NYT article on pre-emptive strike against Iran

[seeker_two]

Not really - by some counts, illegal aliens - mostly Mexican - kill over a dozen people a day in the USA. And we're not dropping bombs south of the Rio Grande yet.

Good point....Mexico First......

[roo_ster]

If they close the Straight...that's a whole new ballgame.  I don't think they are that stupid.

Sadly, Iranian leadership has proved it can be profoundly stupid in the past.  They have... disadvantages.

[Blakenzy]

It's an amazing propaganda feat to have the populations of the most powerful nations in the world convinced that a third world country like Iran is menacing them.

Yep.

It is also amazing how we are led to believe that if we call our bombs "humanitarian" and our military actions "Just Freedom" or some such, then the people of other countries won't mind us violating their sovereignty, ending the rule of law, wrecking their infrastructure and filling their morgues with collateral damage. Hell, they might even rally behind us! Basically, our world view has somehow become so twisted that we expect gratitude for thrusting a TEOTWAWKI situation on other people. 

[HankB]

. . . The Iranian people can't help it if the Iranian equivalent of Pat Roberts and Richard Daley are running their country . . .

I'm no fan of Pat Robertson, but I think Louis Farrakhan would be a more apt comparison in this context.

As a former Chicagoan, I'd say the Richard Daley comparison stands . . . for either the father or son.

Oh, and if the Iranians did somehow manage to have free elections . . . based on what's happening in the Arab world, I'm not at all convinced the Persians would choose more wisely.

[MicroBalrog]

I think the recent arab revolts prove that in most cases, they'll replace one group of dipsticks with another group of dipsticks

In most of the Arab revolts the next leadership hasn't yet been chosen. We've got a liberal ruler in one country, and moderate Islamists in another.

[Perd Hapley]

Yep.

It is also amazing how we are led to believe that if we call our bombs "humanitarian" and our military actions "Just Freedom" or some such, then the people of other countries won't mind us violating their sovereignty, ending the rule of law, wrecking their infrastructure and filling their morgues with collateral damage. Hell, they might even rally behind us! Basically, our world view has somehow become so twisted that we expect gratitude for thrusting a TEOTWAWKI situation on other people. 

Ok, I won't ask why you believe that America goes about "ending the rule of law," but who called our bombs humanitarian? Molotov wasn't one of our guys, so...

[Waitone]

In the later half of my lifetime the US has had at least two opportunities to support regime change in Iran.  First was with Bush 43 and the second is with Obama the Only.  In both cases elements in Iran rose up and in both cases the US failed to back up its rhetoric.  Why would any sane homo sapien believe believe anything coming out of the US.

[Blakenzy]

Well, we were sold on Libya as a supposed humanitarian mission. If you use bombs to pursue said mission then I assume those bombs must be humanitarian?

As for ending the rule of law... that is just an observation of the state of anarchy that usually ensues post-US intervention. I don't think it is an actual mission objective, it is just a side effect of a stupid mission.

[roo_ster]

In most of the Arab revolts the next leadership hasn't yet been chosen. We've got a liberal ruler in one country, and moderate Islamists in another.

Is the latter a reference to Egypt, where the Muslim B-hood in alliance with Salafists control, what, 70-80% of the legislature?

If so, "moderate" is used in the Kissengerian sense?

[MicroBalrog]

Is the latter a reference to Egypt, where the Muslim B-hood in alliance with Salafists control, what, 70-80% of the legislature?

If so, "moderate" is used in the Kissengerian sense?

In the "not actually raving HARVEST THE SKULLS OF THE JEWS type Jihadis" sense. That sense.

[Fitz]

Moderate by comparison to raving lunatics isn't always moderate.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, we were sold on Libya as a supposed humanitarian mission. If you use bombs to pursue said mission then I assume those bombs must be humanitarian?

So is it you making assumptions, or is someone urging us to call our bombs humanitarian? Because you said the latter, and now you're saying the former.

As for ending the rule of law... that is just an observation of the state of anarchy that usually ensues post-US intervention. I don't think it is an actual mission objective, it is just a side effect of a stupid mission.

I guess that depends on whether the previous government was more or less acceptable than the instability of a regime change. You remember what Thomas Jefferson said, right?

[Ron]

Moderate by comparison to raving lunatics isn't always moderate.

It is if you are always working towards synthesis of divergent opinions.

Personally I'm pleased there are more elections taking place regardless of the outcomes. If they vote for lunatics who choose to be our enemy it makes taking up arms against them morally defensible.

Saddam's military was often seen as a victim being made to go up against us in the first two conflicts.

[MicroBalrog]

Moderate by comparison to raving lunatics isn't always moderate.

