Thursday, June 14, 2012

Flag Day

Typically we see everyone put their flags out on the Fourth of July, Memorial Day, or Veterans Day. Since it is not an official federal holiday, most Americans probably don’t know today is Flag Day.

A quick Wikipedia reference tells us:

In the United States Flag Day is celebrated on June 14. It commemorates the adoption of the flag of the United States, which happened that day by resolution of the Second Continental Congress in 1777. The United States Army also celebrates the Army Birthday on this date; Congress adopted "the American continental army" after reaching a consensus position in the Committee of the Whole on June 14, 1775.


In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson issued a proclamation that officially established June 14 as Flag Day; in August 1949, National Flag Day was established by an Act of Congress.

Once again I fly over our house my late father-in-law’s flag I inherited. I feel a strong sense to honor the man and his flag and our country in doing so. He was a Bronze Star veteran of Patton’s Third Army in the Second World War. His 318th Infantry Regiment was the infantry support for the famous Fourth Armored Division’s breakthrough to relieve Bastogne in December of 1944. I’ve been an avid reader of WWII history after learning of his service, and that of my uncle, who was awarded a Silver Star during the same Battle of the Bulge.

For perspective, America’s bloodiest battle cost us unimaginably horrific losses of over 10,000 killed, 47,000 wounded, and 23,000 missing.

This is but one reason I want to see his flag flying as long as possible. It represents the very best of our national spirit of freedom.

Yes, I am aware that the flag was also a symbol and representation of entirely different things for American Indians through history. Fortunately that was an exception and not the rule.

We need to be watchful that our flag does not become a symbol of theft, conquest and aggression.

And we need to remember the flag, for all it represents, is still a symbolic image and representation of something greater. It represents our nation, our people, our land, our dreams, our history, and our future.

And our Constitution.

As the late great Molly Ivans reminded us, former Rep. Craig Washington once said during a lonely soliloquy on the floor of the Texas Senate: "I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag."

Figuratively far too much of that has been going on the past decade.

Now if only we can bring more attention to Constitution Day (Citizens Day) September 17, the day the U.S. Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution in 1787.

We need to wave that more often.

117 comments:

One Fly said...

I suppose this will piss the monkey's off in a variety of different ways.

FandB said...

I had to re-read the post a couple of times to make sure because I have to agree with everything you said.

free0352 said...

I like people who burn the American flag, lets you know right off the bat they are a douche. I appreciate people who make that discovery easy.

The Heathen Republican said...

"We need to be watchful that our flag does not become a symbol of theft, conquest and aggression."

This shouldn't be a problem, so your fears are unfounded. The U.S. is not aggressive, and we don't steal or conquer.

Dave Dubya said...

One Fly,
You can bet someone will be disagreeable.

F&B,
Sometimes I can be a uniter, not a divider.

Free,
I'm happy to know you like somebody.

HR,
What, since Thursday?

S.W. Anderson said...

It's good that we honor our flag and our country. Doing that, we honor so many who've sacrificed so much to protect and ensure America's future.

I don't think the country's founders and the overwhelming majority of those who've fought and even died for it were oblivious to America's faults and shortcomings in various areas. We've had our spells of exuberant patriotism, but most of the time we're a practical, honest people.

HR, from American Indians being deliberately given blankets contaminated with smallpox that infected men, women and children, killing most of those who came in contact with the blankets, to what we persisted in doing in Vietnam for years after it became clear the people of S. Vietnam only wanted the fighting to stop and the foreigners to leave, our country has a checkered past.

Several Latin American countries have stories to tell of U.S. invasions, incursions and occupations, and those were acts of aggression and of war. The Spanish-American War wasn't at all it was presented to be by the Hearst newspapers that touted it and capitalized on it. It was jingoism run amok. And, our long occupation of the Philippines wasn't something the filipinos asked us to do. It was conquest and imperialism, pure and simple.

Mohammed Mossadegh, a popular, democratically elected head of government of Iran in the 1950's, was wrongly targeted for overthrow by the CIA, and wound up dead in the manufactured revolution that toppled Iran's government. That was an act of aggression and of war, and Uncle Sam came away with blood on his hands.

An estimated one million human beings died in the 1980's, in the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq. Neither side won a foot of territory or anything else. The U.S. egged Saddam Hussein on in that war, and kept the war going with military aid and intelligence for Saddam's forces. (Ever wonder why the Iranians see the U.S. as an enemy and why they might want nukes for deterrence?) The episode wasn't one of America's proudest achievements.

America has many things to be proud of and some regrettable things to be ashamed of. Whitewash doesn't cover mud, blood and bodies very well. Knowledge, truth and a measure of humility better complement patriotism and honor our heroes and their sacrifices.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen Republican: "The U.S. is not aggressive, and we don't steal or conquer."

[smirk] Were you able to type that with a straight face?

free0352 said...

our country has a checkered past.

Compared to other countries (well maybe not so much Canada) African slavery and the Indian wars looks like... I don't know, nothing. Europe has to be the most blood stained, oppressive mess known to man historically speaking. Not that Asia or Africa were any better. I don't like dwelling on shit our dead predecessors did. By all means learn from history, but you aren't chained to it. Neither are Europeans who have mostly in the last 15 years or so reformed. However the Asians (especially the those of the south west) are violent psychopaths compared to us. And hey, everybody knows Africa is a never ending nightmare of poverty, genocide and tribal warfare.

So I don't get too down on the Americans. After all, most of the people we fight end up better off than they were before they got into it with us. And judging from Africa today, I'd rather have a grandmother who lived through segregation than enjoy all the horrible poverty and hyper-violence of the dark continent. I lived in Africa for a time and have a lot of African friends. In fact my best friend is from the Sudan. Believe me, just about everyone in Africa these days would love to move to the US.

free0352 said...

Ever wonder why the Iranians see the U.S. as an enemy and why they might want nukes for deterrence?

I think a better question is why do you care what a bunch of Islamic Fundamentalist lunatics who execute women rape victims think about us? In that popularity contest, I want to lose.

Kulkuri said...

Since this post is about the flag, I'll add my $.02. What gets me is all those that put up a flag to show their patriotism, but don't follow proper flag etiquette. They put it up and forget about it, it'll hang there day and night without being taken down at the end of the day or having a light shining on it at night. It'll still be hanging there after it is in tatters and shredded. But that seems to be the American way, just make a good show of it, who gives a shit if you really mean it!!

John Myste said...

This shouldn't be a problem, so your fears are unfounded. The U.S. is not aggressive, and we don't steal or conquer.

That is the most emotionally patriotic thing I have ever heard.

Yet, I suppose his greater point was that, that generally, we don't invade a nation we consider moral and unoffensive, even if they have goods we could use. For example, we have not invaded Canada recently, though I am certain we could take them.

Nan said...

What Kulkuri said, with the addendum of the assholes who put up flags that trail on to the ground, treat them like bunting for decorating their front porch, or who stick them on their cars like rah rah pennants for a college football team. There are way too many people out there who claim to be patriots, but don't have a clue about proper flag etiquette.

okjimm said...

OK. I have issues with 'fake' patriotism. I will not ever fly a flag. I have this thing about what happened in Viet Nam.

....But I have a flag in my heart. I vote in every election I can. I donate time to volunteer groups. I keep up on the news (as many sources as I can). I love this country. I want the air to be clean, the water unpolluted, the ground unsullied.

I will not fly a flag.

I love this country. I want the Redwood forests to still be there when my grandchildren show up. I don't want the Grand Canyon filled up with plastic water bottles. I want the Great Lakes to still have native fish in them that are safe to eat.

I will never besmirch anyone who has served in combat...or served our country in other ways.

I love this country very much...much more than putting a piece of clothe on a pole.

I care not for rebuttals.....I have issues.... and they run cold and deep.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

John Myste: "That is the most emotionally patriotic thing I have ever heard."

It's the second most emotionally patriotic thing for me. The most was when George Bush told us to "go shopping more".

S.W. Anderson said...

free0352 wrote: "Compared to other countries . . ."

If, God forbid, your loved ones were to be killed by some homicidal maniac, how would it strike you if during the trial the killer's defense attorney was to say to the jury, "Compared to others accused of murder . . ."?

When it comes to some things, comparison to similar things that have been worse mean nothing. They mitigate nothing, excuse nothing, ease no pain of loss and move people not one inch closer to justice. When it comes to some things, there is guilt or innocence. That was true of the smallpox mass murder, true of My Lai, true of far too many things.

Better to simply say, "Yes, that was wrong, and it should never be allowed to happen again." Sometimes that's the best that can be done, and really, all that can be done.

free0352 said...

Maybe Anderson but you're mass judging. Take Mai Li, that was not US policy at any point. That a hand full of guys who were out of control.


But since we're mass judging, I'd like to see any civilization on earth who can hold a candle to our moral record. Indians got it just as bad at the hands of the Canadians and Spanish. Africa is the most blood stained place on Earth going back 4000 years. You can't expect perfection, but we're as close to it as it comes.

free0352 said...

And let me say this, if we had to choose between being invaded by the amalgamation of the crimes of England, or France, or Russia or China or the United States Soldier... who would you pick? In fact, were I living today in Pakistan or Yemen or Iran or Cuba I'd be begging for the US to invade my country. Wouldn't you?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...if we had to choose between being invaded by the amalgamation of the crimes of England, or France, or Russia or China or the United States Soldier... who would you pick?"

These days, your statement is akin to choosing between a Republican president and/or congress or a Democratic president and/or congress. Either way, it's sure death and destruction for our disappearing democracy. The only difference is that one's a much more accelerated death than the other.


"...were I living today in Pakistan or Yemen or Iran or Cuba I'd be begging for the US to invade my country. Wouldn't you?"

No.

You're a very peculiar man. I can see why you love the military. You fit right in.

free0352 said...

heh heh heh

Sometimes I forget you kids on the left don't have the experience of seeing what REAL totalitarianism looks like. You people think you're being oppressed when it takes an extra five minutes for the kid at starbucks to make your grande latte.

Dave Dubya said...

Yeah, that's right. Every Iraqi Free glared down at, through his sunglasses, over his weapon WANTED the US to invade...for some reason.

The Shia who may agree with Free on the invasion will side with Iran over him...for some reason.

Ha!

Listen the Right's howling of "oppression", "tyranny", "socialism" and "punishment" when describing the (intended) expiration of tax cuts on the rich.

Oh, the humanity!

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Yeah, that's right. Every Iraqi Free glared down..."

Yeah, I used to lay awake at night worrying and fretting about Saddam Hussein. Would he attack our shores? Would our cities be taken over by Iraqi militia and would they rape our women and bayonet our babies?

