Christian Cross Orbits Earth, Warns Satan »« John Yoo Complains About Executive Power

Romney: I Can Bomb Iran If I Want To

So when it comes to executive power and waging war, we have two major party candidates who both believe they can do pretty much anything they want, including bomb other countries who pose no threat to us, without bothering to get approval from Congress. Here’s Romney on Face the Nation:

I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The President has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the President indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable.

We cannot survive a course of action would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions. All those actions must be on the table.

The difference, of course, is that Obama once believed, or at least said, that the president could not just bomb a country without congressional approval unless there was an imminent threat. Once in office, of course, he quickly forgot about it and bombed Libya without even a pretense of getting a vote in Congress (and to be fair, Congress had no desire to wade in on the issue, as is almost always the case; political courage is not exactly flowing down the streets in DC). Romney doesn’t even pretend.

Bear in mind that this was also Dick Cheney’s position in 2002 and 2003, that Bush could order an invasion of Iraq without bothering to get congressional approval. That was too much even for George W. Bush, who did seek and receive an authorization to use military force. As Andrew Sullivan notes, Romney is even further to the right on this than Bush, he’s in Cheney-land, where presidents are virtual kings. Daniel Larison at the American Conservative blasts Romney over it:

These are not statements that Romney’s critics are putting into his mouth. No one is speculating about what Romney’s position on Iran might be, and no one is imputing views to him that he doesn’t claim to hold. He is telling the public plainly that he believes the United States cannot survive a containment policy directed against Iran. It is fair to conclude from this that Romney is delusional (or is pretending to be delusional) and cannot be entrusted with the responsibilities of the Presidency.

The United States survived decades of containing Soviet power. America outlasted what may have been the greatest security threat in our history partly because of a policy of containment. Iran is far weaker than any threat the USSR ever posed. If the U.S. could not survive a nuclear-armed Iran, a President Romney would be powerless to change that. On the other hand, back in the real world, if the U.S. has little to fear from a nuclear-armed Iran and is more than capable of deterring any threat from Iran, there is no reason to listen to anything Romney has to say on this subject.

Obama has been really bad on these issues, as I’ve documented for the last three years, but at least he isn’t listening to Dick Cheney and John Bolton. Yes, it could be worse.

Comments

  1. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    And yet, when push comes to shove, Larison and others at the American Conservative (and other constitutional fundamentalists) will support Romney over Obama.

  2. keithb says

    Sort of off topic for this post, but it is related to wingnuttery.
    Orly Taitz, esq will be live in studio for the last hour of the Stephanie Miller show on Tuesday!

    (Ed, maybe you could get her for your show, too!)

  3. daved says

    Actually, there is perfectly good reason to think that Iran would not automatically use nuclear weapons against Israel — if Iran had nukes. The reason is “retaliation.” Because Israel has nukes, too.

    Besides, Israel is a small country. There’s a good chance that any attack launched by Iran would damage or destroy sites sacred to Islam.

    I realize that slc1 is completely bonkers on any issue relating to Israel, but I felt like weighing in anyway.

    I’ve always thought that if Iran is going for nuclear weapons, and there’s a good chance that they are, it’s primarily to act as a deterrent against the US.

  4. Artor says

    @SLC1
    You really think Iran would nuke Israel? The results of that would be about the same as nuking the US- they’d instantly be the pariahs of the world, (more than they are already) and would probably get nuked in return. If they manage to not become a glowing crater themselves, there would still be a broad coalition of forces happy to invade and destroy any country that would dare to use nukes.

  5. slc1 says

    Re Artor @ #5

    Mr. Artor is making the mistake of assuming that the mad mullahs who run Iran are sane individuals. I make no such assumption. They are as crazy as the Christofascists, like John Hagee, that our host points too almost every day.

    Re daved

    The mad mullahs who run Iran couldn’t care less how many Palestinians would be killed in a nuclear strike on Israel. Any more then they give a flying fuck about how many Syrians that Assad kills. In fact, they are heavily involved in the massacres currently occurring in Syria via their support of the Assad government.

  6. kassad says

    @ slc1: I find that highly doubtful. While the Ayatollah might rant against the “evil zionists that control the world” to bolster his right wing base, he is not a stupid man (evil, yes, but not stupid).

