• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How will the necons sell the war the war with Iran

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,636
3,440
126
Originally posted by: Horus
Originally posted by: db
Something like 23% of any population is crazy enough to march over a cliff. Keep beating the drums of fear, have the corporate media repeat your lies, and wahlah: we're in the war and it's too late. Nothing left to do now except stand behind our leaders.
Seems simple enough.
FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST. IT'S NOT WAHLAH. IT'S VOILA! IT'S FRENCH! NOT "WHALLAAH", OR "VAHLAHH", IT'S VOILA! FOR FVCK'S SAKE IT'S THE UMTEENTH TIME I'VE SAID IT!
He's talking about Tylosurus crocodilus crocodilus, you dummy. It's a Wahlah as everybody whos anybody knows.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,636
3,440
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I somewhat thank you Lunar Ray for being the first to honestly address this thread,

In our current war with Iraq---the American people and the world agreed to let GWB go to war on fears and hype----and hype that has proved 100% untrue with the lens of 20 20 hindsight. And 3.6 years later we are still at war, no progress has been made, and the lives of the average Iraqi is now infinitely worse than under Saddam.

And now we get almost uncontravertable evidence from a highly respected journalist with sources in spades---that the next target will be Iran---and soon.

The question is what we the American people can do to prevent this war---or will we just wake up some morning and find GWB has already taken us to war with Iran---and we just have no remaining choice but to hope this one is not the same losing fiasco the Iraq war was?---or that like the Germans and Japanese---that we will finally discover we followed a madman like Tojo or Hiltler---who led our proud nation to utter ruin?

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.---and we live in times that try men's souls.
Bush's Administration, his supporters in Congress and the population who trust him are convinced we must be proactive in the solution to the world's woes. What makes up that agenda can only be speculated on but I suspect it entails more violence in foreign lands.

The same set of conditions as they exist today in the Middle East can be seen by ten people of differing political persuasion to be vastly less or more threatening to our security because each would take a somewhat different tact to resolve them. An exception being an invasion on our soil like 9/11 by an identifiable enemy where we'd all unite in a common goal which is just exactly what Bush has used 9/11 to do... apparently!

But that is exactly my point.. Not all action must be violent. There must exist commonality amongst nations in some element of our mutual existence on which to foster a peaceful end to a problem. Even to the extent of being totally defensive and isolated. Let them be as they may while we be as we may. I'd have no problem invading anywhere if that government attacked me. I'd be swift and certain it would not occur again.. Collateral damage would not be in my vocabulary... Destruction would be my objective.. but only from a totally defensive posture initially.. Just like the UN Charter provides... you don't need approval to defend..

So.. inferred in my above is just how I expect the Neocon to seize the attention of the majority of Americans if Iran is really on their radar. It won't be sold.. it will be demanded but some lone voice in the wilderness will cry out and be silenced by the herd of buffalo charging to the slaughterhouse... with righteous indignation they will go.. until reality sets in and that will be too late... Mad Cow disease devastates the herd..
It is all well and good to be proactive when you have terrorists light off 10 nuclear weapons in your major cities if you are one of the survivors, but it's too late for all those dead to be proactive then. There are in our age some catastrophes we need to be proactive about before they happen and that changes everything, no? Doesn't mean we have to kill every other nation on earth to be safe, but it does mean, I think, trying to know what's going on and eliminating real threats, by diplomacy if possible but by other means if required. It just makes no sense to me to react to the deaths of maybe hundreds of thousands of kids after they are dead.
If I don't ever visit your house and stomp on your begonias you'll have no reason to visit terror on my tulips..
Why would the terrorist visit my yard and detonate the nuclear devices if I'm peacefully tending my own business letting him tend to his in his own garden?

My thinking is that during the transition from proactive aggressor to defensive gardener there may be some who hold a grudge.. well I'm not going to abandon my freedoms to survive as a prisoner in my own home.. I figure they would find a means to do what they intend no matter what I did proactive like... except if I completely eliminate any possible threat by eliminating every possible terrorist. All the while I'm a prisoner until finally only I'm left alive..

