comment #1

Edward says ...

When are we going to stop bending over and let Israel do what they damn well pleaee? Israel has a right to it's independence, but so does Palestine. Our policies towards Israel must change.

comment #2

EOTW says ...

As an ethnic Jew living in the American heartland, I say just stand back and let the Jews wipe Iran off the fucking map. Sorry, but someone needs to clean house over there and we got our hands full. The Jews kick ass and they'll do it in a timely manner.

comment #3

SaveFarris says ...

I guess Iran wants to mess with the Zohan

comment #4

brendan says ...

End of days.....I wish Carlin was here to shed some light on this one.

I am not surprised by anything the Neocons (American and Isreali) do. Now they are running out of time and could be put in a corner by Obama & or McCain. Jeff's reporting is spot on and this is not a good situation for the rest of us.

comment #5

dsqadsa says ...

Seems he is a hooker. I've seen his profile on the wealthy dating club W E A L T H Y C H A T . C O M for hot singles to hook up for Hot Love and Sexy Dating. He seems to be hooking up with nice girls there.

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

"I suspect that righties like Black are talking about another shocking event in the wings because they're picking up whiffs of an upcoming military confrontation between Israel and Iran sometime before the November election, and they're looking to set the stage before it happens. Hardcore Cheney neocons would not only be okay with a military blowup in the Middle East sometime in the early to mid fall because they believe, as Black stated, it would help their side and their agenda."

Though if that were really the case, then that recent scuffle with Israel and Lebanon would have given them a landslide in '06.

EOTW: "As an ethnic Jew living in the American heartland, I say just stand back and let the Jews wipe Iran off the fucking map."

We do that, and we kill thousands of Iranian Jews in the process.

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

As for the likelihood of it happening, the real problem is that Dubya can't say "Mission Accomplished" the second time around, because he doesn't have the kind of time needed to make himself look good in front of the camera.

comment #8

MovieBob says ...

This is the problem with Israel vs. Iran:

EVERY significant power in the Middle East would like to see Iran get dusted. All of them. The Iranian leadership has been trying to game the system and morph into the "new" boss-of-bosses in the area for decades, and everyone from the Syrians to the Egyptians to the Saudi royals perceive this as a prime direct or indirect cause of outbreaks of radicalism in their own nations.

Problematically, the Iranian leadership has done a SPECTACULAR job of getting large portions of the CITIZENRY of Arab/Muslim nations very much on their side even as the heads of state are against them. They have done this by appealing directly to the ever-present strain of anti-semitism that pervades "the Arab street." And I don't mean "we disagree with Israeli military policy" anti-semitism, I mean real-deal medievalistic "they are infidels!!!" anti-semitism. Iran winks and nudges about pointing nukes at the Jews, and the Arab world ADORES them for it.

Israel knows this, and they know the score. If Iran gets nukes, they are the intended target. Iran wishes, in one way or another, to become "the guys who took on or took OUT the Israelis" and thus rise to regional dominance riding a wave out support from street-level citizens of it's neighbors. And so there you have it: If Iran gets nukes, the Israelis will bomb it into a crater of glass.

PROBLEM: While the leadership of Irans neighbors would generally WELCOME having this ultimate loose-canon nation taken out, if the deed is done by the Israelis the aforementioned Jew-hatred of the Arab Street will FORCE said leaders to declare direct hostilities with Israel - moreso than usual - or risk Iran-style otherthrow by Islamist radicals, likely leading to all-out war.

Thus, the prefered alternative for the Saudis etc. would be for Iran to be dealt-with by a third party, preferable a nominal ALLY of theirs, so that they are obliged to feign favor for Iran. A third party, preferably, who can strike with overwhelming force and who is rather economically inclined to "work with" the Saudis.

Guess who they'll pick? ;)

comment #9

ZayTonday says ...

Damn MovieBob... You seem to have hit the nail on the head. We as the United States need to tell the Saudi's that we ain't the one to be played like a chump if that happens though.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "EVERY significant power in the Middle East would like to see Iran get dusted. All of them. The Iranian leadership has been trying to game the system and morph into the "new" boss-of-bosses in the area for decades, and everyone from the Syrians to the Egyptians to the Saudi royals perceive this as a prime direct or indirect cause of outbreaks of radicalism in their own nations."

