Egypt trash talks US; US shows weak on Iran

Interesting times.

This is not your father’s Egypt, under the evolving rule of Mohammed Morsi.  This is a Sinai-militarizing, Jerusalem-coveting, trash-talking Egypt.  (Wait – maybe that is your father’s Egypt.)  And Egyptian officials have quickly turned their trash-talking skills on their one-time partner, the United States.

Sadly, the statements of Suez Canal Authority chairman Mohab Mamish sounded just credible enough to get legs in the US media.  According to Mamish, when Iranian frigate Alvand approached the Suez Canal in February 2012, headed for Syria, the US asked Egypt to prohibit Alvand’s transit through the Canal.  In a 26 August interview, Mamish also refers to a “US request to strike” the Iranian ship at the time. 

The latter assertion is just silly, and tips off the unbelievable nature of the whole tale.  No one in the US military chain of command, up to and including President Obama, would think it was a good idea to “strike” the Iranian frigate.  But even if someone did, at the Suez Canal, with the full knowledge of Egypt, is as wrong as it gets, approach- and venue-wise.  If the US were going to “strike” another nation’s warship under the circumstances of Alvand’s transit, we’d just do it wherever we wanted to during the ship’s transit, without asking another nation for permission to do it in her territorial waters.

Similarly, the statement about the US asking to have Alvand turned back at the Suez Canal fails to hold up under scrutiny.  It is a very big deal to ask Egypt to prohibit the transit of a sovereign nation’s warship, and frankly, the US would have to know such a request would be turned down.  Egypt has cooperated, since the inauguration of the War on Terror, in the interdiction of merchant ships carrying arms for terrorists (e.g., Hezbollah).  But a warship is the representative of her nation, and stopping an Iranian frigate would be, in effect, a declaration of failing relations between Egypt and Iran.

Of course that’s Egypt’s call to make.  Moreover, there are literally dozens of US professionals in the State Department, Defense Department, and on the National Security Council staff who know that asking Egypt to do this would be a foolish and inappropriate request.  You don’t ask Egypt to just stick her neck out.  The goal of preventing Iranian arms from getting to Syria is a sound one, but deputizing Egypt to take the risk of the showdown with Iran – especially when the US is being passive and following from behind – is an unsound approach.

The ideologues on Obama’s national-security team may not know that, but their career staffers do.  If this issue got to Obama’s level, I imagine there was someone conveying the sensible point of view.  That said, I’m not convinced the US ever entertained this course of action at all.  It sounds like a fabrication to me, or at the very least, a wild exaggeration.

If I had to guess the purpose of these statements, I would say it’s to establish the theme of Egypt standing up to and confounding the United States.  The following paragraph appears in the Breitbart and original World Tribune stories:

Mamish says the Egyptian military has “tight control” the canal at this time, intimating that they are the ones making decisions about which nations will and won’t be allowed to pass through it. The U.S. has no say in the matter.

Well, of course we have no say in the matter.  We never have.  Egypt runs the Canal.  This is not a point that needs to be reaffirmed – complete with tales about how Egypt stood up to the US – unless Egypt perceives a need to score political points.  And that appears to be what’s going on.

Defense without, er, defense

Meanwhile, as recently as Wednesday, Stars & Stripes had a story on the new, deployable tactical operations center the US 10th Army (based in Germany) will take to Israel for Exercise Austere Challenge 2012.  The deployable TOC supports air and missile defense, and is to be a central feature of the high-priority ballistic-missile defense (BMD) facet of Austere Challenge.  Using Austere Challenge to exercise missile defense is in line with President Obama’s emphasis on missile defense for Israel as a security response to the Iranian threat.

The exercise has had a troubled history in 2012.  Originally scheduled for the spring, it was postponed until later in the year, with a launch date in October finally settled on.  But now the exercise is being scaled back considerably, according to a Time report on Friday.  Instead of the 5,000 US troops originally planned, the exercise contingent will be more like 1,500, and possibly fewer.

Equally important is the report that although Patriot missile batteries will deploy to Israel, there will be no crews to operate them.  That is quite odd:  a Patriot battery deploys as a unit, with technicians to set the equipment up and maintain it, along with the crews to operate it.  It is bizarre and pointed to deploy the hardware but not the crews.  There is no military sense to it; it can only be intended to send a political message – and apparently a baby-splitting message, at that. 

Israel can take comfort that she isn’t the only US ally to be sent Patriot parts without the actual Patriot defense capability.  The much-publicized deployment of the US Patriot missile to Poland turned out to involve “rotational training units” but no Patriot interceptor missiles.  The original agreement was concluded in 2008, and I very much doubt the Bush administration misled the Poles as to the character of the proposed BMD deployments.  But an embassy cable from February 2009 registered Polish anger that the Patriot systems would be deployed without any missiles, which is not what they thought they were signing up for. 

In August 2012, Poland’s president said going with the US missile-defense plan was a mistake, and that Poland would be building her own missile defenses from now on.  The tortured symbolism of rotational training without missiles doesn’t seem to have met Poland’s defense needs.  Warsaw will turn to Germany and France for assistance with building a national missile defense.

Israel has done considerable BMD development of her own, and it is not clear that she will be unable to defend herself without US support.  But pointedly moving Patriot hardware to Israel without crews to operate the system sends the message that the US is committed only so far to the defense of Israel.  The other cutback reported for Austere Challenge is a reduction in the Aegis BMD warships committed to the exercise, from two to one – or possibly zero.  Since the main focus of the exercise will be BMD, this merely amplifies the signal sent by the unmanned Patriot hardware.

US General throws Israel under bus

Again, there is no military sense in these moves, which have been explained – absurdly – as due to budget problems.  The clarity of the political message has been sharpened, however, by dismissive – not to say pusillanimous – statements from General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about an Israeli attack on Iran (h/t: JTA).

These are the money lines from a presser Dempsey did with London media on 30 August:

An Israeli attack on Iran would delay but probably not stop its nuclear programme, the most senior US military officer has claimed. General Martin Dempsey reinforced Washington’s opposition to unilateral Israel military action as he made clear that US military chiefs were equally wary of getting ensnared in Syria. …

Distancing himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran, Dempsey said such an attack would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear programme”.

He added: “I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.”

Dempsey said he did not know Iran’s nuclear intentions, as intelligence did not reveal intentions. What was clear, he said, was that the “international coalition” applying pressure on Iran “could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely”. Sanctions against Iran were having an effect, and they should be given a reasonable opportunity to succeed.

I imagine we can reassure General Dempsey that he will not be complicit, if that’s what he’s worried about.  It should go without saying that interviews like this one make the US look unserious and even pathetic.  If we want Iran’s respect, this – “Hey, don’t blame us” – isn’t the way to get it.

Iran advances

But there’s more to it than that.  Leon Panetta has assured Americans that the effects of the sanctions on Iran “may not be obvious.”  What is obvious, however, is that the sanctions are not affecting Iran’s nuclear program, which is the only thing that matters.  Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t the only one making that point; the Obama White House appears to agree with him, and the IAEA’s latest report on the Iranian nuclear program indicates acceleration in some areas – i.e., burying a working centrifuge network at the Fordo site near Qom – and continued, unresolved concerns in others.  The Jewish Virtual Library has a summary from 15 August of the numerous ways in which sanctions have failed.

Predictably, the Iranian leadership is continuing its nuclear program in spite of the bite of sanctions on the economy and the people.  It will continue to do so.  Iran has been stalling for years in P5+1 talks, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the mullahs will change their tactics, when those tactics have successfully bought them time for the last eight years.

Intelligence may not tell us the Iranians’ intentions, but it certainly tells us what they have been interested in, from nuclear-warhead design to nuclear-warhead detonators and long-range missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.  Their interest in these elements of a nuclear weapon goes back to 2003 and before.  They have been interested in burying their program and putting their missiles in ground silos in the side of a mountain.  They want to enrich more and more uranium, and enrich uranium to higher than 19.75% purity, the latter ambition being one for which there is no non-military purpose.  There is no aspect of a hardened, extended-range nuclear-weapons program which they have not exhibited.

We don’t know exactly how close the Iranians are to having a working warhead.  The idea that we infallibly could is not a meaningful one for national-security decisions.  You cannot detect a smoking gun until it’s been fired, and then it’s too late, at least for limited action.  Israel can’t afford to wait until even Mondoweiss is convinced the Iranians have the bomb.  Once they do, Israel’s options expire.

Ours don’t, but they are ratcheted up to a level that will be politically unacceptable.  Politically, we can’t invade and regime-change Iran because she has developed a bomb.  Living with a nuclear-armed Iran is not a better option, however.  Once Iran nukes up, Egypt will too, and possibly Saudi Arabia and Turkey.  If Iran establishes an immunity to US counteraction, the face of the Middle East and everything around it will change forever.  This will affect the United States immediately; there will be no grace period.

The blinders-on complacency of the current US administration is breathtaking.  I am saddened to see the day when our top general tries to shed responsibility in advance, rather than remembering that we are alltrying to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the only way to do that is to be tough with Iran.  I believe Netanyahu and his voters know that Dempsey’s words are not representative of the American people’s attitude.  The question remains what Netanyahu will deem it necessary to do in the next three-odd months, since it’s extremely obvious Obama won’t be doing anything.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.

Note for new commenters:  Welcome!  There is a one-time “approval” process that keeps down the spam.  There may be a delay in the posting if your first comment, but once you’re “approved,” you can join the fray at will.

104 thoughts on “Egypt trash talks US; US shows weak on Iran”

  1. Weakness, fecklessness, and dishonesty of action all lead to misunderstanding, underestimation, and finally attack.

    Dempsey is a brass-plated fruit salad wearing ass-kissing bureaucrat. The flag and general officer ranks of the US military has been thoroughly populated by such socio-political animals since the first day of the administration. Gates tried to hold the line, but ultimately he too succumbed and surrendered as powerless to stop the Leftist take over of the military.

    The Dems just want us to be loved, and appreciated by our adversaries. The 1920’s unholy international pacifist alliance has once again taken choke holds on intelligent foreign policy and military preparedness. Our allies can’t count on us, and our enemies neither respect, nor fear us.

    This is a very dangerous time, We are weak, feckless, and the administration is dishonest at every level. The misunderstandings and underestimations are mounting.

    The culmination of our incompetance is the ages old result….

    We are not prepared at ay level.


  2. And, we should not forget to include all the key recipe elements into the foreign policy bowl before mixing thoroughly to reach a fair and balanced conclusion. So, to that effect, just how much foreign aid (re: money) do we give Egypt every year?


    1. I believe it comes to around 1.5 billion a year.

      That’s a bribe, to ensure that the most populous Muslim nation remains cooperative.

      Obama is continuing Egypt’s ‘aid’ because to pull it at this point would be an implicit admission that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are in fact, hostile to Western interests. Admitting that, would in turn expose the intentional mischaracterization of the “Arab Spring” that the administration and MSM have been engaged in, which would in turn expose the inadequacy of Obama’s entire foreign policy.

      If reelected and,\ after the election, if events force his hand, Obama will profess to be “shocked, shocked to discover that Morsi has been less than sincere”. All to appease jihadists while protecting his left flank; liberal American Jews.

      1. It’s not quite a bribe, but the cost of having a fair amount of control over the Egyptian military, which still has more control over Egypt than anyone else.

        1. Dream on, dream on as long as you may.

          The military is no longer in charge. You are either ignorant of recent events or willfully obtuse.

          1. GB

            How about both?

            Fuster missed: The Egyptian Military has been infiltrated and the bulk of it is under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood. That the Egyptians are pulling off a re-militarization of the Sinai, and the current Regime headed by Whatever-his-real-name-is is standing flat footed and slack-jawed as Morsi aggregates his corner of the future Caliphate power structure.

