"Goading Gullible America Into War", Patrick Buchanan

[truth on hold]

Here then is War Party calendar and countdown.

First, rule out containment and deterrence of Iran, though that policy won the Cold War. Second, rule in a U.S. war on Iran if Tehran does not yield to all our demands in nuclear negotiations.

Third, ensure the negotiations fail by repeated insults, threats, sanctions, and intolerable demands that so humiliate the Iranians that, enraged, they say “to hell with it” and walk out of the talks.

Then, by default, the last “option” left for dealing with Iran — even if she still has not tested a bomb or enriched uranium to bomb grade — will be U.S. air strikes on Fordow and Natanz, cheered on by a War Party that dreams of this day and that war.

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2013/03/21/goading-gullible-america-into-war/

[birdog1960]

replace iran with iraq throughout that paragraph and you have a pretty accurate description of the lead up to bush's war.

[meazza]

replace iran with iraq throughout that paragraph and you have a pretty accurate description of the lead up to bush's war.

 

Thank god bush isnt still president to fabricate all the intelligence.

[B-Large]

I wonder if we do go to war with Iran, will we borrow to fund it, or ask Americans to actually pony up and pay for it?

[dayman]

I wonder if we do go to war with Iran, will we borrow to fund it, or ask Americans to actually pony up and pay for it?

 

you wonder about this?

[OCinBuffalo]

I wonder if Buchanan is suffering from dementia.

 

How exactly do you contain...a nuclear bomb that can be delivered in a suitcase? Or a missile? Besides, only a moron determines that a nuke that can't hit us doesn't represent a major threat to our way of life, and national security. What does a nuke hitting Israel-->$10 gas do to our economy, there Pat?

 

What wonderful effects, and not war(yeah, right), can we expect from a global economic depression?

 

And if you include "arming and advising the Afghans with real CIA/SF people on the ground" or "deploying our troops in 30 other countries and fighting the spread of communism on all fronts, a la "bear any burden, pay any price" JFK doctrine executed by Reagan, in your definition of "deterrence"...then yeah...deterrence won the cold war, Pat.

 

 

I don't want to go to war with Iran any more than anybody else...but come on. Treating these people as though they deserve to be negotiated with in good faith, when the basis for their government is that a "great war must start, so that the savior will reveal himself and lead the forces of Islam to victory"...seems flat out retarded.

 

The reason for the Iranian nuke is: to start the great war. These mullahs have a wacky obsession with mysticism, and prophecy.

 

Hmm haven't we heard this before, and didn't another wacky regime, with an unhealthy obsession with mysticism and prophecy, start a war that killed 100 million people?

 

Does Pat not know his history? You can contain crazy...until...you can't. How do we contain somebody whose purpose in life is to start a war, and cares nothing for whatever deterrents/incentives we might offer?

[DC Tom]

I wonder if Buchanan is suffering from dementia.

 

How exactly do you contain...a nuclear bomb that can be delivered in a suitcase? Or a missile? Besides, only a moron determines that a nuke that can't hit us doesn't represent a major threat to our way of life, and national security. What does a nuke hitting Israel-->$10 gas do to our economy, there Pat?

 

He means "containment" as a geopolitical strategy, of course. Basically, isolating Iran politically and economically. Maybe through the UN, or through our various alliances (NATO, various agreements with Arab states who are scared shitless about a nuclear Iran, etc.) You know, that thing we're actually trying to do, that he says we've ruled out.

 

And THEN he argues that we've abandoned deterrence as something the administration mistakenly believes wouldn't work...while mentioning SR 65:

 

SR 65 radically alters U.S. policy by declaring it to be “the policy of the United States … to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy.”

 

An obvious statement of deterrence, which he insists won't work, because Iran won't be deterred by it.

 

 

 

So Buchanan's arguing for containment and deterrence by pointing out that containment and deterrence aren't working. Only someone as dumb as JtSP could think that article even made sense.