I'm so glad I don't have to concern myself with that threat any longer. Life is now happy and carefree again. ;-)

free0352 said...

Sometimes I forget you kids on the left don't have the experience of seeing what REAL totalitarianism looks like

Yup. Dave has noooo idea. Course the folks at WTC found out that little nothing countries from far, far away can indeed kill you.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Course the folks at WTC found out that little nothing countries from far, far away can indeed kill you."

Are you speaking of Israel?

Not to minimize the tragedy, because it certainly was, but more people die from alcoholism each year. More die from obesity caused by a poor animal-based diet each year. More die from automobile accidents each year. More women are raped each year.

Send in the Army!

(Oh, that's right, the Army is responsible for several of those rapes...)

free0352 said...

caused by a poor animal-based diet each year

Oh you're a freak of nature vegan too? Oh lol that's great.

I kill all my own meat. It's delicious and I'm in great shape. Vegans are the most worthless, stupidest people alive. Just FOOD for thought.

As for 9-11, how long do you suggest we wait around to do something? How many body bags do we fill till we respond? I don't think you are a very viable source to answer that question, since you can't even bring yourself to eat another animal let alone defend yourself. You're the ultimate beta male. You'd be extinct not for the alpha's like me. You're the weak of the herd that drag down the rest of us. In a darwinian world you'd be voted of the gene pool island. Earth to Jefferson, get in touch with a survival instinct.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Oh you're a freak of nature vegan too?"

No, actually I'm not. Based upon your assumption, I suppose you think I also don't drive a car? Or, I'm an alcoholic? Or, a rapist? (Like you?)


"I kill all my own meat."

You mean when you're not killing innocent women and children?


"Vegans are the most worthless, stupidest people alive."

I disagree. They're the most intelligent people on this earth -- the opposite end of the spectrum from you.

free0352 said...

I think I figured it out Jefferson, why you're so offended by little old me. I'm a reminder to you how much of a beta male you are. I'm also pretty sure you gave up on the alpha path quite a while ago, probably because it was out of your reach. Instead of putting in the work to be an alpha, you instead deride all the dudes you look at as some caricature of a cowboy jock. You try to sneer in fake pseudo intellectual coffee house superiority but deep, deep down you will always remember being the pimple faced kid getting shoved into a locker.

Don't take your childhood issues out on me guy. Oh wait, that would mean you'd have to take responsibility for yourself. Never mind. I'll just chill her and laugh at your pathetic weakness.

free0352 said...

Oh, I forgot. How's that gas in your car working out for you?

Your welcome.

FandB said...

S.W.Anderson: "...[Iran] might want nukes for deterrence?"

If that were true, the argument might have some merit. But it isn't true. Iran does not want nukes for deterrence against the U.S. or anyone else. They intend to use their nukes against Israel - they have made that clear, abundantly and repeatedly.

Does the U.S. have any duty to defend our long-time ally, Israel? I would say Yes, we do.

And as anyone who understands the damage a nuke can do, waiting until after Israel has been nuked will be too late.

And if Israel decides to pre-emptively strike Iran in order to delay the development and deployment of a nuclear (or 'nukular' for Dubya) weapon, then the U.S. should support them in that as well.

As Free has (correctly) pointed out, the world is a very dangerous place. We have too defend our allies, and we have to defend our national interests all over the world. No one else is going to do it for us.

free0352 said...

Iran is simply the most aggressive country on Earth today. They export terrorism world wide, and one need not ponder too hard what they would do with nuclear weapons. Use it as a shield to export more Islamic Revolution without fear of regime change. Our military, as vaunted as it is, cannot stand up to the power of nuclear ordinance. At that point we have only one alternative, the use of that ordinance ourselves either reactively or proactively. Neither is a very good option for anyone- especially Iranians.

This is why a nuclear Iran is simply intolerable. Even Obama admits this. The mission of the Iranian regime is Islamic Fundamentalist Revolution. That is it's stated goal. This means forced conversion or Dhimmi status for those who are not Muslim... or death. This means the persecution of Christians and other faiths. This means extermination for Jews and homosexuals. The Iranian regime's brand of Islam is too extreme for mainstream Islamic society. Even in the Mid East with the exception of Syria Iran is viewed as dangerous and possibly insane. And for good reason, these countries both good and bad must suffer the export of Iranian terror. Allowing these Revolutionary forces a nuclear shield is like giving booze and car keys to teenagers. It will not end well. No one can say for sure how... but no one with any sense will tell you it will end any other way but bad. Very bad.

I would personally love for Israel to solve that problem for us, I just don't see how they could given their small size, security situation and geographical situation. The Saudis are too lazy, and the Iraqis too busy dealing with Iranian infiltrators in their own country.

So through inaction perhaps Iran will get their nuclear shield. Given what they've done without one, I shudder to think what they will do when an invading army is no longer a concern.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I think I figured it out Jefferson, why you're so offended by little old me."

Obviously you haven't. I'm not offended by you. I do find you over-the-top and incredibly 19th century. I didn't realize people like you still existed. Tell me, is there anything you're not an expert in? ;-)


"Instead of putting in the work to be an alpha..."

Gee, I thought it came naturally to you...


"...you instead deride all the dudes you look at as some caricature of a cowboy jock."

I only deride those who are hypocritical of their political leanings. That would include you. If you were a "cowboy jock" you'd be going it alone and not riding on the coattails of the American taxpayer. As I've told you before, you talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Until you're out here slugging it out with us real alpha-males, you're just another one of those "lazy" government workers you so disdain.


"Don't take your childhood issues out on me guy."

I'm not the one still playing "cowboys and Indians". Remember?


"Oh wait, that would mean you'd have to take responsibility for yourself."

Like when Uncle Sam pays your housing, your healthcare, your dental care, free education, and gives you a nice pension after only twenty years service. (Notice I didn't use the term "work". I know how hard you do that.) You mean that responsibility?


"How's that gas in your car working out for you?"

So you're finally admitting you work for Big Oil (while the tax-payer picks up the tab). Thank you for finally admitting you're nothing more than one of the corporate-state's armed thugs. I knew I'd finally break you. (See, I didn't have to water-board anyone -- just had to rattle your cage by speaking the truth. Works every time!)

free0352 said...

I do find you over-the-top and incredibly 19th century

Hell yeah, thats a complement to me. I'll be the first one to tell you I don't fit into the sensitive, new age male world. I reject that world and that mindset. I don't know where you live, but we humble Red Stater hicks in fly over country don't really see anything to it. Well, other than a good joke and sometimes an irritation when you force your warped mindset on people with better sense.

Gee, I thought it came naturally to you...

Well you have to do more than sit around drinking organic green tea on your fat ass feeling self satisfied. I'm a believer that a person can choose their life, everything about their life. Sometimes that means things like tough training and hard work and leadership. Sometimes for some that means being a smug prick in a Prius.

As for taxpayers, there wouldn't be any taxpayers without people like me. So in that light, you're riding on my coat tails. Again, your welcome. ;) Enjoy that gas on your way down to the coffee house and later the code pink meeting. And enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms a lot of good guys- guys a lot better than you- have been maimed and killed for. Its nice to know as I've said before, we've done such an admirable job that you can be this ignorant. Truth is, if you weren't lucky and were born in America you'd be like most people around the world. So hungry you'd eat a panda bear at the drop of a hat still shaking it's death throws and either putting a gun to someones head or getting taken likewise.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Hell yeah, thats a complement to me."

Why doesn't that surprise me?

"...but we humble Red Stater hicks in fly over country..."

Humble? That's funny. Hick? Definitely! By the way, you can have Kansas. I've driven through it, and flown into it, enough times to know I never left anything behind worth going back to get. It's all yours. Enjoy!

"Well you have to do more than sit around drinking organic green tea on your fat ass..."

I don't drink green tea (and I don't drive a Prius), and I don't have a fat ass. You do though, I can tell. You're one of those "stocky dudes" with an ass as wide as...Kansas. ;-)


"I'm a believer that a person can choose their life, everything about their life."

That's why you chose the protection from the realities of life by making the military a career. It's easy and they don't expect too much. You certainly can't get fired, and because of your smugness and conceitedness, I'm sure that has happened to you numerous times in the private sector. That's why you hide in the military. It's easy-street for you.


"As for taxpayers, there wouldn't be any taxpayers without people like me."

Who are you protecting me from? Phantoms? Do you protect me from the enemies you create when you go into countries and murder their civilians, rape their women, and disable their children? Just who is it you're protecting me from?


"Enjoy that gas on your way down to the coffee house and later the code pink meeting."

I don't frequent coffee houses (I make my own), and I've never attended a Code Pink meeting (although I've met some pretty hot women at anti-war demonstrations who belong to the organization). Regarding the gasoline, again you've conceded that you work as a tool for Big Oil. That's what I've contended all along.


"And enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms a lot of good guys- guys a lot better than you- have been maimed and killed for."

I respect soldiers who fight when there's a true danger to this country. Since WWII, that's never been the case. As I've said (many times and many ways), you're just an extension of multinational corporatism. You fight their wars so they can profit from the resources of other countries. It's a fact. John Perkins made that very clear in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. You're the tool of last resort, that's all, when bribery and other forms of manipulation fail.

They obviously brainwash you guys with the very best in neuron cleansers. You're a tool of the corporate-state, pure and simple. Congratulations on prostituting yourself for the Military-Industrial Complex. Does it feel good, or do you have to fake it?


"...if you weren't lucky and were born in America you'd be like most people around the world."

What, I'd hate the American imperialist military? You're probably right.

The Heathen Republican said...

"Do you protect me from the enemies you create when you go into countries and murder their civilians, rape their women, and disable their children? Just who is it you're protecting me from?"

I find these comments disgusting. I would appreciate hearing from everyone here on the left if you affirm or repudiate Jefferson's comments. Hell, if Romney must repudiate Trump, the least you can do is speak out against this kind of disgusting rhetoric from someone on your side.

Do you agree with Jefferson's portrayal of our military?

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Basically, HR, he's talking about the liberal mindset.

Welfare monkey sitting on their ass not working collecting 60k per year in free cheese is sacrosanct. A great person, a victim of corpratist oppression. Deserving of every dime.

The Soldier is a bum, a rapist, a violent cowboy-jock out to burn down third world mud huts. A trog who could never make it at a real job and who is the real looting welfare scumbag.

And that my friend, is all you need to know about Progressivism to know its going to the ash heap of history. Because one day, these clowns will have to defend themselves from something and lets face a hard fact...

Jefferson here couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. Hell, he's too weak to even be a real however pathetic vegan.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen Republican: "Do you agree with Jefferson's portrayal of our military?"

Ah, good, another country heard from...

