Now that sanctions appear to be working and Iran is willing to come to the table and talk, the war party wants none of it:
GRAHAM: Well I think the Iranians are trying to take advantage of our election cycle to continue to talk. As we talk with the Iranians whether it’s bilaterally or unilaterally, they continue to enrich. And the vice president and the president said we will do nothing without coordinating with Israel. So we’ve talked with them in Moscow. We’ve talked with them in Baghdad. They continue to enrich. I think the time for talking is over. We should be demanding transparency and access to their nuclear program. They’ve doubled their centrifuges so I think this is a ploy by the Iranians. I hope we’re talking to the Israelis and as we continue to talk, they continue to enrich and they’re trying to break apart the coalition.
There is no doubt in my mind that within six months of a Romney inauguration, we will be at war with Iran.
Lurker
We have always been at war with Eastasia…
weaselone
Maybe. Or maybe it’s all a bunch of hot air from old men trying to look like they actually have a pair.
Barbara
I don’t know how Obama can make that clear tomorrow night, but he should. I have not doubt about it either.
Geoduck
Six months? Try three.
Tony J
I see that “they continue to enrich” was underlined in bright red lines on Graham’s talking-points script. Guess we know what Romney is going to be repeating in increasingly loud and hectoring fashion in the next debate.
Drinking game!
BGinCHI
No matter how tough that chicken
shithawk talks, he is going to be out on his ear the next time he’s up for election.The Tea Party is going to run some lunatic far to the right of him and the genius crackers of SC will be on him like flies at a vinegary BBQ.
Which will of course help to fix the country and bring peace to the earth.
Hill Dweller
I saw a clip of Graham’s remarks, and it was quite the tantrum. I’m still not sure why he is considered credible on foreign policy.
barkleyg
PART 1: Enrich Uranium easier said than done, and gets harder the farther along they get.
PART 2: Have a rocket that can turn the Uranium into a weapon against America. SEE North Korea for something else easier said than done!
jurassicpork
When the situation in Brookfield was still fluid and tactical and we had no idea who the guy was or what political party he belonged to, I took a deep breath and decided to go to the right wing blogs and check out the comments sections. These are 20 of the craziest right wing responses I had the stomach to unearth from Free Republic, Fox News Insider and other places. I took a lot of hits for the team, guys so i hope you appreciate this compendium.
cathyx
It doesn’t matter who is president anymore, we are a war nation and a nation at war.
MikeJ
@barkleyg:
Much easier to hit Israel, which is always the way the argument is framed.
suzanne
I will never understand that part of the (overwhelmingly male) psyche/patriarchal acculturation that leads anybody to conclude that war/gun ownership/killing is not absolutely, 100%, every damn time the last fucking resort.
Spankyslappybottom
There’s nothing like the prospect (or the fact) of a Republican presidential win that turns me quicker into a I-got-mine-fuck-you asshole myself:
– I’m too old to go to war. I have no war-aged relatives.
– I have a good retirement pension coming, and a strong, unionized job.
– My house was underwater, but now it’s not. I survived that.
– As a gay guy, I’m screwed with Romney, but the social tide has shifted, and he’ll probably just do nothing about it.
– So the people who will suffer most are the vast majority of less well-off idiots who vote against their financial interest to serve their social interests. Fuck them. They get what they deserve, including their family members dying in wars they served in because they were too poor to have other opportunities.
I hate this. I hate that their victories makes me want to be as selfish and assholish as they are. But there it is.
srv
We’ve been at war with the Iranians for nearly three decades now.
JoyceH
“There is no doubt in my mind that within six months of a Romney inauguration, we will be at war with Iran.”
Iran, or Syria. Or Iran AND Syria.
FlipYrWhig
I still think the easiest and most logical solution to this is to let Iran have the fucking bomb already. Let Israel and Iran glower at each other and rattle their sabers and otherwise play the fools. Like in _Speed_: shoot the hostage and take him out of the equation.
PsiFighter37
Obama needs to make it absolutely clear that the same people advising Romney are the same people who ran the show under Dubya. Game, set, match. Say it repeatedly, over and over.