[OCinBuffalo]

He means "containment" as a geopolitical strategy, of course. Basically, isolating Iran politically and economically. Maybe through the UN, or through our various alliances (NATO, various agreements with Arab states who are scared shitless about a nuclear Iran, etc.) You know, that thing we're actually trying to do, that he says we've ruled out.

 

And THEN he argues that we've abandoned deterrence as something the administration mistakenly believes wouldn't work...while mentioning SR 65:

 

An obvious statement of deterrence, which he insists won't work, because Iran won't be deterred by it.

 

So Buchanan's arguing for containment and deterrence by pointing out that containment and deterrence aren't working. Only someone as dumb as JtSP could think that article even made sense.

As you know I am pretty much down with the libertarians as a rule...but I'm not down with any ideology, if it means I have to forsake all reason to stay with it.

 

Also as you may know, I am a big proponent of "choice theory", but...with the case of North Korea, or Iran, I don't see very many options here. Could GWB be right, and even, insightful to the point of being prophetic(oh, that must sting for the Bush-deranged), in that the "axis of evil" both going belligerent at the same time, could start WW3?

 

Seriously. No trolling: what do you hear about this? Never mind the fact that we are signalling "weak as schit, and being run by people who don't care about the US government's job #1", do the people around the office think that we are going to have real problems with these idiots?

[....lybob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

 

General Wesley Clark told us what was happening in 2007

Edited April 4, 2013 by ....lybob

[truth on hold]

I wonder if Buchanan is suffering from dementia.

 

How exactly do you contain...a nuclear bomb that can be delivered in a suitcase? Or a missile? Besides, only a moron determines that a nuke that can't hit us doesn't represent a major threat to our way of life, and national security. What does a nuke hitting Israel-->$10 gas do to our economy, there Pat?

 

What wonderful effects, and not war(yeah, right), can we expect from a global economic depression?

 

And if you include "arming and advising the Afghans with real CIA/SF people on the ground" or "deploying our troops in 30 other countries and fighting the spread of communism on all fronts, a la "bear any burden, pay any price" JFK doctrine executed by Reagan, in your definition of "deterrence"...then yeah...deterrence won the cold war, Pat.

 

 

I don't want to go to war with Iran any more than anybody else...but come on. Treating these people as though they deserve to be negotiated with in good faith, when the basis for their government is that a "great war must start, so that the savior will reveal himself and lead the forces of Islam to victory"...seems flat out retarded.

 

The reason for the Iranian nuke is: to start the great war. These mullahs have a wacky obsession with mysticism, and prophecy.

 

Hmm haven't we heard this before, and didn't another wacky regime, with an unhealthy obsession with mysticism and prophecy, start a war that killed 100 million people?

 

Does Pat not know his history? You can contain crazy...until...you can't. How do we contain somebody whose purpose in life is to start a war, and cares nothing for whatever deterrents/incentives we might offer?

Yeah those wacky mullahs and their death wish prophecy. been ruling for over a millennium longer than US has existed. Geez if they're that incompetent fulfilling their death wish, who cares what they have lol

[DC Tom]

Yeah those wacky mullahs and their death wish prophecy. been ruling for over a millennium longer than US has existed. Geez if they're that incompetent fulfilling their death wish, who cares what they have lol

 

Iranian mullahs have been ruling Iran since the 8th century?

 

You are literally too ignorant to discuss this topic.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah those wacky mullahs and their death wish prophecy. been ruling for over a millennium longer than US has existed. Geez if they're that incompetent fulfilling their death wish, who cares what they have lol

Iranian mullahs have been ruling Iran since the 8th century?

 

You are literally too ignorant to discuss this topic.

 

Bah...beat me to it. I didn't think JtSP was dumb enough not to perceive the idiocy here, especially since we both pointed it out to him, in detail.

 

Guess I was wrong.

[truth on hold]

 

 

 

Bah...beat me to it. I didn't think JtSP was dumb enough not to perceive the idiocy here, especially since we both pointed it out to him, in detail.

 

Guess I was wrong.

You can debate all you want when Islamic rule started, degree of influence, how to account for interrupted periods etc, but the bottom line is they've have plenty of opportunity fulfill your silly alleged prophetic death wish, and there still around. You're just spewing out the same old BS about how crazy and irrational "they are" as a justification for waging war.

[OCinBuffalo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

 

General Wesley Clark told us what was happening in 2007

If you were around, I laid out this "plan" on this board, starting in 2005. And imagine, I didn't have a pipeline of info from the DOD to tell me. All I needed was the ability to read a map properly. It's amazing what you can do, when you know WTF you are talking about ...lybob.

 

A feeling you will rarely experience. But maybe, someday...

 

You could tell from the way they approached Iraq in the beginning = take the main cities and create a land supply route to the sea via Iraq and Kuwait. Use the SF/helicopters to divide Iran's army, which has a lot of dudes, in half, and keep half of them defending the Afghan flank. Cut off their supply routes = easy, Turkey is our ally, Turkmenistan is run by a nut who we could easily buy off, etc.

 

We already had the tanks, logistics, and the "safe" supply route. I bet the furthest thing from their mind was "Iraqi clowns we just freed giving us hell". They became myopically focused on the route, and to hell with the country. It's easy to see why: we could run an endless number of tanks up that road, and anvil/hammer Iran. Too tantalizing a setup to bother with things like securing the entire country of Iraq/making it safe for the average person.

 

No, the supply route was the flame, and they were the moths.

 

Now, as far as the video goes: Wesley Clark characterizing a conversation with a flag officer...like he was talking to some CQ corporal? Yeah...no embellishment there at all. Wesley Clark has already established himself as less than truthful, on multiple occasions. I doubt that this guy had "no idea" why we were attacking Iraq.

 

I also significantly doubt that the Chiefs are gonna let a retired, now obviously political guy, just stroll through their offices, and ask him for his advice as in " Oh no, Wes....I mean...sir (did you catch that? ) w-what do we do now? If only you were here, sir, then none of this would be happening".

 

Only an idiot believes the conversations went the way Clark says...and you ...lybob could just be the right idiot for the job.

[OCinBuffalo]

You can debate all you want when Islamic rule started, degree of influence, how to account for interrupted periods etc, but the bottom line is they've have plenty of opportunity fulfill your silly alleged prophetic death wish, and there still around. You're just spewing out the same old BS about how crazy and irrational "they are" as a justification for waging war.

But...they earnestly believe that starting a war, is the only way to for the messiah to reveal himself, and that he will lead the forces of Islam to victory, world wide. A great peace and enlightenment will follow.

 

Edit: this prophecy hasn't been around since the 8th century, and these guys absolute belief in it...has only been around since they took over Iran. Certainly no Sheik, Prince, King has ever used it as a basis for his rule. Nope, only the Mullahs, who are none of those things, of THIS regime have based their government on this.

 

So, no, actually there's no debate. No 8th century. This is a 21st century problem that started in the 20th century.

 

That is what we are dealing with here, nothing less. Regardless of whatever you say, this is the problem we face. Given this: what exactly is your solution? You have a group of leaders...whose sole purpose for organizing their governement is: to start a holy war.

 

What does whatever I say have to do with that? Believe me, if there was something I could say, however silly, that could get them off of this notion, I would say it. If saying JtSp is an enlighted, educated, and worldly man whose opinion should be valued above all....would do it, I would say it.

 

But, reality is speaking here: nothing I say matters when we are dealing with this set of values, that are so deranged, that they contradict human principles that we ALL share, and we all KNOW are right.

 

So what is your solution to the people who require a war, not looking to get food(North Korea) or looking towards defense(India/Pakistan), and want to start it by gaining the most powerful weapon we have?

 

What do you think....anyone...can say that will either deter or contain them?

Edited April 4, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

If you were around, I laid out this "plan" on this board, starting in 2005. And imagine, I didn't have a pipeline of info from the DOD to tell me. All I needed was the ability to read a map properly. It's amazing what you can do, when you know WTF you are talking about ...lybob.

 

A feeling you will rarely experience. But maybe, someday...