Again I'd say... If attacked I would eliminate the aggressor terrorist and his government and his friends.. sooner or later I may run out of 'payback' but if I am right and stop the attacks on me by the others left around I've won.. If I am wrong and a new group comes to seek vengeance on this peaceful gardener then they too will visit the reality of their belief... I am willing to live and let live after all the other nations are sovereign too.. If they terminate me in the process.. well then I'd not much care anymore, I don't think..
What did Tibet do to China?
They couldn't follow the "LunarRay Doctrine" they be too small a nation.. each can and must have a policy that follows the logic of their reality... The US has a big stick but Tibet had but a few Gurka and the Dali Lama.
My comment was not to do with China/Tibet nor even China/USA.. cuz in that is MAD.. I figure we are smart enough to know that you don't invade a China no matter what.. You do invade Grenada cuz you can.. if they invade you first is my doctrine... China I'd say we sit and discuss the issue and stop imports and use that avenue.. but if at the end of the day China attacked us.. then fine 'lets go die'...
One nuke and Israel is gone. Not good to be small, I guess.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Moonbeam said
One nuke and Israel is gone. Not good to be small, I guess.
Well... not good to be in the position of being nuked regardless of the size.. Just a few more of us USins that can then remind them of the 'LunarRay Doctrine' ... I can't keep you from trying but I'll surely break you of the habit.....

If it came to it.. that is; the US invading Iran, I've no doubt that someone would conjure up the notion of reprisal against Israel. That alone should keep us from presumed ad hoc decisions that turn out to be far reaching, unpredictable in their application and anything but specific..
 

straightalker

Senior member
Dec 21, 2005
515
0
0
The Iran threat is nothing to the USA. We have much greater domestic and military theats.

The greatest domestic threat to the USA are the neocons themselves.

The greatest military threat is the 2 main Nations pointing the most nuclear missiles at us. Russia and China.

High oil prices is fueling super oil-rich Russia's ability to prepare for war against the USA.

While at the same time China soaks up massive profits from the West from the massive slave goods trade in cheap products. China is going full steam ahead arming themselves to the teeth in everything they need to become a huge military threat to not just the USA but Japan and Australia/NZ. With a possible troop invasion of North America being a very real threat.

All this political crap about Iran as a threat is just the neocons playing political football with our lives and futures. If we had a man like General Patton as President, one of the last of the real generals we've had in recent times, the USA would be bristling with modern defenses in exactly the configuration most irritating to the Russian/Chinese alliance.

You see folks, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are nutcase wars on the agenda of people with no right to govvern us. These wars make no tactical sense whatsoever in light of reality. The resources spent there weaken us elsewhere.

I wonder out loud...

Do we have any Flag Officers anywhere anymore in the USA who have their heads screwed on straight?

We will find out i guess.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
I don't think Bush will do anything about Iran. Neither will Europe or Isreal.

I'm still trying to decide though if we wake up one Morning and Irans (shi'a) have nukes ,with which they could blackmail us with, what thier likely Targets would be in a priority based order.

>>Isreal is an obvious answer but is it #1?
>>Sunni Muslims and Shia have no love for each other..Possibly a saudia arabian/gulf state strike, for control of the oil supply? There by limiting any conventional military action against them.
>>> then there's pacifist Europe....will they be bullied into sharia law submission by a couple of key strikes?
>>>Then there's the US. Distance is a problem , but we are the great Satan?

No answers here only questions.
I do know the only reason M.A.D. worked though in the cold war years was because the communists didn't want to die. Can we say the shi'a have the same love for life?
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Anyone who think Iran or NK wants nukes to actually attack someone is naive. They want them for the same reason everyone else does, negotiating power on the world playground.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Todd33
Anyone who think Iran or NK wants nukes to actually attack someone is naive. They want them for the same reason everyone else does, blackmailing power on the world playground.
fixed

example...NK give us aid for our failing economy or we will shoot missles at you.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,116
3,075
136
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Todd33
Anyone who think Iran or NK wants nukes to actually attack someone is naive. They want them for the same reason everyone else does, blackmailing power on the world playground.
fixed

example...NK give us aid for our failing economy or we will shoot missles at you.