            The main reason is that he’s a New York City person… That means his “world reference” extends east to the Hamptons, North as far as Hunter Mountain, west as far as Met Life Stadium in Jersey, and never gets much beyond the first Shore Point south. Nothing that happens outside of that bubble is of any importance or consequence. (There was that ‘Y’ camp in the Catskills that one summer when he was 8… but with the wedgies and swirlies he’d rather not remember.)

            All of which might explain his obdurate obtuseness…


                1. “your levity needs a massive upgrade”

                  GB: I know you know that asking for miracles, even needed or welcomed ones by all, is no guarantee that they will be considered…?


                2. there is no substantive rebuttal possible or necessary to the comment that ……

                  ” The main reason is that he’s a New York City person… That means his “world reference” extends east to the Hamptons, North as far as Hunter Mountain, west as far as Met Life Stadium in Jersey, and never gets much beyond the first Shore Point south. Nothing that happens outside of that bubble is of any importance or consequence. (There was that ‘Y’ camp in the Catskills that one summer when he was 8… but with the wedgies and swirlies he’d rather not remember.) …..

                  so GB, you are correct to deplore my comment, but quite have your head up a drainspout in your suggestion that there was an intellectual point to argue or concede.

                  1. “Fuster missed: The Egyptian Military has been infiltrated and the bulk of it is under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood. That the Egyptians are pulling off a re-militarization of the Sinai, and the current Regime headed by Whatever-his-real-name-is is standing flat footed and slack-jawed as Morsi aggregates his corner of the future Caliphate power structure.”

                    The very first part of Fahvaag’s comment is certainly substantive. To that is what I referred, he provides what you either missed or are purposely ignoring. Since you don’t admit to ignorance, that leaves an unwillingness to concede the point.

                    More willful obtuseness? Rebut, concede the point or evade. The price for evasion of course is to reveal yourself to be a gadfly.

                    1. it started with an unsubstantiated opinion and ignores that the “re-militarization” of the Sinai is occurring at the request of Israel and is to prevent more terrorist incidents aimed at killing Israelis and Egyptian soldiers and cops challenging the terrorists and smugglers that were all over the Sinai.

                      the dude is fulla shift and a son of the zoo.

                    2. Aug 6–“Southern Command had received intelligence warnings of a possible attack from Sinai last Friday, according to an IDF investigation of Sunday’s cross-border attack near the border with Sinai.

                      IDF forces were on heightened alert when the attack took place at about 7 P.M. on Sunday. Israel also shared some of the intelligence it received with the Egyptian army prior to the incident.”

                      At first, soldiers merely noticed unusual activity across the border. Only later did it
                      become clear that terrorists had exploited the Ramadan post-fast meal to take over an Egyptian border post located some two kilometers from Israel. The terrorists then raced toward Israel in two of the vehicles they captured.

                      Soldiers initially attributed no special importance to the vehicles approaching the
                      border, since Egyptian vehicles patrol there periodically. First came an APC, and behind it a van apparently loaded with half a ton of explosives. They reached an unused border crossing and sped up.

                      The APC succeeded in getting over the obstacle at the border, but the van apparently got stuck. A few minutes later, it exploded ­ whether due to a technical mishap or to the terrorists’ decision remains unknown.”



                      reprinted from JTA—–

                      ” As part of the 1979 peace treaty, Egypt agreed to leave the Sinai mostly demilitarized, with specific restrictions on the number of troops and type of weaponry allowed there. Israel agreed to ease those restrictions in January 2011 after protests against then-President Hosni Mubarak intensified and attacks began on the gas pipeline between Egypt and Israel.”

                      ” “I think that it is clear that Israel and Egypt have a common interest in maintaining a quiet border,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday while touring the site of Sunday’s attack.”


                  2. Responding to your comment below: no, it started with the comment I highlighted. You’re being evasive, which is a form of lying.

                    Israel has NOT requested that Egypt re-militarize the Sinai. That is a sheer fabrication. That’s another lie. Egypt re-militarizing the Sinai is a clear and explicit violation of the Camp David accords. Israel has NOT requested that Egypt violate Israel’s Treaty with Egypt.

                    The purpose of the Egyptian re-militarization of the Sinai is for the now Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egyptian military to establish full control of the region. Morsi is not interested in preventing the murder of Israeli’s. He’s interested in consolidating and extending his control over Egypt and the Sinai.

                    To sit at the table of debate, the ‘coin’ required is Intellectual Honesty.

                    1. ” The Israelis find themselves with a dilemma on their hands.”…..
                      They agreed to the deployment of two battalions from Egypt’s 2nd Army because the alternative, the Sinai spinning completely out of control, is worse and the Israeli security establishment wants to demonstrate goodwill toward the SCAF with whom it hopes to build a new relationship.”



                      from the Jewish Telegraph Agency Aug 6——-

                      ‘JERUSALEM (JTA) – Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called a terrorist attack in the Sinai that killed at least 15 Egyptian soldiers a “wake-up call” for Egypt.

                      “We hope this will be a fitting wake-up call for the Egyptians to take matters into their own hands on their side more forcefully,” Barak told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday, a day after the attack.’


                      shove your lie back up your outspout, GB.

                    2. Uh fuster, the article you cite is over a year old…

                      Nice try. Care to cite something current in support of your assertions? Or is that the best you can do?

                      Ehud Barak is an appeaser. You know one of those people that feeds other people to the alligator in hopes that it will be satiated before it reaches them. Barak’s comment is pure political spin, pandering to his base. And let us not play games, Barak’s appointment as Defense Minister is a political bribe to his party, needed to maintain Netanyahu’s coalition government. Barak is a politician, first, last and always.

                      I can’t give you an “F’ because you did try but sadly a ‘D’ is arguably, overly generous.

                      But I do want to encourage you, so keep it up, you can learn to do this, remember; substantive rebuttal or conceding the point are the only honorable options.

                    3. GB, the JTA article is from Aug 6 of this year….the other article is a year old because it’s been a year AND MORE since the Israelis have been complaining to the Egyptians about the salafists in the Sinai—-and it was a full year and more ago that the Israelis GAVE THEIR PERMISSION for the Egyptian army to move into the SinaI because the Israelis WANTED the Egyptian army there in preference to having the area be uncontrolled.

  3. “Dempsey is a brass-plated fruit salad wearing ass-kissing bureaucrat. The flag and general officer ranks of the US military has been thoroughly populated by such socio-political animals since the first day of the administration.”

    Yes he is, it’s one of the primary qualifications for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff job. He’s the primary point of contact between the President and the military. An ideologue like Obama always demands a yes man.

    Yes men promote and gravitate toward other yes men. Three to four years isn’t enough time to ruin the military. But it is enough time to hamstring it.

  4. “Once Iran nukes up, Egypt will too, and possibly Saudi Arabia and Turkey. If Iran establishes an immunity to US counteraction, the face of the Middle East and everything around it will change forever. This will affect the United States immediately; there will be no grace period.”

    Once Iran has the bomb, both the Saudi’s and Erdogan have no choice. The Saudi’s will buy nukes. Erdogan will do whatever it takes to gain nuclear capability. Including joining (what admittedly cannot last long term) an Islamic “alliance” with Iran and the Brotherhood.

    I believe the Royal House of Saud’s days are numbered.

    The face of the M.E. is about to change forever, unless…Iran does not attain nuclear capability before Jan. 2013 and Romney is elected and, he gives full military and political support to an immediate Israeli attack upon Iranian nuclear facilities. That support would have to include, right after the attack, an ultimatum to the Iranians; that if Iran still refuses to abandon its nuclear program, the US will immediately finish the job.

    The stakes are simple; attack Iranian nuclear facilities before it gets nukes or face a nuclear armed, radical Middle East, controlled by religious fanatics who view martyrdom as a sure path to heaven and the enjoyment of 70 virgins…

    In 1938 a similar situation existed; when Hitler occupied and annexed Austria into Nazi Germany, Britain and France faced confrontation. They choose appeasement and 60 million died as the result of that moral cowardice.

    Churchill’s reaction to that decision was prescient, “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war.”

    “Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. [Yet] There may even be a [still] worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish, than live as slaves.” – Winston Churchill, “The Gathering Storm.”

    1. Your citation to the Gathering Storm is so on point to the Iranian diplomatic mess. Even after Austria was annexed, Churchill pointed out that an alliance with Russia would have stopped Hitler in his tracks in 39. Alas, Chamberlain, who was reincarnated in Obama chose to follow his own one way street that led to the cliff. We have had numerous missed opportunities to rattle Iran’s cage. Even ruthless dictators think twice when you step on their feet. But as noted: ” You cannot detect a smoking gun until it’s been fired, and then it’s too late, at least for limited action. “

      1. you’ll learn, after repeated exposures, that GB is very far from on point and invokes Munich with such regularity that it’s practically his monthly course,

        1. Your consistent evasion puts the lie to the assertion that my reasoning is off point…

          I invoke Munich because it is the most recent example of the repercussions that follow from the appeasement mind set when faced with fanaticism as a national security issue, which the certain consequences of Iran’s pursuit of nukes certainly is and, that makes it entirely apropos. Once again; rebut, concede the point or take the moral cowards way out and evade.

          1. stop failing to understand the meaning and application of the terms that you toss about, GB old tosser, and stop assuming that the central point of you bluster is made without you having to make it.

            how is US stance akin to Munich and why is it appeasement ?

            please summarize ACTUAL AGREEMENT that concluded and Munich talks and then try to pull the rabbit out your hole, old boy.

            why aren’t sanctions amounting to economic war though short of actual war, when Iran hasn’t crossed the line and committed the act which we’ve declared to be grounds for military attack, quite different from what occurred at Munich?

            Why are they not more akin to the conduct of SoS Hull in negotiating with the Japanese while knowing that war between us was far, far, far more likely than a settlement of differences?

            1. Lets take a poll fuster and see how many on this blog think that I’m “failing to understand the meaning” and accurately apply the terms I’m “tossing about”. Disagree with my premise(s) all you wish but its a false canard to accuse me of lack of clarity.

              chuck martel accuses me of long windedness (a not always unfair charge) in making sure that my central and supporting points are clear. So you finally attempt to rebut by demanding that I justify the obvious. OK…

              The Iranian Mullah’s are religious fanatics whose world view demands as a theological imperative that they destroy Israel and the U.S. that places them in the category of Hitler’s Nazi party ideology.

              You can’t reason with fanatics, who invariably perceive negotiation, diplomatic gestures and attempts at reasoned discourse as weakness and thus an invitation to aggression.

              That’s why Obama’s approach is appeasement because the only ‘negotiation’ religious fanatic terrorists understand is that “power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

              Have you ever tried to reason with a bully? It’s the same mind set but at an entirely different level.

              Until Iran’s Mullah’s are convinced that they’re all about to die, they won’t give an inch. Reagan proved that with the Embassy hostages but the lesson clearly hasn’t been learned by Obama or, he actually wants Iran to get nukes. It has to be one or the other. His actions are those of either a fool or traitorous, you pick.

              The “actual agreement” reached at Munich was Chamberlain’s assertion that ‘Hitler was a man who could be worked with’ and, Hitler’s private delight at being given the time to finish his preparations for war.

              No economic sanctions were placed against Germany but economic sanctions are a form of war and the ones against Iran are precisely as effective as the ones we instituted against Japan before Pearl Harbor.

              If we wait till Iran “crosses the line and commits the act” it will be too late. They’re fanatics who welcome martyrdom! Hello?

              Once Iran gets nukes with the missile technology they already possess is announce, “attack us and millions of people in Tel Aviv, Paris and London will die” and we dare not attack. Not to mention the nuclear threat to our military forces. Why do you think we tread so lightly around N. Korea? Pakistan? Nukes are a game changer.

              But the real danger from Iran’s gaining of nukes is the certain consequence; a firestorm of nuclear proliferation across the region into multiple unstable third world nations. Some of whom will be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda’s spiritual godfather.

              Any negotiations, short of conceding the Pacific, west of Hawaii, were doomed to failure. Japan’s Bushido code allowed for no other option but, “to the victor go the spoils” and everyone else are slaves to the victors. The Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March and the treatment of allied prisoners and indigenous populations like the Philippines, established that beyond doubt.

              Now its your turn fuster, substantive rebuttal or concede the point. Those are the only honest options.

              1. GB, you can take a pole for yourself.

                1) you most certainly CAN reason with fanatics—and you call alter their behavior. It’s their motivation that’s unshakeable,
                you continue to rely on that incorrect assertion and you end up going in circles and chasing your tautology. ….

                ” Have you ever tried to reason with a bully?”

                sure, and if you can supply him with reason to believe that he won’t benefit from attack but will lose either skin or “face” or some other tangible benefit, he/she/it can be moved to alter course.

                again, they don’t change the person, but you change their mind in the short run….unless you’re GB and refuse to credit them with having a working mind.

                the iranian theocrats just aren’t what you keep saying that they are……and you can’t explain why Khomeini made peace with Saddam…and can’t explain why or his successor never send Iranians to wear the suicide vests.
                They don’t seek martyrdom for iranians, GB, they send Arabs to do their fighting and dying .

                you of course ducks any discussion of the actual agreement and Munich and why you’re so fully shifty with your comparison.

                ”’ No economic sanctions were placed against Germany but economic sanctions are a form of war and the ones against Iran are precisely as effective as the ones we instituted against Japan before Pearl Harbor.””

                japan went to war knowing that they hadn’t enough petroleum to engage in protracted war, GB and they were quite correct about that.

                Iran is many times more vulnerable because all they have is oil. they have nothing else, don’t manufacture much of anything else…and have to buy everything with oil money.
                You not only a bit long-winded but you’re also way over-inflated in argument.

                get your pressure checked, old buddy.

                1. “you most certainly CAN reason with fanatics—and you call alter their behavior. “
                  Chamberlain would disagree.

                  “if you can supply him with reason to believe that he won’t benefit from attack”
                  Translation: buy him off.

                  “the iranian theocrats just aren’t what you keep saying that they are”
                  Right. Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate IsraelIran lays out legal case for genocidal attack against ‘cancerous tumor’ If you didn’t have your head firmly planted where the sun don’t shine, you’d admit that we’ll be next in their gunsights. Iran’s navy aims to sail off US shores soon

                  “you can’t explain why Khomeini made peace with Saddam”
                  Exhaustion. And finally acceptance that, no matter how long it took (8 years), the US wasn’t going to allow Saddam to lose.

                  “They don’t seek martyrdom for iranians, GB, they send Arabs to do their fighting and dying.”

                  Why should Iranians be the only ones dying? Iranians proved their willingness to martyr themselves when they sent their children to clear Saddam’s minefields. More recently; “Khamenei: Zionist regime will disappear from map” the only way to make that happen is with nukes. Khameeni knows that Israel will initiate the Samson option if it is attacked with nukes.

                  I got to the heart of what the Munich agreement actually meant. It’s you that’s being ‘shifty’ by attempting to bog down the discussion in the meaningless verbiage of the ‘agreement’.

                  Japan went to war with the strategy of using a devastating surprise attack to gain a year to secure the Pacific and needed oil supplies for its ‘glorious’ expansion. They nearly succeeded. If the Commander of the task force hadn’t gotten cold feet and instead listened to his Air Commander, he would have agreed to a second attack and the defenseless oil facilities and machine shops at Pearl Harbor would have been destroyed setting back our pacific war campaign by at least 6 months and allowing the Japanese to prepare much more substantively.

                  Iran is more vulnerable, which matters not a bit to jihadist fanatics. The proof is that the West’s opprobrium and sanctions hasn’t slowed down their obsessive drive toward nukes a bit.

                  While you strain to swallow a gnat, your entire argument reduces to “la, la, la, I can’t hear you!”

  5. “The blinders-on complacency of the current US administration is breathtaking. I am saddened to see the day when our top general tries to shed responsibility in advance, rather than remembering that we are all trying to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the only way to do that is to be tough with Iran.”

    I’m inclined to think that this isn’t complacency at all. General Dempsey’s latest comment is anything but unintentional. This is as close as you can get to decking an ally short of throwing a lefthook. Demspey’s comment was clear as a bell.

    For what it’s worth. In no particular order of importance.

    1) the Obama administration is setting up an attack on Iran and this is PR smokescreen stuff.
    2) The administration is working secretly on a major diplomatic breakthrough on the nuke issue and expects results before the election.
    3) The Israelis have done (or tried to do) something serious (that hasn’t come out publicly) that really(I mean REALLY) pissed off the Administration.
    4) the administration has come to the conclusion that US interests are better served by distancing themselves from the Israelis and strengthening their relations with Muslim states in the region.
    5)The administration has concluded that the Iranian nuke issue is not currently an immediate threat to the interests of the US and can be dealt with in the future.

    Certainly they could be other reasons, the above seem like the most obvious.

    1. 6) Yanks and Russkies are in cahoots (for the most part) on everything going on between Poland and Pakistan and have agreed to keep there vassals, er, allies in line. I know none of y’all are gonna believe that one. 🙂

      1. 1) Good one, I needed a laugh.
        2) Even better!
        3) The Israeli’s would like to do something and that really pisses off the administration.
        4) You got it! It’s a return to the tried and true Chamberlain approach. Surely it will work this time!?
        5) This too, the presumption being that no one would be crazy enough to actually attack the US and besides, that can’t happen until after a second Obama term and then it would simply be “America’s chickens coming home to roost”.
        6) Wrong century, not since WWII have the yanks and russkies been in cahoots.

        1. GB, I’m on holiday somewhere in the EASTMED which I do not wish to reveal ( lest it spoil the breathtaking scenery, snorkeling, excellent speargun fishing, osyter/scallop beds, crabs, lobsters, etc. from hordes of tourists). Some thoughts occured to me.

          If you want to tear the heart out of radical Islam (Egyptian and all the rest included), and erode the edifice of its tenents, you are going to have to hit them where it hurts. Take away their possession of certain cities, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, (come primarily to mind), and their whole argument about the inevitability of the triumph of Islam will collapse. It is the conquest of these (Civilizational Western) cities (and some others) that makes up the bulk of Islam’s historical narrative of conquests against the infidel. For this to be accomplished (as long as it takes), being in cahoots is gonna be an absolute prerequisite.

          Enjoy the final days of summer, to all 🙂

          1. jgets,

            Enjoy your holiday. I agree as to the need to hit them where it hurts and the psychological desirability of collapsing their argument about the inevitability of the triumph of Islam.

            While eliminating conflict with Russia is certainly desirable, it is Putin and the ‘strongman’ culture of Russia, wherein the obstacle lies to greater cooperation.

            Fortunately, I don’t believe we need to be in cahoots with Russia in order to accomplish our strategic and tactical goals in combating Islam’s aggression.

            Since radical jihadists don’t value the survival of either individuals or entire societies, losing Jerusalem, Constantinople or any other city is, I believe ultimately a futile tactic.

            No conflict can be won without accurate identification of the actual foe. The source of conflict with liberty and Western civilizational values is NOT Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran. They are the agents, not the source.

            The source is the ideology of Islam itself, which is in fundamental, irresolvable conflict with Western Civilization and the modern world. It is irresolvable because reform of Islam would require rejection of its most fundamental tenets. Which would result in the theological collapse of Islam.

            However, making war upon a billion Muslims (most of whom are moderate) is neither desirable nor practical. Which in no way negates the reality that the ONLY thing radical jihadists value is Islam itself.

            What to do?

            Hold Islam’s holy sites hostage to radical jihadists good behavior.

            Islam places a unique emphasis upon its physical symbols and holy sites. A basic tenet of Islam is the obligation of every Muslim to participate in a pilgrimage to Mecca to pray at the Kaaba. In fact, it is one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

            Mecca and the Kaaba is absolutely central to the ideology of Islam. Muslims are obligated to physically prostrate themselves and pray in the direction of Mecca FIVE times a day.

            It’s destruction is unthinkable because to contemplate it is to entertain the notion that Allah would allow the destruction of Islam’s most sacred relic.

            Radical jihadists will not countenance its complete loss lightly. Nor the utter destruction of the Dome of the Rock, the city of Qom, etc., etc.

            Announcing a new doctrine of holding the ideology of Islam responsible for the actions of its adherents. Then, when jihadists ignore the doctrine and attack again, demonstrating our seriousness by destroying the Dome of the Rock, followed by the stern admonition that any further acts of terrorism will result in the destruction of another Islamic holy site. Stating that if necessary, this doctrine will culminate with the nuclear immolation of Mecca itself.

            But one way or another, the terrorism stops. We will no longer live with a gun to our heads.

            I believe this to be the only effective deterrent possible with Islamic jihadists.

            The alternative is a gradual path to nuclear confrontation, a near permanent state of martial law in the US as the result of the loss of American cities to nuclear terrorist attacks, and a consequential glass parking lot in the Middle East.

            It’s not hyperbole to state that the fate of millions rests upon what we do at this juncture in history.

            1. Thanks GB.
              Succinctly. IMHO somewhere down the line, you are going to end up with either EurArabia or EurRussia, I prefer the latter. If choosing between the two is the only possible outcome, which would you prefer? The US going it alone is unrealistic.

              I do find it odd that the US prefers to be in cahoots with Al-Qaeda in Syria, while on the other hand, Islamic radicalism is supposedly a threat to American national interests. I know about the “its to weaken Iran and the Shia axis” argument and all that. It still makes no sense to me.

              I see your point, I can’t dismiss it as unworkable, but I don’t know whether I like the idea of holding (or “highlighting the vulnerability”) the holy sites of Islam “to account” in the case of attacks on the US, I could never use the terminology “holding hostage”, even in the context of radicals jihadists good behavior. Offhand, I agree it has to be done on some level, being that we are dealing with suicidal maniacs and their cynical masters much of the time. But I’m a bit leery at making ‘holy sites” a target, somehow it’s just doesn’t fit my style.
              Something like what your are suggesting could only be done after an attack (as you stated) and would lead to inevitable manipulation/escalation by some brand of opportunist Islam.

              You really want to end up at war with a billion Muslims, without having the Russkies on your side? 🙂

              1. Restricted to those two choices, I too would prefer a EurRussia to a EurArabia. The cold war conclusively demonstrated that even Communists are not suicidal. Martyrdom however is built into the very foundation of Islamic theology.

                The Obama administrations actions in Syria and in the larger context of labeling the unrest sweeping the M.E. as an “Arab Spring”, equating it to Eastern Europe’s embrace of democracy after the fall of the Soviet Union is an intentional ploy to deflect justified criticism of appeasement minded policies. Obama, his administration, the left, the MSM and clueless liberals cannot admit the truth; that radical jihadists are rising to national and regional power across the M.E.

                Your disquiet over holding Islam’s holy sites ‘hostage’ to radical jihadists good behavior is understandable, as it rests upon a not uncommon perception; that Islam itself is a religion of peace and that most Muslims are moderates.

                It’s past time to point out that the Islamic ’emperor’ is wearing no clothes…

                The mass agreement of a billion Muslims does not obviate facts, reason and logic.

                Islam is NOT a religion of peace. In fact, its not a religion at all but a perversion of such, promulgating a ‘god’ whose lust for power denies free will and promotes the forcible conversion of all into its ideology.

                Islam’s treatment of women is a barbaric cruelty and frequently evil.

                Islam is a death cult in its treatment of non-Muslims.