General Stuck
And when and if the Iranian’s decide to start enriching uranium to the 90 percent needed for a bomb, it won’t matter who is president. Obama’s hand will be forced by the prevailing political winds, not only from Israel, but any number of Sunni country’s in the region.
But the point is taken that Romney would not put up a fuss to stop the right wing hunger for the Armageddon, well before that red line is crossed.
Yutsano
@efgoldman: Iranian meteorologists can also follow wind patterns. Nuking Israel would be just like nuking themselves from the fallout. Not to mention devastating Jordan, Iraq, and even possibly Pakistan and India.
BruinKid
And not to forget domestically, they gotta be a dick to Planned Parenthood as well by clogging up their phone lines to try and score political points.
schrodinger's cat
Did anyone read MoDo’s column? I couldn’t get past the first paragraph.
General Stuck
@efgoldman:
From what I can tell, it is near impossible to know who would ultimately call the shots on using a nuke. The Mullah’s are at least as much pragmatic politician as religious nuts.
The Revolutionary Guard is where the religious nihilism would likely emerge. And no one knows how much they actually run Iran, past the Mullah’s.
Spankyslappybottom
Here’s what Obama needs to end with tomorrow night:
RaflW
Hence the 2:1 ration of DoD donors Obama:Romney.
The men and women who will have to go die for Romney/Ryan/Neocon folly I’m sure want none of it.
We’ve learned damn little from just 10 years ago. The press, in particular, should go back and ready their mea culpa’s from, ohh, a few years after the whole Bush misadventure started.
Spaghetti Lee
@jurassicpork:
Awww, you shouldn’t have.
No, really. You shouldn’t have.
barkleyg
@MikeJ:
I don’t think they have that rocket either!
Davis X. Machina
Well, it’s good to know that while the Republicans haven’t balanced a budget since Eisenhower, they’re still the party of fiscal probity and responsibility.
Because after Iraq, twice, and the ‘response’ to 9/11, and Grenada, and Lebanon, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, they’re also the natural party to turn to for national security leadership.
There’s a slim window of opportunity here that might, just might be opened.
One where the Iranian people toss out their present government on its ears, foreswear nuclear weapons, and become upstanding members of the international community, all before we get to bomb the bejezus out of them.
And this window, even if it exits only in posse, must be closed, pronto.
Because ‘USA! We’re #1.’ ‘Suck on it!’
Spaghetti Lee
But John, think of the excitement of war! The romance! The virtue! The billions of smackeroos stuffed into the already-well-stuffed pockets of oilmen, MIC barons, and neocon think tanks! It’s enough to bring a tear to my eye.
PeakVT
I wish somebody would dress up global warming in a turban and beard.
max
@MikeJ: Much easier to hit Israel, which is always the way the argument is framed.
Iranian missiles will be magnetically attracted to Tel Aviv. The Iranians could put together a cardboard missile made out of a thousand model rocket engines and aim it at themselves and it would still hit Tel Aviv. Or so I hear tell. Because
HitlerMullahs!JC: There is no doubt in my mind that within six months of a Romney inauguration, we will be at war with Iran.
As far as I can tell, after reading the ‘reasonable’ David Frum’s column yesterday, what they’re going to do is to making things up to the Ghaddafi family by invading Libya and put them back in charge, arm any jihadis they can find in Syria, invade Iran, challenge Russia presumably by ringing that country with ‘interceptors’ and then they’re going to give peace a chance by continuing to use drones while refusing to tell President Mitt about how they’re being used.
Also every American embassy will be replaced with a (giant) scale model of the Death Star.
I am expecting further additions shortly, possibly involving declaring that Obama’s gun control strategy has collapsed (Hi, Mayor Bloomberg!) and then resolving this problem by sicing the 5th Bomb Wing on Wisconsin.
Mitt Romney: NOW WITH 50% EXTRA VEGEMITE!
max
[‘SLICES! DICES! PEELS FISH! EXTRA ERECTION STAYING POWER WHILE REDUCING GRAY HAIRS! AND…. PICKS UP CAT HAIR CONVENIENTLY AND EASILY!’]