It's a different country. I think it's a bit of a stretch to judge their effort at democracy a failure if their first parliament's lower chamber is not instantly staffed by Western politicians.

[Blakenzy]

So is it you making assumptions, or is someone urging us to call our bombs humanitarian? Because you said the latter, and now you're saying the former. Huh?

We were without doubt urged to call the bomb[ings]/airstrikes humanitarian by Obama and most media outlets, it is not hard to see how (laughably) the bombs themselves would be called humanitarian in that same line of thought. I have no doubt that it was their intent for the public to view bombs as humanitarian, which is as much a paradox as the expectation of thankfulness from people who have just been bombed. In short, no, I was not quoting someone directly, it was an extrapolation of mine.

I guess that depends on whether the previous government was more or less acceptable than the instability of a regime change. You remember what Thomas Jefferson said, right?

True, but whether or not one is more or less acceptable than the other depends entirely on who you are asking... so when we go ahead and make that change for other people regardless of the reality on the ground, we shouldn't automatically expect them to coincide or be eager to pay the price.

[Ron]

It was a humanitarian exercise, we call it "Bombing them into the 21st Century".

Think of all the jobs we created for them by breaking all their stuff!

[roo_ster]

It's a different country. I think it's a bit of a stretch to judge their effort at democracy a failure if their first parliament's lower chamber is not instantly staffed by Western politicians.

I'd say their "effort at democracy" is a smashing success, given that democratic gov't reflects the will of the majority.  It is just that the majority are a bunch of bat-shinola nutty rabble. 

Used to be, in places like Mubarak's Egypt, that the "Arab Street" was all drama of no import.  Well, now that violent and ignorant mass of the Arab Street will get a say in governance.  I think this is not an improvement for Egypt's neighbors or hte rest of the world.

[Perd Hapley]

True, but whether or not one is more or less acceptable than the other depends entirely on who you are asking... so when we go ahead and make that change for other people regardless of the reality on the ground, we shouldn't automatically expect them to coincide or be eager to pay the price.

Unless, of course, we're right.

[MicroBalrog]

I'd say their "effort at democracy" is a smashing success, given that democratic gov't reflects the will of the majority.  It is just that the majority are a bunch of bat-shinola nutty rabble. 

Used to be, in places like Mubarak's Egypt, that the "Arab Street" was all drama of no import.  Well, now that violent and ignorant mass of the Arab Street will get a say in governance.  I think this is not an improvement for Egypt's neighbors or hte rest of the world.

I am going to watch and see the alarmists proved wrong, again, as Egypt will proceed not to declare war on Israel.

[roo_ster]

I am going to watch and see the alarmists proved wrong, again, as Egypt will proceed not to declare war on Israel.

Yes, because a declaration of war is necessary to cause trouble in that neighborhood.

[Ron]

Freedom, even limited freedom does look somewhat more chaotic than despotism.

Elections put the reality right out there in our faces. This is who we are dealing with.

Are not all people born with inalienable rights? They have every right to form a government that reflects their society and culture just as we do.

I'll take the prospect of chaos over propping up tyrants and despots.

Once again, I'm sick and tired of giving my assent to *expletive deleted* I just flat out disagree with.

[MicroBalrog]

I'll take the prospect of chaos over propping up tyrants and despots.

This, this, and a thousand times this.

There is nothing in the Middle-East worth backing a scumbag like Mubarak for.

[longeyes]

The problem is that anarchy really has a very short historical shelf-life.  It is always replaced by despotism of some form in relatively short order.

We've had our opportunities to intervene in Iran's evolution, and "we" chose not to.  Accidental?  Or deliberate?  Someone needs to ask the brain trust at Foggy Bottom (and the people who make them hop to).

[MicroBalrog]

The problem is that anarchy really has a very short historical shelf-life.  It is always replaced by despotism of some form in relatively short order.

We've not really known anything about anarchy historically, Iceland being the exception.

Let's not confuse anarchy with "riots in the streets".

[Jamisjockey]

I'd say their "effort at democracy" is a smashing success, given that democratic gov't reflects the will of the majority.  It is just that the majority are a bunch of bat-shinola nutty rabble. 

Used to be, in places like Mubarak's Egypt, that the "Arab Street" was all drama of no import.  Well, now that violent and ignorant mass of the Arab Street will get a say in governance.  I think this is not an improvement for Egypt's neighbors or hte rest of the world.

And its not our problem until it becomes our problem.  This has been the fallacy of US policy in the ME especially, where grudges are held for centuries.  We stick our fingers in the cookie jar and wonder why our hand gets slapped.