    First off, a nuclear strike against Israël means that the U.S., England and France would automatically strike back (I am only talking about nuclear powers). There is no question about that.

    Moreover, while the Russians seem very much in favor of another power broker in the Middle East, they are NOT looking for someone throwing around nuclear weapons, fucking up the whole world diplomacy. Same thing with China, that seems to very much appreciate the status quo and has much to lose in a diplomatic/military upheaval.

    Iran do not want to be alone, and the destruction of Israël is not something they will risk anything for (hell, most Iranians dislike Arabs more than Jews). It is political theatre, stupid and risky, but theatre nonetheless. Let’s hope it is the same thing for Romney. But it’s the guy that took Bolton as his foreign affairs adviser…
    *shudder*

  7. Gregory in Seattle says

    “Yes, it could be worse.”

    And I am so f-ing tired being forced to decide between a candidate who is awful and a candidate who is worse. It is no wonder that the vast majority of Americans don’t bother to vote any more, given the Hobson’s Choice that most elections have become.

  8. Michael Heath says

    I saw a small article in the paper the other day where Sen. Rand Paul supposedly blasted Mr. Romney over this position. While I wouldn’t assert Sen. Paul is consistent, he’s certainly more consistent than his fellow Republican members of Congress along with the conservatives on the Supreme Court.

  9. StevoR says

    @8kassad says:

    @ slc1: I find that highly doubtful. While the Ayatollah might rant against the “evil zionists that control the world” to bolster his right wing base, he is not a stupid man (evil, yes, but not stupid).

    Thing is the Ayatollahs and their Holocaust-and-gay-existence-denying Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad *are* that mad. Deluded by their crazy death cult. Thinking they are playing the lead role in bringing about the Apocalypse.

    Not stupid – worse, religiously insane Muslims.

    Iran has already lied about trying to build nuclear wepons and reactors.

    You trust them? Really?

    You’re willing to bet the six million Israeli lives and possibly many many more on Iran telling the truth and behaving like civilised human beings when all their history from the Islamic Revolution of the 1970′s onwards says otherwise?

    Now that, *that*, would be stupid. Also dangerous and likely to get innocent people killed.

    I’m with slc1 on this one.

    I don’t want a war. War sucks.

    But reality is we are fighting a war whether we want one or not.

    I don’t support genocide – but I do support preventing those who wish to committ genocide from having thebaility to committ it before they committ it.

    You may not like where logic leads you but it’ll lead you there anyhow.

    As one US president (forgotten which one? Anyone?) apparently once sang : “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb , bomb Iran.”

  10. StevoR says

    @10. imrryr : Lots of people sigh when confronted with anti-semitism and the idea that its okay to threaten the existence of the Jewish state and be all anti-Semitic~y or Judeaophobic in Newspeak.

    Was that what you were referring to there? It should be.

  11. StevoR says

    @8.

    Iran do not want to be alone, and the destruction of Israël is not something they will risk anything for (hell, most Iranians dislike Arabs more than Jews).

    You’re betting on that then?

    Betting the lives of other people and other countries?

    Ahmadinejad and the mullahs believe in some rapture~esque bovine excrement about a “hidden imam” and the Muslim idea of the End Times. They aren’t reasonable and thus cannot be reasoned with.

    Wish that were otherwise.

    But it isn’t.

    Reality is its Iran now or Israel and Iran and perhaps many more nations or even US cities later.

    We cannot let Iran have nukes. It has tyo be stopped. Apppeasement and diplomacy and so on doesn’t work and only gives Iran time and encouragement to build up its WMDs in secret.

    That. Is. Reality.

    Like it or loathe it, it is. Accept it and get over it.

  12. imrryr says

    @StevoR – North Korea makes threats to South Korea and Japan all the time yet we have not nuked them and hopefully never will. I sighed at slc’s comment because I object to the idea that I’m perfectly fine with Iran killing millions of innocent people.