Ben Franklin
@JoyceH:
Yeah. Fences need mending (Russia) to tamp down the blowback from Syria. This region is resembling Pitch Black.
Hal
@PsiFighter37:
I hope he goes for a Reagan style better off today than four years ago, but emphasizing were we will be in 6 months to a years.
And man is it frightening to imagine Romney at the helm during a war with Iran. And Russia. And China. Sec of State Sarah Palin should be thrilled though.
Spaghetti Lee
@efgoldman:
Mittster is decidedly not that candidate. It will make him splutter.
It did last debate. I wonder if Mittens has just enough self-awareness to know that griping about the president’s “I find that offensive” line would only backfire. However, I doubt that he has enough self-awareness to know that the best chance he has of winning this debate would be to send a cardboard cutout of Ronald Reagan to take his place.
rikyrah
of course, Ms. Lindsey was whining this morning.
Robin G.
Genuine question: Does Romney have business ties to the military-industrial complex?
General Stuck
@max:
In other words, they plan to do the opposite of what Obama is doing, or may do in the future, or may do in the afterlife, for all of fucking eternity.
Spankyslappybottom
But here’s the truth about trying to use Bush against Romney: Bush’s two wars didn’t actually affect 95% of America directly, in a way that will change their vote.
Unlike Vietnam, the soldiers and their families are a cordoned-off class (mostly poor and working class and minority) of Americans that don’t overlap with the vast majority.
Consequently, most voters won’t respond on a gut level to a “Romney’s like Bush!” argument.
Those two wars don’t count, weren’t sacrificed for, weren’t paid for.
So it goes.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
So, let’s see – Iran has better than twice the population and better than six times the GDP of Iraq, has not been crippled by recent wars and sanctions, has loose security alliances with Russia and China rather than being an isolated dictatorship, and would, if under attack by the US, have a rallied population determined to prevent the US from taking over – again.
Given the sterling job done in Iraq, what could possibly go wrong here?
RaflW
@PeakVT:
No shit. If we could convince the haters that global sea levels were rising because them Ayh-rabs wanted to flood our American cities, that’s why they sold us decades of 50cent/gallon gasoline back then – it was all a long-term moooslem plot to destroy ‘Merika, maybe we’d get somewhere.
Josie
It’s interesting that you would quote Senator McGovern, John. This morning on DKos I read a quote from him in a speech on the senate floor from 1970 when he tried to end the Viet Nam war, and his words have stayed with me all day.
The same could be said of a current candidate or official who pushes for war.
ETA: I still cannot get the hang of block quoting. The quote should include the second, third and fourth paragraphs.
Chris
Same here. That in itself should be enough to sink him, but this is America, I ain’t holding out hope.
weaselone
@efgoldman:
Agreed.
Maude
It woulda been nice if Graham had made some sense in that quote.
The days of rushing to war are over. Bush screwed up the war drums but good with Iraq.
Romney would be a fool or should I say, more of a fool to threaten war with Iran at this time.
What am I saying? He said stupid things about Libya.
Yutsano
@Phoenician in a time of Romans: Mistakes were made etc etc…
Drew
They can kiss my cock if the draft comes back. I’ll go to jail. I’ll gladly fight for my country, but not in a bullshit war.
Turgidson
@Spankyslappybottom:
I think this is a winning message of course. I also think a Romney foreign policy looks likely to be considerably worse than Bush, at least 2nd term lame-duck Bush. Even he and Condi, incompetents the both of them, knew better than to rush into the Iran war that Cheney and his lunatic brigade wanted. That lunatic brigade is the primary influence on Mittens. Shudder.
RaflW
@Phoenician in a time of Romans:
Totally makin’ stuff up here, but has anyone gamed out what would happen if Iran sent some of their missiles towards the Ghwar oil fields during the ‘fog of war’ that would immediately ensue in an Iran-Israel(+US, most likely) conflagration? Maybe Iran shoots a few at Q8, the Emirates, Qatar, etc?