So, you're telling me we haven't committed these horrible atrocities?


"I find these comments disgusting."

Bully for you! I find the whole Military-Industrial-Security Complex disgusting. Who has committed the graver sin? Those who commit the crimes, or those who expose the sins?

Yours is a typical Republican way of viewing the world. You see me as the bad guy for speaking freely about what I see happening, yet those who are committing the atrocities are okay in your eyes because they're doing it while in a U.S. uniform.

Your sense of values is totally warped and misaligned.


"...speak out against this kind of disgusting rhetoric..."

It's only rhetoric when it's not true.

free0352 said...

You see me as the bad guy for speaking freely

Its good you can speak your mind. Just too bad for you there isn't all that much to speak of LOL!

free0352 said...

And they said you Republicans were lying when you called them "Unpatriotic Blame-America First Surrender Monkeys."

Guess there was more truth to that lie than even you suspected eh HR?

And just watch. None of them will say a word. They are silently agreeing. They just don't have Jefferson here's balls to openly admit it.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "of course I doubt Jefferson would say these things in my actual physical presence, because I'm sure he's well..."

I'd have no problem telling it to your face.

The truth is upsetting, isn't it? It upsets your whole world paradigm when people don't fawn all over you and kiss your feet. You're so easy to rattle (as is Heathen Republican).


"...a typical internet tough guy."

That's funny. That's always been my impression of your swagger; your disregard for human life. You're the definition of "Internet Tough Guy".

Now go to bed and get some rest. Tomorrow's a new day; a day undoubtedly filled with more fucking-off while you monitor the web and make inane and ridiculous comments while on the taxpayer's dime.

free0352 said...

I'd have no problem telling it to your face

Easy to say when you know it will never happen. Internet bravado is the hallmark of a guy who can't do it in person and who hides behind his computer. But hey, how about instead of me you can visit your local National Guard Unit or Marine Reserve Company. Share your thoughts with them. Be sure to video it and send it to me.

That's funny. That's always been my impression of your swagger; your disregard for human life. You're the definition of "Internet Tough Guy"

Well I'm sure again, you can go ask the fellas down at the nearest USMC Reserve unit if they are really big wimps hiding behind their computers in between Iraqi rape victims. I'm so very curious what the outcome of that would be. Since you won't go to Kansas after all.

Be my quest big guy. But I won't hold my breath. However, since you've traveled through Kansas a time or two, shoot me a line next time you cruse through. You never know, I may be laughing too hard to fight back...

Jefferson's Guardian said...

So, tell me, Free0352, are you going to beat the shit out of me? Isn't that that the typical conservative method of dealing with its detractors?

It's always violence with you isn't it? If you don't like something about someone; their culture, their political leanings, their viewpoint, their way of life...anything, then it's beat them to a pulp or kill 'em, isn't it? Yeah, it's the "Free" way, isn't it?

Please share with everyone, Free0352, have you stopped beating your wife?

Dave Dubya said...

F&B and Free,
So to be clear, you two advocate a first strike nuclear attack on Iran? Wow. That would be a crime against humanity on a huge scale. Sort of like invading a country because you lied about it having nukular aluminum tubes and ties to al-Qaeda. Even a conservative Pope saw through that propaganda.

I'm not advocating nukes for Iran, mind you. We need a sane policy of reversing, or at least containing, that curse globally.

Can you possibly believe that would make us safer from terrorist attacks? Ever hear of revenge?

They intend to use their nukes against Israel - they have made that clear, abundantly and repeatedly.

Show us your evidence please. And be careful how you use the “wipe Israel off the map” meme. If you use it, go to the original source.

Yes, the world has many dangers. One is the manipulation of our fear and hate, fed by those with an agenda not to our benefit.


HR,
"Do you protect me from the enemies you create when you go into countries and murder their civilians, rape their women, and disable their children? Just who is it you're protecting me from?"

I would repudiate this if it were a personal unfounded accusation against our man Free. We would repudiate this if none of these happened. What do you find more disgusting, the fact that all of these happened, or a liberal needs to remind you?

These are the facts of war that women were raped and civilians were killed, including children. Are you going to deny the facts? I remember a KBR employee was raped and then confined for reporting it. Do you think Iraqi victims were treated any better?

And with your sense of fairness and decency, we can expect you to repudiate these personal unfounded accusations, right?

Vegans are the most worthless, stupidest people alive.

You're the weak of the herd that drag down the rest of us.

And they said you Republicans were lying when you called them "Unpatriotic Blame-America First Surrender Monkeys."


I also don’t recall your repudiation of all the personal smears left by your fan, Just the Troll.

free0352 said...

So, tell me, Free0352, are you going to beat the shit out of me?

Nah like I said, I'd be laughing at you too hard to even through a punch.

You know, ten years ago in my 20s, I was a young hot head kid. But I'm an older dog now with better tricks. Two wars and several tours to them, a stint in law enforcement and a childhood of football and boxing... not to mention that childhood being in the greater Detroit area, and now being in my mid thirties I'm just too old and too amused to waste energy on the silly things in life.

But lets look at your super awesome adhom argumement. I'm a genocidal, wife beating, rapist child murderer slave for THEBusHitlerBurtonBigOil™ Conspiracy. And what's funny about that is a supposed compassionate new age liberal guy like you would last about 7 minutes in say... East Detroit. And even knowing what a dick head you are- I'd probably still defend you in that situation -with a smirk on my face- from all the bad people there... because that is what I do. That's the oath I took. I take it pretty seriously.

Truth is I'm not looking for thanks. Don't want it or need it. What I'm looking for is a righteous battle and there are plenty of those to go around in this world without having to waste important energy on the little things. Little Things like say... you.

There was a guy named Jeff Cooper and another guy named Dr Dave Grossman who got together and coined a term Hoplophobia. Its a fear of weapons and those who hold them. That's you.

I suppose its no different than say- homophobia, or any other irrational prejudice. Replace everything you've said here about Soldiers with say "BLACKS" and the prejudice becomes quite clear. In fact, if you did that you'd sound like an Aryan Nation skinhead.

And like the white hate groups most of your problems and prejudices come from your internal issues, most likely severely psychological in nature.

You don't need a beating Jefferson, you need a good shrink. You're a little paranoid, irrationally so. You see conspiracy everywhere and you make we Hoplites (those who carry arms) the demons of your paranoid nightmares- likely to compensate at least in your own mind for your personal failures. Your failures in life aren't your fault your pathology tells us, you're not a success in your own mind because you are the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy of which I am a Soldier. You justify your personal cowardice by claiming bravado on the computer. Being the only Soldier you have access to, you focus your internal rage here on this blog at me because you are safe given physical distance and anonymity.

You just didn't live up to what you thought you should have been- and like a lot of people you blame others for your failures. You can change that and do what you want to do Jefferson, but first you have to take responsibility for things and stop blaming others. Stop playing the victim, because it makes you to others and yourself seem weak. You know that but can't explain it and that is why you lash out. Who was so cruel to you in your childhood to make you like this I wonder? Who was the authority figure?

And I think fear and weakness is where this pent up anger is coming from. Unlike to a limited extendt law, or politics or war I'm not an expert of psychology. But even to a guy like me, your issues are pretty obvious. In truth Jefferson if we met I wouldn't hit you, I'd probably try to get you some help.

free0352 said...

So to be clear, you two advocate a first strike nuclear attack on Iran?

What I'm telling you is if we don't attack Iran soon that will be our only option. Well, that or a retaliation strike. Not so much fun either way. War is about losing least. A nuclear armed Iran makes that a hard prospect given a MAD scenario.

I'm not advocating nukes for Iran, mind you. We need a sane policy of reversing, or at least containing, that curse globally.

Well I'm all ears guy. What do you think we should do now that we have the same goal?

HR,

Told you. Behold the left. Next time one of your liberal pals say how patriotic Progressives are... link this.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Sometimes I forget you kids on the left don't have the experience of seeing what REAL totalitarianism looks like

Yup. Dave has noooo idea.


I have an idea what it WAS like to live in a free country. I know how totalitarianism creeps and grows incrementally and institutionally. Now I have to piss in bottle to keep a job. I get frisked and scanned like a felon at the airport and large public events. I have seen a nation fearfully embracing the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance of citizens, peace groups spied on as terrorist enemies, “loyalty oaths” to hear a president speak, extra-judicial “targeted killings”, indefinite detention without charges or counsel, and other totalitarian measures. I have seen free speech defined as money given to politicians, and public free speech shunted into enclosed “free speech zones”. I have seen the national news organizations subsumed by corporate and powerful political interests. The watchdogs are on the leash. Journalism is being neutralized. That would be “fair and balanced” to the unwitting.

Perhaps you have “nooo idea” what is happening. You’re too angry about welfare cheats to see the real threat of what “big government” can do to all of us. Look for the roots of totalitarianism. It is the war on drugs. It is in fear, scapegoating, divisiveness, unaccountable police and politicians and their big money manipulators. It is in abuse of power and unprovoked and unending war. Public health care, education, and safety nets are not totalitarianism after all?

Totalitarianism is rooted in armed Right Wingers saying things like:

Vegans are the most worthless, stupidest people alive.

You're the weak of the herd that drag down the rest of us.

And they said you Republicans were lying when you called them "Unpatriotic Blame-America First Surrender Monkeys."


You sound just like a fascist ranting about Jews.

Well I'm all ears guy. What do you think we should do now that we have the same goal?

North Korea and Pakistan are less stable than Iran. Should we nuke them too?

Universal nuclear disarmament is the only sane path. Our failure to do so may doom us as a self-destructive species,

MAD has been the only real deterrent. That is far more effective, and better for all, than a nuclear first strike.

free0352 said...

You’re too angry about welfare cheats to see the real threat of what “big government” can do to all of us.

Wow, the liberal lecturing the libertarian on what government can do to us. That's... funny.

Look, I get it and I worry about it too. Which of course is why I'd like a government you can drown in a bathtub. A small, weak government that provides only a few absolutely necessary services only it can provide isn't much of a threat. One that provides every waking need is. After all, there is the old libertarian saying "A government strong enough to provide everything you need is also strong enough to take away everything you have."

Or as Ike put it in his second most famous quote "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."

As for vegans, I may make an exception. They must be the most irritating people on earth. Of course, thats a personal opinion. I have to suffer one daily.

North Korea and Pakistan are less stable than Iran. Should we nuke them too?

I don't sweat NK, the government likes to rattle its nuclear saber to get more aid money for its dead (it ain't dying it's dead) economy. the sanest move is to simply stop rewarding their bad behavior and let them starve to death.

As for Pakistan, their government being overthrown by Al'Queda and they getting those nukes keeps me up nights.