                The Qur’an declares that conversion, slavery or death are the sole choices facing non-Muslims when Sharia law is implemented for all. What kind of ‘god’ renders that kind of judgement? Jesus’ God won’t, nor Moses’ nor Buddha’s but can anyone doubt that Satan would delight in that choice?

                It’s true that most Muslims are ‘moderates’. Moderation being defined as a disinterest in controlling others or engaging in violence. But moderates overwhelmingly support Sharia law in any majority Muslim country. 84% of Egyptians support the death penalty for apostasy… Moderates condone Islam’s violence because to refuse to condone it requires rejection of Islam’s most basic tenet; that the Qur’an is a transcript of Allah’s direct instructions.

                Muslim moderates know that the ‘theological high ground’ rests with the ‘radicals’ not with the ‘moderates’ and the moderates know this, which is why they are silent.

                No, I do not want to make war upon a billion Muslims. War with Islam’s ideology and its agents is however, almost certainly unavoidable. Not only because as a matter of survival (7th century ideology confronted with 21st century modernity) they will have it no other way, but because the West refuses to face what they are confronted with and, as WWII so amply demonstrated; when faced with a fanatical ideology forced into world conquest for its very survival, appeasement results in greater deaths not lesser.

                Unless the US militarily stops Iran’s nuclear weapons program before they acquire nukes and then deals with Pakistan’s nukes, there is little hope for any other consequence but nuclear terrorism and eventual retaliation.

                Santayana’s dictum still applies; “Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it”

                1. I have no misconceptions about Islam GB. The unease is due to my own personal values. I know what has to be done, I don’t like it, but I know. I just disagree with you on tactics sometimes. It’s moot cause the “West” won’t wake up till it’ll be expensive in lives anyway (sorry about that cynicism).

                  And now some pleasant news from the edge of the Western World, otherwise known as the EASTMED. I’ve checked into a resort where Americans, Russians, Greeks, Israelis, Serbs and a smattering of other Europeans are all well represented and having a great time, together. If this is a glimpse into the region’s future, I’m all for it.

                  Sorry for the short replies, I’m on holiday 🙂

                  1. I can accept that POV, and I’m open to suggestions using other tactics, as long as they get the job done. I don’t like it either, but I’m suggesting what I believe to be the least destructive, effective solution. I agree the West won’t wake up, though the Israeli frustration with Obama is starting to erupt.

                    1. For starters,

                      Suggestion # 1. Find a pretext to restrict immigration from devout Muslims. Police borders to eliminate illegal immigration.
                      #2. Reduce military assistance/cooperation with Muslim states, including Egypt Turkey Pakistan and the GCC Get the Russians on board so they don’t fill in the gap, give them whatever (logical) incentive it takes to stick to it.. If the Chinese want to arm them, let’em and take it out of their hide elsewhere.
                      #3 Drill, drill, drill everywhere, that’s not under the jurisdiction of Muslim governments.
                      #4 Never ever take the side of a Muslim state in a dispute against a non-Muslim state, EVER, for any reason whatsoever..
                      #5 If called upon to intervene in an inter-Muslim state dispute , make sure the outcome weakens all the belligerent parties.

  6. Nuclear weapons are a methodology meant to create the maximum pain on civilian populations. They’re not a military weapon, per se, being used by a military force against the citizens of an adversary, although, oddly, there are such things as nuclear land mines and artillery shells, developed perhaps to further justify the research into nuclear combat. which isn’t really combat as it’s been known for all but 67 years if recorded history, instead being simply mass murder.

    So the possessor of nuclear weaponry isn’t quite the same as the possessor of a stockpile of .308 cartridges or F-4 Phantoms or Abrams tanks. And, unlike in James Bond movies, there aren’t, as far as we know, any individuals with nuclear capability, all atomic weapons are in the hands of hideous nation-states. Where does this all end? Some anthropologists feel that the human race is an evolutionary aberration, a group of organisms whose complex social development spells disaster for the species itself.

    It’s impossible to deny that the military of every country has a vested interest in maintaining a state of hostility with some perceived enemy. I, personally, and probably very few Americans or Iranians, have any animus toward any ordinary citizen of the other country. Not so long ago, those citizens would have been only dimly aware, if at all, of the existence of the others. No Persian and no American of the 19th century was concerned about man-generated lightning coming down from the sky and obliterating them. But now we are.

    1. A not uncommon point of view. Which reveals far more about your mind set, than it does as accurate analysis.

      “War is politics by other means” Clausewitz

      Nukes certainly do have military purposes. Nuclear cruise missiles and torpedoes can carry tactical nukes, whose yield is primarily designed against military targets.

      Using high yield nukes against civilian populations is an extension of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It brings home the war to the society supporting the military being fought against.

      “Hideous nation states”? Quite revealing terminology there. In any organization, dig deeply enough and you always get to one man that has the leverage; who acts as the fulcrum upon which the organizations power rests. Obama, Putin, Khamieni, Morsi, etc. there’s always one guy who essentially calls the shots.

      “Where does this all end? Some anthropologists feel that the human race is an evolutionary aberration, a group of organisms whose complex social development spells disaster for the species itself.”

      Well. Not just self-hate but species hate. Man’s inhumanity to man is undeniable but so is reason, mercy, altruism, empathy and love. The worst in man doesn’t negate the best.

      “It’s impossible to deny that the military of every country has a vested interest in maintaining a state of hostility with some perceived enemy.”

      Not only is it possible to deny that statement, it’s provably false.

      In general, democracies do not make war upon each other. To name but a few; Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan and Brazil all have military’s, yet none maintain a position of hostility toward any nation.

      Nor does the US. military. Recognizing that another society is controlled by an ideology hostile to the US and the military being prepared to defend US interests is not “maintaining a state of hostility”.

      Your mistake in perception is due to failing to discern a truth about democracies. “There are two things which a democratic people will always find very difficult – to begin and end a war.” Alexis de Tocqueville

      “What can be done against force, without force?” Roman statesman Cicero

      Victor Frankl: “The world is divided into two races — the decent and the indecent.”

      “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein

      Jihadist Islam, the communism of China, Cuba and N. Korea, the thuggishness of Putin and Chavez…all are propagated and advocated by those who seek to control and thus dominate others.

      Remove those from the face of the earth and America’s military will rest at peace.

      Human nature being what it is, until an evolutionary awakening occurs; known variously as ‘the rapture’ and ‘the singularity’, every generation will produce a certain percentage who seek to dominate.

      “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:

      1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.

      2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests.
      In every country [and time] these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.

      1. Using high yield nukes against civilian populations is an extension of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It brings home the war to the society supporting the military being fought against.

        You neglected to specify from whom this quote was taken. It couldn’t be you, because its the kind of statement that would have been made by an amoral monster.

        1. No quote, just my own words. Neither a monster nor amoral, just willing to get my hands as dirty as needed to stop a great evil.

          And the difference between my willingness to kill millions and those I oppose is I only wish to live in peace but they would kill to impose their ideology upon all and will stop at nothing to achieve it.

          Golda Meir put it well, “We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.”

          In defense of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I’ll point out the “Rape of Nanking” and the “Bataan Death March”, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, Ravensbrück, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Bełżec…300+ Nazi concentration camps.

          Colonel William W. Quinn of the U.S. 7th Army said of Dachau: “There our troops found sights, sounds, and stenches horrible beyond belief, cruelties so enormous as to be incomprehensible to the normal mind.”

          The refusal to fight just as dirty as your opponent is to capitulate to evil and that is the most immoral position of all to take.

          But methinks the pot calls the kettle black; “the human race is an evolutionary aberration, a group of organisms whose complex social development spells disaster for the species itself.”

          Now that’s as amoral a position as its possible to take.

          Putin’s a potential Stalin whose 20 million leave Hitler in the dust.

          The Communist Chinese leadership are the inheritors of Mao’s monstrousness, whose rule is believed to have caused the deaths of 40 to 70 million people. You kid yourself f you don’t believe that the current leadership of China would kill another 40-70 million American’s if it would allow them to impose Communism upon us.

          “Islam is a revolutionary ideology and program which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the Earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam, regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it.” —Sayyed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami, April, 1939

          “Islam wants to conquer the whole world. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun [or] joy in whatever is serious” Ayatollah Khomeini

          That’s what we face.

          Will you resist it fully or embrace the “ethics of surrender” by refusing to bring a gun to a knife fight? You can be sure that they will arrive with the biggest gun they can find.

          “When I am the weaker, I ask you for mercy, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I show no mercy and take away your freedom, because that is my principle.” Louis Veuillot (The dialectic of the left)

          1. The problem of why nobody really takes us seriously diplomatically is, well, because of our diplomacy being mostly subservient to the approval of the other not-so-friendly-towards-us nations. Our diplomacy has become a joke in that it means nothing too awfully threatening. Bargains are struck, deals are made but it is always geared more towards trade or some other mutually beneficial subject.

            The danger that comes from any real threats depends mostly on either the fear or the lack of fear felt by the party doing the threatening.

            Iran doesn’t fear us because they are being either backed by Russia, China and others or provided with ample cover by the other members of that universally malignant cancer, the UN.

            In the end, Iran will get their nukes and the world will continue to spin on its axis just like it’s doing today. Some tactician at the UN will move a couple of chips in the world map and change a couple of colors that depict the status of nations and he or she will issue a new, revised evaluation of how the world power stands that day. In that evaluation, the US will lose a few points and Iran, Russia and China will earn a few points in the balance of power.

            So, what else is new? I mean, it’s not like this hasn’t happened before, right…?

            The trick, the real trick to national security (as well as to personal security, by the way) lies in being able to constantly communicate a real clear and vivid image of what will happen to anyone that dares to use nuclear power against us, our allies, a neighbor or an enemy. But, hey, I don’t really know how the US stands in that particular element of the world power assessment.

            My guess is that we probably don’t score too high as far as being perceived as a nation with the necessary destructive inclinations. Iran might actually stands a bit higher than us in that particular mode because of their extreme commitment to doing whatever is necessary to promote their own brand of zealotry and, also, because of our own apparent lack of zealotry. They are mean enough, we don’t seem to be. Instead of “mean”, which is one of the key elements for causing real fear in the hearts of men, we are too conscious of how the world sees us, of doing only “the right thing” and of not stepping on too many toes. After all, compare this: The Iran/Iraq war used weapons of mass destructions and killed thousands for a few yards of sand. The US spends billions developing weapons that limit the damage/carnage and/or don’t kill at all. The Jihadists torture, maim and kill children if they have to. They cut their prisoners heads off, we build them soccer fields and cook them special meals. We have complicated and convoluted rules of engagement, Iran has only one: Kill ‘em! Their zealotry allows for enslavement, murder and torture of the enemy, ours, well, we are proud not to be zealots at all, and, besides, we don’t allow much.

            My other guess is that we might fear Iran much more than Iran might fear us. The irony in that is that “fear”, in and of itself, is not the best motivator in a knockdown, drag out, biting, gouging and scratching dog fight.


            1. “Iran will get their nukes and the world will continue to spin on its axis just like it’s doing today.”

              Really? Upon what basis do you envision no serious consequences?

              Egypt isn’t slipping deeper into the Muslim Brotherhood’s hands? The Brotherhood isn’t the spiritual godfather of Al Qaeda? A consequence of Iran getting nukes won’t be increased nuclear proliferation into even more unstable third world nations? The Saudi’s do not now comprise the sole barrier to radical jihadists seizing power across the region? If (when) nukes spread across the region, is there really little possibility that some won’t find their way into terrorists hands?

              Dr. Vahid Majidi, the FBI’s assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate estimates that the probability that the U.S. will be hit with a weapons of mass destruction attack at some point is 100 percent…

              How much more likely is that when nuclear proliferation spreads across the region?

              If “national security lies in being able to constantly communicate a real clear and vivid image of what will happen to anyone that dares to use nuclear power against us [or] our allies” then ultimately, your premise is that deterrence works against dispersed terrorist networks.

