March 24, 2009

"Barack Obama extended the olive branch to Iran's leaders last Friday in a videotaped message praising a 'great civilization'..."

"... for 'accomplishments' that 'have earned the respect of the United States and the world.' The death of Iranian blogger Omid-Reza Mirsayafi in Tehran's Evin prison two days earlier was, presumably, not among the accomplishments the president had in mind."
Posted by Ann Althouse at 12:12 PM
Tags: , ,

209 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 209 of 209
Richard Fagin said...

Wow, quoted in the comments more than once. Must have ruffled a few feathers.

It continues to amaze me that some people think human nature has been or can be overcome in all cases with reason. The founding fathers, to name a few people, knew better.

However distasteful it is to some of you, the credible threat of retribution is a necessary element of keeping the worst parts of human nature from being exercised. We have civilzation because we made a system where the sole power of retribution is vested in a way that tries to assure it is used only in the appropriate circumstances. Yeah, most of us pull over when a cop flashes his patrol car lights at us, and would do so even if he didn't have a gun and a radio. There are those who don't and wouldn't absent the gun and radio, and the TV news is full of stories of those who don't even so.

What does a civilized people do when entire countries are hijacked by the same kind of people who don't respect rules of civilzed behavior and will not do so execpt under credible threat of retribution, or even threat of destruction?

The problem is that because the process of allocating retribution is necessarily imperfect, some of you think we should just do away with retribution (except of course against loathsome European white men). We tried that 40 years ago in U.S. criminal law. We're only now undoing the damage.

You want to rewrite history, go ahead. The facts won't change. Soviet-era generals themselves state that the SDI program scared the crap our of the Soviet military and essentially compelled Gorbachev to seek an opening with the U.S. There was also the little collapse of oil prices in 1986 and the 1985 sabotage of Russia's main gas export pipeline by deliberately flawed operating software planted by people who knew the Soviets were stealing the stuff. Those essentially cut off the USSR's outside cash flow. But of course, Reagan was an affable dunce and had nothing to do with the end of the Soviet Union.

The Iranians won't change until they reasonably believe they won't survive otherwise. Execept for Ahmedinejad, who is looking forward to being vaporized into martyrdom in anticipation of the 12th imam.

3/25/09, 7:49 AM
The Dude said...

Ahmedinejad wants to meet God? Good, we should arrange that meeting, forthwith.

3/25/09, 8:19 AM
Synova said...

Nathan:

I served during Desert Storm, not in the Gulf but with hazard pay and (technically, at least) forward deployed. A dozen American military and civilian contractors were shot and killed where I was stationed, either while on the street in civies, or in elaborate ambush type massacres, by the local People's Army.

You?

Or is military service something other people are supposed to do.

3/25/09, 1:43 PM
Synova said...

What you waiting for, Nathan?

If a non-athletic, 5 foot tall female can do it, what is your excuse? Not up to the PT? Don't want to make a commitment? Gonna cry if the DI yells at you?

3/25/09, 1:47 PM
Lyle said...

Revenant,

If all we did was try to stop Iran, then yes, I guess we could. However, we are not going to to, because we are not leaving Iraq or Afghanistan. Our Air Force and Navy is deployed heavily in support of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. We won't be removing troops from Germany, Japan, Europe, or Korea either.

So based on our military's size and how it is spread out, we aren't going to be invading Iran. We don't even have the political capital to do it. Iran is going to have to do something horrible first before we are able to do something horrible to them.

Personally, I think the Iranian people can change Iran from the inside and no one will do anything horrible.

Bottom line: the United States will not attack Iran anytime soon because our military is not currently capable of doing it and we don't have the world's support completely behind us.

3/25/09, 2:52 PM
Lyle said...

Seven Machos,

US Armed Forces are occupying and fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan... they're not deployed there so they can attack Iran.

They simply can't stop what they're doing and run into Iran.

3/25/09, 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...

Lyle -- Your military planning skills are obviously formidable.

And for the rest of you, complaining that people who haven't served cannot know advocate the use of the military. Well, first of all, that's utter bullshit. Second, I did serve the United States. Third, you need to stop complaining about everything you've never been a part of. Fourth, why does the pendulum only swing one way? You never were soldiers, either. Why can you dictate war policy? What is your experience in this realm?

3/25/09, 3:19 PM
Synova said...

Lyle, you're fighting the last war.

What I mean by this is... you're assuming that *if* we have to engage Iran that our strategy and tactics will be the same as Iraq and the same as Afghanistan. That we will invade and hold ground, fight an insurgency, and instigate COIN operations and a "surge".

I'm not a war college graduate either, but I don't see the similarities in the situation that would call for similar strategy.

Our goals in Iran, should we be forced to act, would very probably be well answered by the Air Force and Navy. Different problems require different tools.

Personally, I think the Iranian people can change Iran from the inside and no one will do anything horrible.

I think that you are probably right, but I wouldn't try to guess what Obama will do or how Iran will react or what will happen next week and next month and next year. I feel that Democrats, who seem to find the military distasteful, are even *more* likely to bomb the sh*t out of something or even use nukes, than the more "militant" Republicans... but I don't expect the leadership of Iran to think so, so who knows what they will do?

3/25/09, 3:42 PM
Lyle said...

Synova,

I haven't argued that a military action against Iran will look the same as our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I highly doubt we'd invade Iran. More than likely it would be a land and sea based aerial bombardment. The problem is the Air Force and Navy that are in the Persian Gulf would have to stop providing support to the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be a complicated and costly maneuver. As far as I know, the military wants no part in such an action. The Bush administration didn't even allow Israel to have a go at Iran's nuclear facilities.

I'm with you on the disturbing anti-military leanings of many progressives. Military options should never be taken off the table when dealing with terrorism or states that sponsor terrorism, but we are in a bad position to deal with Iran at the moment, and the status quo with Iran will not change anytime soon.

3/25/09, 6:57 PM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 209 of 209   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)