  13. kassad says

    @12. StevoR: “Thinking they are playing the lead role in bringing about the Apocalypse.” Yeah… that’s crap. I’m not saying you should trust the Iranian authority. That WOULD be crazy. First, you NEVER trust anyone in diplomacy, second, like you said, thay ain’t exactly DOctor Without Borders. On a war between Iran and Israël, I don’t have to think one second about whicgh side I’m on.

    What I’m saying is that they are not suicidal. They might advocate suicide… but for other people. A threat is good for buisness. Playing Israël as an enemy is good for the Revolutionary Guards, good for the Army, good for the Ayatollahs. It maintains military spending and power high and keep support for the power by the population.

    Bomb Iran (even if it’s targeted destruction of military sites) will bring all the iranian population squarely behind the authrity and give them far more power.
    Romney does not care about 6 millions israeli lives. He is visibly willing to jeopardize them just to gain a few political points among the more jingoistic of the voters and play to his base.

  14. raven says

    It is highly probable that if Romney is elected we will have a war with Iran.

    That will end up doing us huge damage again.

    Iran has 80 million people and is a large country. It isn’t going to be a pushover like Iraq or Aghanistan was. Romney wants to cut taxes and spend trillions on a war. It was a disaster for Vietnam and Iraq. It will be another sledge hammer blow for the USA.

    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions and didn’t do much for the USA. Iraq was just a mistake.

    I did support going into Afghanistan. We were attacked and any government that won’t defend its citizens doesn’t deserve to exist. But having it drag on this long was probably pointless, although I’m not claiming to know this for a fact. Sometimes there just aren’t any good options and permanent solutions.

  15. Jordan Genso says

    We cannot survive a course of action [that] would include a nuclear Iran…

    -Mitt Romney

    Wait a minute. Did he really just suggest that if Iran gets nuclear capability, the US would be destroyed? Why does he have so little faith in our military?

  16. raven says

    Bombing Iran without then putting troops on the ground is just cosmically pointless.

    You get a short term gain offset by huge long term losses.

    Bombing by itself never does anything. We did that in Europe during WWII. Or more recently, we bombed Laos and Vietnam back to the stone age with an incredible tally of bombs. And lost the war anyway.

  17. dingojack says

    stevo – “Iran has already lied about trying to build nuclear wepons and reactors”.

    Uh, so did Israel (hello Mordechai Vanunu).
    Start bombing in five minutes, right?

    @@
    Dingo
    —–
    On an unrelated note, it’s nice to see SLC has found a ‘big lie’ spouting, unsupported assertion loving, genocidal psychopath to play with.
    Perhaps they’ll stop interrupting when the adults are trying to talk.

  18. raven says

    We cannot survive a course of action [that] would include a nuclear Iran…

    -Mitt Romney

    Oh really?

    So far we have survived a nuclear USSR, commie China, South Africa, North Korea, Pakistan, and India.

    The record of the US stopping other countries from making nuclear weapons is…ZERO, NADA, ZILCH.

  19. laurentweppe says

    Mr. Artor is making the mistake of assuming that the mad mullahs who run Iran are sane individuals

    Of course they’re sane individuals: they’re parasitic aristocrats who went from backing the iranian monarchy to openly oppose it when it started to question their privileges and have so far presented a stellar record of consistently defending their class interest above all else.

    These are perfectly sane, rational, clever bastards… something that not every commenter here can claim to be.

  20. imrryr says

    @raven – I think I read somewhere that we allowed Paul Hogan to come to America in exchange for Australia halting its nuclear ambitions.

  21. dingojack says

    Too bad he took a shit-load o’ cash and certain union offical’s credit card with him.
    :) Dingo

  22. jtvatheist says

    Reality is its IranRussia now or Israel and Iran Europe and perhaps many more nations or even US cities later.

    Yeah, it’s pretty much 1948 again.

    We cannot let Iranq have nukes. It has tyo be stopped. Apppeasement and diplomacy and so on doesn’t work and only gives Iranq time and encouragement to build up its WMDs in secret.

    Are you terminally histrionic? Bloviating like this doesn’t ring any bells? Consider the alterations carefully.

    The whole idea that striking first is reserved for “those who know best” (i.e. those acting in self-interest not wholly related to humanitarian efforts) is destructive and is what WILL lead to human suffering, only it will happen to Iran, thanks to NATO, and that’s OK as long as we prevent your hypothetical attacks from happening to the “important” people.

