Comments on Uh...

The penultimate word, my dear Savage, is pronounced "new-kew-lurr."

I thought you *liked* this kind of thing? Bombing of evil moslems and all that.

Israel. The country of peace.

The Interantional Herald Tribune is uncanny sometimes. Sometimes it really seems like they have been told something or are telling us something (wink,wink).

Apparently they were listening when Obama made crystal clear that he is just as happy to have Iran bombed as McCain. In a speech to the Jewish lobby, he said: "I will do everything in my power -- everything, EVERYTHING -- to prevent Iran from Obtaining a nuclear weapon." In case you peaceniks in the Democratic party missed that, the great rhetorical stress he laid on "everything" translates as "I can't say this any more explictly, because it would piss off my peacenik base, but I want you to undertstand that I want to bomb Iran just as much as the other guy."

Like this is a surprise? I'm sure Dick Cheney masturbated furiously to the raw intel as it flowed into the deepest recesses of his cave.

@5 -- My dear Wright, if it can be compellingly proven that the Iranians are approaching the attainment of a nuclear weapon, then we are faced with a pickle.

One's initial reaction may be to bomb immediately, which can be well-argued. In the face of proliferation to an aggressive Islamist theocracy, then it's an option that must be on the table.

But is it a bombing of government control centers, or a bombing of the sites supporting the development of nuclear capacity? Or both? What?

Or is it better to close a noose around Iran; diplomatic, and emphatically embargo?

More provocatively, do we wait for a new administration that might actually engage in dialogue with Iran -- and if, as a result of media coverage of this dialogue, we learn Iran is bat-shit, anti-semitic crazy, then the press (haha) reports it...if they are not, the press reports that. Simple.

Simple as voting Obama 08.

Israel is going to drag us into a war the American people don't want. Fuckers!

@5
yes.

So actually his policy is same as Hillary's -- we threaten massive retaliation just like we did to USSR -- je just uses softer words -- btw it worked back then they didn't bomb us did they?

Context:
He said he's only against dumb wars with no purpose and no limit. translation: limited strike w nukes could be on the table, duh.

What, we should say no, noway nohow USA shall never bomb which only tells Iran "go ahead" ignore our diplomacy?

PS: he's also walking back on Nafta did you notice?

@ 9: Yes, I did see he's backtracking on NAFTA and I'm very happy about it. If he starts backtracking on national health care, too, I just might vote for him.

Oof. I'm gonna to have to buy the Jew a diary.

*-to

Just in case McCain might not pull in out in November, Israel prepares an October surprise.

[]D[][]\/[][]D

Obama flip flopped on public financing too... Even though he gave his word to take public financing. Guess we know what his word is worth now...

@7 - what exactly makes iran "aggressive"? their defensive posture against occupying forces belonging to the most aggressive regime in the world surrounding them on two sides? when was the last time iran invaded another country? ahmadinejad's mistranslated "wipe off the map" bullshit doesn't count. khameni, who is the real leader of iran, has not threatened anyone.

Oh c'mon, folks. Let's take a deep breath, step back, and admit the God's honest truth: we've all known this. Even Mr. Savage. It's old news. Let's not pretend it's new. Hell, we all had access to plans like this for over two years now, and we've heard expert after expert comparing this to Osirak time and again. I mean - seriously - I'm an idiot and I knew of stuff like this. We all did.

Israel has to have a contingency plan for things like this because... well... they have to have contingency plans for EVERYTHING. And if they have to do the dirty work for us, then so be it. It's a path we - the American people - all of us, one way or another, have chosen... time and again.

Since we've already made this choice, the best we can do now is pray that the Israelis don't introduce nuclear "bunker busters" into their strikes. God, that would be awful... the second country to use nuclear weapons. Now THAT would keep me up every night for a year or twenty.

Since when did Drudge headlines drive Slog posts?

As I understand it, Israel is looking at elections this summer. My guess is things are on hold pending that outcome.
Things will get dicey if it is Nethanyahu . He is the most likely to turn the tables on the "right to exist" question.

@7 compellingly proven like WMDs?

Expect more of the same

@18

Every day.