And we could shoot a thousand back. Doesn't really give them much of an edge.

Not that I want any to get them, but realistically speaking, their threats to get them are probably more powerful than them actually having them. A Nuke Dev. program is someting they can negotiate with, a couple missiles do nothing until you use them.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Todd33
Anyone who think Iran or NK wants nukes to actually attack someone is naive. They want them for the same reason everyone else does, blackmailing power on the world playground.
fixed

example...NK give us aid for our failing economy or we will shoot missles at you.


And we could shoot a thousand back. Doesn't really give them much of an edge.

Not that I want any to get them, but realistically speaking, their threats to get them are probably more powerful than them actually having them. A Nuke Dev. program is someting they can negotiate with, a couple missiles do nothing until you use them.
I find it odd that for decades we had a cold war with the soviets including the cuban missle crisis and the whole world was scared to death that we were going to destroy ourselves.
Now all of a sudden no one has a problem with any rouge state posessing them. Have we really become that naive?
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
15,091
3,877
136
What would you do if you found out that Iran had possession of some old soviet warheads and had figured out a way to actually detonate them? What would your reaction be if they did use them on say Israel or any other western government?
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Todd33
Anyone who think Iran or NK wants nukes to actually attack someone is naive. They want them for the same reason everyone else does, blackmailing power on the world playground.
fixed

example...NK give us aid for our failing economy or we will shoot missles at you.


And we could shoot a thousand back. Doesn't really give them much of an edge.

Not that I want any to get them, but realistically speaking, their threats to get them are probably more powerful than them actually having them. A Nuke Dev. program is someting they can negotiate with, a couple missiles do nothing until you use them.
I find it odd that for decades we had a cold war with the soviets including the cuban missle crisis and the whole world was scared to death that we were going to destroy ourselves.
Now all of a sudden no one has a problem with any rouge state posessing them. Have we really become that naive?
Blame Bush. He informed those countries that they were on the list, "The Axis of EVIL" and hence they need protection to avoid Iraq's fate. This isn't very hard. Cause/Effect. Action/Reaction.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
If all of a sudden I was given the god like power of taking all nuclear weapons from one and only one memeber or potential member of the nuclear club---and was asked to decide which memeber had the most dangerous and self-delusional leader.

Seven years ago it would have been a no brainer----North Korea would get the nod.

Today---it would be The USA under GWB.---a real no brainer.

In a few years it may well be Israel.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I somewhat thank you Lunar Ray for being the first to honestly address this thread,

In our current war with Iraq---the American people and the world agreed to let GWB go to war on fears and hype----and hype that has proved 100% untrue with the lens of 20 20 hindsight. And 3.6 years later we are still at war, no progress has been made, and the lives of the average Iraqi is now infinitely worse than under Saddam.

And now we get almost uncontravertable evidence from a highly respected journalist with sources in spades---that the next target will be Iran---and soon.

The question is what we the American people can do to prevent this war---or will we just wake up some morning and find GWB has already taken us to war with Iran---and we just have no remaining choice but to hope this one is not the same losing fiasco the Iraq war was?---or that like the Germans and Japanese---that we will finally discover we followed a madman like Tojo or Hiltler---who led our proud nation to utter ruin?

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.---and we live in times that try men's souls.
Bush's Administration, his supporters in Congress and the population who trust him are convinced we must be proactive in the solution to the world's woes. What makes up that agenda can only be speculated on but I suspect it entails more violence in foreign lands.

The same set of conditions as they exist today in the Middle East can be seen by ten people of differing political persuasion to be vastly less or more threatening to our security because each would take a somewhat different tact to resolve them. An exception being an invasion on our soil like 9/11 by an identifiable enemy where we'd all unite in a common goal which is just exactly what Bush has used 9/11 to do... apparently!

But that is exactly my point.. Not all action must be violent. There must exist commonality amongst nations in some element of our mutual existence on which to foster a peaceful end to a problem. Even to the extent of being totally defensive and isolated. Let them be as they may while we be as we may. I'd have no problem invading anywhere if that government attacked me. I'd be swift and certain it would not occur again.. Collateral damage would not be in my vocabulary... Destruction would be my objective.. but only from a totally defensive posture initially.. Just like the UN Charter provides... you don't need approval to defend..