              Neocons made the argument that deterrence could work against terrorist states, arguing that once rogue nations stopped their logistical support for the terrorist networks, terrorism would wither on the vine. Most failed to appreciate that rogue nations are in turn supported by the ‘enabling’ nations; primarily Russia, China and France.

              Maggie Thatcher identified the problem long ago, “Rogue states never turn out to be quite the pariahs they are deemed. They are only able to cause, or at least threaten to cause, mayhem because they enjoy the covert support – usually by means of technology transfers – of one or more major powers within the charmed circle of global ‘good guys’.”

              I would add the consistent blocking in the UN by Russia and China of effective International economic sanctions against Iran.

              Neocons also failed to fully appreciate that in the West, the left would adamently oppose any overt military action against the rogue nations. Despite bipartisan Congressional support, Bush’s support evaporated before he invaded Iraq. Opposed both internally and externally, maintaining a “real clear and vivid image of what will happen to anyone that ” attacks us became impossible.

              How has the situation changed?

              “My guess is that we probably don’t score too high as far as being perceived as a nation with the necessary destructive inclinations”

              Our adoption of “Just War Theory” ensures that we won’t be, ever.

              In time, reality will force us to drop that attempt to apply to war Jesus’ dictum to “turn the other cheek”. But currently, all the left will allow is for us to stick our heads firmly in the sand with our butts waving in the air. When our national posterior gets shot again, remember that it’s people like paulite t and the fool fuster who are responsible.

              Just as the drunk driver frequently escapes, they will too, denying that their opposition was fully effective in rendering America vulnerable to its enemies. While lacking the moral courage to admit, even to themselves, that had they gotten their way, the damage would have been even greater.

              There’s something truly despicable about someone who’d rather that people die than admit they’re wrong when their nation is faced with a clear and present danger.

              1. You answered your own question GB. Thanks.

                But, to be even clearer, I was not referring to any real danger or nefarious possibility due to Iran finally arming themselves with nuclear weapons. I was, on the other hand, talking about the fact that everything will go on as it is going on today or we would have stopped it long before now. It actually makes no sense, even to the nonsensical diplomats and politicians that are running the show today, to wait for the opponent to be locked and loaded before they try to disarm them or to neutralize the threat. So, again, if they had any intentions to take Iran’s nuclear race down, they would have done so already.

                Then there is also this: Neither you nor I are political leaders, much less the President of the US, so what either of us would or wouldn’t do does not enter into the realm of the possible. Neither would the fact that I agreed or disagreed with you would enter into anything. We present what we would do as if we would ever get the chance to do so but, we know damned well that we won’t, so all of that falls into the “venting” category. Don’t get me wrong, venting is good for the soul and it does describe rather well what our expectations are about what needs to be done but, in the end, it achieves nothing much besides those two results. The government that we elect has little or no desire or reason to care one rat’s ass about what we would or would not do, you see…

                As for “deterrence works against dispersed terrorist networks” I’ll say this: That is what you understood and there is little that I can do about that understanding now. But, in an effort to clear up your conclusion of what I said, let me add that I was reffering specifically to the use of nuclear weapons and our need to assume a posture quite diferent to the one that we have and that you yourself explained in your answer. The fear of absolute and total retaliation works and you would know that if you still remembered your high school days and the “meet you at three in the East paqrking lot” invitation.

                In addition, I feel the need to clarify that dealing with dispersed terrorist networks should include something a bit harsher than the building of soccer fields and the passing out of specific culturally sensitive menus. In fact, I believe I mentioned that as well so, let me ask you, do you agree witrh that assesment or do you believe that more soccer fields is the right answer? Spies and terrorists used to be shot, now they are awarded rights and lawyers. Do you think this is a good thing?

                So, to sum it all up, you agree with me that not much will be done because the left just won’t allow it and the “right” won’t dare go up against the left in something as politically dangerous as this or they simply won’t be able to overcome the political objections of the left. I said as much. You also agree that the UN (spit!) is not the right venue to correct the world’s deficiencies or to provide for the safety of the US. I said as much. You say that America has become a nation of ostriches. I said as much. So, while we use different words we seem to be in great agreement that this is something that will happen and that it will happen with almost absolute impunity. We don’t have an argument there, GB.

                You also mentioned that people like fuster and Paulite are quite despicable. I too have said as much, albeit in different posts from these. I will enlarge that by stating that they are both but a mere representation of millions of Americans that have been turned with bread and circuses and who would now look kindly at our well-armed enemies because that would “even the playing field” for them against the always arrogant “us”. They would also look positively at a powerless America because, to them, that would be the best way for us to achieve a good and acceptable level of docile, vulnerable, sensitive, tolerant and humble in the eyes of the world community, something that, again in their eyes, would make us a better nation, not a worse one. They would also embrace the UN as their defacto government because that way they could feel terrific about including the rest of the world and bringing everyone to the table to sing a glorious chorus of Kumbaya.

                Well, America, good luck with that…



          2. Neither a monster nor amoral, just willing to get my hands as dirty as needed to stop a great evil.

            Yeah, right. It’s OK for some four year old girl playing with her dolls to be incinerated by airborne munitions just because she was unlucky enough to be born in the wrong neighborhood. If you’re so willing to “get your hands dirty” why aren’t don’t you just go over there and set her on fire or dash her brains out personally. The fact is you, and others like you, are perfectly willing to destroy the lives of total strangers for your own ideology as long as you don’t actually have to get your hands dirty. It’s the acme of hypocrisy.

            1. At 63, it’s a bit impractical for me to go over there. No hypocrisy, I I did my bit by placing my life in the hands of the USN for 4 years, 3 of which were on the carrier CVN-63 with two tours off the coast of Vietnam 1969-73. Any four yr old girl being incinerated is always a tragedy. An even greater tragedy is evil triumphing.

              Do you purposely mischaracterize my position or is it an inability to grasp what is clearly stated? I have no desire to “destroy the lives of total strangers” for my ideology.

              I am willing, if no other recourse is available, to destroy the lives of total strangers who support or allow fanatics to attempt to destroy our lives out of their ideology (jihadist Islam).

              There’s a difference between legitimate self-defense and mendacious aggression in advancement of a world-conquering ideology. That you make no distinction, reveals much about you, including the willful obtuseness evident in your comments.

  7. “GB, the JTA article is from Aug 6 of this year….the other article is a year old because it’s been a year AND MORE since the Israelis have been complaining to the Egyptians about the salafists in the Sinai—-and it was a full year and more ago that the Israelis GAVE THEIR PERMISSION for the Egyptian army to move into the SinaI because the Israelis WANTED the Egyptian army there in preference to having the area be uncontrolled.”

    That was perfectly true fuster. It’s also now completely irrelevant. That’s because that was the position of the Israeli’s when the Egyptian army was controlled by Mubarak’s generals. Now that Morsi and the Brotherhood is in power with their generals running the Egyptian army, its a horse of a different color.

    Any Israeli officer worth his salt knows that Morsi will use the salafists and ‘unauthorized’ terrorist infiltrations from the Sinai as an excuse to preposition Egyptian armor and troops to attack into Israel when Morsi and the Brotherhood determine that the time is right.

    Count on it, Morsi will attack.

    It’s not a matter of if, only of when.

    1. and now your ignoring that Barak reiterated the call for the Egyptian Army to step patrols in the Sinai exactly ONE MONTH AGO.

      Your proving yourself to be every bit as finking dishonest and dishonorable in clinging to your lies and not conceding the point as your windy wizened arse was trumpeting about others failing to do,

      Morsi will attack nothing, you windbag…because he doesn’t control anything. he’s still dickering with the army…and the army isn’t going to attack Israel in any meaningful manner because it would then, in short order, cease to exist…and wouldn’t have the wherewithal to rebuild.

      1. Websters defines a lie as, “to knowingly tell an untruth” I haven’t lied, not even once. I missed that Barak had reiterated the call for the Egyptian army to step up patrols in the Sinai. I pay little attention to Barak because he’s an appeaser. That does however allow for interpreting that call as he’s either hopeful or a fool.

        Clearly, I think he’s a fool and you take the more charitable view. I’m not conceding the point because nothing you’ve said indicates that my premises are in error.

        Your many prior instances of evasion are undeniable. In debate,intellectual honesty only allows for three potential options; rebuttal, conceding the point or reaching a point in the debate where differing fact-based opinions are irresolvable until reality renders its judgement. At such a point, agreeing to disagree, allowing that time shall reveal the more accurate view is proper.

        Disagreeing with someone and then evading when factual and reasoned rebuttal is offered is never acceptable.

        When you state that Morsi and the Brotherhood control nothing and that the Egyptian army remains independent, you exhibit either ignorance or intentional denial.

        Mubarak’s army wouldn’t attack Israel for the reasons you’ve stated. It’s now Morsi’s army and they will attack. Care to place a wager?

    2. ‘Count on it, Morsi will attack”

      Attack with what GB? At this point in time, the entire Egyptian first-line arsenal (except for a couple of squadrons of Mirage 2000’s) is of American manufacture.

      Egypt has to solve several problems before it can consider mounting a full-scale operation into Israel through Sinai. 1) How to concentrate enough units in Sinai without provoking a preemptive strike. 2) Logistics and maintenance of units (made in USA) whose spare parts would surely be cutoff in the event of hostilities 3) that pesky problem of maintaining supply open across the Suez Canal to avoid encirclement.

      I think the real danger sign here would be an Egyptian shift to another weapons procurer. Russia doesn’t have deep enough pockets to do a repeat of the Nasser/Soviet song and dance (and they know it) . They’ll be happy to sell the Egyptians stuff to be sure, but, the Russian position could be summed up as “no money, no honey”. So, I’m guessing the first thing the Egyptians are gonna have to solve is financing this changeover to weapons systems of a non-western origin. That leaves the Chinese who can finance and supply the systems (but I don’t think the wise and patient Chinese will dip their foot into something like this, this far from home, yet). Or, the Arabs/Muslims are gonna cough up to sponsor the “Arab Champion Egypt”.

      In any case a proper preparation of an operation through Sinai would take 3-5 years of diligent work on the part of the Egyptians.

      To be perfectly honest, I’m more concerned about the creeping complacency in Israeli society. I think there is a good chance that we are gonna end up bailing them out in the next five years. The go it alone days for Israel are coming to a close. I believe their next “major” engagement with the Arabs/Muslims will be fought with the participation of Israel’s regional and transatlantic allies.

      They are justifiably getting tired of having to live like this all the time.

        1. Other Arab’s money Fuster, other Arab’s money. Something the Egyptians have been doing in one form or another for a long time.

          1. whose? the Gulf Arabs aren’t gonna pay Egypt to attack Israel as they’re pushing the US just as hard as Israel to beat down the Iranians.

            the Saudis not only want the US to attack Iran, they also want the US to sell them tons of military hardware.

            unless you think that the Saudis are also gonna cut ties to the US and buy elsewhere…just as they’re running scared of Iran and going strong to topple Assad …… that”money for nuttin” Israel ain’t available.

            1. My comment was in answer to GB’s belief that Egypt will attack Israel Fuster. In order to “successfully” attack Israel, Egypt would have to do some of the steps I outlined. Please interpret my comments in that context.

              The Saudis you are referring to may not be around for much longer if this “Arab Spring” nonsense continues. “Abdullah, Custodian of the two Holy Mosques”, my *ss. That’s what they’re thinking in the streets of Aleppo, Gaza, Egypt, Afganistan…..

              1. jgets– i appreciate what you were saying and was only pointing out that your point (one I was trying to make to GB) about Egypt having to find someone else to buy them all the military toys — is really unavailable to them at present.

                and while I wouldn’t mind seeing the Saudi kingdom become the Republic of Arabia, the next regime will find that the House of Saud hasn’t left more than a fraction of the money in the Treasury, but has moved it to their private accounts, making taking Egypt out for a military makeover shopping spree something far down the new regime’s to-do list.