Although I don't really want to support Israel very much, I don't blame them for preparing for this. Iran with nukes would be like Ken Hutcherson having nukes, but without a congress threatening to impeach him.

So Israel bombs every middle eastern country that has a nuclear facility? That doesn't mean every other country has to bomb the countries that they think is a threat to their own security. America has become a joke because of the Iraq situation, and the hunt for the guy who actually is a threat to our security has been forgotten or ignored by the people so willing to bomb countries that do not have the capability to bomb the U.S.A. from that distance. Have they sent us any terrorists yet? Oh right, that was mostly SAUDI ARABIA who had guys who hijacked the planes on 9/11...
Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.[76]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Hijackers

Why can't we just sit back and WATCH the fireworks for once? We look too much like Attention Whores or that guy who makes Youtube videos, crying over Britney Spears.
"Leave Israel ALONE!!!! Just leave her alone!!!waaahahahaha"

I don't want to see Iran with nukes.

But @22 -- Why do we (keeping in mind our cowboy president starting unlawful preemptive wars) get to have nukes, but they don't? Why are we "not crazy" and therefore okay, but the scary muslims are "crazy" and therefore must be stopped from developing them?

I am totally against proliferation and all that, I'm just saying... Along with not wanting to see Iran with nukes, I don't want north Korea to have them. Or Russia, China, or us. but that's too late.

Wonder how long it took for our Air Force to provide the logistics, clear the air routes, and deliver the munitions to be used as well as the satellite intel?

Because you know that's what we did.

The only question is ... will we participate or not.

#5, while I'm glad to have an adult translating Obama-speak for the kids in the audience as much as the next Obamatron, somehow I don't feel like willingness to do anything to prevent Iran having a nuclear weapon translates to "wanting to bomb Iran" or "happy to have Iran bombed".

#9, nor does preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon does not translate to "massive retaliation". I know you're eager to paint Obama as having the same positions as your beloved Hillary, where appropriate, but this is not one of those times. Maybe you could pull, out of your ass, a quote of Obama saying he *wouldn't* prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, so you can turn this into the flip-flop you desperately want it to be.

stop it! just stop it. Your advice and/or opinions about foreign policy means absolutely nothing. Dan Savage: He agrees with popular opinion in retrospect! Fucking fraud!

please remember that israel has PILES of nukes. that, and they've got a solid defense pact with the US, virtually guaranteeing the utter destruction of any party who decides to do anything serious to israel.

so, why can't iran have a nuke? what would you do if you're surrounded (literally) by nuclear armed aggressors who are looking at you like you're the next kid to get beat up on the playground? good thing the russians have a lot of sophisticated air/sea defense weapons, and they're on sale. if we get involved in this, or become targeted after an israeli strike, we're fucked. carrier fleet, meet sunburn missiles.

israel is not exactly the last bastion of peace in the middle east. it should be recognized for what it is, a bellicose nuclear pit bull. no politician can say that though, it's "anti-semitic" and AIPAC has too much pull in DC, which is why obama had to go talking like he'd bomb-bomb-iran like mccain. i think he's smarter than that, though none of that matters unless we can make it to jan 20 without our rapture ready "president" giving the green light to this kind of madness.

If Isreal wants to bomb Iran, that's their business. If they expect Americans to die defending their ass, that's our business.

The US is in no way prepared to fight a war. The Neocons wasted our military resources and our money. Yet another war would require a draft and months to ramp up. Maybe more. Where are our heavy industries to make war shit now? China? 'Um, please send over a few containers full of Jeeps and tanks'? 'Hey Boeing, can we have a couple of dozen cargo planes by Tuesday?'

I don't think so.

@25:

Of course we will! Look at the resources it has taken for us to be in Iraq. Israel can't sustain that against Iran. And we are ALLIES; we can't just let ISRAEL go down in flames, fer fuck's sake! We'll HAVE to step up and help 'em out. Because, you know, it's not about Iran (people wouldn't fall for that again), it's about ISRAEL (and we Amereecuns, we heart Israel)!

Muuuutherfuckers. We are so fucked.

@26 thank you for your response, which actually includes some logic and reasoning for once.

let's take your response bit by bit OK?