So.. inferred in my above is just how I expect the Neocon to seize the attention of the majority of Americans if Iran is really on their radar. It won't be sold.. it will be demanded but some lone voice in the wilderness will cry out and be silenced by the herd of buffalo charging to the slaughterhouse... with righteous indignation they will go.. until reality sets in and that will be too late... Mad Cow disease devastates the herd..
It is all well and good to be proactive when you have terrorists light off 10 nuclear weapons in your major cities if you are one of the survivors, but it's too late for all those dead to be proactive then. There are in our age some catastrophes we need to be proactive about before they happen and that changes everything, no? Doesn't mean we have to kill every other nation on earth to be safe, but it does mean, I think, trying to know what's going on and eliminating real threats, by diplomacy if possible but by other means if required. It just makes no sense to me to react to the deaths of maybe hundreds of thousands of kids after they are dead.
If I don't ever visit your house and stomp on your begonias you'll have no reason to visit terror on my tulips..
Why would the terrorist visit my yard and detonate the nuclear devices if I'm peacefully tending my own business letting him tend to his in his own garden?

My thinking is that during the transition from proactive aggressor to defensive gardener there may be some who hold a grudge.. well I'm not going to abandon my freedoms to survive as a prisoner in my own home.. I figure they would find a means to do what they intend no matter what I did proactive like... except if I completely eliminate any possible threat by eliminating every possible terrorist. All the while I'm a prisoner until finally only I'm left alive..

Again I'd say... If attacked I would eliminate the aggressor terrorist and his government and his friends.. sooner or later I may run out of 'payback' but if I am right and stop the attacks on me by the others left around I've won.. If I am wrong and a new group comes to seek vengeance on this peaceful gardener then they too will visit the reality of their belief... I am willing to live and let live after all the other nations are sovereign too.. If they terminate me in the process.. well then I'd not much care anymore, I don't think..
What did Tibet do to China?
They couldn't follow the "LunarRay Doctrine" they be too small a nation.. each can and must have a policy that follows the logic of their reality... The US has a big stick but Tibet had but a few Gurka and the Dali Lama.
My comment was not to do with China/Tibet nor even China/USA.. cuz in that is MAD.. I figure we are smart enough to know that you don't invade a China no matter what.. You do invade Grenada cuz you can.. if they invade you first is my doctrine... China I'd say we sit and discuss the issue and stop imports and use that avenue.. but if at the end of the day China attacked us.. then fine 'lets go die'...
One nuke and Israel is gone. Not good to be small, I guess.
One nuke there would also take out at least as many muslims as Israeli jews.

In 2003 Iran tried to open up relations with the US completely, including giving the US access to the Iranian nuclear program. The Bush administration wanted none of that. It is the Bush administration and their policitial agenda (as symbolized by its painting of Iran as part of the Axis of Evil) that is driving much of this conflict. Had they been more flexible back then the situation would most likely have been very different today. However flexibility clearly is not one of the Bush adminsitrations strong points.

In fact it is the Bush administration that has been talking of using "tactical" nukes against Iran.


 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
15,091
3,877
136
If even one device is used it will set of a chain reaction of events that will forever change life on this planet. Too bad I don't have access to a magic wand because I'd be waiving it all over the place straightening things up. Maybe it will take a global catastrophic event to make people realize that they're all part of the same race and that they must work together in peace or they'll never make it.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Honestly, should Bush decide to go headlong into Iran, I don't think he'll even bother "selling" it this time. I think he'd simply send troops to the Iranian border with no explanation other than something as simple as "It's necessary to protect America." This administration is beyond explaining their actions. They simply don't feel the need to.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,503
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
If all of a sudden I was given the god like power of taking all nuclear weapons from one and only one memeber or potential member of the nuclear club---and was asked to decide which memeber had the most dangerous and self-delusional leader.

Seven years ago it would have been a no brainer----North Korea would get the nod.

Today---it would be The USA under GWB.---a real no brainer.

In a few years it may well be Israel.

I will from now on regard you and anything you post as extremely questionable.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY