Iran Rattles Scimitar Back at U.S.

We all know it's coming. Suddenly the "liberal media" is saturated with stories teaching us why we ought to hate Iran, as is common in the build-up to any war. We're still seeing specials on the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, of which there were none before we invaded Iraq.

Sources for Raw Story recently cited two possible triggers for an air attack on Iran. One would be a high casualty count event in Iraq conducted with Iranian weapons or advisors; the other would be confirmed evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Watch for it...

So wait a minute let me get this straight we go to war with Iran if they either
A) commit an act of war
or
B) try to build a weapon of mass destruction?

What could our leaders be thinking, obviously appeasement is the way to go. I mean surey theyll stop at Annexing Iraq, afterall it is practically their country anyway. and if they happen to invade Poland maybe they'll be satisfied with that (who really needs those Pollocks anyway?)

Are we attacking Russia for providing the RPGs and AKs that are killing our troops? Saudi Arabia for funding the Sunni insurgency? Both of those are far more destructive to us than Iranian munitions or the occasional advisor. Which country that built an atom bomb did we attack while they were developing it?

Do you think it's a good idea to attack Iran for these things? If so, why?

A poster on Metafilter pointed out that, in Canada, the vast majority of Toronto gun killings are with US-made weapons, but most Canadians don't seem to think that we're funding an insurgency there.

I heard a military analyst last night describe our policy in Iraq as a "policy of contradictions". While we continue to state that areas in Southern Iraq are "success stories" of stability (where we simply accept the fact that Shiite militias that were largely armed and trained by the Iranians have established complete control), we rail against Iran for providing the mechanisms of stability that brought them there. While we continue to express support for the Saudis and the bankrollers of the Sunni Insurgency that is responsible for the VAST majority of American casualties, we concentrate our military efforts on putting those very insurgents down.

This isn't a war we can win. It's a case of the right hand not caring what the left hand is doing.

I found it funny how the VP talked about how it showed we were doing great because the UK is beginning to pull troops out but bashed the Democrats because they did not want to send more troops to Iraq.

karmajay wrote:

I found it funny how the VP talked about how it showed we were doing great because the UK is beginning to pull troops out but bashed the Democrats because they did not want to send more troops to Iraq.

So how upset are you that not much Katrina aid was sent to NY? After all that was a major issue and it impacted the national economy, so we must have sent trailers and such up to NY right?
If you got a riot you send some cops into the quite areas to make sure they stay quite, you send most of the cops into the rioting area to make sure it becomes quite.

Basra is quiet, if by quiet you mean a state where British troops on patrol in armored vehicles are caught in Sunni-Shiite shootouts. Cheney seems to believe that because we've ceded control of the area to armed Shi'ite militias, he can claim victory. In reality, Basra and environs are not directly controlled by the Iraqi government, nor is the peace kept by the Iraqi army, which in fact gave up it's positions in the city a week or so after the handover a few months ago and has tucked itself safely away to await developments.

So sure, we are working to pacify Baghdad, because it's in a bad way. That does not mean that the South is in a good state.

So how upset are you that not much Katrina aid was sent to NY? After all that was a major issue and it impacted the national economy, so we must have sent trailers and such up to NY right?
If you got a riot you send some cops into the quite areas to make sure they stay quite, you send most of the cops into the rioting area to make sure it becomes quite.

Because Katrina and Iraq are alike how?

My point still stands. When Democrats want to withdraw some troops, the terrorists are winning. When the UK does it, he says "Heck of a job chaps."

Robear wrote:

Are we attacking Russia for providing the RPGs and AKs that are killing our troops? Saudi Arabia for funding the Sunni insurgency? Both of those are far more destructive to us than Iranian munitions or the occasional advisor. Which country that built an atom bomb did we attack while they were developing it?

Do you think it's a good idea to attack Iran for these things? If so, why?

Malor wrote:

A poster on Metafilter pointed out that, in Canada, the vast majority of Toronto gun killings are with US-made weapons, but most Canadians don't seem to think that we're funding an insurgency there.

I started to make a joke that it's because Canadians are cowards, but then I realized that it's actually kind of the answer:There's more to lose if we attack Saudi Arabia or Russia, and Russia would still be more dangerous than Iran.

Katrina and Iraq are alike because "We're sending a signal that the system that used to allow you to commit a murder and there were no consequences is over. It has been easier to commit a murder than another crime in New Orleans," that the freeking mayor of NO talking...
besides I figured since a good chunk of the American populace can't find the US on a world map much less Iraq, I might use soemthig they might actually know.