    You are not prescient, you do not know the outcome of events beforehand. Striking first is aggression, the very fucking thing you hypocritically and ironically find so deplorable that you’re willing to…. strike first!

  23. slc1 says

    Re jtvatheist @ #26

    I sure would have been nice if someone had been in a position to strike Germany first in 1938. A lot of bloodshed would have been avoided.

  24. dingojack says

    SLC – Yep, a couple of dozen 15Mt nukes would have avoided all that nasty genocide…
    Dingo

  25. jtvatheist says

    Re jtvatheist @ #26

    I sure would have been nice if someone had been in a position to strike Germany first in 1938. A lot of bloodshed would have been avoided.

    Thank you, Captain Hindsight. You could also say the same about pretty much any conflict in history, the aggressor clearly identified as “not us” or “those assholes” thus being put up for revisionist wanking about coulda-woulda-shouldas. Hell, I’m already saying this, if only we never elected Bush then hundreds of thousands of Iraqis might still be alive. My this hindsight sure is a fun power.

  26. jufulu says

    I may be wearing rose colored glasses, but I kinda remember a time when the phrase “we will keep all our options open” was the more common way of saying “we’ll bomb the fuck out of you if we think you’re screwing with us”. Are they now pandering to yahoos so much that subtle phrasing is no longer possible in Presidential candidates?
    /rhetorical question

  27. Randomfactor says

    apparently once sang : “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb , bomb Iran.”

    He and his nitwit vp choice lost the election.

  28. slc1 says

    Re jtvatheist @ #29

    Unfortunately, nobody was in a position to strike Germany in 1938 so it couldn’t have happened.

    Re dingo the bingo @ #28

    Wouldn’t have taken more then 2 or 3.

  29. thisisaturingtest says

    @#13 & 14, StevoR:
    Wait- are you seriosly suggesting that folks who are looking for thoughtful and sane alternatives (as opposed to the knee-jerk reaction you and Romney seem to favor) must be doing so out of anti-semitism? That’s helpful- labeling everyone who disagrees with your extreme ideology as an equal extreme.
    And, as for “are you betting on that?”- what are you doing? You’re equally “[b]etting the lives of other people and other countries” on your assumptions.

  30. daved says

    Re slc1 @ 7

    The mad mullahs who run Iran couldn’t care less how many Palestinians would be killed in a nuclear strike on Israel. Any more then they give a flying fuck about how many Syrians that Assad kills. In fact, they are heavily involved in the massacres currently occurring in Syria via their support of the Assad government.

    Would you like some extra straw so you can build more strawman arguments? Who said anything about the Palestinians? I sure didn’t. I said that if Iran launched nukes at Israel, there’s a good chance that they might, say, vaporize the Dome of the Rock. Not a smart move for an Islamic country.

    Other commenters have it right, unlike you and your foam-at-the-mouth buddy StevoR. The mullahs who run Iran are not crazy — they are cunning bastards who are in power and want to stay that way. Ahmadinejad is a sideshow clown with no authority over the Iranian military. (He couldn’t order the military to do anything any more than you could.)

  31. says

    Observers of the Middle East–those who have spent some time in Iran and actually have some first-hand knowledge of what makes the Iranian regime tick–have repeatedly stated that they are rational actors, not crazed, suicidal maniacs.

    You don’t get to run a country as sophisticated and educated as Iran for over 30 years without some rational chops. Sure, it comes with a boatload of fundamentalist crazy-talk, but if they were really intent on destroying Israel without any heed of their personal safety and future prospects, they wouldn’t have waited this long before trying. You don’t need nukes to cause major devastation to a nation as small as Israel.

  32. says

    Right.

    I should believe that Iran is this big scary boogie man like my parents said from underneath their imaginary desks where they “ducked and covered”. Those people have a reason to be pissed and now some of my fellows are projecting.

    I also see pissed off people in the streets of those countries and I remember how stupid America would look in 1912. Fuck Romney, and especially Fuck Obama. Because I trusted him.

    There were also weapons of mass destruction. Similar psychology.

