and their translations should be regarded with Mencken-like skepticism.
This is Oh my's abstract from Ahmadinejad's speech via Wikipedia:
Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."[67]
"You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene."[69]
Note that Ahmadinejad was attacking the "Israeli regime" and the "Zionist regime" not Israel. There are many critics of these regimes within Israel of whom Uri Avnery is among the more prominent.
In his teenage years, Uri Avnery was a member of the Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization that helped form the state of Israel and beget the members of the Likud and Kadima parties with whom he has long been at odds.
Jul 5, '08
Tom Civelletti wrote,
As far as recent hostility, I do know that Israel has bombarded Lebanon and Syria recently. You make it sound like the Israelis just like to bomb other countries without provocation, when nothing could be further from the truth:
(from Wikipedia)...[The 2006 "July War" between Lebanon and Israel] began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[20] Of the seven Israeli soldiers in the two jeeps, two were wounded, three were killed, and two were captured and taken to Lebanon.[20] Five more were killed in a failed Israeli rescue attempt. Israel responded with massive airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon that damaged Lebanese civilian infrastructure (including Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport which Israel alleged that Hezbollah used to import weapons), an air and naval blockade,[21] and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon.
Peter Bouckaert, a senior emergencies researcher for Human Rights Watch, stated that Hezbollah was "directly targeting civilians... their aim is to kill Israeli civilians"...
As for the attack on poor defenseless Syria, I would say it underscores the necessity of Iran abandoning their pursuit of nuclear weapons if they hope to avoid the same fate:
ABC News reported that in early summer 2007, Israel had discovered a suspected Syrian nuclear facility, and that Mossad then "managed to either co-opt one of the facility's workers or to insert a spy posing as an employee" at the suspected Syrian nuclear site, and through this was able to get pictures of the target from on the ground."[12]
According to The Sunday Times, members of Israel's Sayeret Matkal covertly raided the suspected Syrian nuclear facility before the airstrike and brought nuclear material back to Israel. Anonymous sources report that once the material was tested and confirmed to have come from North Korea, the United States gave Israel approval for an attack.[9]
As the old saying goes, "if you fu€k with the best, you die with the rest". To put it more delicately, the efficient ruthlessness of the Israeli Defense Forces were called into question by the July War: the IDF will not let that happen again.
I'm not suggesting that "Israeli Aggression" is always proportional or beneficial to U.S. interests. I am suggesting that Israel will prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons whether the U.S. gives the greenlight or not.
That said, it is in the best interests of progressives (and Sen. Obama) to make certain that Iran knows that American Foreign Policy speaks with a unified voice when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. When libtards conflate American or Israeli nuclear arsenals with Iran's nascent nuclear weapons program, that unified voice is called into question.
Jul 5, '08
I'm not suggesting that "Israeli Aggression" is always proportional or beneficial to U.S. interests.
"Israeli aggression" which should more accurately be defined as "Likud-Kadima aggression" is not beneficial to Israeli interests. Nor is it beneficial to the interests of its accomplices in Washington.
The gross violations of human rights in the attack on Lebanon in 2006 - cluster bombs, strafing ambulances heading north away from Israel, etc. - created enormous antipathy towards the Israeli government and its IDF among civilized peoples around the world.
Jul 5, '08
A British perspective on Obama and patriotism.
Jul 5, '08
I don't follow Bodden's repeated references to "Likud-Kadima" when referring to Israel--tying those parties to aggression--as there are about a zillion Israeli political parties. The 1967 war happened at a time when the left-wing Labor Party was in power, as it had been continuously since 1948 (for example). Not that I would characterize the 1967 war as particularly aggressive on Israel's part; the surrounding Arab countries arguably were preparing an invasion, with Egypt expelling UN observers, say. But of course the aftermath of the 1967 war is what has led to today's sorry mess.
But what is patriotism, then, is these United States? Got me. There are things about the US that I admire and things about the US that I loathe. In the late 60's and early 70's after the "America: Love it or Leave it" bumper stickers started appearing, there was one in response that read "America: Change it or Lose it." I'm still on board with the latter. For me, patriotism is all about "change it or lose it."
Jul 5, '08
Oh my wrote:
There are always going to be differences among translators, but Amadinejad's repeated references to the end of zionism leaves little room for debate.
I think there is quite a lot of room for debate. Amadinejad may well be referring, in these and other statements translated by some as threats of aggression, to the right of return by Palestinians leading to the democratic election of a non-Zionist government in Israel. He certainly is no fan of Zionism, but his statements seem less threatening the Bush, Clinton, Obama ones about taking no options off the table in reference to Iran.