Universal nuclear disarmament is the only sane path.

And it's never going to happen. So whats your next plan?

MAD has been the only real deterrent.

It only works when both sides care about being destroyed. Iran does not... or at least its leaders don't. They're happy to "martyr" their nation. A good rule of thumb is never get into a Mexican stand off with a suicidal religious fanatic.

That is far more effective, and better for all, than a nuclear first strike

Your plan takes us closer to that. Trusting the Iranian mullahs won't end very well. Once they have a nuclear shield to hide behind, this limits our options while it expands theirs. Iran isn't a country you want to have many options considering their goals.

Dave Dubya said...

Your plan takes us to pre-emptive (unprovoked) war of aggression as the only option. We tried that against another of the “axis of evil” didn’t we? Look how well that worked out. We gave Iran more allies. If you want war with Iran, be ready to go back and fight in Iraq again, too. It will make your last one look like a walk in the park.

While it sounds “worth it” to you to kill millions, bankrupt us, and toss us into a deep depression, most sane people disagree.

So you’re saying the Iranian leaders want to martyr their country? The can do that without nukes. If they want to spread Islam, how would that work through nuclear war? So what “goals” of theirs frighten you? As I asked, show us where these goals are stated.

What would your goals be if the state that overturned your experiment at democracy, installed a dictator, and calls you the “axis of evil” occupies your neighbors and surrounds you?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...not to mention that childhood being in the greater Detroit area, and now being in my mid thirties I'm just too old and too amused to waste energy on the silly things in life."

Yet you write eight paragraphs after this refuting what you consider silly. ;-)


"What I'm looking for is a righteous battle and there are plenty of those to go around in this world without having to waste important energy on the little things. Little Things like say... you."

Then you write six paragraphs after this attempting to prove what I say to be false by validating all your hypocritical musings. This deserves more than just a wink. :-@


"And like the white hate groups most of your problems and prejudices come from your internal issues, most likely severely psychological in nature."

Looks like you're once again journeying into conservative projection territory. Not only have you claimed to be our resident legal expert, but you're now showing signs indicating you're our able and adept psychoanalysis professional. Gee, thank you Dr. Freud. (Or should I say "fraud"?)


"You don't need a beating Jefferson, you need a good shrink. You're a little paranoid, irrationally so."

Don't forget, you're the one who sees danger around every corner; a terrorist behind every bush. (Pun not intended, but very applicable.)

Not me.


"...and like a lot of people you blame others for your failures."

Like you blame everyone not like you?...or "big government"?...or Muslims?...or Arabs?...or vegans?...or Prius owners?...or...(The list goes on...and on...and on...)


"In truth Jefferson if we met I wouldn't hit you...

You caught yourself. After making idle threats, you thought the better of it and backed down. You're still a hothead, despite what you said. If you met me in a bar and I came after you with the same things I've said here, you wouldn't be able to contain yourself. You'd deck me within two minutes. That's how guys like you are. You're out of control and you know it.

As I said before, you're so 19th century.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "North Korea and Pakistan are less stable than Iran. Should we nuke them too?"

It'll never happen. Our oil isn't under their land.

FandB said...

So, Dubya, what you're saying is that you are in fact an Anti-Semite. You are willing to sacrifice Israel because you are afraid of dealing with the Iran issue directly. That is the typical liberal hand-wringing response.

Doesn't it bother liberals to be so untrustworthy and unreliable that they are willing to turn their backs on an ally out of convenience and fear?

Obviously, I do not favor and would not support a pre-emptive NUCLEAR strike against Iran or anyone else. But that would be the only option I would take off the table. As Free said, the longer we wait, the more difficult it will become to prevent a nuclear attack against our staunch ally Israel. A nuclear strike against Iran would demand a nuclear counter-strike. Israel could take care of this themselves, but if they can't, then the U.S. should.

BTW, the first person I can ever recall using the 'nukular' pronunciation was, that's right, your pal Jimmy the peanut farmer Carter.

Dubya: "show us where these goals are stated." -- Dubya, are you really that naive? Do you really believe the mullah leadership in Iran and their loose-cannon puppet Ahmadinejad 'publish' their goals and plans on the internet? Really?

Free is right about MAD, it will not work with Iranian leadership. The best you could hope for would be that the people would revolt in the face of potential nuclear retaliation. But that won't work either, as Russian and Chinese citizens will tell you, rifles don't work well against tanks.

There is no good option right now for dealing with the Iran situation. Israel is capable of dealing with the threat themselves as long as the U.S. does not stand in their way and supports their decisions.

So, Dubya, I would ask you point blank: If Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, would you support Israeli retaliation in kind?

Or, if Israel were so disabled by a nuclear attack from Iran that they could not retaliate, would you support U.S. retaliation in kind against Iran in support of our ally Israel?

Just curious how your imaginary world of coporate conspiracies interacts with important potential real-world scenarios.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
typical liberal hand-wringing response

By that, you mean asking questions? I see.

You did support an Israeli pre-emptive strike. You didn’t specify conventional or not. Either way, war and/or increased terrorism would surely result. What is your case that this would be such a good idea? Please let us know what you think may be the consequences of war with Iran. Or is that line of thinking, “liberal hand-wringing”? Is all such thinking “liberal hand-wringing”?

I simply asked you a question. You give no answer, but responded with fresh unfounded accusations...

you are in fact an Anti-Semite

...And wild conclusions:

You are willing to sacrifice Israel

You’re saying that merely to question a war of aggression against Iran is somehow anti-Semitic? Why not just declare I’m in league with Satan and put me to the torch?

This is your statement:

They intend to use their nukes against Israel - they have made that clear, abundantly and repeatedly.

As I said, show us your evidence please. And be careful how you use the “wipe Israel off the map” meme. If you use it, go to the original source.

Yes, the world has many dangers. One is the manipulation of our fear and hate, fed by those with an agenda not to our benefit.


Are you sure you’re not one of those fearful manipulated ones? If not, then show us some evidence of why you have such a fear of Iran.

Why is your faith in the neocons so devout, after all their lying to get us into the previous, and the next, unprovoked war?

I don’t listen to your fear mongers, so enlighten me please. What am I missing?

Make your case, not more accusations, please.

FandB said...

I will try one more time...

So, Dubya, I would ask you point blank: If Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, would you support Israeli retaliation in kind?

Or, if Israel were so disabled by a nuclear attack from Iran that they could not retaliate, would you support U.S. retaliation in kind against Iran in support of our ally Israel?

Just a couple of simple questions. Where do you stand on these issues?

No more democrat talking points please.

FandB said...

Dubya, while you're trying to dodge the last two questions I asked, you can review the comments of Iran's two top leaders, secular and religious...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/ayatollah-ali-khamenei-pr_n_439033.html

free0352 said...

Iran already exports more Islamic terrorism than any country. Many magnitudes more. They've also blown up a USMC Barracks in 1984, took one of our embassies in 1979 and attacked our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and supplied weapons to Al'Queda and Shia militias for the last ten years. Most recently they tried to kill a Saudi diplomat on our soil.

No provocation for war there...

This is what they have done in fear of a US conventional response. Once they have a nuclear shield and will no longer have that fear... what will they do?

As for dealing with them, or talking with them that isn't really possible. Their religious fanaticism prevents any progress in that arena. Their leaders believe that our country is LITERALLY satan personified and would love to die in a nuclear fire ball to take us with them. You can't negotiate with that.

free0352 said...

While it sounds “worth it” to you to kill millions, bankrupt us, and toss us into a deep depression, most sane people disagree.

Sane people would choose a depression over a nuclear conflict.

To simplify things, the crux of your argument Dave is to get into a Mexican stand off with a guy who wants to die. That's crazy.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
Thank you. If you want me to answer your questions, all you need to do is reciprocate the courtesy.

So, Dubya, I would ask you point blank: If Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, would you support Israeli retaliation in kind? - Yes, although Israel and the US have been, and are, far more likely to instigate aggression.

Or, if Israel were so disabled by a nuclear attack from Iran that they could not retaliate, would you support U.S. retaliation in kind against Iran in support of our ally Israel? Yes, conventional or nuclear, if Iran initiated the war.

Nuclear aggression must not be tolerated.

Do you think we should join Israel on every war it starts against people who do not threaten us? I’d bet you do, although I would question why your loyalty to Israel is equal, or greater, than your loyalty to the US. I’d also suppose you think I’m anti-Semitic for asking.

You provided links. That’s at least a bit more honest effort. Although I cautioned you about using references to the “wipe Israel off the map” meme.

Why? Because nobody said that. They have indicated their desire to see the “Zionist Regime” gone.
I wanted the Bush Regime gone, but not our country. See the difference?

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime."

In the past, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called Israel a "cancerous tumor" that must be wiped from the map, "Definitely, the day will come when nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionist regime,"


These are statements from both of your linked articles. American media parrot the “wipe Israel off the map” meme without checking the facts. The Iranians are obviously talking about the “Zionist Regime” not the Israeli people.

This same rhetoric is also used against the “Islamist Regime” in Iran, isn’t it? Both sides indicate the present governmental powers, not the nation or people. How often have you heard “regime change” as something desirable? Why can’t other countries say they desire it about regimes they don’t like?

So where and when has Iran threatened to attack Israel, let alone the US? Has it shown any inclinations that it is intent on using a nuclear device against an enemy with more nuclear weapons than the entire Middle East combined? Furthermore, has anyone in Iran announced they were even pursuing nuclear weapons?

If you put stock in what they say, as you appear to do, then, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted that Tehran had no intention of producing nuclear weapons. In remarks broadcast on state television, he said that "owning a nuclear weapon is a big sin."

Do you believe what they say, or only what you want to believe?

Tell us please, what do you know that C.I.A. director David H. Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t know about Iran’s intentions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

Once again I ask you, since I don’t listen to your fear mongers, enlighten me please. What am I missing? Please understand that I, along with Petraeus, Panetta and Dempsey, don’t have your insight and intelligence that obviously allows you a superior understanding of the situation.

What’s wrong with efforts to open their nuclear programs to UN inspections? (They were correct about Saddam not having a nuke program, maybe that’s what you resent.)

Why is war the inevitable solution for you guys? Well, we already know the reason.

It’s Right Wing hand wringing over imagined fears through perceiving only a black and white world.

We still eagerly await your enlightened response to questions our intelligence and military professionals can’t answer.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Sane people would choose a depression over a nuclear conflict.

Time for more false choices, eh? As long as YOU get to decide the choices.

As for dealing with them, or talking with them that isn't really possible. Their religious fanaticism prevents any progress in that arena. Their leaders believe that our country is LITERALLY satan personified and would love to die in a nuclear fire ball to take us with them.