  33. caseloweraz says

    I predict that the revised version of a certain Beach Boys hit song will have a prominent role in yet another presidential campaign.

  34. caseloweraz says

    “Sort of off topic for this post, but it is related to wingnuttery. Orly Taitz, esq will be live in studio for the last hour of the Stephanie Miller show on Tuesday!”

    That deserves an exclamation point. My only question is, why would Orly Taitz do this?

    (I mean, we know she’s crazy, but still…)

  35. says

    caseloweraz “I predict that the revised version of a certain Beach Boys hit song will have a prominent role in yet another presidential campaign.”
    ‘In My Room’?

  36. thisisaturingtest says

    StevoR, @#12

    I don’t support genocide – but I do support preventing those who wish to committ genocide from having thebaility to committ it before they committ it.

    Really? Let’s look at your “logic.”
    If the US pre-emptively bombs, or otherwise wages war on, Iran, based on an assumption that they will do something that there is no real evidence they will do- then the US will be guilty of mass murder, at least (arguably genocide). By your reasoning, Iran would be perfectly justified in bombing us, in order to prevent us from committing that crime first.

    You may not like where logic leads you but it’ll lead you there anyhow.

  37. says

    thisisaturingtest “You may not like where logic leads you but it’ll lead you there anyhow.”
    I pointed that out to him a while ago and, if anything, it only made him masturbate more furiously.

  38. thisisaturingtest says

    Modusoperandi, @#41: I don’t know about the “masturbate” part, but I’m sure that the “furious” is due to the fact that the line you quoted was his (from #12), not mine. Extremists don’t like having their own “logic” quoted or used against them.

  39. slc1 says

    Re thisisaturingtest @ #40

    I posted a link at comment #1 in which the Ayatollah Khamenei makes it perfectly clear what he has in store for the State of Israel.

    Now, of course, Mr. thisisaturningtest will claim that the Ayatollah is just blowing smoke and doesn’t really mean it. However, there was another fellow back in the 1920s in Germany who make equivalent statements and the same comments were made about him. Of course, when Frankenberger took power in Germany in 1933, it became apparent that he meant every word in his speeches and in Mein Kampf. Thus, the fact that the Government of Israel is not willing to make such polyanaish assumptions is perfectly understandable, base on hard experience.

  40. thisisaturingtest says

    Modusoperandi @#43- sure, I’ll buy that.
    slc1 @#44- sorry, not buying the Godwin. And, no, what you posted at #1 is not, as you suggest, a direct quote of the Ayatollah making anything at all “perfectly clear.” In fact, it’s an indirect quote attributed to a former Spanish Prime Minister, in which he says the Ayatollah told him that. I’m not suggesting the Ayatollah is blowing smoke- I’m suggesting you are (or at least swallowing wholesale and uncritically someone else’s, because it seems to say what you want to believe).

  41. says

    slc1 “I posted a link at comment #1 in which the Ayatollah Khamenei makes it perfectly clear what he has in store for the State of Israel.”
    Khoresht and nan-e lavash? It’s khoresht and nan-e lavash, isn’t it? I guess Israel’s only choice is to prevemptively break out the big guns: some kneidlach and a nice chicken soup. /me rubs belly

  42. themojohand says

    We can bomb if we want to.
    We can leave your friends behind.
    Because your friends don’t bomb and if they don’t bomb, well,
    They’re no friends of mine.
    (sorry)

  43. puppygod says

    The only way to end Mexican standof (that is to end it without everybody dying) is to lower YOUR gun, not to pull other, bigger one.

  44. slc1 says

    Re thisisaturingtest @ #45 & #46

    The article in the Post refers to something that Ahmadinejad was reputed to have said several years ago. The controversy over the translation is old news which pitted an Iranian scholar in the US against Juan Cole. The article in Haaretz referred to something that the Ayatollah Khamenei was alleged to have said so the article referred to by Mr. turingtest is of no relevance.

    Relative to translations, that’s the usual excuse given by defenders of the mad mullahs, namely that the Iranians are always the victim of poor translations. I presume that the former Spanish prime minister doesn’t speak Farsi and that the Ayatollah doesn’t speak Spanish so obviously there was a translator somewhere in the woodpile. The question is, absent a recording of what the Ayatollah said, the Government of Israel, given the history, has little option but to assume that the former Spanish prime minister is accurately reporting what the former said and take him at his word.