The reason that the Arab countries don't like Iran is that it's *less* fundamentalist then everyone else.
Furthermore, those countries are afraid it'll destroy the status quo with its emphasis on religion that reflects the
greater will of the people, instead of just benefiting a few rotten apples at the top of the ladder.

"Problematically, the Iranian leadership has done a SPECTACULAR job of getting large portions of the CITIZENRY of Arab/Muslim nations very much on their side even as the heads of state are against them. They have done this by appealing directly to the ever-present strain of anti-semitism that pervades "the Arab street." And I don't mean "we disagree with Israeli military policy" anti-semitism, I mean real-deal medievalistic "they are infidels!!!" anti-semitism. Iran winks and nudges about pointing nukes at the Jews, and the Arab world ADORES them for it."

Except that's not really what's going on in Iran, since it has the second largest Jewish population in the region; and Ahmadinejad does not in fact reflect the views of the majority of the Iranians. In fact, they recently voted for less of his Yes-men in the system. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/world/middleeast/16iran.html
I also call bs on the Arabs getting a kick out of any nuclear armament in the region, since even Syria would rather negotiate with Israel than get World War III in their own backyard. Really, the only ones who get off on that scenario are the neo-cons.

"And so there you have it: If Iran gets nukes, the Israelis will bomb it into a crater of glass."

Only if they can find the nukes.

"While the leadership of Irans neighbors would generally WELCOME having this ultimate loose-canon nation taken out, if the deed is done by the Israelis the aforementioned Jew-hatred of the Arab Street will FORCE said leaders to declare direct hostilities with Israel - moreso than usual - or risk Iran-style otherthrow by Islamist radicals, likely leading to all-out war. Thus, the prefered alternative for the Saudis etc. would be for Iran to be dealt-with by a third party, preferable a nominal ALLY of theirs, so that they are obliged to feign favor for Iran. A third party, preferably, who can strike with overwhelming force and who is rather economically inclined to "work with" the Saudis. Guess who they'll pick? ;)"

I think us invading Iran would probably be more disastrous than Israel bombing a few reactors, to be honest. No one had a fit when they went after that alleged reactor in Syria. But they sure as hell don't want us to be turning the leaders of their countries into compliant puppets like we've done in Iraq.

comment #11

Arizona Joe says ...

I do not have a problem with Israel attacking Iran. They deserve it.

However, some policy expert said if that happened, gasoline would rise to $8 per gallon for a while. I doubt most Americans would tolerate that in the name of ridding the Iranians of nukes. I don't see that scenario helping John McCain.

In addition, the U.S. economy would be in a shambles that most of us have never seen.

comment #12

BurmaShave says ...

Black will be gone within days. Mark my words.

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

Joe: "I do not have a problem with Israel attacking Iran. They deserve it."

They deserve it for what reason, exactly? For inflammatory comments made by one of their leaders?
By that logic, we deserve to be attacked for what Coulter and Falwell have said over the years. I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad, but unless you can prove he has nukes, and intends to use them before the year's up, an attack on Iran would be as illegitimate as our last war, plain and simple. And we can't even play that hostage card against them anymore, considering we've illegally held people at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

comment #14

NUMBSKULL says ...

Let me get this right:
Israel has an estimated 150 to 200 ILLEGAL nuclear warheads ( US Dept Defence/Jimmy Carter etc) and is going to attack iran which has NONE! Uh, OK.

comment #15

NUMBSKULL says ...

Let me get this right:
Israel has an estimated 150 to 200 ILLEGAL nuclear warheads ( US Dept Defence/Jimmy Carter etc) and is going to attack iran which has NONE! Uh, OK.
What's good for the jews is good for the gander.

comment #16

NUMBSKULL says ...

Let me get this right:
Israel has an estimated 150 to 200 ILLEGAL nuclear warheads ( US Dept Defence/Jimmy Carter etc) and is going to attack Iran which has NONE! Uh, OK.
What's good for the jews is good for the gander.

comment #17

NUMBSKULL says ...

The USA illegally invades Iraq. Israel illegally develops the sixth biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. Iran LEGALLY develops nuclear power capacity, but not nukes... America?

I'm sorry, but God forgive us, USrael really are the modern Nazis.