Yes, so you neocons love to say.

talking with them that isn't really possible

Nonsense. Your ignorance of history is showing again.

Remember Iran/Contra? How about arms for hostages?

For you history impaired folks, who would be shocked at learning Reagan transformed the US into a debtor nation from a creditor nation, let me offer a lesson.

I recall a little October Surprise preemption with hostages as pawns.

"Ronald Reagan cut a deal with Iran before the 1980 election to send arms in exchange for Iran’s agreeing to delay the release of our 52 hostages." - Barbara Honegar, former White House Policy Analyst under Reagan and a member of Bush’s 1980 election campaign staff

Or you can lecture me on the “coincidence” of the hostage release on Reagan’s inauguration day. And the US is completely innocent in its historical dealings with Iran? Yeah, “Shah” ‘nuff, we helped Saddam in his war on them.

“Satan personified” isn’t that different from “Axis of evil”. Our wars have killed at least as many innocents as Iranian backed terrorists. While extremists in Iran have supported terrorism, so have extremists everywhere. That doesn’t mean they are going to invade the US or even nuke Israel.

So make up your mind. Does Iran want to commit suicide, or conquer the world and convert it to Islam? It, unlike you, can’t have it both ways.

free0352 said...

As long as YOU get to decide the choices

Actually I think it's the Iranians who are making that choice. I'd rather sell them McDonalds and Starbucks and XBOX and not have to worry about them blowing up half the worlds natural resources and a few million people. But that's their choice, not ours. They are driving this bus to war, not us.

Yes, so you neocons love to say.

And there it is! Every time. The classic Dave Dubya progressive fall back. Thats a point you can't counter. Its a truth you can't deal with. The Iranian regime isn't reasonable, rational, or even interested in negotiation. And instead of accept that and deal with it here comes the "NEOCON" line. What a cop out.

They aren't interested in singing koom bi ya with you. Only your blood will appease them. All of it. They were radical in 1979 and they are worse today and getting worse every day. You can hem and haw about what happened in Iran in 1949 or you can accept the reality of 2012. You point would make sense if we had access to a time machine. If you can't look at the evidence and see that I have to wonder what's blocking your view? Bias? Likely. But even that doesn't make any sense. Even FRANCE understands this threat.

free0352 said...

So make up your mind. Does Iran want to commit suicide, or conquer the world and convert it to Islam?

This isn't confusing. Iran exports Islamic Revolution through its special operations forces. It would like to do more, but won't because they know if they push things too far an invading Army will initiate regime change. They also know once they have nuclear weapons this no longer becomes a threat, and the deterrence factor that provides is no longer there.

So what do WE do at that point? Can't use conventional military force because you can't do that against a nuclear power. We can't tolerate the level of terrorism they export now, let alone the likely increase not having a conventional deterrent response would cause. We can't negotiate because they are fanatics. What becomes the response at that point? Logically its MAD. But that raises a problem. MAD depends on both parties valuing their lives. The Iranian regime doesn't value their own lives, let alone the lives of their citizens. They are happy to sacrifice themselves to take down the Great Satan. So we end up, logically, in a situation where we are retaliating with nuclear weapons as a result of Iranian aggression. Your path leads to nuclear conflict if you realize that or not.

I for one, am not a fan of nuclear conflict. Are you?

FandB said...

Dubya, why are afraid to state your position - to give your opinion - on two simple scenarios?

I will ask again, point blank:

(1) If Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, would you support Israeli retaliation in kind?

(2) If Israel were so disabled by a nuclear attack from Iran that they could not retaliate, would you support U.S. retaliation in kind against Iran in support of our ally Israel?

Just a couple of simple questions. Where do you stand on these issues?

No more democrat talking points please.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
This is your assumption.

The Iranian regime doesn't value their own lives

You employ your assumptions as facts.

If they value their power, they value their lives.

F&B,
I will ask again, point blank:

Can't you read my answers? See above.

Meanwhile you dodge this:

Tell us please, what do you know that C.I.A. director David H. Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t know about Iran’s intentions?

Either answer my question or admit you don't know.

Or ignore it like a typical Rightie does when cornered.

free0352 said...

If they value their power, they value their lives

They value their view of Islam more than anything else. They are mullahs after all. And their interpretation of Islam says we are Satan Incarnate. Killing us gets them a ticket strait to paradise, and failing to fight us earns them a ticket strait to hell. This is their mindset.

You can accept that reality, or deny it. However, denial is not a strategy.

... and it's kinda funny to watch you dance all around you not being a huge fan of the Israelis. Why can't you just admit you don't think their government is legitimate? Is that so hard? That sure sounds like what you are thinking.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Why can't you just admit you don't think their government is legitimate?

And:

This is their mindset.

There you go again confusing your assumptions with facts.

Adn why are you babbling about it here?

Since you know what C.I.A. director David H. Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t know about Iran’s intentions, don't you think you need to set them straight?

It's all up to you and F&B to save us. You're the experts and therefore our only hope for survival.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "It's all up to you and F&B to save us. You're the experts and therefore our only hope for survival."

I know that since I've been frequenting your blog, Dave, and reading Free0352's and FandB's commentary, I sleep better at night. There's nothing more soothing to the mind, or good for the soul, than unrestrained militarism working hand-in-hand with predator and monopolistic capitalism.

It's the elixir of the ages!

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

But I guess I could be wrong. Tell us Dave, how do you feel about Zionism? Go ahead, expound.

free0352 said...

There you go again confusing your assumptions with facts

Okay Dave, lets ask the Iranians. Dear Iran, how do you feel about America? Answer: You tell me Dave.

free0352 said...

Look, more Iran bearing us good will.

Oh, and my personal favorite.

Dude, Dave, what planet are you living on? Are you blind, retarded or both? If you can't see this danger you may be dumber than a vegan.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Isn't that special? Government mandated rallies. Why ever would they want to display ill feelings toward America? Really, I'm asking you if you understand history at all.

Who installed the dictator that fueled the fundamentalist takeover?

The videos of Koran-thumping fear mongers remind me of the Bible-thumping fear mongers over here.

I see these videos were made when Bible-thumping "Axis of Evil" war monger Bush was out starting wars based on lies. Would you like me to give examples of some of those lies?

What did you expect them to do? Sing God Bless America?

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
No wonder you love those carefully selected and "translated" videos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute

Courtesy of Right Wing Israeli interests and your beloved neocons.

If you don't like me mentioning them, maybe you shouldn't be dumping their propaganda on us.

FandB said...

My apologies, Dubya, I did miss your responses the first time.

Regarding Panetta, Petraeus, et. al. – Obviously they have more and better information than I do. They also know what their political goals are while I can only guess. Their political goals will certainly have a strong bearing on how they phrase their answers. So my disagreement is with your implied interpretation, not with the politically structured comments from U.S. officials.

From the article in the NY Times that you cited: “In Senate testimony on Jan. 31, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, stated explicitly that American officials believe that Iran is preserving its options for a nuclear weapon, but said there was no evidence that it had made a decision on making a concerted push to build a weapon. David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, concurred with that view at the same hearing. Other senior United States officials, including Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have made similar statements in recent television appearances.”

The people you mentioned stated that that Iran had not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon. They do not say that Iran has decided not to build a nuclear weapon. See the difference?

The article also discusses that fact that Iran continues to enrich uranium. (This is what your ‘nukular’ aluminum tubes are used for.) But U.S. officials do not believe that Iran has completed developing the technology to enrich the nuclear fuel to ‘weapons grade’. So it doesn’t make sense for Iran to indicate their intentions to build a nuclear weapon before they have the capability to produce weapons grade uranium.

Also from the article you cited: ““I think the Iranians want the capability, but not a stockpile,” said Kenneth C. Brill, a former United States ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency who also served as director of the intelligence community’s National Counterproliferation Center from 2005 until 2009. Added a former intelligence official: “The Indians were a screwdriver turn away from having a bomb for many years. The Iranians are not that close.”

Iranian leaders have stated their desire to use nuclear weapons against Israel going back to a speech made by former President Rafsanjani in 2001. This is nothing new. Oddly, or maybe expectedly, Iranian leaders have toned down this rhetoric in recent years as they have gotten closer to actually having the technology to build a nuclear weapon. I’m sure they realize their rhetoric will become counter-productive and could easily hasten a pre-emptive attack against their uranium enrichment facilities. Just as Israel (and the U.S.) realize that a strike (or even discussion of a strike) against Iran could hasten Iran’s development of, and intensify their desire for, nuclear weapons.

Dubya: “It's all up to you and F&B to save us. You're the experts and therefore our only hope for survival.” – Dubya, you are too kind! ;-)

free0352 said...

Government mandated rallies

Exactly. And it's that very government that is seeking nuclear weapons. All those people may or may bot be genuine, but it would be hard to argue their leaders aren't.

As for it being just a Republican thing, Khamenei doesn't think so.

They told Carter, Clinton and Obama to go to hell with just as much enthusiasm.

If you don't like me mentioning them, maybe you shouldn't be dumping their propaganda on us.

Actually its an example of Iranian propaganda. Hey guy, it doesn't take a rocket science to translate those simple slogans. I don't speak Persian but understand enough Arabic to get the gist. I'm not near fluent be lets face it, those statements weren't very complicated. Really, a child could translate them. It's accurate.

But there it is, more denial. That is not a strategy. You have to accept the reality.

On being asked about the possibility of dealing with the Obama administration Ali Khamenei said on Iranian state radio in 2009-

There is no Republican or Democrat, no right or left in America. Only Satan, only the Infidel. It is every Muslims duty to wage Jihad if he is able. Every Muslim must love his death and reject his life. There can be no dialogue with devils.

So you see Dave, this guy doesn't bother to care. To him you and Rush Limbaugh are basically the same. You're not a Muslim, and so you must submit or die. Just the kind of guy who should have nuclear weapons and we should get into a standoff with don't you think?

Only your blood will appease him. All of it.

Marg-bar Amrika!

جهاد وظیفه همه است که می توانند است.

free0352 said...

It's all up to you and F&B to save us

I can't speak to his status but it really is we military types job to save you. We take that pretty seriously. You haven't been in a gun/EFP fight with these folks. I have. I've literally talked with them in person.

It would be like giving the more violent prisoners in your jail nuclear weapons and then trusting them with them. How insane is that?

free0352 said...

Oh, I forgot. We're all here waiting for your thoughts on Zionism. Are we doing to get that or what?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "It would be like giving the more violent prisoners in your jail nuclear weapons and then trusting them with them."

Weak analogy, but I'll play...

You mean like Israel?

free0352 said...

You mean like Israel?

In short, yes. Iran having nuclear weapons puts us in the same position other Mid East countries are in with Israel. Israel can do nigh whatever they want to do and there is nothing they can do about it. I'd rather not be in that position when dealing with Iran.

free0352 said...

And just for shits and giggles whats your position on Zionism Jeff?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "...whats your position on Zionism..."

The same as my position on fanatical nationalism, apartheid, racism, and colonialism.

Just so we can confirm what we undoubtedly already know about you, what's your position on colonialism, racism (easy call), and apartheid?

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

The same as my position on fanatical nationalism, apartheid, racism, and colonialism.

Oh please, clarify.

As for my stance on racism... I grew up in one of the most ethnically diverse neighborhoods in America, my mom is Hispanic, I grew up with Arabs and have them in my family (Lebanese Christians specifically), my favorite nephew is half black/hispanic and my wife and I want to adopt either an African or Asian kid through a service. Hell, my ex-wife is Irish/Lebanese. I must be pretty racist to A: Be as white as Barack Obama is, and B: Marry an Arab woman. Oh, and my daughter's mother (thats right, a baby momma, an ex-wife and a wife) is Mexican. What can I say, I like the brown skinned girls. Oh by the way that makes my daughter almost totally Latina clocking in at only 25% white.

Looks to me like you're the white mf'er in this room. But keep telling yourself that and hold on to that stereotype if it makes you feel better. You can add that stereotype and ignorance to your ignorance and stereotypical thinking about the military. ;)

You're probably one of these racist white guys who thinks the poor brown people need his god-like help in life. Lame. You just can't stand it that us uppity minorities don't want any part of your white welfare plantation.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
Thank you for your apology and thoughtful comment. And I appreciate you reading the article.

And thank you for referring to something an Iranian leader, Rafsanjani, said.

Iranian leaders have stated their desire to use nuclear weapons against Israel going back to a speech made by former President Rafsanjani in 2001.

This helps us understand a bit of your perspective. I’d agree with you, if Iran’s leaders had actually “stated their desire to use nuclear weapons against Israel”.

A direct quote would be the thing.

I’m thinking this would be it:

December 2001:

If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.

If this is the source, I see neither a threat nor desire to nuke Israel. He seems to be making a rational point.

Juan Cole, as real an expert on the Middle East as I see, has an interesting post on a recent Rafsanjani interview.

Rafsanjani says that he wrote Ayatollah Ruhullah Khomaini late in the latter’s life urging some sort of compromise with the United States of America.

“There are difficult passages and if you do not help us pass through them, they will be difficult to pass through after you… Ties with America were one of these issues. I wrote that, after all, our current practice — of not speaking to or having ties with America — could not persist forever. America is the super power of the world. What is the difference between Europe and the US, China and the US, or Russia and the US from our point of view? Why should we not negotiate with the US if we negotiate with them? Talks do not mean that we should surrender to them. We will negotiate and if they accept our positions or we accept their positions, then it would be all over.”

About overcoming the nuclear deadlock, Hashemi-Rafsanjani said:

“We really do not seek to build nuclear weapons and a nuclear military system. In a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, I even once said that an atomic bomb would not benefit the occupation regime of Israel. Eventually, if one day a nuclear conflict takes place, Israel as a small country, will not be able to bear an atomic bomb. It is a small country and all its facilities would be destroyed. However, they interpreted this advice as a threat. We really believe that there should not be any nuclear weapon in the region and this is a part of the principles of our politics.”

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Love the fear mongering:

that very government that is seeking nuclear weapons

you must submit or die.

Only your blood will appease him. All of it.

like giving the more violent prisoners in your jail nuclear weapons

How insane is that? Like listening to fear-inciting Neocon war mongers telling us Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda, “biological labs” and nukular aluminum tubes. Making enemies and starting wars are easy. Diplomacy and peace take effort.

Did you ever consider the fact that our idiotic war-mongering and obsequious fawning to the Israeli Right is only giving Iranian radicals more power? The American Right also specializes in setting up scapegoats and objects of fear and hate in order to consolidate their power. No wonder you want to ignore the history.

And don’t forget your Iraqi Shia population will also side with Iran.

All those people may or may bot be genuine, but it would be hard to argue their leaders aren't

Good. See what Rafsanjani said.
No source given for your Ali Khamenei quote. Even if it is true, his point about no left and right in America is a good one. There is only the Right when dealing with Iran. And we know the Right does not seek diplomatic negotiation, only its pre-determined conditions for Iran to accept before they come to the table.

If you don't like me mentioning them (neocons), maybe you shouldn't be dumping their propaganda on us.

Actually its an example of Iranian propaganda.

No it isn’t. The footage is Iranian, the selective context, framing, and reporting is pure Israeli Right and American Neocon, if there’s even any difference.

If you don’t want me to mention Neocons, then stop linking to their propaganda. The MEMRI videos are selective cuts by a right-wing, neocon infested biased “press monitoring organization” that is about as fair and balanced as FOX(R).

From Wiki:

MEMRI was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in the Israeli military intelligence and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born, American political scientist. MEMRI's original mission statement read: "In its research, the institute puts emphasis on the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel." .

The Board of directors and advisors features Neocons Podhoretz and Bolton, Iran/Contra Con Elliot Abrams, Bush’s clown prince of Iraq Paul Bremer, General Michael (Wiretap) Hayden

There’s your reference to Zionism you so desperately want me to discuss. Which definition are you using?

This one?

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/whatis.cfm

Zionism is a movement founded by Theodor Herzl in 1896 whose goal is the return of Jews to Eretz Yisrael, or Zion, the Jewish synonym for Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.

It’s a done deal. Israel was created by the UN. You do respect the UN’s power and decisions, right?

Or are you referring to recent interpretations of Zionism, as in the cloak of Right Wing Israeli aggression and land grabbing?

Or are you just asking if the land of one’s tribal ancestors should be purged of settlers and restored to the tribe?

Good. I’d like to see that happen here.

FandB said...

Dubya, a different interpretation of the same speech (reported by CNN - not exactly a neocon news network from http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-742815) . . .

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

"Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State."

So, as you can see, maybe even the experts cannot agree on the precise English language content of Rafsanjani's remarks.

If an error must be made, I prefer to err on the side of protecting our allies and ourselves.

As it has been said, The price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilence.

free0352 said...

And there you go again Dave. Denial, Denial, Denial. Denial is not a strategy. And with you it's thick. Apparently Iranians in their own words is "NeoCon Propaganda."

Yeah, if you consider the Iranians Neocons...

Iran is using it's special operations forces to spread their brand of Islamic Revolution to every country in the Mid East, and using those same special operation forces to train enemies as close as Venezuela and Mexico. They've attacked or helped attack 3 of our embassies, blown up a 2 military barracks and attacked our Soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq. They've provided training, leadership and equipment to every terrorist group from Jerusalem to Indonesia. Heck, they even advised the genocide in Sudan.

That is the reality. That isn't "neocon" propaganda. Even FRANCE accepts this. Obama accepts this. Everyone but the loony left accepts this.

Denial my friend, is not a strategy.

free0352 said...

And last but not least, anything Rafsanjani or even Ahmadinejad say is nearly irrelevant. They don't call Al Khamenei SUPREME LEADER for nothing. Everyone knows the real power in Iran is the mullahs.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
I agree, “The price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilence”.

Strong vigilance is vital, or we will be lied into another war, more warrantless surveillance, and more austerity.

If an error must be made, I prefer to err on the side of protecting our allies and ourselves.

War based on error doesn’t protect anyone. Errors must not be the excuse for more war.

It is an error to credit your linked piece as a CNN report. Note the “iReport” designation. This is not professional journalism. In fact check the page again. You will see “not vetted for CNN” there.

CNN “iRport”
IRAN'S RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons


This is an unfounded allegation, not based in fact. Is it something you would be comfortable going to war over?

---
Free,
Yes, be afraid.

train enemies as close as Venezuela and Mexico

This is what I’m talking about.

Venezuela and Mexico are not enemies. Your paranoia and Neocon policies see enemies everywhere. In fact, Neocon policies are creating more enemies than our military kills.

Apparently Iranians in their own words is "NeoCon Propaganda."

No, but we can see why you attempt to distract from my point. I was extremely clear about what was Neocon propaganda. It was Neocon propaganda.

You buy into all of it completely. I think for myself and deny the propaganda. This is what I deny.
Why the hell should we trust lying war mongers to tell us the truth?

I know hatred for the US is cultivated by Right Wing Iranian wackos, just like hatred for Iran is cultivated by Right Wing American wackos. If both countries could strip these hotheads of their lock on political power and voices in national propaganda, the world would be a saner, safer place.

Iranians have more reason to hate America than we do for them. History. Study it sometime.

Unfortunately American Neocon war-mongers are only making things worse. Lying us into one war went unpunished. They will do it again if we continue to act like the sheep they take us for.

There are moderates in Iran, Our belligerent policies only help the extremists hold power. Just like over here.

Of course, you and the radical Right will deny, deny, deny, that we have been an aggressive and belligerent nation. As if “Shock and Awe” is a compassionate conservative gesture.

Demonizing a nation and refusing diplomatic negotiation, as the US Right prefers, solves nothing.
Well, “Shock and Awe” did solve Iran’s problems with Iraq, didn’t it? Deny, deny, deny all you want. That is the bottom line for Iran. The Neocons may as well be supporting the Mullahs. Everything they do and say strengthens their hand.

The nation will suffer because the Radical Right has the same hostile attitude towards compromise, diplomacy, and not to mention labor rights and progressives, as the Russian and Chinese Communists and the fascist dictators of the last century Europe did.

They prefer violence and force just like commies and fascists too.

Those who want war, like those who use "free speech" money to buy legislation, will always get it if allowed to go unchecked.

free0352 said...

Venezuela and Mexico are not enemies

Really, you don't think of Los Zetas as enemies? Probably why you don't object to Eric Holder sending them 1 million dollars in fire arms on "accident." Or Iran working with them to smuggle in operatives to assassinate Saudi diplomats on our soil. You say you like diplomacy? Kinda hard when Iran is killing the diplomats.

The only propaganda we are seeing here is the stock Bill Maher talking points coming from you. Hell, Obama even gets it. But you don't, probably because Bill Maher doesn't.

I think for myself and deny the propaganda.

There isn't much thought going on on this thread from you. Mostly denial and parroting a washed up comedian.

If both countries could strip these hotheads of their lock on political power and voices in national propaganda, the world would be a saner, safer place.