As I say, I may be absurd here. But if Iran is feeling like enough of a pariah, and sees the Saudis in particular as a de facto client state of the US, couldn’t it conceivably be in Iran’s interest to massively disrupt the global oil market.
Just the threat of war in the region in the past has caused oil shocks because of shipping thru the straights of Hormuz, so all-out fucking with the arab petro-states could mightliy mess up the global capitalist system that is currently after Iran.
I hope I’m just nutz. [eta: to be clear, by missiles I mean tactical weapons, not nukes. I’m sure they have at least some cruise missiles or the like. They’re not some backwater despite what ‘Mericans think of them…]
Chris
@FlipYrWhig:
It’s not at all certain that Iran even wants the bomb. But I agree. Stopping them from getting the bomb is certainly not worth getting bogged down in a regional war over, and I don’t even think it’s worth the civilian casualties, the possible American casualties, the bad media and the Iranian backlash that an airstrike campaign would cause (especially since the Iranian nuclear program is decentralized enough that you can’t simply take it down with one strike as the Israelis did to Osirak in 1981).
So Iran might get the bomb. The only thing that would change is that we’d actually have to sit down and, y’know, negotiate with them instead of threatening them with invasion and regime change every step of the way while rattling off an ever-changing list of demands. Not the end of the world.
Chris
@General Stuck:
Supreme Leader Khamenei. I doubt if he’d allow anyone else to get close to Nuclear Launch Authority.
Drew
@efgoldman: Iran is a gorgeous, culturally and historically rich country. The fact that its run by some asswipes doesn’t make it godawful
lahru
Wars are money makers bitches.
muddy
@rikyrah:
How dare you insinuate feminism there? It’s “Miss Lindsey” to you.
gnomedad
@Spankyslappybottom:
It would be interesting to hear GOP apologists splutter about how rude this is.
General Stuck
@Chris:
This is only part of the reason Iran would want a bomb. The other part is ancient regional rivalries over religion and other stuff. Not everything is about us in that part of the world. Nor Israel. The Saudis/Sunnis won’t stand for Iran having the bomb, and them not.
weaselone
@RaflW:
Iran would probably try to shut down the straight of Hormuz with antiship missiles, and take out Ras Tanura and other shipping terminals/refineries.
General Stuck
@Chris:
Like I said, nobody knows for sure
Chris
@General Stuck:
I’m not saying we’re the only reason they would want a bomb (though you have to admit, given our behavior less than a decade ago, we’re probably the biggest security risk that would justify getting a nuke ASAP). I’m just saying that that’s the only thing that would change as far as we (and Israel) are concerned.
PsiFighter37
@Drew: The draft won’t come back. I just finished reading Drift (a bit late, but it’s a really good book – glad I picked it up at the airport), and it’s clear the military has plenty of resources to make its way around the draft (namely, private contracting and employing the CIA’s drones).
Maude
@gnomedad:
If Romney goes down the war road in the debate, Obama will bring up Iraq, in the form of how’d that go.
JPL
Lindsey has a binder full of women, one of which will be chosen as his wife before the next election.
hitchhiker
We can’t afford it.
That’s what they keep saying about our pathetic social safety net: we can’t afford it. We can’t afford Head Start, and we can’t afford drug rehab, and we can’t afford preventive health care for poor people, and we can’t afford school lunches for destitute kids.
We’re too poor, we’re in too much debt.
It’s true that a lot of Americans paid nothing in blood or sacrifice for Bush’s wars, but I think by now most of them know that they accrued a lot of debt for nothing in those wars.
Obama can say that to Romney: Who are you going to tax to pay for a war against Iran? How much are you going to tax them? The Iraq war cost $4Billion a week for a decade, and that went on the national credit card. Is that your plan?
Please proceed, Governor.
Drew
@PsiFighter37: part of me wishes it would, it would give people my age some power. Then again it didn’t stop vietnam
Chris
@PsiFighter37:
Wonder when’s the first time we’ll outsource a war entirely to private contractors. War-by-mercenary isn’t new, but we’ve usually had to rely on U.S. military/intelligence personnel that was officially demobilized, and locals recruited for the occasion (Laos, Nicaragua). Now there’s an entire structure of legalized mercs that would be ready to take on the same jobs.