So yeah, let Israel attack Iran... Which bunch of dumb suckers are gonna pay? That's right, the American people, as usual! More national debt, more "terrorism", country in recession, can't pay to educate our own kids, or have a decent health service - sorry, spent all the money on the Iraq war... But hey, it's worth it... and all for our wonderful 'friends' in Israel... and don't forget the Oil companies! They love yah too! Gotta squeeze every drop of profit on the oil prices!

You bunch of grade-A suckers!
Fool me twice?
Sure, I'm American!

comment #18

MAGGA says ...

D.Z is right on the money in this thread. And seriously, gas prices? The US still has some of the lowest gas prices in the world and anyone who thinks attacking another country for the sake of paying less at the pump is a greedy përson with a bloodlust and no regard for human life

comment #19

dinther says ...

"As an ethnic Jew living in the American heartland, I say just stand back and let the Jews wipe Iran off the fucking map. Sorry, but someone needs to clean house over there and we got our hands full. The Jews kick ass and they'll do it in a timely manner."

EOTW, you believe "being an ethnic Jew living in the American heartland" entitles you to advocate destroying other countries at your prerogative? By virtue of what right? Or do you simply get off on virtual acts of machismo, spouting off tough talk with the comfort of knowing that you'll never have to back it up.

Anyone who has been through war, or who has walked through the debris and graveyards of countries on the receiving end of bombing raids, would know better than to spout off this jingoistic bullshit. No, EOTW, watching "Schindler's List" doesn't count. Have you ever been to Iran? Do you have ANY sense of how well-meaning, civil, and educated its citizens are, you ignorant fucking twat? Of course not. But that doesn't stop you.

The worst part is that so much of this attitude is propelled by blowhard pussies such as yourself, who cheerfully advocate bombing an entire nation from the comfort of your basement, knowing you will never have to deal with picking up the bodies of dismembered children, deal with the health crises that follow these actions, or otherwise actually DO anything to back up your rhetoric.

And most repugnant is the fact that you spout off this bullshit and you are Jewish - what a disgrace. Have you learned nothing from your people's history? Oh yeah - you have - eradicating a country or a race is fine, as long as its not your own.

You ignorant fuck.

comment #20

NUMBSKULL says ...

Woops, sorry for the 3 multiple posts above. I shall self-hate for about 30 minutes, OK everyone?

comment #21

MovieBob says ...

D.Z.
"They deserve it for what reason, exactly? For inflammatory comments made by one of their leaders?
By that logic, we deserve to be attacked for what Coulter and Falwell have said over the years."

Is it worth pointing out that Ahmadinejad is the PRESIDENT of his country, while Falwell and Coulter have no real direct political power in ours?

More to the point, Iran does more than talk tough: They are direct financiers of most of the radical movements causing trouble throughout the region. As you correctly note, despite the rather cosmopolitan nature of IT'S citizenry, Iran's leaders have more in common with the radicalized "common folk" of Saudi Arabia etc. than THEIR leaders do, and part of that connection is supporting terrorists.

Now, does that mean they deserve it? Not really, no, but "deserve" is beside the point in geopolitics. This is the real world, not some cartoon clash between absolute good and absolute evil. That doesn't happen. Hell, the LAST time we fought an absolute evil it was the Nazis and we had to team up with ANOTHER evil in the Soviets to beat them.

Israel and Iran have both, as nations, done some rotten things - Iran much moreso, but it's certainly not a wash. They are very likely heading for a confrontation of some kind. Two morally-questionable (to varying degrees) nations at war. We (as in U.S. policy) has to be with ONE of them, there's no third option. So who do we go with? The one that encourages and will benefit from a violently destabilized region, aims it's weapons at us? OR the one that will benefit only from a STABILIZED region and doesn't aim it's weapons at us?

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "Is it worth pointing out that Ahmadinejad is the PRESIDENT of his country, while Falwell and Coulter have no real direct political power in ours?"

But he's not the one officially in charge.

"More to the point, Iran does more than talk tough: They are direct financiers of most of the radical movements causing trouble throughout the region."

Actually, that hasn't been proven. Even if it has, though, the same argument can be made for the Sauds, Qadaffi and Syria.