Many citizens in Iran tried to do just that, they were crushed. So now what's your plan? Oh wait, you don't have one. Instead you have indecision while the insane Iranian leadership exports terrorism to our back yard as close as Mexico and you wring your hands even more as they put up a nuclear shield. You are paving the path to nuclear conflict. Good job, you are officially less warlike than France. Good think you are on the extreme left, and most Democrats even admit your kind has suicidal policy. Understanding why the Iranian government hates us (and you don't BTW) is not going to make us any more alive or nuclear conflict any more pleasant. Your ideas on Iranian policy depend on a time machine... we don't have one. So now what is your plan? Oh wait, you don't have one.

You are right about one thing, we will be in a war with Iran in the next 5 years. I just hope it isn't one involving nuclear weapons. I hope we kill them first.

free0352 said...

I mean, this "neocon" sums it up well.

Iran has had a long love affair with Nazism and it continues today. Iran is the Nazi Germany of our time, and your opinion (or lack of acknowledging that fact) reminds me of some history books I did crack where I read about the appeasement strategy of a certain German Chancellor. You want to learn from history, how did that turn out?

Its so funny, you claim there is a diplomatic answer and ignore the fact that Iran's only interest in our diplomats if for their assassination.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Looks to me like you're the white mf'er in this room."

and...

"You're probably one of these racist white guys who thinks the poor brown people need his god-like help in life. Lame. You just can't stand it that us uppity minorities don't want any part of your white welfare plantation."


Now, remind me, who's the perceived racist in the room? ;-)

It's supremely ironic that the plantation has only changed in scope and ownership, while the "uppity minorities" (as you describe yourself) are now tooling for the white masters of ExxonMobil, Shell, Occidental, and BP -- instead of the plantation owners of times past.

Nothing has changed. You sill sing in choruses of "Yes Master, Sir", and you've changed from singing old negro spirituals and instead bellow out the "Caisson Song", but the end-game's still in effect. You're still a tool of the ruling aristocracy. (You just think you're not, thanks to sophisticated propaganda techniques.) The commodity you pick has changed from being shipped in bales to barrels, and other than carrying a M16A2 instead of a cotton bag, you're still a tool.

Congratulations on your decision to comply with modern-day servitude. You haven't learned a thing!

John Myste said...

Sorry to interrupt a conversation that is largely over my head, but Free, you do this all the time and it so annoying, coming from an award-winning logician:

Really, you don't think of Los Zetas as enemies?

That is an absurd composition fallacy. Los Zetas is not the nation of Mexico or the government of Mexico. Your “rebuttal” is absurd faulty-thinking.

There are drug gangs in America, so by Free logic, America is America’s enemy. Perhaps we should overthrow ourselves?

Dave Dubya said...

John,
Yup. There he goes again.

Free,
Well then, if anonymous officials say so, this means war!

The targets have included two Saudi officials, a half-dozen Israelis and — in the Azerbaijan case — several Americans, the officials say.

“Officials say”. Note that no evidence is shown to journalists, but since “officials say”...well we should always trust anonymous “officials”, right?

Hmm, I wonder what “less is clear” means... You should straighten them out.

Less clear is whether the attempts were ordered by government officials or perhaps carried out with the authorities’ tacit approval by intelligence operatives or a proxy group such as Hezbollah. Many U.S. officials and Middle East experts see the incidents as part of an ongoing shadow war, a multi-sided, covert struggle in which Iran also has been the victim of assassinations. Four scientists tied to Iran’s nuclear program have been killed by unknown assailants in the past three years, and the country’s nuclear sites have been hobbled by cyberattacks. Iran has accused the United States and Israel of killing its scientists, but it has repeatedly denied any role in plots to assassinate foreign diplomats abroad.

Meanwhile “someone” is assassinating scientists in Iran. These acts of aggression have blowback. Or is it only terrorism or criminal when they do it?

You are paving the path to nuclear conflict.

Right, lil’ ol’ me. You are nothing if not grandiose. I promise not to give them the bomb.

But you need to blame someone, don’t you? Of course you do. All because I don’t buy into the Neocon fear mongering that you cannot question, while believing it is our national duty to submit our nation to more bankrupting, ruinous and tragic war. All over a country that is no threat to us....except for rhetoric that matches our own radicals.

Iran isn’t going to nuke us. They don’t have nukes. Look how frightened you are, even when they don't have nukes. If they did, you'd really come unglued. And still it would be only in your mind that they would use them on us.

There are ways other than Neocon wars of aggression that will help the situation. International pressure, trade sanctions, etc.

Iran is the Nazi Germany of our time

Funny I thought Iraq was... Only Iran has not declared war on us.
Turns out, Iran has made no territorial grabs like the Nazis, nor has it initiated a holocaust. It hasn’t even invaded anyone or started any wars. It hasn’t abrogated any treaties like Israel did on Non-proliferation.

I guess Bush and Cheney have more in common with Nazis as far as starting wars, suppressing democracy and unions, indefinite detentions, and establishing unwarranted surveillance. “You’re either with us or against us”. Sieg Heil!

But we sure did free those Iraqis and bless them with democracy, though.

Yes, siree, I sleep better knowing I’m safe from nukular aluminum tubes.

And you still listen to those liars. Poor frightened soul. You actually believe we must have war with Iran or they will nuke us.

Dangerous paranoia. Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out. Or, in your case, just kill ‘em all.

Sounds like what a Great Satan would do.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Myste said...

Free,

I was just about to make fun of you, but then you deleted the comment. Consider yourself made fun of, nonetheless, because it was truly an asinine comment.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

John Myste: "I was just about to make fun of you [Free0352], but then you deleted the comment."

I'm disappointed. I would have loved making fun of him too! Dave, would you consider republishing the comment Mr. Myste is referring to? Gee, it's all in good fun. Why not?

free0352 said...

Sorry I deleted it, here it is again.

John,

We don't carry M16A2s and that was the least of the things in your comment that were wrong. We haven't carried the M16A2 since 1996 in the Army and 2002 in the Marines. Nuff said there about your knowledge of things military.

if anonymous officials say so, this means war!

Iran said so.

no evidence is shown to journalists

Except the bodies of the Soldiers Iran has killed in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait.

Meanwhile “someone” is assassinating scientists in Iran

I'm not sure if that's us or Israel. I also don't care.

These acts of aggression have blowback

They shoot us, we shoot back, they shoot back. That's how it works in a war.

I promise not to give them the bomb.

Oh how nice, you'll just work and vote to set the stage for them to have it. That's culpable through negligence.

They don’t have nukes.

Yet. What do you think we're going to do after they have them? Our options dry up to bad and horrible.

International pressure, trade sanctions, etc.

I'm pretty sure Iran could care less what say... Norway thinks. Further, the leaders of Iran don't suffer from sanctions. In fact, they benefit from them because it allows them to isolate their populations into a bubble of their bullshit and in their words "Keep them from corrupting western influence." We'd be better off with no sanctions in reality. Have sanctions ever worked? The answer is three fold. Covert operation, engagement with the Iranian people to discredit their government and free trade. Kill their leaders and sell them McDonalds in other worlds.

Funny I thought Iraq was [Nazi}

No its Iran. Which is a greater threat than Iraq ever was and unlike Iraq, actually has attacked US soil. Twice.

But we sure did free those Iraqis and bless them with democracy, though.

Your welcome, They seem to be enjoying it. That is, when Iranian backed death squads aren't after them. And make no mistake, the Mhadi Army death squads are proxy for Iran. Yet another reason the Iranian leadership needs to die. Sorry if I'm a bit protective over those kids, unlike you I know many hundreds of them and remain in contact with many of them through social networking. Maybe when you have to look at their faces, you'll feel like defending them. You cowards.

But as for fear, you are damn right I'm afraid. I'm afraid for my Iraqi friends, I'm afraid what Iranian aggression can do to the world economy, I'm afraid of what Iran can do to Israel and what that means, and most of all I'm afraid that after they get nuclear weapons we won't be able to stop them.

My question is, why aren't you?

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Thank you for the informative links.

“Iranian backed death squads”. I bet you wish you had a buck for every time you said that.

And they do get blamed for everything the “anonymous officials” decide to blame them. I read the papers.

However, your article had a catchy enough headline for you to link without having to read through, or something...

“Threats and Killings Striking Fear Among Young Iraqis, Including Gays”

But it was the Iraqi government that first labeled emo youths a public menace.

On Feb. 13, the Interior Ministry released a statement that condemned the “phenomenon of emo” as Satanic. The rebellious teenage fashions of dark clothes, skull-print T-shirts and nose rings, the statement said, are emblems of the devil.

The ministry said its Social Police would be sent to investigate “the emo” and added that its forces had also received the authority to go into all of Baghdad’s schools to find them.


Poor Iraqi kids.

They’ve been paying for decades. Through the decade of Saddam’s war with Iran, helped out by guess who? And through the decade of Gulf War 1 and its sanctions. And finally through the decade of American invasion and occupation.

Poor Iraqi kids.

And the ones who seem to you to be enjoying it, despite losing a friend to ethnic cleansing, at least gets to rap about no jobs.

“Lil Czar’’ Mohammed, a Shi’ite Muslim, says he was introduced to American culture by a Christian friend, Laith, who subsequently fled anti-Christian violence that broke out in Baghdad. ‘
Mohammed said he is trying to record a rap song in Arabic and English. “It is about our situation. About no jobs for us.’’


“I love the American soldiers,’’ said Mohammed Adnan, 15, who pastes imitation tattoos on his arm. He lives in Sadr City.


When you get your war with Iran, those kids won’t be displaying American military culture fashions. Their people will side with Iran.

Then, right after “Operation Iranian Aluminum Tubes”, it’s back to “Operation New Iraqi Freedom”.

However shall we find time for Venezuela and Mexico?

John Myste said...

Free,

John,

We don't carry M16A2s and that was the least of the things in your comment that were wrong. We haven't carried the M16A2 since 1996 in the Army and 2002 in the Marines. Nuff said there about your knowledge of things military.


Free, I never mentioned anything you site above. Lay off the sauce. You have not demonstrated my knowledge or lack of knowledge, since in your and my discussion weapons never came up. I am not suggesting you are a goofball or anything, but just sayin'.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "No its Iran. Which is a greater threat than Iraq ever was..."

More ultra right-wing fear mongering. Didn't we hear all before concerning Iraq?

Oh, by the way, I have another potential target for you. How 'bout American school kids pledging allegiance to the flag? Gee, are they Nazis or Hezbollah?


"...as for fear, you are damn right I'm afraid. I'm afraid for my Iraqi friends, I'm afraid what Iranian aggression can do to the world economy, I'm afraid of what Iran can do to Israel and what that means, and most of all I'm afraid that after they get nuclear weapons we won't be able to stop them."

As I already mentioned, with you there's a terrorist under every rock and behind every bush. Your fear is "created fear" -- it fuels the engine of the Military Industrial (Security) Complex. The U.S. military is one of the few enterprises that creates its own market -- the market of fear, carnage, death and destruction.