Nosferatu wrote:

Katrina and Iraq are alike because "We're sending a signal that the system that used to allow you to commit a murder and there were no consequences is over. It has been easier to commit a murder than another crime in New Orleans," that the freeking mayor of NO talking...
besides I figured since a good chunk of the American populace can't find the US on a world map much less Iraq, I might use soemthig they might actually know.

Still not seeing the connection.

Are you kidding? Bush's invasion plan was absolute genius. What better way to show the world that conventional warfare is outdated and ineffective, even if you have a Coalition of the Willing and the largest army in the world romping and stomping in your backyard?

He has effectively deterred anyone from ever invading America, including the Hispanic illegal immigration because they see that poverty and a corrupt government are more fun than a nuclear payload...

Paleocon wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:

Katrina and Iraq are alike because "We're sending a signal that the system that used to allow you to commit a murder and there were no consequences is over. It has been easier to commit a murder than another crime in New Orleans," that the freeking mayor of NO talking...
besides I figured since a good chunk of the American populace can't find the US on a world map much less Iraq, I might use soemthig they might actually know.

Still not seeing the connection.

1) Katrina = local problem in one part of one country. huge disruptions around new orleans,disruptions of the normal routine occuring elsewhere in the country but to a much lesser extent.
2) Iraq conflict= local problem in one part of one country. huge amounts of violent conflict in/around Baghdad, violent conflict occurs in other parts of country to much less extent.

in both the federal goverments interference changed the natural order of thigns in the environemnt directly leading to the problems suffered there (Goverment assistance in keeping the most idioticly designed city in existance in the former, and the replacement of the goverment in the latter).
Supplies money go to where they were needed, if you sent trailers to NY for the hurricane victims it would be (for the most part, I am sure some NO folks relocated up there) a waste of money and effort, you might send some relief that way beacuse there was some disruptions, but most of the federal forces of time and money went to LA.
Iraq is similiar in that most of the violence is occuring in and around Baghdad, so that is where most of the troops go.
When an emergency occurs you send the people to help to the emergency site itself not spread them equally out over the entire potentially affected area. that applies for any sort of emergency be it military, fire, flood, tornado, hurricane or riot. The vast majority of the troops/firefighters/rescue workers/police go where the problem is and some go to the surrounding areas to help keep them from also breaking out in the disaster, unless the situation is completely untenable, then you burn a break and get out (or drop a nuke on NO/baghdad/whereever and walk away)

and just out of curiosity can you find Iraq and the US on a globe if the countries are not marked?

Nos, not only is your analogy bad but this:

and just out of curiosity can you find Iraq and the US on a globe if the countries are not marked?

is completely uncalled for.

Iraq is similiar in that most of the violence is occuring in and around Baghdad, so that is where most of the troops go.

Nos, what's going on? Usually you can muster a reasonable argument. But this, and then an insult to Paleo, who you literally know nothing about? What's up?

Rand has a comprehensive database on terrorist incidents, probably the best public one out there. Here's a list of the most recent incidents they list (taking into account their methodology, so it leaves out anonymous bodies, murders, etc.). On just the first page (Jan 15 and 16, 2007), we find incidents in Baghdad, Ninawa, Mosul, Kut, Kirkuk, Baqubah and Basra. Literally the full length of the country.

http://www.tkb.org/Category.jsp?catI...

Note that this in no way reflects the totality of what's going on.

I'm with Ghastly on this one. The analogy is pretty anorexic.

And yes, I can find Iraq and the US on a map without their being marked. Thanks for asking.

Robear wrote:
Iraq is similiar in that most of the violence is occuring in and around Baghdad, so that is where most of the troops go.

Nos, what's going on? Usually you can muster a reasonable argument. But this, and then an insult to Paleo, who you literally know nothing about? What's up?

Actually Paleos been fairly free with discussing his personal life here. Far freer than I have.

As for my analogy, the general American publics attention span is shorter than a siberian huskies, few people know where the even give the Nobel prizes out, much less who won last time. it's a little tough to make an analogy to a recent event that most people have more than the slightest glimmer of name recognition. But I can see how allowing a liberal bias to tinge my reference to the situations might have confused some, since they seem to believe that both the war (well war in general) and the hurricane are both disasters both on the initial level fo where it is occuring and in the federal goverments response to them including subsequent actions taken.

As for my asking Paleo if he knew, if he didn't that would have been my que to walk away. I deal routinely with people that don't have a clue as to what is going on in the slightest but somehow manage to have an "informed opinion" on the given subject. It is nearly impossible to "win" an arguement with such folks because like many other beliefs they take what they "know" on a large amount of faith all other facts be damned.

I am willing to admit I probably went to far and was a lot crankier than I usually am, been a very very long work week for me, and 98% of the people I deal with at work are practically retarded.