"As you correctly note, despite the rather cosmopolitan nature of IT'S citizenry, Iran's leaders have more in common with the radicalized "common folk" of Saudi Arabia"

Actually, I was saying the complete opposite.

"Israel and Iran have both, as nations, done some rotten things - Iran much moreso,"

Again, you can't argue that Iran is worse than Israel or the U.S. after what happened at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

"So who do we go with? The one that encourages and will benefit from a violently destabilized region, aims it's weapons at us? OR the one that will benefit only from a STABILIZED region and doesn't aim it's weapons at us?"

How 'bout demanding they cease hostilities like we do with India and Pakistan, huh? [Oh, and while we're at it, not being Bush, and giving nuclear power to the non-Muslim side, and supporting a fascist puppet on the Muslim side who also has his finger on the button, while arguing against nuclear proliferation. ] They hate each others' guts, too, and we have no problem playing referee in that situation.

comment #23

Chicago48 says ...

all I know is energy costs going up; unemployment is going higher; food and other costs are up; and if we/ they bomb Iran, then we're most definitely looking at a recession. Don't think for one moment that Iran doesn't have missiles aimed at oil fields, its own or others like the Iraqis and Saudis. Not only that, they have "friends" like Venezuela and that nutcase will stop all oil shipments to the U.S.; and Russia may even stop oil shipments to the U.S. Oil and the cost of oil will determine whether or not we attack Iran. Can we risk more economic hardship? Well, no, but with the neocons in control of the White House, they will make the American public suffer.

We just had a devastating 2nd "Katrina"; god help us if we have a 3rd Katrina.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Chicago: Recession? Try depression.

comment #25

bb says ...

I nominate Numbskull for the most appropriate forum nickname in the history of forum nicknames.

comment #26

MovieBob says ...

D.Z.
"How 'bout demanding they cease hostilities like we do with India and Pakistan, huh? [Oh, and while we're at it, not being Bush, and giving nuclear power to the non-Muslim side, and supporting a fascist puppet on the Muslim side who also has his finger on the button, while arguing against nuclear proliferation. ] They hate each others' guts, too, and we have no problem playing referee in that situation."

Because it wouldn't WORK. India and Pakistan are endlessly hostile, but 98% of it is over entirely tangible things like land and allegiance which can be haggled over and "managed" to a degree. Neither side, at the makes-stuff-happen level, has a death wish. Musharraf is FAR from ideal, but he's (barely) effectively keeping the Fundamentalists from taking power.

By contrast, Palestine (the "Pakistan" analog in their version) has at it's leadership, military AND civilian levels a too-high concentration of individuals who not only want to wipe out their enemy with "they pray the wrong way and moved in next door" as a primary motivating factor, BUT BELIEVE THEY WILL BE REWARDED IN HEAVEN IF THEY DIE DOING IT. That's kind hard to "referee."

BTW, apparently the most recent "truce" got broken tonight after a WHOLE five days. Rocket attack from the Palestinian side. You're SHOCKED, I can tell ;)

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "Because it wouldn't WORK. India and Pakistan are endlessly hostile, but 98% of it is over entirely tangible things like land and allegiance which can be haggled over and "managed" to a degree."

And you think that those aren't issues in the Middle East?

"Neither side, at the makes-stuff-happen level, has a death wish. Musharraf is FAR from ideal, but he's (barely) effectively keeping the Fundamentalists from taking power."

I'd say he's actually been more helpful to the fundy cause, than if, say, Bhutto were in charge.

"By contrast, Palestine (the "Pakistan" analog in their version) has at it's leadership, military AND civilian levels a too-high concentration of individuals who not only want to wipe out their enemy with "they pray the wrong way and moved in next door" as a primary motivating factor, BUT BELIEVE THEY WILL BE REWARDED IN HEAVEN IF THEY DIE DOING IT. That's kind hard to "referee."

We did it with Egypt and Jordan, and Israel's going at it alone with Syria. But I was referring to Iran, not the Palestinians.

"BTW, apparently the most recent "truce" got broken tonight after a WHOLE five days. Rocket attack from the Palestinian side. You're SHOCKED, I can tell ;)"

I'm more shocked that we've chosen to let this conflict continue for so long, because, otherwise, Bush's cronies wouldn't make any money off of it...