This is not to say that Amadinejad is a nice fellow, or that Israel has nothing to worry about, but the kind of threats you suggest are part of Israeli policy are way over the top and would certainly qualify as war crimes under the Geneva Agreements.
Jul 5, '08
HAckyAttacky wrote:
As for the attack on poor defenseless Syria, I would say it underscores the necessity of Iran abandoning their pursuit of nuclear weapons if they hope to avoid the same fate:
This is the tone of a playground bully, of a gangster, of a child abuser, not the tone of anyone I would want as an ally.
That said, it is in the best interests of progressives (and Sen. Obama) to make certain that Iran knows that American Foreign Policy speaks with a unified voice when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. When libtards conflate American or Israeli nuclear arsenals with Iran's nascent nuclear weapons program, that unified voice is called into question.
This sounds like Joe Lieberman, with whom I share almost no political opinions. The last thing I need are militaristic bullies telling me what is in my best interest.
Jul 5, '08
I don't follow Bodden's repeated references to "Likud-Kadima" when referring to Israel--tying those parties to aggression--.
It's quite simple if you give it a little thought. Likud-Kadima is specific. They are the dominant and controlling political parties in Israel. There are many people in Israel opposed to the policies of these parties. Also by framing the Likud and Kadima parties as the aggressors it reduces unwarranted and diversionary charges of anti-Semitism. I happen to be a great admirer of Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and other Israelis and Jews of similar character and philosophy.
as there are about a zillion Israeli political parties
Zillion? This kind of hyperbole doesn't suggest serious thought.
Jul 5, '08
Where did this come from? You need to reread what I wrote. Hitler, if we had stepped up and supported the allies we might not have had WW2. Very disappointing reply. I guess you would have joined the Democrats in 1863 to keep their slaves so you would not have been a war monger. You must really hate what the U.S. did in 1941-1945. How horrible we should have given the Axis what they wanted, maybe surrendered right away like you want to do in Iraq.
This is the type of crap-brained screed that paranoid, small-minded, hateful authoritarian war mongers have spouted since the beginning of human time. Your overriding attitude toward life is "get them before they get us."
Your attitude condemns society to unending conflict and inefficient use of time, effort and resources. It allows flawed leaders to distract the populace from their own shortcomings by whipping up fear and hatred against some external bogeyman. It is just the kind of sub-human behavior examined by Huxley in 1984 among the people of Oceania. Huxley was concerned about abominable authoritarian socialist states that use fear and propaganda to distort reality and control the populace. Your way of thinking would allow you to fit it well there. You would be an upstanding party member.
In 1930's Germany, you would have been a great fan of Hitler's aggression. In today's North Korea, you would sing the praises of Great Leader. You are the problem: the modern man with a nature better suited to the Early Stone Age. You are the kind who enable the venal, brutal, thieving leaders who make life hell on this planet.
Jul 6, '08
Playground bully? Gangster? Child abuser?
Time to call the Whaaaaa-aaaaaambulance, Civiletti is made at Israel and he's calling them names!
I just wish we could watch the nose camera videos live as the F-15's and F-16's vaporize Iran's nuclear installations. Tell me you wouldn't enjoy watching that instead of the Today Show on Tuesday morning.
I just love the smell of Uranium Hexaflouride and crispy Persians in the morning.
Jul 6, '08
Herschel Sarnoff wrote:
Where did this come from? You need to reread what I wrote. Hitler, if we had stepped up and supported the allies we might not have had WWII. Very disappointing reply. I guess you would have joined the Democrats in 1863 to keep their slaves so you would not have been a war monger. You must really hate what the U.S. did in 1941-1945. How horrible we should have given the Axis what they wanted, maybe surrendered right away like you want to do in Iraq.
You use hindsight and misrepresentation to make a case for the "good war."
The US entered WWII after it was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war in support of its Japanese ally. There was considerable support for the Nazis here before the war and very little concern for Hitler's crimes. German Jewish refugees were denied access to the US after it was known they faced severe persecution in Germany. Humanitarian impulses had nothing to do with US entry into the war.
The US Civil War was similar in this way. Ending slavery as causus bellum was introduced well into the war, when disgust over the carnage turned the public against the conflict.