                1. “I wouldn’t mind seeing the Saudi kingdom become the Republic of Arabia”

                  Ah, unicorns and rainbows and, we all wouldn’t mind winning the lottery too. Pigs flying would certainly be entertaining as well. All of that is as probable as the House of Saud falling and a republic arising in its place.

                2. Something else worrying occurred to me about military toys Fuster. Who is to stop the Saudis and the GCC from resupplying the Egyptian armed forces ala a modified lend-lease style policy? Kinda like the supercharged version of semi-covertly arming the Syrian mercenaries, er “rebels”? Except this time with F-18’s and M-1’s instead of AK-47’s?

                  The Saudis have some huge military hardware orders in the pipe. Whose hands is this stuff gonna end up in 5-10 years down the line?

                3. To be more precise, add the GCC countries to that lend-lease theory and change the Fighter type to F-16, sorry for the typo.

                  1. you wanna assume that 5-10 years down the line, the Saudis don’t need the stuff anymore because the Iranians no longer are are ruled by the expansionist theocracy?


                    you wanna assume that the end of Iran hasn’t meant the end of Hezbollah as a threat …and that Hamas hasn’t also been consequently been forced to modify from hard-line opposition to the existence of the “Zionist entity” but has kept there fire burning through the patronage of the MB dominance in Egypt….


                    you wanna assume that the Saudis are willing to cross off the withdrawal of American patronage as no longer necessary and instead invite outright US hostility


                    you wanna assume that the US hasn’t sent Israel dozens of our latest aircraft as part of our policy to keep Israel ahead of anything that we send to the Saudis

                    well, then I guess that having vastly better trained and experienced pilots and better technology all around….

                    and the ultimate weapons that neither the Saudis nor the Egyptians can match might cause them both to stay their hands.

                    1. Yes Fuster, they are assumptions. I am speculating along the lines of a fundamental change in the orientation of the region’s regimes. I am not saying it will happen, just if it happens. My point is It might be prudent to keep a short leash on these weapons systems. Following GB’s hypothesis, the sum total of these weapons systems (region wide) in a form of Islamic alliance is not something insignificant.

                      Under the right set of circumstances, I can see our Arab/Muslim allies switching horses and if not outright turning against us, distancing themselves and playing us off against upcoming superpowers. Not likely (for the moment), but not impossible either.

                      This is the point of open dialogue, right?. How else are we going to learn anything new?

                    2. jgets— I understand entirely what you’re saying and even try to understand what it is that GB says,. I did think it reasonable to point out a few basic entailments underlying the suggestions.

                      That said, I’m entirely in agreement with you about how we we should be quite careful in our weapons sales and distribution…and I think that we more or less are careful….

      1. Attack with what they have and let the devil take the hindmost.

        Do you really think that religious fanatics are going to let logistics stop them?

        The logistical obstacles you list are valid and Mubarak’s generals would have agreed. But Morsi’s generals will comply when Morsi states that Allah will not allow them to fail and that, it’s all up to the will of Allah anyway. And no one will bring up prior failures.

        As for how it will be paid for, please, that doesn’t stop any nation from doing what it wants. Our debt of 16 trillion (the Federal Government owes about $112 TRILLION in actual debt and social promises) and the obscene EU indebtedness proves that beyond dispute.

        But I never indicated that I believed that Egypt will attack alone. They will, if possible coordinate their attack with Iran’s. Turkey may be involved as well. And if I’m right about an Islamic alliance, Pakistan may step in and warn Israel against using nukes, regardless of the provocation. How soon Morsi attacks is very much up to future developments but that he will attack is in mind beyond doubt. I actually wish that fuster was correct but he’s living in a fools paradise.

        I think an attack especially likely if Obama is reelected.

        If Romney is elected, which I think probable, Morsi and the Brotherhood may limit themselves to greatly increased support for Hamas and terrorist attacks against Israel. That’s especially likely if the Iranians do not gain nuclear capability before the Jan. inauguration and Romney then issues to Iran a military ultimatum. If the Iranian gain nukes, it’s a game changer.

        Israeli complacency is greatly exaggerated. The left of course wants to roll over but Netanyahu and the great number of Israelis know just how much of a threat that Iran, the Brotherhood and Islamic fanaticism presents to Israel’s survival.

        1. Well GB, If Egypt isn’t going to attack alone, we will be in for a bit of a wait. I don’t see anything in the region close to a diverse Islamic (military) alliance against Israel. They, (ME Muslim states), are too busy gouging the eyes out of each other for the time being (“Allah be Praised” and regardless of the Egyptian/Iranian flirt).
          Not that a coordination of Muslim States military strategy is of no concern in the mid-term of course. I maintain there will be no surprises till after the US elections. After that we will see.

          Turkey wont do diddly squat against Israel. The best Turkey can hope for is to try to patch things up with the Israelis on some level. It would be good for the region. Unfortunately Islam has deepened its hold on Turkish society (actually it was always so, Mustapha Kemal just succeeded in suppressing Islam temporarily). And if Turkey is dumb enough to fight the Israelis, well, aside from having to deal with the IAF which is bad enough, according to what I know, they’ll be dealing with the HAF on their western front as well.
          In other words… “Farewell and adieu to you fair ‘Turkish’ ladies……..

          1. as if Turkey has any interest in war with the Israelis and GB isn’t way de trop in his paranoia…..

            if it’s not Russia and China that are going to join the quest to establish the march for the triumph of Islamic world domination, it’s Turkey that’s not merely using the outrage over the boat interdiction tactical screw-up to help gain standing and market penetration in the Arab states, but is now seriously bonkers and is gonna go from third-rate power to military overlordship of the world and establish the New Caliphate

            1. You are correct, Islamic power is neither in Russia’s or China’s interest. Both have regions with Muslim majorities prone to secession

              Turkey is a long story, don’t wanna deeply get into that right now.

              Immigration to Western states and the establishment of Muslim majorities are the current weapons of choice in “the quest to establish the march for the triumph of Islamic world domination” Fuster. That, plus fostering secession in Muslim majority areas and installing radical Islamist governments in existing Muslim states.

                1. Briefly. The Balkans (Kosovo, Bosnia) and Northern Caucasus (Chechnya) are a good examples. Extrapolate the demographic say 100 years in a place like Marseilles, Holland, Belgium, Berlin and other Western cities/states, you end up with possible Muslim majorities in localized areas. If European History is any example at all, this will only lead to major conflict at some point ( already there is very violent nationalist backlash against immigrants in recession stricken Athens). The final outcome of this conflict (on a European-wide scale), I can’t predict.

                  I have a good knowledge of how various Islamic NGO’s operate under the guise of local development [with the blessings of (vote seeking) myopic Western govts]. I also know how immigrant Islamic communities are organizing (in the long term) to eventually co-opt their host countries (although they would never put in those terms). Some front line European cultures have a better historical understanding of this dynamic than others (Greeks, Serbs/Croats, Bulgarians, Armenians etc.). All through history, be it Ancient Persia, the Arabs, the Turks, Asia has come to Europe not to integrate, but to dominate. It won’t be any different this time around. I can’t predict the time frame of events, but GB is not in error on the philosophical underpinnings of Islam. No good can come of this, it would be better if the issue of Islamic immigration to the West be addressed now. It will save lives in the long run.

                  If you are wondering what this has to do with the USA… there is no “West” without the Europe we know in its current form.

            2. “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer

              You label as ‘paranoia’ simply following where the facts, circumstantial evidence and geo-political dynamics lead. It is only your reaction of appalled disbelief that prevents you from a fair minded consideration of the scenario I paint.

              Erdogan’s behavior indicates that he is ‘open’ to war with Israel, if the conditions should lead him to believe that he can win. IMO, currently those conditions do not exist.

              However, the potential for favorable conditions developing down the road do exist; with a nuclear Iran, exploding nuclear proliferation in the region, the Muslim Brotherhood having risen to power in Syria and Saudi Arabia (the House of Saud is living on borrowed time) and no repercussions from an Israel hating Europe who will not reprimand their NATO partner Turkey for participation…it could well be a different story.

              Should Hamas or Hezbollah successfully nuke Tel Aviv and Egypt and Iran immediately attack with conventional forces, Pakistan might declare, as a deterrent, that any use of nukes against Egypt or Iran will result in Pakistan retaliating with nukes…Turkey would then be compelled to join the attacks against Israel, just to maintain its status within the Ummah.

              It’s a given that none of this may pass. The current dynamics however make this scenario more than a possibility and barring decisive action by the US preventing Iran from going nuclear, it becomes IMO, a future probability.

              Russia and China’s actions belie the naive assertion that Islamic power is not in their interest. Anything that gives them a strategic advantage over America is in their interest. Their consistent support in the UN for the rogue nations can only have one purpose; (anyone, please offer an alternative, fact based and coherent explanation for Russia and China’s behavior) the purposeful, semi-covert (plausible deniability) use of Islamic terrorism as a strategic and tactical foil to reduce American power and influence in the world.

              Consider what the domestic repercussions will be if Islamic terrorists are eventually successful, with successive, attacks upon American cities, with “stolen” nukes from unstable third world countries…

              The economic repercussions would be massive but the real impact will be psychological; a public filled with massive fear, certain to result in overwhelming calls for the government to do something. It is inevitable that the government will immediately respond to nuked American cities with the establishment of martial law “for the duration of the national emergency”. In such a situation, human nature dictates that the massive public fear extant will result in the entrenchment of a “fortress America” mentality. Such an America would greatly reduce its overseas presence.

              What better eventuality could Putin and China’s totalitarian leadership hope for?

              Currently, the sole objection that I have received to this analysis is that Russia and China fear Islamic terrorism as well.

              No, they don’t, as they are not we.

              Putin and China’s leadership have no moral squeamishness about making quite clear to jihadist leadership their willingness to turn the ME into a glass parking lot if Islamic terrorism targets them. Really, is there any logical basis for doubting that jihadists know that they’re dealing with an entirely ‘different kettle of fish’ when they contemplate Russian and Chinese reaction to Islamic terrorism?

              And the fact that fanatic Islamic jihadists have no chance whatsoever of achieving world domination is completely irrelevant to their behavior. Reconstituting a new, (nuclear armed) Caliphate is, in their minds, not an option, it’s a theological imperative, a direct commandment from Allah.

              Putin and China do not want a Caliphate but they do want limited Islamic nuclear terrorist attacks against the US.

              Yes, given the fanaticism they are promoting and protecting, they are playing with fire and certainly people who play with fire frequently get burned. So it’s a calculated risk but the drive for power and dominance demands risk taking and the ‘prize’ of usurping America’s position and status is irresistible to men driven to seek power.

              1. Erdogan engages in open and ugly speech against Israel and advocates for Palestinians without any fairness or balance…

                after the Israelis botched the raid on the blockade runners and killed a bunch of Turks, things got downright hostile

                what other “behavior” indicates that Erdogan is open to making war on anyone, let alone a nation that would be able to wipe out Turkey?

                He’s not going to join Iran in a dam thing (probably not even killing Kurds) as Iran is a rival if not an enemy…Turkey is in the lead in bringing down Assad and destroying Iranian influence near Turkish borders.

                Theories are fine GB, but theories are not part of any of those three stages of truth,

                not even a nuclear Iran exists as truth

                truth is more than ancestral voices prophesizing war

                1. “Erdogan engages in open and ugly speech against Israel and advocates for Palestinians without any fairness or balance…”

                  And your reaction is that its all just empty bluster? What evidence do you offer in support of that assessment? besides that is, that it hasn’t happened yet?