In general, you've crossed a line if you're testing someone's knowledge to decide if they're worth your time, and if you approach a conversation with that kind of attitude it's pretty sure you aren't interested in what anyone else is saying; after all, you almost marked them as too stupid to digest your precious nuggets of wisdom. All of us have built our perceptions based on available information that has been reported, digested, edited, and regurgitated for public consumption. In other words, believing the news, any news, requires a degree of faith. It would be crippling to try to avoid this; as Descartes said, all we can know for certain is that we think. However, it is a humbling thought to keep in mind before you decide all faith is for suckers.

This is unlike you, Nos.

I was willing to let you drop it, but since you're not done shovelling, who am I to stop you?

Paleocon wrote:

I was willing to let you drop it, but since you're not done shovelling, who am I to stop you?

잘 나는 주기 나에게 너의 축복을 한순간에를 위해 너를 감사한다.*

*no idea if that came out as intended, web translators are notoriously hit or miss.

The recent declaration of talks between Iraq, Iran, and Syria (with the US involved) suggests that war with Iran isn't particular high up on the list of "Things to Do" by the administration. I think they've finally felt the pressure build from Congress and the Baker report a while back and are going along with it, despite the childish neocon response to it (the ISG). Does this thought chain seem reasonable?

I'm not sure if it was mentioned in this thread or not, but I read somewhere that a large number of senior US military officials said that they would resign instead of invading Iran. A military attack may not be realistically possible; if your senior leadership flat won't do it, it's probably not going to happen.

We might potentially be going back to the table because Bush was told that there simply was no capability left to take on Iran successfully.

Don't know if this is true, but I thought it was pretty interesting.

Malor wrote:

I'm not sure if it was mentioned in this thread or not, but I read somewhere that a large number of senior US military officials said that they would resign instead of invading Iran. A military attack may not be realistically possible; if your senior leadership flat won't do it, it's probably not going to happen.

We might potentially be going back to the table because Bush was told that there simply was no capability left to take on Iran successfully.

Don't know if this is true, but I thought it was pretty interesting.

The above is probably the more likely reason for Bush's retreat to Clinton's North Korea position (excepting, of course, that he is not insisting on accountability for the already processed fissile material). Neocons and policy hawks are pretty pissed at him for this. Many have characterized it as "Clinton without the balls".

Though I should say that it isn't unlikely a simliar motivation behind his willingness to engage Iran and Syria. I will, however, say that the situation in Iraq is necessarily far more complicated. Bush needs Iran and Syria. Without them (and even with a credible threat of military action), there is no stability in the Shiite South. He can btch and moan all he wants about Iranian explosive penetrators, but he knows that things can be a LOT worse if the Shiites (like the Sunnis have) identify our actions as a war on the Shiite population.

Robear wrote:

Rand has a comprehensive database on terrorist incidents, probably the best public one out there. Here's a list of the most recent incidents they list (taking into account their methodology, so it leaves out anonymous bodies, murders, etc.). On just the first page (Jan 15 and 16, 2007), we find incidents in Baghdad, Ninawa, Mosul, Kut, Kirkuk, Baqubah and Basra. Literally the full length of the country.

http://www.tkb.org/Category.jsp?catI...

Note that this in no way reflects the totality of what's going on.

yeah on jan 16th alone there are 7 of 9 incidents in Baghdad, and 1 in Ninawa 1 in kirkuk, jan 15th: 3 of 11 attacks in baghdad, 1 unspecified attack on former Saddam official, 3 mosul, 2 Kut, 1 Baqubah, 1 basra
So of the 20 attacks on the days you picked 50% occured in the area around Baghdad with the next highest total being 15% Mosul, then 10% in Kut, 5% each for Baqubah and Basra with 5% of the occurances being in an unnamed location.

And note that we've pulled a great number of soldiers from all over the rest of the country to try to secure Baghdad. The attacks are probably happening there because that's where the soldiers are.

It also shows you that the situation is dire; we can't even hold ONE CITY, much less the whole country.

So of the 20 attacks on the days you picked 50% occured in the area around Baghdad with the next highest total being 15% Mosul, then 10% in Kut, 5% each for Baqubah and Basra with 5% of the occurances being in an unnamed location.

Right. So the point is, the emergency is country-wide. The change to Baghdad is not a reaction to changes there, it's a change in strategy from a country-wide distributed approach to a centralized, capitol-out approach. That's nothing like the situation with a localized natural disaster, is my claim. This is not a case of sending the firemen to the biggest fire, it's a change from fighting a wildfire along it's entire front to focussing on hot spots and hoping the less serious areas will not blow up themselves as you work on the bad ones.

The fact that this is a change in strategy has been widely acknowledged.