@Maude:
The current Republican belief is that we had a hard time with Iraq, but that it was finally stabilizing and coming together at the end of the Bush years, and it was Obama leaving Iraq that’s fucking it up and making it head back into crisis mode. (This despite the fact that the withdrawal agreement was actually done by Bush).
Wonder if they’ll actually try to mainstream that. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they did.
PsiFighter37
@hitchhiker: “Deficits don’t matter.” -Dick Cheney
That’s all you need to know when it comes to the GOP philosophy of waging war. Also, too, it will be an ‘off-balance sheet item’ (to use lingo Romney well understands), so everyone can pretend it doesn’t exist.
gogol's wife
@hitchhiker:
This, this, this.
Redshift
@Tony J: Romney’s incoherent “red line” appears to be that Iran should not be allowed to enrich at all, despite the fact that there’s no basis for that in the nonproliferation treaty. Apparently we can demand that just because we’re Murika!
Also, I think it was Ryan in the VP debate who said that we could deal with the deadlock with Russia over Syria by “changing the rules.” Again, it was completely incoherent, but as best I can guess, he thinks we can just change the Security Council rules so Russia doesn’t have a veto, or something.
PsiFighter37
@Drew: Maddow’s whole point is that when the costs of war and the effects of soldiers being deployed actually disrupted the social fabric of communities, people cared an awful lot more. Nowadays, because war has been institutionalized as more of the natural state of being, as opposed to peace, you have much less of those true citizen-solders (i.e. the National Guard pre-Iraq).
rlrr
If Iraq had nukes, 4,487 members of the US military would not have died invading Iraq…
rlrr
@Chris:
Rick Perry actually said if he were elected, he’d have the US military re-occupy Iraq.
Redshift
@JoyceH:
I think that neocons see the likelihood that military involvement in Syria would lead to a regional war with Iran as a feature and not a bug.
Nina-the-first
How ever much the Romney ‘team’ want to complain about ‘gotcha’ questions about military service, the Romney crew continue to bravely run away from military service, from grandpa Romney in Mexico to the boyz in da missionary positions.
Chris T.
@Chris:
Of course they do. The lesson of eight years of George Dubya Bush is “America Will Fuck With You Unless You Have The Bomb”. If Dubya Mitt Romney wins, they had better have the bomb.
catclub
@MikeJ: I have a friend who hates it when I point out that unlike say, Turkey, We have NO mutual defense treaties with Israel.
Haydnseek
@PeakVT: Thanks! It will take a superhuman act of self discipline to keep me from stealing that. Since I suffer from a marked self-discipline deficit, thanks again!
burnspbesq
“Would,” not “will.” Unless you know something about the upcoming election that you’re not sharing with the rest of us, anything having to do with Romney as President should be expressed in the future conditional.
/grammar police
PsiFighter37
@Nina-the-first: Let’s be fair; Gramps just wanted to share the loving embrace of multiple women, unencumbered by the law. Don’t think it had anything to do about getting drafted into the Spanish-American War.
Drew
@PsiFighter37: I’ll put it on my reading list, but I worry for my mental health
Lurker
@Josie:
I think you use two underscores (“_ _” but without the space) for every empty line to “glue” paragraphs together in a block quote.
General Stuck
@Chris:
Our vital interests are oil in that sand box. And that is going to be the case for well into the future. Therefore, some kind of arms race betwixt Shia and Sunni is NOT in our interest and Israel’s.
Actually, these days of Arab spring has little to do with Israel, other than our propping up some dictators like Mubarak, and the like, for a payoff to leave Israel alone. And propping up other dictators for to keep the oil flowing unabated.
The Obama policy is to let this play out, as squarely on the side of the people, and not the autocrat tyrants that we have helped stay in power. I support this policy, as it is historically the right thing to do at this point in time, imo, because the other way is untenable for a supposed beacon of democracy, like the US.
But I am not the least bit unaware that it is a very dangerous transition, for the people in the region, and the western econ machine that their oil keeps running. And adding (More) nukes into that equation, just doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Though neither does bombing Iran. And right now is certainly not the time to do that, if at all.
jwb
Just Iran? We go down that path and we’ll have a World War on our hands where we don’t control the oil and Russia, Europe and China are a lot closer to those fields than we are. If China decides to protect Iran as the price for their oil, what are we going to do? And, no, we won’t be able to fight this one with mercenaries.
Maude
@Chris:
The idea of war won’t fly in the country. People are sick of war. Romney had better be careful in the debate.
He has said he would stay in Afghanistan. Idiot. The large equipment is almost all out. The draw down is well on it’s way.
I don’t care what the Republicans believe. They don’t have the support for war.
rlrr
@Maude:
I don’t care what the Republicans believe. They don’t have the support for war.
I really want to believe that. But having seen the propaganda machine gin up for war with Iraq, I’m not convinced it can’t be done again.
Nina-the-first
@PsiFighter37:
Love love love and all, but the Rom-Men also fled the Mexican Revolution–then sued Mexico (and won) to get property losses from the revolution covered. Oh, there was some kind of Great War going on elsewhere, not that the Rom-Men would know much about that either.
PreservedKillick
@rlrr:
Absolutely true.
There is a fairly sizeable minority in this country that would be happy to fight any war.
We really need either a draft (without any exemptions) or mandatory taxes to pay for any active action, unless specifically authorized by congress, or both.
Mr Stagger Lee
@Chris: And one day,one of the head mercs may think, “What the **** am I doing over here dying for a bunch of obese Type 2 Americans when me and a bunch of us Wild Geese types can take over the US? A fun day when a bunch of Bible Thumping/Gun toting yahoos you see on Free Republic or Red State taking on a group of professional mercs in one of the battles. Also I remember an article in which a general recommended foreigners join the US forces and fight in exchange for citizenship, like the Romans did or a variation of Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. Now what can go wrong with that?(snark)
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@RaflW:
I hope I’m just nutz. [eta: to be clear, by missiles I mean tactical weapons, not nukes. I’m sure they have at least some cruise missiles or the like. They’re not some backwater despite what ‘Mericans think of them…]
Check out these links:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/iran-unveils-squadrons-of-flying-boats/?hpt=T2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsLkBJzpCyo
Yeah, they look ludicrous, and they don’t appear very survivable, and they wouldn’t be able to go far or survive rough seas.
But they’re cheap and expendable, and fast enough and a bit more difficult to hit than actual planes. Imagine being on a carrier in the Strait of Hormuz with a swarm of these things coming towards you at 300 or 400 mph, all with a cheap Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missile on them…
PreservedKillick
@Phoenician in a time of Romans:
More to the point, imagine being on an oil tanker with even one of those things coming at you.
Josie
@Lurker: Ah, thanks. I’m going to add that to my cheat sheet.
Chris
@Mr Stagger Lee:
Why would they do that when, as part of the military-industrial complex, they already run America to quite an extent?
Donut
If you mean bombing raids or drone attacks, yeah, six months sounds right. A ground war would have to be initiated, though, because shit would just hit the fan once they started retaliating in various ways. We would be subject to who knows what in terms of counter punches. I think realistically it’d be closer to 2014 before US troops would try to get in. There would have to quite a bit of shifting of military assets around the region, and deal in some way with the opposition both here at home and with allies and foes alike. But side from that, yeah, we’ll be doing some more incredibly stupid shit if it is Romney who is nominally calling the shots.
pseudonymous in nc
@Turgidson:
Where’s Mittens’ foreign policy team? Who’s going to run State and be NSA? I don’t see anyone in that — other than perhaps Huckleberry Graham and Grandpa McCain, which is laughable. It’s an invitation to Cheney and the PNAC brigade to run the show from even further behind the throne.