"Maybe you could pull, out of your ass, a quote of Obama saying he *wouldn't* prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, so you can turn this into the flip-flop you desperately want it to be."

Um, I didn't accuse him of flip flopping at all. Nor do I want him to. So you're are pulling things out of some hairy ass -- Mr. Strawman's.

I wasn't even attacking Obama rather I was supporting him.

"nor does preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon does not translate to "massive retaliation"."

OK you have something of a point there.

Let's say Obama is okay with a strike at Iran to sto them from getting nukes (assuming that's imminent, good evidence blah blah blah ). We agree HRC and OBama are on the same page there and so is Israel.

OK that's the main point: Obama's no peacenik. While many of his supporters I suspect are.

OK?

Now, I went a bit further in equating his position to HRC's massive retaliation. I think it's fair to do so. I don't have a bunch of quotes and sources, sorry. The reason I think it's fair to do so is I believe he hhas said over and over he is going to protect Israel and if he had ever said anything implying he wouldn't totallly go to bat for Israel if Israel were massively attacked we'd damn sure know about it and he'd totally lose the Jewish vote. So yes I am out on a limb a bit but admit it as I haven't got a lot of research on this point.

I think the diff. b him and HRC is that she says she will nuke anyone who nukes out Israel and he just implies it and says it ever so softly.

OK?

If you have evidence that he's made it clear that if somehow Iran or any other state wipes out Israel we are just going to go "oh well, guess all that 'Never Again' talk was just talk, another 4-5 million Jews got killed and we're not going to do anything about it," then please let us know.

"you're eager to paint Obama as having the same positions as your beloved Hillary,"

Not beloved. Plese understand some people aren't in love with candidates just because you guys are. I am not in love with any of them they all are human. Sigh. Are we all still in high school? "Oooooh that that football captain is sooooodreamy, let's vote for him!" WTF????

Why is simply supporting a candidate like about have the Democratic party did worthy of your total scorn? Strange.

Anyway, you could say I'm "eager" to show Obama has the same positions as HRC....yes I do tend to focus on that a bit more but this is only to correct the exagerated view some Obama folks have that he is soooooo new and different, which is pertty funny right now seeing as how he throws people under the bus, makes hard insider deals, breaks promises on camaign financing, etc. etc. Brooks says it all: he's a great Chicago pol. And in many cases I have spoken up where his positions are different.

But basically he's not so different from HRC on foreign affairs except for tone.

Let's cut the bullshit and get to brass tacks ok?

1. Are you and is he for ensuring Israel's survival if imminently threatened with total destruction?
Yes or no?
I suspect the answer is yes.

2. Are you willing and is he willing to use whatever force is necessary?
(NEcessary = dipolmacy failed, threat is imminent, etc. etc. not fake etc. etc.)

I assume yes.

3. Does that include nukes ?

I think you'd both say yes. If necessary to save a few million Jews in Israel.

IF no, you are willing to let them get killed, ok?

4. Does that include the advance threat of nuclear retaliation to wipe out Tehran should they kill a few million Jews with nukes -- so they know in advance and ahem, don't actually do it, cuz like you know duh they are fucking d-e-t-e-r-r-e-d the way we did for about 50 years against the commies?

Hmmm don't know but I think it's yes and yes for you and Obama .

I mean otherwise you let Israel go "poof" and your willing ness to strike back being kept a secret fails to deter.

Post scriptum:

I suggest that you just answer without getting personal, it doesn't add to the discussion much and those on the Democratic side of things like you and I ought to be able to have a discussion without the venom.

Unity y'all and you know what-- never fucking again.

Capiche?

PS: the reason we get to have nukes and others don't is give where we are right now if we let others get more it will be impossible to ever get rid of all of them.

And no Israel doesn't get to nuke anyone and has never threatened Pakistan or India or France, okay?

But if Iran gets nukes then Iraw has to get them and Saudi Arabia has to get them etc. because then you have a big Shia power with nukes and it is d-e-s-t-a-b-i-l-i-z-i-n-g.

Ps: has Iran ever invaded another country? Are you fucking kidding? Eveer see the movie 300? Ever hear of the Persian Empire?

Do you really think nations come in two varieties "good ones" and "bad ones" and have a character like people?