                  “after the Israelis botched the raid on the blockade runners and killed a bunch of Turks”

                  Exactly how should Israel have handled that incident? As your implying that its the Israeli’s fault?

                  “what other “behavior” indicates that Erdogan is open to making war on anyone”

                  For the past 17 months, the Turkish government and military have been brazenly assisting the armed militias waging a foreign-backed covert war of aggression against the neighboring Syrian state and people.

                  Turkey has provided the criminal war effort with land bases, logistics and surveillance, personnel training and weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, according to recent reports.

                  Most recently, allowing some 400 members of the self-styled Free Syrian Army to gather in Turkey’s Hatay Province for a three-day summit. The agenda of which was in how to sharpen their campaign of terror on Syria to overthrow the government in Damascus.

                  Then there is the core ideology Erdogan follows: “There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” Ayatollah Khomeini, 1942

                  Erdogan is an authoritarian dictator in all but name. Such men do not shy away from a conflict they think they can win.

                  “He’s not going to join Iran in a dam thing (probably not even killing Kurds) as Iran is a rival if not an enemy…”

                  This past March Erdogan met with Ahmadinejad in an official state visit. Erdogan was accompanied by his top department officials. Erdogan offered complete support for Iran’s ‘peaceful’ pursuit of nuclear energy. Erdogan knows as well as anyone that Iran is enriching its uranium far beyond the needed enrichment for nuclear power and that the only purpose for enriching uranium to the levels Iran is seeking is for nuclear weapons. At the end of the meeting in March, Turkey and Iran announced readiness to increase the bilateral trade volume from the current $16 billion to $35 billion by the end of 2015. None of this is the behavior of rivals, much less enemies.

                  Of course it’s a theory, if you disagree it’s incumbent upon you to demonstrate why it’s not a credible theory, which so far you’ve been unable to do.

                  “not even a nuclear Iran exists as truth”

                  Not yet but then no ones claiming that. Implicit to your statement is the implication that Iran isn’t seeking nukes. OK, then it’s incumbent upon you to offer a credible explanation for why Iran is enriching uranium to nuclear weapons levels.

                  I’m not prophesying war, I’m following the evidence, which if your head wasn’t firmly planted where the sun don’t shine, you wouldn’t be able to ignore.

                  1. GB– “not even a nuclear Iran exists as truth”

                    “Not yet but then no ones claiming that. Implicit to your statement is the implication that Iran isn’t seeking nukes”

                    that’s just nothing other than stupid.
                    it’s not only logically impossible to claim the implication is entailed in the statement……..

                    it’s flatly untrue.

                    I believe that Iran IS pursuing nukes …and I’ve said so on numerous occasions.

                    stop making yourself stupid, GB. No one really believes that you’re stupid….

                    you’ve got you problems, but not that one.

                    1. Forgive my obtuseness or admit to lack of clarity. I wonder which you’ll choose?

                      If you do believe that Iran is seeking nukes, fine but then just exactly what did you mean by “not even a nuclear Iran exists as truth” ? I’m having difficulty assigning any other interpretation to it other than the implication that because Iran hasn’t definitively announced that they have nukes, we can’t act as if they do…which while true enough is nonsensical because the issue isn’t that they don’t have them yet but that their goal is to gain nuclear capability ASAP. And that once they have them its a geo-political game changer with severe future repercussions for Israel, America and even Europe.

                    2. PS: since you didn’t rebut any of my other points fuster, that’s an implicit admission that you can’t rebut them. It’s also another example of evasion rather than conceding the point, which once again, is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

                    3. I didn’t rebut any of your other points, despite preparing rebuttal as i read through your comment, because you made a fool of yourself with that idiotic crack about that which you claimed to be implicit in my comment.

                      that you decided to double down with the same idiocy, I’ll put down to you’re becoming a dotard, rather than allowing you to make me hedge on my claim that you’re not stupid.

                      I’m not to be goaded into abandoning that belief.

  8. Our Ambassador(!) and three others were just killed in “liberated” Libya just hours after our embassy was attacked in “liberated” Egypt.

    Tell me now, all of you, go on and tell that that the Russians are behind this, and not the the Islamic “Frankenstein’s Monster” WE created.

    Go on, continue supporting Islam in all its forms, Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, Gulf Sheikh paymasters, Neo-Ottoman sultans, Kosovar human/drug/organ traffickers, Chechen murderers of children.

    Turn your backs on cooperation with culturally similar states because of antiquated neocon cold war notions about the big red boogeyman.

    We “liberated” the Libyans, what a joke! We are worse than fools, we are complicit in murdering our own people.

    We are blind. I’m disgusted and ashamed.

    1. It’s certainly enough to enrage any American and strong emotions can cause us to say things we otherwise might not in the heat of the moment. That said, I, as one of the most committed to the view that Russia is currently a hostile rival to US interests must respond.

      I don’t know where you get the idea that anyone here holds the view that the Russians are responsible for this, as its highly likely that they are not. It is of course, far to early to know what happened in detail and much may never be revealed to the public. But currently, there’s no reason to think that the Russians or any other major player was involved in this attack.

      Islamic jihadists have their own agenda and act independently of Russian machinations. Perhaps I haven’t been clear enough. It’s my contention that Russia is using Islamic jihadist terrorism in a covert war of aggression against the US. It’s undeniable that they are directly involved in facilitating Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But otherwise they mostly act as opportunists, covertly assisting where they may and overtly blocking in the UN any effective International sanctions against the rogue nations.

      We did NOT create the “Islamic Frankenstein’s Monster” to which you refer. That’s a not uncommon POV but it is IMO erroneous.

      Who here is supporting “Islam in all its forms”? Or “Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, Gulf Sheikh paymasters, Neo-Ottoman sultans, Kosovar human/drug/organ traffickers, Chechen murderers of children.”?

      Dude. Chill. That’s borderline over the cliffs edge.

      Even paulite t doesn’t advocate support for Al Qaeda. While I believe his apparent view that Islam is a religion of peace, sometimes highjacked by radical jihadists, to be naively erroneous, that is, currently the majority view.

      Not to denigrate “culturally similar states”, which is one basis for shared interests but its the “big red boogeyman’s” behavior which is at issue. You’re suggesting that we ally ourselves with Russia, when they are engaged in undeniable and irreplaceable long term assistance to Iran’s pursuit of nukes and are repeatedly blocking in the UN any effective non-military measures to stop Iran and that despite the undeniable repercussions for America. Upon what basis other than wishful thinking do you offer for considering this course of action?

      We didn’t liberate the Libyans and to the extent that the US assisted, that rests solely upon Obama’s shoulders and those who supported him, which as I imperfectly recall, on this blog consisted solely of paulite t.

      Arguably, half the American public is blind but in all fairness, many of them are blinded by the leftist propaganda of the MSM, which has been active since the Vietnam war.

      1. I know I went over the top GB, I’m just very pissed off. What happened at the consulate in Libya is a disgrace and another victory for our enemies. If there is no reaction to this that strikes fear in the marrow of jihadis/Isamists bones, it will lead to more and worse.

        1. OK, most all of us go over the top at one time or another.

          It is a disgrace and a victory for our enemies and will lead to more, in fact it already has with attacks in Yemen, Egypt again, Tunisia, etc.

          It’s a ‘arab spring’ without freedom of speech because that’s our value, not theirs. Nor is minority rights or any other ‘rights’ but Islam’s ‘right’ to demand submission or death.

          This will lead to more American deaths. That’s a given whatever we do. What liberals refuse to face is that the ‘accommodation’ that they favor will lead to more American deaths…they’ve never understood Gen. Patton’s dictum; “the object of war is not to die for your country, the object is to make the other poor SOB die for his country”.

          They don’t appreciate that Patton’s wording clearly indicates that, in general, the ‘enemy’ are people too, simply fighting on the wrong side. And that in war, someone’s going to die and better it be the guy fighting for ‘evil (live or ‘life’ spelled backwards) than those fighting for the better values.

          In our present circumstance, the individual’s right to decide what, “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” consist of is a better value than, accept Islam or else…

          But I doubt that any retaliation of significance will happen. Not just because Obama’s a wuss but because identifying those responsible, including not just the ones who attacked but those who provided the intel needed to target Stevens and those who ordered the attacks will probably prove difficult to ascertain..

          Of course, ultimately it’s the ideology of Islam itself that’s responsible but currently that’s labeled by the left, the administration, the MSM and clueless liberals as hate speech.

          Of course, telling the truth has been for quite some time.

          In today’s world, Churchill warning about Hitler would be labeled as hate speech.

          PC demands that the agenda be what’s important, not the truth of the matter.

          One more instance of, “Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.” —poet James Russell Lowell

          1. I can think of one way off the top of my head to retaliate immediately, without getting any Americans killed.
            Cut off Western support ( and please don’t insist that we are not) for the Syrian “rebels” who are in large part (actually) Libyan (amongst others) jihadi/Al-Qaeda type mercenaries. Strand the bastards and let Assad chop them to pieces. He’d be doing the world a favor.

            1. I’ve never been in favor of assisting the Syrian rebels, having said from day one that its mainly jihadists who oppose Assad’s regime. There’s no major faction involved in Syria who share Western values. I can’t say how much actual assistance we’re currently providing but I doubt its much, which if true means its absence wouldn’t have much impact.

              The financial aid we provide Islamic nations is designed to accomplish certain goals; ‘moderation’ in holding a lid on jihadist extremism and protection of assets we deem important; primarily keeping the oil flowing and keeping Pakistan’s nukes secure.

              Our current Middle Eastern policies are the result of the division within our society as to what to do about Islamic radicalism. Both sides agree that keeping the oil flowing so as to keep the price of oil stable and securing Pakistan’s nukes is a good idea.

              Since the American left won’t agree to truly take the fight to the rogue nations, (look what happened when Bush went into Iraq) much less confront the enabling nations, all that Republicans have been able to do is agree to the bribes that the left is willing to offer corrupt M.E. regimes. As long as those taking the bribes like the Mubarak’s, Saudi’s, etc. are in control, such a policy has limited utility.

              Now that Obama’s feckless encouragement of the jihadists taking control, under the left’s cover of an ‘arab spring’, the old policy of bribes is starting to crumble. Pakistan and the Saudi’s remain but aid to Egypt or any nation under the control of jihadists will only result in many more American deaths.

              IMO, the only remaining bulwark to the jihadists taking control of the entire region are the Saudi’s but I believe their days are numbered. Its past time to rethink our strategy but the left’s intransigence remains and will remain even after we are attacked again, as the MSM, the propaganda organ of the left is certain to assign blame for any attacks upon the right.

              We’re being forced to fight with one hand tied behind our back and both legs tied together. That won’t change until our very survival is at stake, then the left’s attempts at appeasement will be seen by the majority as traitorous and we’ll finally be free to fight.

              Another generation is going to have to learn the lesson that appeasement of murderous fanatics always results in wider war and greater death.

  9. “I didn’t rebut any of your other points, despite preparing rebuttal as i read through your comment, because you made a fool of yourself with that idiotic crack about that which you claimed to be implicit in my comment.”

    Thank you for merely claiming that I’m a fool, rather than offering the rebuttal needed to prove your assertion. How very considerate of you. (sarc off)

    “I always cheer up when attacked personally, as it means they have not a single political argument left.” Margaret Thatcher

    1. the utter absence of the logical entailment that you claim is apparent suffices and I’ve no requirement to refute a fallacious claim …although I was kind enough to point it out and to assure that reading through my prior comments on the subject would demonstrate that not only could you not correctly have deduced it, but that it was opposite to what I’ve often declared.

      but cheer up, I’m fond of fools, GB…and the one in Lear is one of my favorite characters.

        1. and entirely your fault. you murdered the political arguments when you butchered the logic.

          when the find the nads to admit that you erred, then we might return to reasonable argumentation.