Schlemizel
I don’t know, its been a long time since we have had a war, seems like weeks since I read or heard about one. We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined so we better use it or we’ll lose it. It’ll be good for the economy, lots of jobs for young unemployed boys & girls. It’ll show those towel heads we are not to be messed with, SUCK ON THIS! It will produce more great music like “I’m Proud To Be An American” we can all cheer during the 7th inning stretch. We NEED to invade Iran!
bcinaz
Iran has to know that even if they managed to enrich enough fissile material, built a bomb, built a rocket that successfully carried their bomb to Israel, that they would get once chance only before they were wiped off the face of the earth. Their destruction would be assured.
Are we really dealing with suicidal maniacs?
Carl Nyberg
I would not accept the U.S. government as legitimate if it attack Iran.
Ruckus
@suzanne:
I’m one of those old(er) white male idiots and I don’t understand either.
War is always the last resort. Only when all other options are completely exhausted should on contemplate warfare.
But conservative politicians rarely if ever have any skin in the game, their own or family. So they really don’t give a shit, war is good for their financial betters which means making it is good for them.
I’m going to keep saying this until more people understand own best interest if nothing else, Fuck Conservatives.
Chris
@jwb:
Makes me wonder if the possibility of another Great War is around the not-so-distant-corner. Seems unthinkable in the nuclear age, but with the neocons… the combination of pig-ignorance, political marriage to warmongering rhetoric, and blind unconsciousness as to the consequences of our military actions… their state of mind doesn’t seem that different from the state of mind of the ultranationalists in Europe before World War One.
Chris
@Ruckus:
Unfortunately, we’re in an age where it’s practically become the first resort. You saw that in the run-up to Iraq, when going to the Security Council was merely a formality and we were going to war no matter what happened there. You’re seeing it now with Iran, where at least rhetorically we have a bipartisan consensus that “containment is not an option.”
Steeplejack
@Josie:
You need to put two underscores on each blank line between the paragraphs of the blockquote.
Ruckus
@Chris:
You are right of course.
What I should have said is war is supposed to be considered the last resort.
But we are talking about conservatives and their world is like Alice in Wonderland, everything is seen through a really fucked up looking glass, never reality.
ETC my crappy spelling.
Amir Khalid
@PeakVT:
And make it look like a Sikh?
Donut
@General Stuck:
Obama will be long done with a second term by the time the Iranians can put a weapon into actual use.
An Iran with a workong nuclear weapon is not this President’s actual problem. It is only something Obama can slow down, disrupt, etc.
Next president gets the real fun.
Bill Arnold
@barkleyg:
I have been convinced that this is not true. It gets easier, because there is much less UF6 to work with, and a similar number of centrifuges. It is technically called “separation”, not enrichment. This is not intuitive in the slightest, I agree. There are some useful posts at armscontrolwonk.com that try to explain this.
Part 2 is true as far as it goes, though Iran does have intermediate range missiles that people argue could carry a compact nuclear warhead, and some people argue that Iran has such a design (for a compact fission weapon) done and maybe mostly (not nuclear) tested.
At this point the main issue appears to be whether there is a Iranian (as in all the significant power centers in Iran) policy to create a nuclear arsenal, or not. And if not, how to keep it that way.
(FWIW I’m firmly in the peacenik camp, and believe that the Iranians are working towards breakout capability but not necessarily towards weaponization, and that an attack by U.S. and/or Israel (without invasion/occupation) would increase the chances that Iran pursues a nuclear arsenal.)
sam b
‘Pre-emptive’ attacks on Iran would destroy the remaining bonds of sympathy between the USA and the rest of the ‘free world’. The leaders of Britain, Australia, the Netherlands et al would be violently ejected from office if they looked like supporting such a thing. It’d be the USA, Tokelau and American Samoa going it alone and facing unprecedented blowback from the rest of the world. The entire US (and world, to be fair) economy would very quickly collapse. The American military is untouchable, but when the money runs out..?
Ben Franklin
@burnspbesq:
/grammar police
Your sole contribution to the topic.
PeakVT
@Haydnseek: It’s free for the taking if you can put it to good use.
@Chris: For the 2nd Iraq War it was the first resort because there was never any doubt about the outcome. Note that we don’t play the same game with the Chinese when they don’t do what we want.