The desire for the positive outcomes to war have ALMOST NEVER been the causes of those wars, and almost all positive outcomes of war could have been achieved at much less cost in life, suffering, and resources by peaceful means, if those positive outcomes were important to those in power at the time.
My reference to 1984 was quite appropriate. I did mistakenly wrote Huxley when I meant Orwell, though. My apologies for that. I stand by the rest of my comments.
Jul 6, '08
Oh my wrote:
Playground bully? Gangster? Child abuser?
Time to call the Whaaaaa-aaaaaambulance, Civiletti is made at Israel and he's calling them names!
I was referring to what you wrote, Oh my, but if Israel holds the same views as you, the terms apply there as well.
Jul 6, '08
The US entered WWII after it was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war in support of its Japanese ally.
If Woodrow Wilson hadn't maneuvered the U.S. into the First World War there might not have been a Second. In 1917 when the Germans, British and French were essentially in a stalemate gaining a few yards one day and losing them the next they were contemplating a truce to end the war. Unfortunately, the British had an understanding that America would enter the war on the side of the British and the French and would give them victory. So the fighting continued and something like a million people died as a result of the war. The punitive treaty applied to the Germans, mainly at the behest of the French, helped create the conditions that made it possible for a Hitler to rise to power in Germany.
Jul 6, '08
HAckyAttacky quoted, "[The 2006 'July War' between Lebanon and Israel] began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[20]"
Claims that Hezbollah initiated the carnage in Lebanon are a sham. The San Francisco Chronicle disclosed (7/21/06) that, more than a year prior to the Israeli attacks, “…a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail.” Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported (8/14/06 New Yorker), “’Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings’, [a] U.S. government consultant said, ‘several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, “to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear.’”
Consider how this impacts the theory that a mysterious and secretive group of Jewish fanatics control US policy through an all-powerful Lobby. The US does not report to Israel or to AIPAC to receive permission to bomb anyone. It is Israel, the proxy for the US in the Middle East, which must report to its master for permission.
U.S. Middle East policy is anti-semitic in the broadest possible sense: the Arabs are slaughtered and tortured, and the Jews are blamed for it. Those of you who claim to be supportive of Israel need to recognize that the status quo is antithetical to your goals.
Jul 6, '08
"I just love the smell of Uranium Hexaflouride and crispy Persians in the morning."
This is disgusting bigotry that deserves our contempt. No one who would say a thing like this deserves a place among civilized people.
Jul 6, '08
Harry,
There is nothing civilized about letting Iran get the bomb, either. It is idiotic to suggest that (barring Israeli and American nuclear disarmament), it is "hypocritical" to pursue nuclear non-proliferation.
In matters of warfare, we aren't looking for a "fair" fight; we seek military superiority.
That's the difference between Israel's (rumored) 250-400 warheads and Iran's first: Israel has the bomb, but hasn't used it. We can't just wait and see if Iran will show similar discretion.
Jul 6, '08
In matters of warfare, we aren't looking for a "fair" fight; we seek military superiority.
Non-proliferation based on maintaining military superiority is doomed to failure. Insecurity leads to militarism [look at Israel].
Iran is a more stable society with a more stable government than Pakistan, whose nuclear program received very little resistance from the US.
By the way, the devaluing of Iranian lives exhibited by some pro-Israeli government posters here is highly repugnant. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Jul 6, '08
This is the regime you are defending?
If the Iranian Government flagrantly abuses their own people, how would you expect them to treat Israel if they develop nuclear weapons?
Jul 6, '08
This is the regime you are defending?
If the Iranian Government flagrantly abuses their own people, how would you expect them to treat Israel if they develop nuclear weapons?
Jul 6, '08
If the Iranian Government flagrantly abuses their own people, how would you expect them to treat Israel if they develop nuclear weapons?
When it comes to human rights abuses Israel and the United States are not in any position to claim positions of moral virtue. The Israeli Defense (?) Forces use of cluster bombs, strafing of ambulances and civilian vehicles heading north from the Israeli border, and bombing of civilian areas in 2006 were rightly condemned by Human Rights Watch and all civilized peoples but tolerated, if not approved, by the United States government, including Congress. That includes Barack Obama, John McCain and Hillary Clinton endorsed by millions of voters for the presidency of the United States.
Converting Gaza into one of the world's largest concentration camps and depriving it - and the women and children therein - of essential supplies - water, food, electricity, etc. - was (and is) another violation of human rights committed by the Israeli government and approved by the United States.