  45. kassad says

    @slc1: You should stop saying that military strikes against Iran is a course of action supported by Israël. Several factions in the Isreali governement are opposed to them, including the Mossad. The Mossad thinks you’re nuts. No, THAT’S a wake up call…
    Targeted assassination against iranian nuclear physicists and sabotage of their program seems to work quite well, without killing Iranians and throwing the world in a tailspin.

    But I guess that being able to make the “tough call” should be a virtue by itself. Let’s go kill civilians!

  46. thisisaturingtest says

    slc1: So, the article in the Post is of no relevance to what the Spanish ex-Prime Minister said. Ok, fair enough. The point I was trying to make is that the Haaretz article, which you so proudly pointed to as proof of something, is also of no relevance. The entire article is, what, seven sentences long? And in those seven sentences, maybe three remotely support what you think it does:

    According to Aznar, Khamenei said that he expected a large conflict with the West and Israel and that the conflict would not only be military, but also cultural.
    Khamenei also explicitly stated that Israel must be wiped off the map, Aznar said.
    Aznar estimated that Iran’s nuclear program is a direct by-product of national aspirations expressed by Khamenei during that meeting.

    That’s it. No direct quotes from the Ayatollah, none from Aznar. Not only do you not know exactly what the Ayatollah said- you don’t even know exactly what Aznar said. You yourself say that the Ayatollah is only “alleged” to have said what you think supports your position. Your own article is irrelevant. And on the strength of that, you want to start a pre-emptive war (actually, TBF, I’m presuming you have other “evidence” you haven’t shared here). “Weak” is too weak a word for what you’ve presented here as a basis for that war- “nonexistent” captures it better, I think.

  47. slc1 says

    Re turingtest @ #52

    Does Mr. turningtest have anything from the former Spanish prime minister denying what was in the Haaretz story?

    Here’s another news item quoting Mr. Azner.

    http://www.timesherald.com/article/20120528/OPINION03/120529549/may-no-longer-any-serious-doubt-about-what-iran-s-rulers-want

    Money quotes:

    Dore Gold, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.N. who now heads the respected JCPA think tank, wanted to be certain there was no misunderstanding. He asked Aznar: Was Khamenei suggesting “a gradual historical process involving the collapse of the Zionist state, or rather its physical-military termination?”

    “He meant physical termination through military force,” Aznar said. Khamenei called Israel “an historical cancer” — an echo of Nazi rhetoric he has employed on numerous occasions, the last time in public on Feb. 3.

    Khamenei also told Aznar that the goal of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 has remained constant: To rid the world of two evils — Israel and the U.S. Eventually, there must be an “open confrontation.” Khamenei said it was his duty is to ensure that Iran prevails, Aznar said.

    Anybody who reads these quotes from the Ayatollah Khamenei and concludes that the man is sane is in denial. These types of statements recall similar statements by Frankenberger in the 1930s and warbling Godwin is nothing more then obfuscation.

  48. dingojack says

    Why ‘warble godwin’? ‘The big Lie’ and genocide. You’re doing a bang-up job all by yourself.
    Dingo

  49. thisisaturingtest says

    slc1- first things first. It’s not my responsibility to disprove anything about what Aznar may or may not have said or accurately reported- it’s your claim, your responsibility. Otherwise would be just like creationists claiming their idiocies stand proven and accepted as the null hypothesis just because science doesn’t explicitly disprove god.

    Having said that, I will concede that, yes, this is better proof than what you had before- but still only for what amounts to rhetoric. I know you won’t like that answer but, after all your bluster, all you’ve really shown is that Khameini really, really doesn’t like Israel or the US and is pretty vocal about it.

    And for every time you godwin here (and there’s a reason that’s a logical fallacy- the situations are not comparable enough to justify screaming “Hitler” every time someone you don’t like opens his mouth), there is, as raven pointed out upthread at #21, an example of a nuclear nation, equally ideologically purist and committed, threatening other allies, and, yes, us, with “wiping off the face of the earth”- USSR, Communist China, and, more recently, North Korea. Any particular reason you don’t feel committed to a pre-emptive policy with them? After all- they already have what, at this point, you’re only afraid Iran may get.