Anoniminous
@Phoenician in a time of Romans:
Don’t worry. It’s all been wargamed.
Josie
@Steeplejack: Thanks. I knew there was a way, but I couldn’t remember what it was. This time I’m writing it down.
Chris
@PeakVT:
Conflict with the Chinese carries an actual risk of defeat, just like (now) conflict with the North Korea, which is why it’s never seriously considered. But with a non-nuclear third world nation, different story.
(Sort of like how in the early 20th century, you had plenty of people who were “isolationist” when it came to getting involved in actual wars in Europe, but had no problem supporting military intervention after intervention in places like the Caribbean or Asia).
PreservedKillick
@Anoniminous:
Wow. That’s reassuring. Not.
Cmm
@Chris:
And we’d be the Germans. I hope they do a good job of rebuilding us afterwards.
Davis X. Machina
@PreservedKillick:
More to the point, imagine you’re a in a pod-farm in Canary Wharf, or Zurich, or lower Manhattan, and you insure oil tankers…
Everything stops when Lloyds, or the re-in gnomes say ‘stop’.
PreservedKillick
@Davis X. Machina:
We already subsidize the oil companies to the tune of $4B in direct subsidies – plus…what?..in indirect (Navy, War in Iraq) costs. Insuring those tankers is a drop in the bucket in comparison.
PeakVT
@Amir Khalid: Like this guy. (No, it’s probably not wound in place like a Sikh turban, but it is certainly styled to look wound.) Or maybe these guys.
General Stuck
@Donut:
I don’t disagree with this prediction.
mainmati
@srv: Actually six decades since the CIA and British Intelligence conspired to overthrow the democratically-elected Mossadeqh administration in Iran in 1953. One of many anti-democratic things we did under the evil Dulles regime at CIA.
satch
I don’t know why this hasn’t gotten more play, but in the VP debate Paul Ryan was asked point blank by Martha Raddatz which would be worse, another middle East war or a nuclear armed Iran, and he didn’t even hesitate… his answer was a nuclear armed Iran. God, but these guys want it…
Tonal Crow
Whaaaaat? I thought the Republican mantra was that Obama had abandoned Israel! Now Obama’s too close to Israel? I just can’t keep up with the bullshitstorm that is the Republican Party.
Drew
I wonder how the news of Iran agreeing to talks plays out Monday. I figure the right would find a way to criticize the president no matter what. I think it can only help the president, and show that he has a deft, steady hand.
Another Halocene Human
@barkleyg: But donchaknow, it’s easier to go from 20% to 99% than 5% to 20% because elbow curves and bombiRAAAANNNN and Isreeeeel and the second law of thermodynamics–wazzat?
Fred
@Phoenician in a time of Romans:
Bingo! War with Iran would be a never ending nightmare that would suck america dry if not first plunging the world into the hell of world war.
rea
@JoyceH: “. . . Syria . . .”
But on which side?
artem1s
There is no doubt in my mind that within six months of a
Romneyany Republican presidential inauguration, we will be at war with Iran.this is going to get really scary come 2016 when the Dems don’t have an incumbent in the White House.
catclub
@bcinaz: “Are we really dealing with suicidal maniacs?”
Yes, The republican party of the US.
Greyjoy
In April, I had a dream that was set about 3-4 years in the future. In it, a Republican was president, and my metro area (the Twin Cities) was about to be bombed. In the dream, it was supposedly a terrorist attack, but the going wisdom was that the Republican president was secretly allowing it to happen because he was a loony-tune and figured that a) the Twin Cities is a big enough city to cause massive casualties and make a big show, but not strategically critical enough to really disrupt the whole country if it got wiped out, and b) it would allow him to retaliate against all the targets he wanted to attack and get it all over with.
I woke up in a cold sweat and was happy to be awake. One side note was that in the dream, a friend of mine who lived in the area was actually living on the West Coast. I thought, “Well, far as I know he has no plans to move, so clearly that dream is bullshit.” Two months later he moved to Portland.
I’m just sayin’.