Thesis:
pretty much every nation that had power to conquer conquest invade push other countries around has mostly done so throughout all history.

Look at those peace loving Swedes for example, and ask yourself where the name "Normandy" came from. How did Iceland get populated? With 30000 Irish gals taken from Ireland.

It's all the same DNA folks.

no

Iran has every right to possess nuclear weapons. Iran has every right to defend itself. Only fools believe that Iran will willy nilly start nuking people. The goal of any regime in power is to stay in power in perpetuity....that is difficult to do when the worlds most powerful empire turns your nation into a sheet of glass.

Israel is not going to bomb Iran for the simple fact that the US is not going to greenlight the mission. The American military is overextended and can't take on Iran.

I think I just discovered the one good aspect of the war in Iraq.

Man.

I'm so glad the people who post here weren't around to make decisions prior to World War II.

You would have tried to talk things over with Hitler -- about the camps, about the Nazis' rapid development of a nuclear bomb.

You people make me sick.

You throw around a lot of words, sitting there having your coffee and Slogging away.

But you've got no backbone, and nothing of the spirit that made America stand up to those who would have enslaved the world.

You're represented by the likes of Mr. Poe, a frequent guest here, who is the kind who'd take a cell phone picture of some woman being beaten up, so he can anonymously post it, but would be too wimpy to actually step and help.

No, he reserves his stuff for the Slog, where he can make a naive girl who had the temerity to post go to tears.

I have absolute power, yuuuuuuuuuus!

Iran will have their nukes, and we won't do anything about it. Iran won't bomb Israel for the same reason that nobody else in the world has used nuclear weapons in the last 60 years -- using them is suicide.

The political climate in Iran is interesting. Most Iranian citizens are moderates. Unfortunately, the right wing nuts have control. Looking back at the US' Cold War policies in the Middle East, we have only ourselves to blame for the current government in Iran.

In the early-1950's, Iran was a moderate, even progressive, country. Unfortunately (for them), part of this forward thinking was a desire to nationalize their oil supply. In the Cold War 1950's, this was a major no-no, so we meddled in their affairs and propped up the Shah as a supreme leader. 40 years of brutal rule later, this came to an abrupt end in the Islamic Revolution. And, the wing nuts have run the country ever since.

We are 0 for 3 in not screwing the pooch in that region. In addition to Iran, we created Saddam Hussein in Iraq by putting him in power in the 1960's, and we allowed the Taliban to come to power by supporting OBL and the Mujahideen against the Soviets in the 1980's.

I wonder which country we'll fuck up next? If I were to take a wild guess, I'd say Venezuela. They have all the elements: an anti-American autocrat and, of course, oil. I wonder how that one will blow back in our face?

@34 I love how consistent the war mongers are. Always with the Hitler and the Nazis. As if todays geopolitical issues are somehow comparable to the 1930's. The same fucking lamebrain arguments every goddamn time. No thought, no nuance; just Hitler Hitler Hitler. I usually try to stay above the fray but in this particular case I will wade into the muck: Mr Astonished you are a fucking retard.

@34:"But you've got no backbone, and nothing of the spirit that made America stand up to those who would have enslaved the world."

need directions to the army recruiter?

Ever notice how most of the war mongers never served themselves?

Or how most of those of us who think it's a bad idea actually HAVE?

Yeah, neocons, step up to the plate or STFU.

@34 - sorry, i was too busy cleaning the soy latte out of my laptop's keyboard to realize undead zombie hitler was running the show in iran. given these new facts you've brought to light, yes by all means we should preemptively strike a sovereign nation of 70 million people. a heavily armed nation. this is not iraq or afghanistan we're talking about.

300? really? i suppose you think they have giant mutants too. idiot.

@34:"But you've got no backbone, and nothing of the spirit that made America stand up to those who would have enslaved the world."

Wot, the British Empire?

Oh, by "world", you mean "white people." Yes, those Germans were very rude, trying to colonize Europe. That's just not cricket! When you do it to white people, Freedom suffers.

Dan, this may not have been Israel's first practice raid. The first one may have been that weird little thing in Syria:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/11/080211fa_fact_hersh