 

You could tell from the way they approached Iraq in the beginning = take the main cities and create a land supply route to the sea via Iraq and Kuwait. Use the SF/helicopters to divide Iran's army, which has a lot of dudes, in half, and keep half of them defending the Afghan flank. Cut off their supply routes = easy, Turkey is our ally, Turkmenistan is run by a nut who we could easily buy off, etc.

 

We already had the tanks, logistics, and the "safe" supply route. I bet the furthest thing from their mind was "Iraqi clowns we just freed giving us hell". They became myopically focused on the route, and to hell with the country. It's easy to see why: we could run an endless number of tanks up that road, and anvil/hammer Iran. Too tantalizing a setup to bother with things like securing the entire country of Iraq/making it safe for the average person.

 

No, the supply route was the flame, and they were the moths.

 

Now, as far as the video goes: Wesley Clark characterizing a conversation with a flag officer...like he was talking to some CQ corporal? Yeah...no embellishment there at all. Wesley Clark has already established himself as less than truthful, on multiple occasions. I doubt that this guy had "no idea" why we were attacking Iraq.

 

I also significantly doubt that the Chiefs are gonna let a retired, now obviously political guy, just stroll through their offices, and ask him for his advice as in " Oh no, Wes....I mean...sir (did you catch that? ) w-what do we do now? If only you were here, sir, then none of this would be happening".

 

Only an idiot believes the conversations went the way Clark says...and you ...lybob could just be the right idiot for the job.

i really think it's time you diagram out your arguments before you post to see how ridiculous they can be before you actually type them. this one goes something like this: premise- i can read a map and it's war implications.

premise - wesley clark has few important military contacts

premise (i'm surmising) - wesley clark can't read a map and discern geopoltical implications

conclusion - i understand the reasons and likelihood for war in the middle east better than wesley clark.

[Magox]

i really think it's time you diagram out your arguments before you post to see how ridiculous they can be before you actually type them. this one goes something like this: premise- i can read a map and it's war implications.

premise - wesley clark has few important military contacts

premise (i'm surmising) - wesley clark can't read a map and discern geopoltical implications

conclusion - i understand the reasons and likelihood for war in the middle east better than wesley clark.

 

Or it could be that at the time, he was considering a run for the White House.

[....lybob]

Or it could be that at the time, he was considering a run for the White House.

OC was considering a run for the White House? keep writing like that and you'll be the new master of horror

[Magox]

OC was considering a run for the White House? keep writing like that and you'll be the new master of horror

 

 

Ok, let me make myself a little more clear, Wesley Clark

[OCinBuffalo]

i really think it's time you diagram out your arguments before you post to see how ridiculous they can be before you actually type them. this one goes something like this: premise- i can read a map and it's war implications.

premise - wesley clark has few important military contacts

premise (i'm surmising) - wesley clark can't read a map and discern geopoltical implications

conclusion - i understand the reasons and likelihood for war in the middle east better than wesley clark.

Do us all a favor? Don't "surmise". You aren't any good at it. Clearly, that was a 2 part post...I suppose: "Now, as far as the video goes" didn't make that obvious enough for you?

 

My God you are an unmitigated moron.

 

And, it is in fact impossible for me to say "I understand the reasons and likelihood for war in the middle east better than Wesley Clark" because:

it is impossble to determine Wesley Clark's understanding because:

he hides his real understanding behind whatever political agenda item he is currently trying to achieve.

 

Translating Greek into Mandarin Chinese, is a more useful activity than trying to figure out what Wesley Clark really thinks, and is certainly more useful than listening to him tell a story about the time he "dropped by" the Joint Chiefs, and everybody was so excited to see him, and made sure to correct themselves and call him sir, and he handed out sage advice to the, 1-4 star, pages and clerks there.

 

Only someone with your level of affectation doesn't see that "story" for exactly what it is.

 

An aging Dallas socialite tells more interesting, believeable, and less self-important stories. I know, I met quite a few in my travels.

OC was considering a run for the White House? keep writing like that and you'll be the new master of horror

 

That was funny ...lybob. You are improving. I like improvement.

Edited April 4, 2013 by OCinBuffalo