And what about Iraq? An invasion based on lies desired by Israel and the United States? Estimates for people killed range from tens to hundreds of thousands with two to four million refugees having to abandon their homes. Before that there were the U.S.-sponsored, UN-sanctions on Iraq that cost an estimated half a million Iraqi children their lives - of which Bill Clinton's secretary of state said they thought it was worth it. If those are not crimes against humanity I would hate to think of what it would take to be defined as such.
When lawyers were preparing lists of war crimes with which to charge the Nazis at Nuremberg they included actions that higher authorities in Washington and London deleted because American and British forces had committed similar acts. For example, bombing civilian targets.
Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger essentially gave a green light to Indonesia to invade East Timor that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Slaughtered by Indonesian forces with weapons supplied by the United States.
Then there are the tortures and death squads the United States supported in Central and South America and ... well you should have the picture by now.
The Iranian regime is a bunch of nasty people, but it takes a good measure of ignorance and hypocrisy for Americans to throw stones at them.
Jul 6, '08
Bill,
It makes me wonder why you would choose to live in a country that is so wicked and depraved and has perpetrated such suffering upon the globe?
Or why such a coercive government bent on world domination would allow you to villify it under your own name, without fear of reprisals.
Try doing that in Teheran (citizen or not): you would be jailed in days, and lucky to get a quick hanging without being tortured first.
You must feel kind of dirty every time you see an American Flag. Of course, if a history of supressing colonial separatists or anti-communism is going to piss you off, you can forget about living in Europe (with the possible exception of Norway and Finland). Not too many enlightened democracies in Africa or Asia either, especially if you crave individual liberty. Maybe it's time to explore Icelandic Citizenship: they haven't invaded anybody in the last 900 years. Uruguay is supposed to be nice this time of year, and Chile is very fond of foreigners, especially if they're of German descent.
Jul 6, '08
OK, here are a few of questions:
*Who holds the real power in Iran, Achmedinajad or the clerics?
*Where is Iraqi public opinion (esp. among those young people born after Khomeni took power who would now be in the 20-30 age group) with regard to the US, to foreign policy, to cultural issues like strict Islamic law vs. Western clothing, technology, world view?
*If Israel or US invaded Iran (or even bombed and killed civilians) how would public opinion change?
Or doesn't any of that matter because this is only a blog debate where some people think it is OK to be sarcastic?
Jul 6, '08
As far as I can see, no one here has defended the Iranian government, beyond pointing out that some of Amadinajad's statements have been mistranslated [do not make the mistake that this mistranslation was accidental], and noting that Iran's government is more stable than Pakistan's. The world is not black and white. It does not consist of good countries and bad ones.
Gulagharchy might as well puts his legs up and play Okie from Muskogee on repeat. The world is way too complex for him to attempt penetrating.
Jul 6, '08
It makes me wonder why you would choose to live in a country that is so wicked and depraved and has perpetrated such suffering upon the globe?
Because I was born American and believe as others before me that I admire that I should try to make this a better country. You don't make things better if you deny or are ignorant of reality.
Gulagharchy: Do you deny the reality of any of the items I listed? Or, do you operate on a set of double standards? One rule for them and another for us?
This nation is not entirely wicked and depraved. It, like most nations, has and always had among it the best and worst of people with most somewhere in between. I believe I should help the good guys to prevail over the bad guys - those that you seem to think it is okay to have among us.
Jul 6, '08
Even a casual observer must be aware of the aggressive steps the US took prior to its entry into WW2. I will not insult your intelligence with the facts. You can refer to any history textbook for that. I never said Humanitarian impulses were the causes of our entry. Nations act in their own self interest. They always have and they always will. Hopefully interests are tempered by moral values. It must be very upsetting to you that we are winning in Iraq. I hope you are not one of those hate America individuals who flock to Move-On and Code-Pink (should be code-yellow). It must unnerve some people that we might be successful in setting up the first democratic govt (Israel not included) in the Middle East. Its a worthy goal when combined with the the elimination of the monster Saddam to justify the war. If we left it up to the UN who were bought off by the Oil for Food scandal Saddam could have laid low for a few years then continued his goal of getting WMD's.
The US entered WWII after it was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war in support of its Japanese ally. There was considerable support for the Nazis here before the war and very little concern for Hitler's crimes. German Jewish refugees were denied access to the US after it was known they faced severe persecution in Germany. Humanitarian impulses had nothing to do with US entry into the war.
Jul 6, '08
from "Democracy"
It's coming from the sorrow in the street, the holy places where the races meet; from the homicidal bitchin' that goes down in every kitchen to determine who will serve and who will eat. From the wells of disappointment where the women kneel to pray for the grace of God in the desert here and the desert far away: Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on O mighty Ship of State! To the Shores of Need Past the Reefs of Greed Through the Squalls of Hate Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.
It's coming to America first, the cradle of the best and of the worst. It's here they got the range and the machinery for change and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. It's here the family's broken and it's here the lonely say that the heart has got to open in a fundamental way: Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on ...
Jul 6, '08
Far We've been travelling far Without a home But not without a star
Free Only want to be free We huddle close Hang on to a dream
On the boats and on the planes They're coming to America Never looking back again They're coming to America
Home, don't it seem so far away Oh, we're travelling light today In the eye of the storm In the eye of the storm
Home, to a new and a shiny place Make our bed, and we'll say our grace Freedom's light burning warm Freedom's light burning warm
Everywhere around the world They're coming to America Every time that flag's unfurled They're coming to America
Got a dream to take them there They're coming to America Got a dream they've come to share They're coming to America
They're coming to America They're coming to America They're coming to America They're coming to America Today, today, today, today, today
My country 'tis of thee (Today) Sweet land of liberty (today) Of thee I sing (today) Of thee I sing (today)
(today)
(today)
(today
Jul 6, '08
Herschel Sarnoff said:
(1.) "Hopefully interests are tempered by moral values."
You mean like, "Don't do to others what you wouldn't have them do to you"?, with no exceptions to the rule, i.e., Israel and the U.S. must be held to the same standards as any other country, including standards of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg Tribunal?
(2.) "It must be very upsetting to you that we are winning in Iraq."
What is this "winning"? How many more have to die or be ethnically cleansed before the total is high enough for you to feel yourself to be a victor?
(3.) "I hope you are not one of those hate America individuals who flock to Move-On and Code-Pink (should be code-yellow)."
You're the hater. Besides, Move-on is a right-of-center facilitator of corporatists like Clinton and Obama that you should appreciate. Code Pink is a very loose coalition of groups of mostly women who are working for justice, about which you seem to know little.
(4.) "It must unnerve some people that we might be successful in setting up the first democratic govt (Israel not included) in the Middle East."
You're right about "Israel not included". Israeli elites fear democracy more than anything. That's why talk of a one-state, bi-national solution is avoided like the plague. The notion that the occupational government in Iraq is a democracy is equally ridiculous, and it shows a profound contempt for the Iraqi people, who want us out, not "setting up" their government.
(5.) "Its [democracy] a worthy goal when combined with the the elimination of the monster Saddam to justify the war."
A monster who we supported and funded until he failed to obey? What hypocrisy.
(6.) Your little history lesson about Nazi sympathizers and the depth of antipathy in the U.S. for the Jews hardly makes your America - Love It or Leave It bumpersticker appropriate, does it?
You make the usual posters to BO seem enlightened, and that's difficult.
Read Fateful Triangle. Read A Peoples History.
12:48 a.m.
Jul 7, '08
Meant to respond sooner, actually tried, but a comment got crashed.
Darrel, we all have our peculiar talents.
Fred, thanks. Bert, thanks. Kurt, thanks for your generous comments. If you don't think we're committing aggression in Iran, you really should read Hersh's article.
The question your argument raises for me is against whom such an "aggressive" response as you think might have been beneficial (in a different sense than I am using above) should have been directed? With the Cole, would it be Yemen? But the perpetrators were enemies of the Yemeni government. I'm not sure how well al Qaeda waa understood in 1993. I think you may have missed the strongest case for your argument, which would be Bill Clinton's relatively limited response to the Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998. But at the end of the day, "Islamic fundamentalism" is not easily susceptible or vulnerable to military attack. Armed groups motivated by versions of it might be more so. But one of the complexities is that the broad brush approach (never mind the stupid genocidal non-humor reflected toward the end of the thread) tends to produce more, not less, of such "fundamentalism" in reaction.
Herschel Sarnoff, neither you nor I could be who we are now in 1863, but fwiw (not much) the closest thing at the time to my politics today would have been the "radical Republicans" who criticized Lincoln from the left and later impeached Andrew Johnson. Please also note that that a high proportion of your co-thinkers about the U.S. aggression against Iraq and the emerging one against Iran also like to defend Confederate "heritage".