    Ok- so, I will say this- at this point, you’ve made me pay closer attention to a situation that, up to now, I frankly hadn’t really looked at all that closely before (and you seem absolutely consumed by it). But, also at this point, all you’ve done is convince me, based on the rheoric you’ve quoted, that Iran is someone we should keep a very careful eye on. And all your incessant godwinning shows is that we better do better than Chamberlain did. It’s a cautionary example, not a principle to justify the necessity of pre-emptive genocide.

  50. slc1 says

    Re thisisaturingtest @ #56

    Mr. turingtest is missing the point here. When I refer to the mad mullahs running Iran, many of the commentors here insist that they are not mad at all but actually just evil folks who like to blovinate. I think that it is a fair inference, based on what Aznar quoted Khamenei as saying that the man is far round the bend. Forget his fulminations against Israel. Look at one sentence of his rant: To rid the world of two evils — Israel and the U.S. Eventually, there must be an “open confrontation.” Khamenei said it was his duty is to ensure that Iran prevails, Aznar said. The notion the Iran can defeat the United States in a war is raging bonkers. If he really believes it, and I have no reason to doubt it, he belongs in a looney bin.

  51. thisisaturingtest says

    slc1: I understand your point perfectly well, I just think it’s a pointless point. Essentially, you’re long-distance psychoanalyzing to give you a reason to support something you want to do anyway. Not good enough to pre-emptively begin something that will have repercussions (including many lost lives) far beyond your little hobby-horse imagining. It’s just not as simple as “the man is mad, let’s take him out.”

  52. Chris from Europe says

    I assume that Romney will try to sing it McCain-style. I propose a parody of “It’s My Party”.

  53. Chris from Europe says

    Says the guy dreaming of mass murder.

    Face it, if Aznar is your argument, you have no argument.

  54. dingojack says

    SLC – “When I refer to the mad mullahs running Iran, many of the commentors here insist that they are not mad at all but actually just evil folks who like to blovinate. I think that it is a fair inference…”

    And yet you keep saying they’re ‘mad mullahs‘, worse yet, you keep saying they’re mad therefore pre-emptive nuclear genocide*, even though you admit they’re not.
    Yet another endlessly echoed Big Lie.
    Dingo
    —–
    * Even though it has been pointed out, multiple times, that the US doesn’t have the capcity, and that the consequences would bring disater on nations around the world (including the US)

  55. slc1 says

    Re Dingo the bingo @ #65

    Excuse me, here is what I said in comment #57

    I think that it is a fair inference, based on what Aznar quoted Khamenei as saying that the man is far round the bend.

    Round the bend is a British aphorism meaning crazy.

  56. slc1 says

    Re Chris from Europe

    Would Mr. Chris care to provide some evidence that Mr. Aznar is a prevaricator, any more then any other politician. I choose to accept the accuracy of what he said. Mr. Chris can choose to call Aznar a liar, without a jot or a tittle of evidence.

  57. Chris from Europe says

    @slc1
    No evidence? Iraq, blaming Eta even though it was clearly not the modus operandi of them and virtually everyone already recognizing the pattern of the actual perpetrators? The guy lies even when it’s obvious. And it is not limited to these issues.

    You choose to believe him despite him having zero credibility, despite it fitting his typical behavior (lying for his goals), well, because you are apparently not different. Like Bush, Blair and Aznar, you would lie people into a war because you think you know it better.

  58. dingojack says

    Well why not? SLC seems to accept the ‘madness’ of the Iranians with as much evidence.
    Dingo
    —–
    SLC – apologies for the disgraceful quote mash – not enough coffee and too much haste is my only (feeble) excuse.
    However you haven’t shown that the mullah are anything remotely like mad (speaking hyperbolically is not per se madness), nor have you explained why speaking hyperbolically means Carthago delenda est. If that were the criterion there wouldn’t be a country on Earth that wasn’t a smokin’ hole in the ground.
    ‘Start bombing in five minutes’ – bomb the US, ‘we will bury you’ – bomb the Russians and etc.

Leave a Reply