Tell me, why aren't you fearful of North Korea? Hint: It's called "no oil".

Michael Stivic said...

As I already mentioned, with you there's a terrorist under every rock and behind every bush.

I think you forgot the nukular aluminum tubes.

FandB said...

Everyone (with any reasonable amount of intelligence) has known for a long time that Iran was/is the real 'heavyweight' in that extremely critical region of the world. It's too bad that our 'brilliant' military strategists and "commander in chief" Obama had to get involved. Prior to Obama's ill-advised and short sighted political decision to remove troops from Iraq, we were in a position to have several hundred thousand troops within a few hours of Iran's borders on two sides.

We still have troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, even Kosovo under the UN flag, but for some reason the liberals and so-called "progressives" keep whining that the U.S. should pull all troops out of Iraq. Why?

The only good outcome from war with Iran is to prevent it from happening.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,
Obama's ill-advised and short sighted political decision to remove troops from Iraq.

Looks like we still need you and Free, the only clear thinkers left in America, to save us.

We still have troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, even Kosovo under the UN flag, but for some reason the liberals and so-called "progressives" keep whining that the U.S. should pull all troops out of Iraq. Why?

Hint: The Iraq Troop withdrawal agreement was signed by which administration?

Once again your beliefs fall outside the realm of facts.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/status-of-forces-agreement/index.html

On Nov. 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces agreement with the United States that set a course for an end to the United States’ role in the war and marks the beginning of a new relationship between the countries. The pact called for American troops to pull out of most Iraqi cities by the summer of 2009 and set the end of 2011 as the date by which the last American troops must leave the country.

...In September 2011, administration officials said that Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta had proposed a plan that would keep 3,000 to 4,000 American troops in Iraq after a deadline for their withdrawal at year’s end, but only to continue training security forces there.

Then in October, Iraq’s leaders announced that they had agreed on the need to keep American military trainers in the country in 2012, but they declared that any remaining troops should not be granted immunity from Iraqi law a point the United States said would be a deal breaker.


Believe it or not, the Iraqis never invited us.

It was called an invasion for a reason.

I hope this information helps. Or you can do the "Right thing" and ignore it.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya, do you suppose FAUX News™ never reported the November 2008 Status of Forces agreement?

I can't believe they'd be so remiss.

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Republicans, including FOX(R), have collective/selective amnesia about almost everything that happened before Obama took office, especially when the market tanked. As if the Decider never said:

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

And we remember Johnny "Bomb Bomb Iran" saying:

"You know, there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street and it is -- people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult time. And I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street. We will reform government."

By "clean up Wall Street" he meant give them a bailout. And by "reform government" he meant cut Wall Street regulations even further.

Then as every good Republican knows, Obama was inaugurated and promptly set out to destroy America's thriving Republican economy by imposing his Marxism...and allowed the tax cuts to continue, while the corporate Senate and House did nothing to prevent Wall Street from doing business as usual.

Obama and McCain.

Such "socialists"! Well, Obama is certainly a Marxist, but not McCain, even though he and Obama agreed. Go figure.

FandB said...

There you go again, 'Blame Bush' is still the mantra of the 'regressives' and liberals, even after all these years.

Now, time for a little history quiz...

How many troops were in Iraq when President Bush left office and how many are there now?

Come on Dubya, Jefferson, et. al., you can do it!

The Heathen Republican said...

"By "clean up Wall Street" [Bush] meant give them a bailout. And by "reform government" he meant cut Wall Street regulations even further."

Dave, which speech was this from? Or do you magically know what Bush 'meant'?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen Republican: "By 'clean up Wall Street' [Bush] meant give them a bailout. And by 'reform government' he meant cut Wall Street regulations even further."

Apparently your reading skills are a bit challenged these days. Dave Dubya never insinuated that Bush made these claims. Please read his remarks again. He plainly gave credit where credit is due.


FandB: "There you go again, 'Blame Bush' is still the mantra of the 'regressives' and liberals, even after all these years."

There was no blaming of Bush intended, other than to correct yet another mistaken notion you've claimed about Obama. Dave was only pointing out to you your following flippant remark ("Prior to Obama's ill-advised and short sighted political decision to remove troops from Iraq...") with the date and name of the Status of Forces agreement (which was agreed upon and signed by the Bush Administration).

I'm sure you're appreciative of his efforts.

FandB said...

I'm sure I am, Jefferson's, however, my question still stands. Were the troops removed under President Bush or Obama?

free0352 said...

Well, I guess this settles it! I wonder if Dave has the guts to publish it!?

John Myste said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Myste said...

Holy crap, Dave! Did you read that?! We are going to have to fight Allah's Forces, Themselves! It is going to be Free and legions of very Educated soldiers who abandoned their careers as theoretical physicists, mathematicians, and tax attorneys to get their military training and will now face Allah His Own Self!

Free has saved us before and I am hoping he will pull a divine rabbit from his miter and do it again.

Dave Dubya said...

John,
Holy crap is right. Here comes the Big One.

Well, I guess this settles it.

This settles what? The American radical Right is fear mongering, and the Iranian radical Right is posturing? Yes I suppose so.

I wonder if Dave has the guts to publish it?

You mean the World Net Daily?

No I won’t publish it, but I will quote it more than you did, and proceed to mock it as I do all radical Right propaganda rags.

If you believe this article and what Salami says, then you believe this:

“Iran has complete control of all the enemy’s interests around the world...”

And you believe that, “Salami said war is inevitable, and the Iranian forces are ready.”

Funny, I can’t find him quoted saying war is inevitable. This is where we must put our trust in Right Wing authoritarians, and not in critical thinking.

"The current sanctions will only help Iran with its progress, and the Iranian ballistic missiles can target the enemy’s moving carriers with 100 percent accuracy,” he warned the West. “The Guards’ operational plan includes a radius of deterrence in the region in which all interests of the enemy have been identified, and in case of war, those interests will be attacked.”

Guards’ commanders have stated previously that all U.S. bases in the region are targeted with missiles and will be attacked should America strike Iran.

...In collaboration with China and North Korea, they are also working on intercontinental ballistic missiles.


Holy crap, again!

Looks like we gotta invade Iran, North Korea, and China now.

Wait a minute. What the hell is this? radius of deterrence

And this? should America strike Iran

Well I guess one thing really is settled. When Free and his war mongering neocons finally get to invade Iran, the Iranians will resist.

Just like I said they would.

free0352 said...

Looks like we gotta invade Iran, North Korea, and China now.

Nah just Iran, and if we're lucky Turkey will take care of Syria. NK and the ChiComs can be dealt with diplomatically. They aren't great people but they ARE NOT fanatics with a martyr complex.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: In response to Dave Dubya saying it "[l]ooks like we gotta invade Iran, North Korea, and China now", you claimed "...just Iran" and North Korea and the Chinese "ARE NOT fanatics with a martyr complex."

So I interpret your reasoning to mean that only countries with "a martyr complex" are specific U.S. targets according to U.S. military and/or foreign policy?

Another question: Doesn't the NDAA provide a provision stating that countries who have lent aid in support of hostilities against the United States, or any of its coalition allies, are themselves subject to unilateral military action based solely upon the discretion of the president? Reference a paragraph in the article you provided:

"The Revolutionary Guards have more than 1,000 ballistic missiles capable of reaching all U.S. bases in the region, all of Israel and some capitals in Europe. In collaboration with China and North Korea, they are also working on intercontinental ballistic missiles." [Bold type my own, for emphasis.]

I agree with Dave that a major war is a foregone conclusion. I also believe it will occur within the next few years (if not sooner), will be instigated by some false-flag event set in motion by the U.S. (and, as usual, for the benefit of the M-I-C), and it will be used politically as a distraction to divert attention away from the coming economic collapse. The bought-and-sold Congress has set the stage, allowing whoever is "president" to invade any country he chooses, whenever he chooses, based upon the false pretense of "terrorism" (no clearly defined enemy and/or no borders).

Free0352, as I've mentioned in the past, congratulations on being a tool of the corporate-state. I'm sure you're mighty proud of your pseudo-patriotism!

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Re: "fanatics with a martyr complex".

You and I are old enough to remember the cold war rhetoric about godless Russians, Chinese and Vietnamese having no value for human life.

Turns out most people want to live, even commies, Iranians, and Americans too. The problem is the ones in charge often value their power more than human life.

Neocons, mullahs, Premiers, and far too many Presidents, Republicans and Democrats have all valued their power more than human life.

I'm nearly certain we are doomed to eternal war and the resulting domestic tyranny the founders warned us about.

The indoctrinated true believers will accept it and those questioning it will be accused of treason.

"You're either with us or against us" - The Decider

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

will be instigated by some false-flag event set in motion by the U.S

Nuff said right there. I love it when you confirm for everyone your kook factor. Hey guy, 2003's International Answer called, they want their talking points back. Yawn.

I agree with Dave that a major war is a foregone conclusion

Well then the three of us are in a total agreement. The future will look like this. Iran will reach a nuclear threshold that is intolerable, and we and other countries will bomb them. This will slow their nuclear program, but not stop it. Hopefully it will cause them to change course, but that isn't likely. Eventually, we will break down and invade that bitch. The war will take about 8 years and cost about 2.5 trillion dollars.

And there will be peace in the middle east. Yay.

I'm nearly certain we are doomed to eternal war

My friend, name for me one time in human history where there was world peace? You can't. The earliest human remains have been found with arrow wounds. Dude, war is eternal.

Humans are their own predators, I simply suggest we stay at the top of the food chain. If we don't occupy that spot, someone else will.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Well then the three of us are in a total agreement. The future will look like this..."

I kind of thought you'd agree. As a matter of fact, I was sure you would. Unfortunately, we disagree with who will initiate it...who will escalate it beyond control.


"And there will be peace in the middle east."

Only in your dreams. They'll then hate us even more...and rightfully so.


"My friend, name for me one time in human history where there was world peace?"

"My friend"? Is that your John McCain or your Mitt Romney impression?

There's never been world peace, and I've never claimed there has been or will be...and you know this. But, on the flip side of this equation, war has always been good business for banking cartels (and now, the multinationals they finance). It's very profitable, and as I've alluded previously, it's a perpetual market. That's where you come in. You're a willing tool in the whole game, where the game's gotten more sophisticated and the end-game more pronounced and deadly for all.

I agree with you, war's been with humankind since the earliest days of civilization, and violence has been hardwired into us. The big difference now, though, is that wars fought by this country -- this empire -- are not fought for reasons of sovereignty or survival as a nation, but rather for profitability and the sustenance of a chosen few -- while the costs are borne by all.