The history you don't seem to appreciate would include: 1) the history of the U.S. role in the rise of the Taliban and thereby al Qaeda, which has considerable relevance to funding Baluchi Iranians who share a religious outlook and ethnic and more direct ties with the Taliban; 2) the history of U.S. encouragement and then betrayal of internal resistance in Iraq, several times among the Kurds, and also among the southern Shi'ites, especially the "Marsh Arabs," relevant to similar ethnic conflict provocations apparently be pursued at present; and 3) more specifically in one sense, and more generally in another, the history of U.S. support for the Hussein government in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, including acceptance of their chemical and biological weapons programs and their use internally against the Kurds. The whole history of U.S. engagement in the region reflects the elevation of short-term opportunism above understanding and acting on long-term consequences, and the current adventure in Iran is more of the same. It will come back to bite us.
If an Iranian bomb goes off in the U.S. as a result of this idiocy, you bet I'll blame Bush. If the U.S. pursues a different course focused on diplomacy, I don't believe that will happen, but if it did, I certainly wouldn't blame Bush for the results.
You really should read what Admiral Fallon has to say in Hersh's article, and a longer piece & interview in Esquire.
Bush listens to the commanders in the field, except when he doesn't.
1:06 a.m.
Jul 7, '08
Oh my, I have to go to bed, but very quickly, the piece you link by Daniel Pipes says this:
Pipes is not dismissive at all of the seriousness of this problem for what you project.
Your other link to Arutz Sheva is interesting primarily because if you look at these stories going back into 2007, every couple of months the theory about whether it will be the U.S. or Israel to make the attack keeps shifting back and forth.
An interesting variant surfaced in late June out of the mouth of John Bolton, now of the Heritage Foundation, who was then predicting that there would be an Israeli attack and that it would take place after the U.S. election but before the new president was sworn in. There is a certain plausibility to this, as such an attack and Iranian responses most likely would hurt John McCain, or at least would be unpredictable in their effects on the election. This also fits with other reports in other Israeli press at the time of Bush's visit in which Olmert was quoted suggesting a meeting of minds between him and Bush on timelines.
Pretty clearly there is a lot of division within the U.S. administration and the result seems to be incoherent policy. The covert/clandestine operations Hersh describes may in fact be an effort by the Cheney faction to force events because they can't win the policy argument.
Your genocidal jokes are both unfunny and stupid.
1:10 a.m.
Jul 7, '08
Bill Bodden, it would handy in a certain way if your "Likud/Kadima" argument & their link to AIPAC were true. But in fact the current government is "Kadima/Labor", with Labor's Ehud Barak as defense minister who was in charge of the attacks on Lebanon, while Likud & Binyamin Netanyahu hate Kadima fiercely.
Jul 7, '08
Herschel Sarnoff wrote:
I never said Humanitarian impulses were the causes of our entry. Nations act in their own self interest. They always have and they always will.
More precisely, nations act in the interest of those who control the government - often not the general population. Wars fought for humanitarian ends are rare as hen's teeth, so citing a humanitarian outcome such as ending US slavery is dishonest argument. Overall, there is nothing as anti-humanitarian as war.
Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how I hate all this, how despicable an ignorable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. -- Albert Einstein
Jul 7, '08
Before long, you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men...Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception. - Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger" (1910)
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. - Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials (Commander of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Police Gestapo, Hitler's 2nd man in the Third Reich & Marshal of the German Empire)
Jul 7, '08
If the public knew the truth, the war would end tomorrow. But they don't know and they can't know. - British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, 1914
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. - Thomas Alva Edison
Jul 7, '08
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it. - George Orwell
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. - Nuremburg War Tribunal
Jul 7, '08
Likud & Binyamin Netanyahu hate Kadima fiercely.
But they do have a common agenda when it comes to enlisting the aid and support of the United States.
Jul 7, '08
Likud & Binyamin Netanyahu hate Kadima fiercely.
But they do have a common agenda when it comes to enlisting the aid and support of the United States.
But AIPAC will support Likud or Kadima or both and this.
10:43 p.m.
Jul 8, '08
Bill,
This still doesn't deal either with the fact that Kadima is not allied with Likud, and is allied with Labor. It's all bad. Your last point is certainly right.
Jul 13, '08
Hey Civiletti,
More translation errors of the Iranian Mullahs for Peace & Harmony
Jul 13, '08
Anti-Civeletti or just Misunderstood?,
<h2>What do you suppose American and Israeli officials would say if Iran threatened to destroy nuclear facilities in those nations? Or is such reciprocal reasoning beyond your comprehension?</h2>