          1. Of course its entirely my fault, how could it be yours?

            Butchering logic? That’s called projection, you might look it up.

            That would be ‘you find the nads’, rather than “the find the nads”…

            That of course is not an indication of which of us finds consistency in logic challenging.

            You do agree, that from the originating premise, the reasoning extended must be consistent with the conclusion?

            Or do you claim that to be irrelevant with ‘reasonable’ argumentation? it would certainly appear so but I’m uncertain, given the evasion you’re so fond of….

  10. Now, if I am correct in my recollection, it was the neo-conservatives who promoted the myth that “democratization” of theddle East was the panacea for all evils in the region. I also recollect the howls of outrage from the right when the Obama administration decided to “lead from behind” and leave the Europeans take the lead (and bear most of the expense) in toppling Ghadaffi. The general theme was that Obama and presumably our troops should have been to the vanguard in liberating Lybia from the late buffoon. Now that its all gone pear-shaped the right is claiming that supporting the Arab Spring was a left-wing project.
    Meanwhile, some idiots whose sense of responsibility is as sharply tuned as the production-values of their video, decided to throw a lighted match into the tinder-box that is the current Middle East. One must presume that their purpose was mischief. If so, they have achieved exactly what they had in mind. We don’t yet know whether the producers were Jewish fanatics, disaffected Egyptian Copts, or low-IQ “Christian” fundamentalists, however, my advice is to “follow the money” if you want to unmask these people, and look for the financiers. (My guess is that the excerable Mr. Kline is the person with the answers) Their free speech is of course sacred – even if they use it to undermine the vital interests of our nation and endanger the lives of our diplomats.

    And then along comes Lord Romneycare. Fresh from horrifying his handlers by saying he would retain parts of Obamacare – while at the same time repealing the mandate which he will knows would make the retained parts financially viable – he unhesitatingly presses the opportunitism button yet again and accuses the President of apologising for the Libyan murderers on the basis of a local diplomatic statement issued several hours beforehand. The Republican PR machine is now tying itself in knots trying to “unblunder” its hapless candidate, and the remaining sober voices within the Republican Party are either running for cover or publicly distancing themselves from the debacle. Serves ’em right for picking a candidate without discernable principles.

    1. NeoCons, of which I was one, did advocate the view that democracy would bring advantageous changes to the region, if coupled with other strategic tactics, which you somehow fail to mention. Is it itentional or ignorance? Telling half the truth is your specialty, yes?

      It is however an outright lie that the majority of the right ever advocated getting involved in any manner in Libya.

      Nice try at obfuscation; the lie that the ‘arab spring’ has anything to do with the yearning of M.E. peoples for self-determination is entirely a fabrication of the left and the MSM.

      It doesn’t matter whether the producers of that idiotic youtube video were “Jewish fanatics, disaffected Egyptian Copts, or low-IQ “Christian” fundamentalists”. Yes, their right to say whatever they please, regardless of how offensive it may be is sacred.

      Without free speech, the choices are reduced to either “might makes right and the law of the jungle prevails” or “Orwell’s Brave New World”.

      No one denies that healthcare needs revision. If Romney said that no part of Obamacare had value you’d criticize him for that, but he says some reforms have value and you use that for political criticism. There’s just no pleasing you is there? You’d think you had an agenda without the slightest concern for objective truth.

      Last I checked, those ‘local’ state department diplomats work at Obama’s pleasure. BTW, when was the last time anyone caught diplomats shooting their mouths off without checking first on what the official line should be? Sure is inconvenient how people want to insist that the ‘buck stops’ on Obama’s desk, isn’t it? Or does that only apply when a Republican is in office?

      Those “sober voices within the Republican Party” being RINO’s?

      Hhmm… “picking a candidate without discernible principles”, that’s rich. And a real example of chutzpah. Though I must admit that Obama, your ‘champion of principles’, does have principles, they’re just not American principles but entirely inline with Marx’s…

      Just out of curiosity, do you ever have even a moment of self doubt?

      If not, you’re just a fool or a traitor. If so, you’re just too much of a moral coward to look squarely in the mirror.

        1. Nice attempt at reversal, but only responding to the last three lines of a detailed rebuttal to your comment is not just completely insufficient but reveals an inability to do so. It is you that cannot engage on the field of idea and fact. But then, you know that, don’t you? So, you’ve got nothing to contribute beyond bile.

    2. Fanatic Muslims will kill at the drop of a burkha, or a cartoon, or an internet movie with an audience of dozens. But go ahead and unmask the financiers of the movie, if you like. The result may not be what you think.

      The American political class genuflects to “democracy” at every opportunity. Many on the right realize that not everything that comes out of a vote is good, including our last Presidential election.

      1. Yes, you are exactly correct in stating that and thank you for doing so, cousin Vinnie.

        There are also those precious few that have actually come to believe, sincerely, by the way, that most everything that comes from a vote ends up being self-serving and the birthright of a bunch of lies and con jobs put together by the expert prestidigitators that end up running the country disguised as “servants of the people”.

        But, you knew that I feel that way already… 🙂

        Terms used and their meaning:

        “a vote” re: a classic what’s-in-it-for-me democratic expression.
        “self-serving” re: egotistical, selfish, born of self interest
        “birthright” re: the result of
        “prestidigitators” re: politician
        “expert prestidigitators” re: successful politician
        “servant of the people” re: when used in quotes, servants only of themselves


        1. Many years ago, the great scifi writer R. Heinlein envisioned our society with some changes; in one, the President was randomly selected from a qualified pool of candidates, the main qualifications being a sufficient IQ, no felonies, age of maturity and no desire whatsoever to be President…

          In another, the voting franchise was earned through military service. Heinlein’s reasoning being that only those who had demonstrated a willingness to place their lives on the line (if needed) had proven the requisite willingness to place the greater good before self-interest.

          He also envisioned a society in which a high degree of civility was maintained by a universal right to concealed carry of firearms, (though not required) and since one didn’t know whether someone was armed or not, giving offense could have serious repercussions. Dueling was viewed as a necessary institution to keep rudeness and offensiveness minimal.

          Just some food for thought.

            1. Sociopath’s have no moral conscience. Have you looked in the mirror lately?

              So, as a qualification, no desire for political power in a President is stupid?

              So, a proven willingness to place the greater good before self-interest is not evidence of good citizenship?

              So, those willing to use intimidation and violence to dominate others…Cicero’s question no longer applies? “What can be done against force, without force?” Roman statesman Cicero

              News flash! Disagreement with your point of view is not proof of stupidity. But labeling as idiocy, views with which we disagree may well be proof of idiocy.

  11. The story behind this video is becoming quite intriguing.

    It seems that a Steve Klein and the guy he calls Sam Bacile (apparantly one of the many aliases of a fraudster called Basseley, currently on probation, having been convicted of financial fraud in Southern California) hatched the entire thing. Klein, who has ‘form’ as an Islamaphobe, is close to some Jewish ‘philanthropic’ organizations. He managed to persuade some, rather gullible, Californian Jews to donate a couple of $million to make a movie which he assured the donors would be useful to the Israeli cause.
    Klein provided the script and he and “Bacile” made the movie using out-of work actors who thought they were making some sort of desert drama – Some of them even thought they were being hired to make a porno-flick (Well, it was in Southern California, after all ….). The purpose of the ‘dynamic duo’ in making the movie was probably twofold – to pocket most of the money donated by the gullible donors, and, secondly, to further Klein’s Islamaphobic agenda. The movie was shot on a shoestring by Bassile using a fraction of the donated money (viz. the production values). It was then edited by Klein, who dubbed in the inflammatory dialogue, post production. The final product was shown to some of the ‘financiers’ at the only ever public showing of the full movie (To be fair, most were far from impressed by how their money was spent, and are now feeling foolish and embarrassed). Subsequently, Klein had edited “highlights” dubbed-over in Arabic, and in an act of stupendous idiocy and irresponsibility, put them onto YouTube, with the result we all now know.

    This might be a ‘hoot’ if all that had happened was some rich and foolish folks had been conned out of their money. However, throwing a lighted match into the tinderbox that is the current Middle East, is not in the least but funny, and has been co-responsible (along with the murderers who actually perpetrated the acts) for the deaths of American diplomats, and damage to US interests in the region.

  12. In the larger scheme of things, it matters not who produced this ‘movie’ nor what their motivation may have been.

    Your fear of “throwing a lighted match into the tinderbox that is the current Middle East” is what would lead to your dhimmitude, were it not for the efforts of better men than yourself. That is because predators do not become sheep when the real sheep avoid offense.

    The correct response is to create more videos that shine a brutally honest light upon Islam’s tenets, beliefs and actions and, when the M.E. explodes, demonstrate in no uncertain terms whom the ‘strong horse’ is…”I will fear no evil because I’m the meanest S.O.B. in the valley” is the ONLY attitude that murderous fanatics understand.

    How could you grow to adulthood and understand so little about wolves, sheep and the need for sheep dogs?

    Ah! That’s right, there’s a difference between growing older and becoming an adult. Starting with expecting accountability and responsibility from both oneself and others.

    Never fought back when the bully demanded your lunch money, did you?

  13. We’d better get our sh@t together and stop poking each other in the eye ladies and gentlemen. Tough times ahead in the economy, the society, and in foreign affairs. From whatever political vantage point you’re looking at it from…. The Nation is badly in need of solutions…..Regardless of which party wins the elections.

    1. “The Nation is badly in need of solutions…..Regardless of which party wins the elections.”

      No question that viable solutions are badly needed.

      Is there any question that the ‘solutions’ offered by the left will only make things worse? A case of “the cure being worse than the disease”? The left, if it had its way would destroy the economic engine of capitalism, just as its doing in Europe. It would allow Iran to gain nukes. It will appease, in hopes that dialog can bring peaceful behavior from fanatics… It has abandoned any moral compass but the popular whim of the moment.

      Is there any question that if Romney is elected, that the left, the MSM and clueless liberals will do all they can to oppose a Pres. Romney and Republicans?

      Upon what basis for agreement is there but capitulation to the left or as much gridlock as dems can accomplish?

      There’s a simple truth here that needs to be faced; for many on the left, their agenda and goals far exceed any loyalty to their land of birth.

      How do you ‘work’ with that?

  14. While we argue, the (low budget) Taliban kills two marines and takes out eight Harriers jump jets, in one day. That’s over 5% of the existing number of AV-88’s in the inventory.. To my recollection this hasn’t occurred since Vietnam. Most American MSM concerns itself instead with whether Prince Harry’s limey, (but actually of German descent), royal butt is safe….

    In the meantime…

    Our (NATO) million dollar drones kill eight Afghan women and girls collecting firewood…..

    Please tell me there is somebody working on another way outta this mess, Quickly…

    1. Of course there’s a way out of this mess, that’s not the problem. The problem is that the left, the MSM and clueless liberals will only support policies of appeasement. They’ve already proved that they will do all they can to undermine and oppose policies that confront our enemies.

      Nothing about that will change with the election of Romney. It will be BushHitler all over again. The left, the MSM and liberals, the useful idiots who give the left political power are, consciously and unconsciously, supportive of policies that will destroy this nation.

      That is the problem. Every other threat and issue pales in comparison.

    1. That caught my eye too but after reading it closely, this appears to be previously scheduled war games, an annual 12 day affair. It is reportedly the largest ever scheduled in the area but may secondarily be meant to send a message to Iran.

      Iran is supposed to have their own war games next month.

      There are some credible reports coming out of Israel that there is greatly heightened military activity throughout the country. Lots of soldiers visiting Jerusalem’s wall.

      Netanyahu’s recent interviews indicate the possibility that he is rapidly reaching his ‘red line’.

      It’s clear that the Israeli’s don’t want to attack but feel they are being backed into a corner by Obama’s clear willingness to let Iran have the bomb.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: