View Full Version : Ahmadinejad
incommin
12-06-2006, 09:23
News agencies are reporting Ahmadinejad as saying he has warned western leaders to follow the path of God or vanish from the face of the earth!
I feel a sortie of B-2's coming!
Jim
The Iranian Parliament just voted to cut his term by 18 months this Sunday. Maybe both of us are pulling in our radicals?
CoLawman
12-06-2006, 23:22
The Iranian Parliament just voted to cut his term by 18 months this Sunday. Maybe both of us are pulling in our radicals?
Just curious, who might our radicals, in your estimation, be?
I feel a sortie of B-2's coming!
Do we still have the balls to do what needs to be done?? Seems as if we are about to enter into negotiations with Iran and Syria to help mold the Middle East for the next 30-50 years? ?? Can this be happening? :eek:
Just curious, who might our radicals, in your estimation, be?
John Bolton, I think Donald Rumsfeld was a radical departure from the traditional SECDEF cut. Neoconservativism is a radical departure from the traditional Paleoconservative establishment. Religion and morality in foreign policy is a radical departure in a field that is traditionally amoral.
I think bringing in Robert Gates, Baker's ISG, Bolton leaving, and the recent election all warrants the observation that radicals are being brought in here.
This is all for better or worse. I certainly at one point supported these people and tenets. I do not think it is offensive to note that it is radical, rather it is a just observation.
I think there are signs that Ahmadinejad is getting restrained at home too.
The Reaper
12-07-2006, 09:20
Just how was Bolton a radical?
Or for that matter, Rumsfeld?
TR
Just how was Bolton a radical?
Or for that matter, Rumsfeld?
TR
Frankly I kind of like John Bolton and probably agree with him on alot of things. But I would consider this a radical departure from the norm (probably a good thing). Showing such public contempt for the UN (while you or I may agree), is indeed radical and a far throw from the likes of Adlai Stevenson. The Proliferation Security Initiative, his work, I consider to be a good program, has been productive exactly because he radically sidestepped tradition (the UN being venue for such a program) and created a voluntary results driven program.
TR, is it not safe to say that Secretary Rumsfelds policies were a radical departure from the Weinberger-Powell Doctrines? Secretary Rumsfeld came into office intent on reasserting civilian control of the military and I would say has been very successful. Would you not?
Again this is all for better or worse. I worked on the '04 campaign, at one point I can say these were my guys. Semantics maybe at issue here, but am I out of line ?
TK
rubberneck
12-07-2006, 10:24
While Bolton might be considered a "radical" in terms of his style he is not in any way shape or form a radical in terms of international policy. Unorthodox maybe but certainly no radical and neither was Don Rumsfeld for that matter.
incommin
12-07-2006, 11:10
Adlai Stevenson was a different day and time; when the UN was expected to do great things........ far different from the do nothing corrupt communist and socialist cesspool it has become.
Jim
While Bolton might be considered a "radical" in terms of his style he is not in any way shape or form a radical in terms of international policy. Unorthodox maybe but certainly no radical and neither was Don Rumsfeld for that matter.
To the realist intellectual bedrock of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Morgenthau, Kennan, and Mearsheimer they do. Same with realist statesman like Kissenger, Brzezinski, and Scowcroft. To the likes of Woodrow Wilson they don't.
I fail to see how democratic peace theory is rule rather then the exception in American foreign policy history, and is not "radical" in a historical context.
Radical is being used as an adjective and a noun here w/o being adequately defined by the potentially inflammatory opening comments.
My interpretation of your statements is that you are making Rummy the U.S./Western antithesis of ahMADinejad - which I vehemently disagree with and find insulting to our culture and system of governing. There has been no departure from traditional policy making, implementation, administration, and innovation (whether right or wrong is not being debated) with political and religious overtones during either term. Plus you have the position of US SecDef vs. Iranian Pres.
Rummy was not trying to create a pseudo-religious empire or bring about the return of the Messiah.
All, by definition, may have radical ideas because they want to change the fundamental nature of something. Your statement was too ambiguous and simultaneously accusational.
Ahmadinejad is a religious and political fanatic.
rubberneck
12-07-2006, 12:38
To the realist intellectual bedrock of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Morgenthau, Kennan, and Mearsheimer they do. Same with realist statesman like Kissenger, Brzezinski, and Scowcroft. To the likes of Woodrow Wilson they don't.
I fail to see how democratic peace theory is rule rather then the exception in American foreign policy history, and is not "radical" in a historical context.
I see from your profile that you are a student, which explains a lot and I don't mean that as an insult to you.
BTW, responsiblities of the UN Ambassador and Secretary of Defnese differ greatly from those of the Sec of State and National Security advisor. I don't see how you can use the timewarp trio when discussing Rummy and Bolton. Wouldn't Madeline Notsobright and Bill Cohen be a much fairer comparrison?
I have had this misfortune of living through the legacies left by policies enacted by Albright and Cohen. If you think Bolton and Rumsfeld are radical compaired to that those tow, I'll ask you this. Is that such a bad thing? From where I am sitting you can take those two idiots and I'll gladly stick with Rumsfeld and Bolton.
For me I would rather have a Secretary of Defense and a UN Ambassador who is willing to look the North Koreans in the eye and tell them to sod off (and actually mean it), than to go to North Korea, sip bubbly with Kim Jong Il and bury my head in the sand while knowing full well that they were using us while building weapons that threaten the peace and security of the entire world. Thanks but no thanks. If Rummy and Bolton are radical I have no clue what you would call me because I don't think the two went far enough.
All, by definition, may have radical ideas because they want to change the fundamental nature of something. Your statement was too ambiguous and simultaneously accusational.
Guilty of ambiguity.
Guilty of accusation, I think democratic peace theory as a practiced by Rumsfeld, Bolton, Albright, and Cohen is not always in America's interest.
I'm speaking in pro-American Nationalism here, they're speaking in ideology.
The Reaper
12-07-2006, 14:48
Guilty of ambiguity.
Guilty of accusation, I think democratic peace theory as a practiced by Rumsfeld, Bolton, Albright, and Cohen is not always in America's interest.
I'm speaking in pro-American Nationalism here, they're speaking in ideology.
No offense, but IMHO, you speak too often from a position colored by liberal MSM and academia.
The positions may be popular with some in those fields, but they lack extensive life experience outside their ivory towers and realpolitik. Kind of like an Iraqi Study Group report written from the protection and insulation of the Green Zone.
Military history is a dying intellectual exercise on most campuses, where courses on gays in the military or military fashion are more likely than a serious military offering. MIT recently forced their military history department to change their logo, as the 18th Century cannons appears to be intimidating and "militaristic". When the real world catches up to the leftover 60s liberal academics, they are going to be the grease in the treads of the tanks. Neither Sharia or Maoism are going to be particularly tolerant of leftist free-spirits. Thus the ability of students to appreciate and understand military actions are seriously compromised. One of my favorite Rumsfeld exchanges was when he had to explain to a member of the media that the purpose of our bombing was to actually KILL people.
I also think that Machiavelli, Hobbes, Keenan, and Kissinger were certainly more pragmatic and would see Bolton and Rumsfeld as centrists, not particularly conservatie or neo-cons, but that is just my .02. Bolton has largely successfully represented the interests of the US, Rumsfeld would have been viewed as a success had he left earlier in this war. History may yet vindicate his service. It is too early to tell and emotions are running too high right now.
We have to decide as a nation whether it is in our interest to practice interventionist politics (and by extension, military action as an extension of those politics). It is disingenuous to demand action in Rwanda, or Haiti, or Bosnia, or the Sudan, and decry it when the same interventionist policy is applied in similar areas. Due to modern weapons technology, lack of serious border security, and the sheer volume of international commerce arriving on our shores, we can no longer afford to pull back to Fortress America and hope that they do not come after us. The time for that is past and it will eventually fail. Therefore, I believe we need to establish a policy under which we will intervene and what the range of consequences might be for those who endanger us.
When an American city is burned to bedrock, and the economy is wrecked, it will be a little too late to wish we had fought them in their backyard rather than ours. I do not recall a lot of people whining about erosion of terrorists rights and the evils of military action when by and large, we were doing it on the cheap in late 2001.
What really chaps my ass is the liberals bitching about the war who cannot claim to know a single person actually putting their ass on the line in the effort. None.
TR
TK,
Guilty of accusation, I think democratic peace theory as a practiced by Rumsfeld, Bolton, Albright, and Cohen is not always in America's interest.
Name one true democracy that currently exists. Democracy is a theory. Here, we have a democratic process in a constitutional republic. Lenin (and Mao) used social democratic reform and tactics as a means to establish a Social Democracy or "Direct Democracy." How does the DPT work when applied to these types of governing if you ignore the 'individual freedom index' ?
Direct Democracy and other forms of autocratic govt have historically lead to war (empire building) when that govt has the ability to transnationally project its will through force or is under extreme duress. What about these quasi-democracies creating pariah states and/or subservient nations? How many total wars broke out between similar Socialists and/or Communists nations?
I do not believe that historically 'similar democracies' rarely go to war against each other is due to the "Democratic Peace Theory." The fact that constitutional republics (God Bless America!), constitutional monarchs (God Bless them too!), and the others rarely have full war with each other is merely a byproduct of their culture, economies, and various other similarities/parallels.
I believe that the European Monarchies had similar forms of govt but had a few wars with each other. So, what makes today's 'Western' style of govt so cooperative...?
The DPT is an attempt at understanding and defining, in tangible replicateble terms, why this occurs in modern democratically represented forms of govt.
Using the DPT as an ideology or principle to form policy, or even implement it, against hostile dissimilar forms of government (or entities) is interesting but very one dimensional and poses a threat to national security issues.
The SecDef can influence and is influenced by foreign policy (foreign and domestic)but does not author it (foreign or domestic).
I'm speaking in pro-American Nationalism here, they're speaking in ideology.
Would you please explain this to me with references. You have stimulated some old brain cells and started a train of thoughts on the topic.
x SF med
12-07-2006, 16:50
TR-
I fully agree with your views above. The libs have forgotten this little tract:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
and are willing to sacrifice the rights they hold so dear, in order to 'humanize' the world. They are sheeple who deserve what they are wishing for, I just hope they do it another country. Let them attempt to run rampant the way they do here, spouting off against their government, its policies and ruling parties - say in Iran, Malaysia, an African 'democracy'.... They have forgotten that this country was forged by war, in order to preserve the rights of responsible citizens who were in later years willing to fight to preserve those rights. Would these liberals feel as disturbed if the military were fighting in their backyards to protect them because their protests brought the current world tensions into their homes? Would they accept responsibility for doing so? Would they pick up arms and fight to protect themselves? I believe the answer to all of the previous questions is a resounding "NO", they would expect better men and women to protect them and fight in order to preserve their way of life.
This country tried Isolationism, twice, and we were embroiled in 2 World Wars because of it. the liberals fail to realize that they are not dealing with people who have the same rights with which they have been blessed , nor the economic bounty, nor the freedoms, nor the protections under the law, nor the cultural diversity... They cannot understand the single minded determination of our current enemies, because they can change causes on a whim when they get tired of their current 'cause juste'.
As to the study of military history - it is bloody, it is brutal, it is not pretty. There is honor, there is dishonor; there is bravery, there is cowardice; there is the depth of man; there is subterfuge; there is blatant heroics. Military history is the study of the causes that have shaped our world, our politics, our views.
disjointed rant over.
rubberneck
12-07-2006, 16:56
I must be stuck on stupid here. DPT says the liberal democracies rarely go to war with one another (note: it doesn't say never, just rarely).
Just what liberal democracies are we at war with? Iraq under Hussein? Syria under Assad? North Korea under Jong Il? Iran under Ahmadinejad? Afghanistan under the Taliban?
It scares the hell out of me that this bleeting horse pucky is being taught in our Universities and I have a Political Science degree of the University of Wisconsin. DPT has no relevance in the real world. Your professors would know that if they took their heads out of their rear ends for a second and looked at the world surrounding them. The world we live in is a dangerous place. People who embrace nonsensical political theories hoping to make the bad people go away have no right to speak on the matter.
Don Rumsfeld and John Bolton may be a lot of things but the one thing they are not is naive to the threats that confront us today, and as an American I am proud that we had two people who cared enough about my safety that they are willing to endure the sling and arrows of lesser men who lack the courage to deal with problems head on.
Monsoon65
12-07-2006, 18:11
The libs have forgotten this little tract...
Well said, brother. I agree with you. My niece graduates from High School in 2007 and plans on going to college. I just fear for what she's going to run into there with lib profs that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the military and what's actually going on in this world. I might be wrong, but I think most of the profs out there have never left the safe, secure bubble of college/education and spout off about world politics and the military like they actually have a clue.
They think that every country is like the US, where the right to protest was given to them by the blood of troops killed in combat these past 230 years. You're right, try that in Iran/North Korea/Etc and see where it gets you. Prison, execution, whatever.
I've come to hate listening to the news because of what I hear. I get depressed hearing the drivel that the left sprews about Iraq and the world, how they are going to make things better thru committees and Peace, Love and Understanding. I know I'm probably not alone in wanting to grab some of these libs by the pencil neck and shake some sense in them.
Ahmadinejad can say whatever he wants because the libs view it as a little country standing up to the big, bad USA. They'd wet themselves if we said we were going to start carpet-bombing Iran if they don't get their act together.
Let me secure my soapbox for now.
I must be stuck on stupid here. DPT says the liberal democracies rarely go to war with one another (note: it doesn't say never, just rarely).
Just what liberal democracies are we at war with? Iraq under Hussein? Syria under Assad? North Korea under Jong Il? Iran under Ahmadinejad? Afghanistan under the Taliban?
It scares the hell out of me that this bleeting horse pucky is being taught in our Universities and I have a Political Science degree of the University of Wisconsin. DPT has no relevance in the real world. Your professors would know that if they took their heads out of their rear ends for a second and looked at the world surrounding them. The world we live in is a dangerous place. People who embrace nonsensical political theories hoping to make the bad people go away have no right to speak on the matter.
Don Rumsfeld and John Bolton may be a lot of things but the one thing they are not is naive to the threats that confront us today, and as an American I am proud that we had two people who cared enough about my safety that they are willing to endure the sling and arrows of lesser men who lack the courage to deal with problems head on.
Well said.
DPT is an interesting theory in trying to understand why these systems of govt rarely go to war with each other. In other words, to analyze but not define. So, all it can generate is opinion, conjecture, and maybe a little insight to functionaries - How does this contribute to anything? It does make for good beer talk though.
Sirs, I believe you are literally seeing red here and jumping to conclusions.
I argue that we have one reason to be in Iraq. It is a very good reason. I have been asked by a moderator to not discuss it on this board, but if you would like to understand where I am coming from look here (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11683/national_security_consequences_of_us_oil_dependenc y.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F17%2Fenergyenvironmen t). I believe this issue is the most important of our day, and connects to everything. I do not believe this makes me a liberal, for some of the things I believe we should do are anything but.
TR, you continue to imply that I am some lefty-pinko. Certainly I hold a lot of libertarian positions, and I do disagree on a lot with the group currently running the GOP (the party of which I am a registered member). Some of the people that I read and often agree with such as Milt Bearden, Alastair Crooke, Michael Scheuer, and Colonel Patrick Lang (U.S. Army ret) are hardly ivory tower academics when it comes to their experiences in the Middle East and terrorism. Further, criticisms of our current policies that influence my opinions come from Andrew Bachevich, Generals Anthony Zinni and Paul Van Riper, Robert Pape, and John Mearsheimer, I would not call these gentlemen members of the liberal intelligentsia. While criticisms of contemporary conservatism may automatically make me a liberal in your book, a recent article in The American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/cover.html) gives a much better rebuttal than I could ever write.
Finally, by painting me as a “liberal” thereby implying that I “cannot claim to know a single person actually putting their ass on the line in the effort. None.” You make an erroneous claim, while the Armed Forces may find me disqualified for service; this is not the case with my personal friends and families friends. But even if I in fact did not “know a single person actually putting their ass on the line in the effort”, even if I was not at a wedding of two Army Officers (one just back from Iraq) last week, I would still hold my criticisms. For the fact would remain that I and my fellow citizens consume 20% of the worlds energy, this has direct impact on terrorism and current efforts in Iraq, and that I am not even picking up the tab, the only thing asked of us post 9/11 was to “keep shopping”. This is not taking responsibility for ones actions, and goes against what I believe conservatives and this country stand for.
The Reaper
12-08-2006, 13:15
You are taking offense where none was intended, and are missing my point. The liberal comment was not directed at you, but it you seem to have taken it as such.
Your posts on this board reflect popular views and positions common to the NYT and other MSM outlets. I have attributed that to your youth, education, lack of life experience (and living through military service) and more personal exposure to history, as well as limited exposure to opposing viewpoints. When I was 22, I knew a lot of things to be true that I later learned the hard way to be wrong. IIRC, the old saying goes "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
I am an admitted conservative somewhere to the right of Attilla the Hun, with some Libertarian leanings. From where I stand, your positions seem pretty liberal, in line with Obama, Hillary, AlGore, JF Kerry, and the rest of the big government nambyists. Your frequent use of the "neo-con" and "Christian" titles as pejoratives supports that. That is my perception, whether it is true or not. At the same time, I have frequently mentioned here my disappointment with certain actions (and inactions) by the POTUS, the Congress, and the Republican Party. I would not totally disagree with your position on energy independence. I have also called for an American Manhattan Project for non-fossil fuel power sources in the near future.
From your posts and profile, I see no sign that you have served, sacrificed, or done much more to better this country than dabble in politics. With an all-volunteer military, that is certainly your prerogative, much as I would prefer a Heinleinian society. The point here is that most of the members of this board have served under Secretary Rumsfield, have put their lives on the line under his leadership, and have a much better perspective of his leadership than a young man who gets his info about the SecDef from the Times or the Globe. This reminds me of the Thomas Jefferson quote, "The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved;' the pig was 'committed.'" If we are willing to put our lives at risk while serving him, and you have gathered some second and third hand information, who is more likely to have a valid opinion of the quality of his service? Armchair quarterbacking is clearly a popular American pastime.
Again, this is not an attack on you personally, or on your freedom to have and express your opinion. If you are a liberal, that is your prerogative.
This is merely an attempt to explain to you how I am perceiving your position, and why others here may feel that you lack the experience to be denigrating or casting aspersions on public officials under which we have served.
BTW, your comment about having attended a military wedding rings like the statement by the racist that some of his best friends are black. If you haven't served, or even have a family member currently serving, you may be involved, but are not really committed.
TR
x SF med
12-08-2006, 14:04
TR,
You've swung left there a little - from Ghengis Khan to Attila. Mellowing a little, Sir?
Conservatism is rampant in the military - I'm only slightly to the right of Frederick the Great myself, but I'm not done aging yet. TK will learn, albeit slowly that his current views are altruistic and unachieveable. There can be no peace without struggle.
As a side note - I was out with another member of this board who happened to be in town, and met this person's brother, a lawyer who was wound so tight I decided to have a little fun and argued a very liberal view of affordable housing and reduced profits for developers. Lawyer brother had no clue about my background. I did such a good job with my argument that I was not so politely told that I was a Communist and would ruin the country. the other person from the board and I had a good laugh over that. Lawyer was informed next day of my background, experience, education and current position as a finance guy. His turn to be shocked.
The point of this little aside is - with experience comes the patience to research and form your own opinions - youth tends to be hot headed and rash. Let's give TK time to figure out for himself what's real and what's smoke and mirrors.
soldierdoc_2005
12-08-2006, 14:33
Just how was Bolton a radical?
Or for that matter, Rumsfeld?
TR
They wanted to get the job done, regardless of public perception or political pressure.
True radicalism given the post-Clintonesque "stick your finger in the air before making a decision" political attitude in DC...
~Eric
I argue that we have one reason to be in Iraq. It is a very good reason. I have been asked by a moderator to not discuss it on this board, but if you would like to understand where I am coming from look here (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11683/national_security_consequences_of_us_oil_dependenc y.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F17%2Fenergyenvironmen t). I believe this issue is the most important of our day, and connects to everything. I do not believe this makes me a liberal, for some of the things I believe we should do are anything but.
Actually, what I asked was that unless you had facts, that you stopped insisting that the primary reason we were fighting in Iraq was for the security of their oil reserves and our potential tapping into them. There are many reasons for our involvement there, and unless you had sat in on the meetings where information was presented and decisions were made, you can't identify the main reason we're in Iraq with any certainly besides a wild ass guess. Feel free to discuss our country's energy dependence all you like, so long as its not cited as the main reason we're fighting to establish a modern, free nation in Iraq.
jfhiller
12-08-2006, 20:38
TR, x_sf_med, rrubberneck, Razor, et al, I concur with your comments and thank you for speaking more eloquently than I could on this. It's enlightening to hear the wisdom born of experience in response to the somewhat embarrassing wanderings of the student mind led primarily by ivory tower pundits and conventional wisdom of the MSM.
x SF med
12-08-2006, 21:33
Actually, what I asked was that unless you had facts, that you stopped insisting that the primary reason we were fighting in Iraq was for the security of their oil reserves and our potential tapping into them. There are many reasons for our involvement there, and unless you had sat in on the meetings where information was presented decisions were made, you can't identify the main reason we're in Iraq with any certainly besides a wild ass guess. Feel free to discuss our country's energy dependence all you like, so long as its not cited as the main reason we're fighting to establish a modern, free nation in Iraq.
To quote Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 "Ah, the old petro dependence routine, shoulda seen that comming. sorry about that, Chief."
I thought the tinfoil and copperwire hat crowd even got tired of that one.
But Razor, a small disagreement with you - will we be able to modernize the thought of a still semi nomadic, and fully tribal region of the world? To what degree of freedom will they rise? Can we reshape in a few years or even decades what has taken 1500 years to shape? I do hope we can show them freedom, and guide them to more modern thought - but fundamental puritanical religion is tied to this same cultural heritage, even factions within the same religion cannot agree to disagree without killing each other. The mix of culture, politics and religion will remain volatile for a long time and modern Americans are instant pudding people, everything has to be immediate; modern Americans are sterile people, everything has to be clean; modern Americans are liberal, everything has to be fair; modern Americans have never seen a war waged in their own country, they cannot understand what their soldiers have seen and experienced. although their hearts yearn to give the freedoms we enjoy to the rest of the world, the bounties of their own culture will not let them see that it has taken 230 years for a bunch of colonies to become the great nation that protects them from the horrors of what others in this world endure. We understand, we have seen both sides, we have had to be patient, in our training and in our duty; and yet we are still modern Americans, products of our culture.
incommin
12-09-2006, 08:02
I doubt that we can do much with the current adult generation in Iraq. But the youth of Iraq is a different story. The number of TVs, computers (Internet), and cell phones is growing there. That means information on the outside world and how the rest of the world lives is growing. Iran is having problems with its youth....they want more of the freedoms they see in the west. In spite of the clerics, and whatever government is in power, the youth will move towards western ideas. Our military, contact with or soldiers, is helping in that area too.
Your assessment of the majority of our society is correct......they do not understand, do not want to understand. they have not seen the rest of the world as we have. I have hopes that we will find a way to remain until the country is stabilized.
Jim
rubberneck
12-09-2006, 11:37
TR, x_sf_med, rubberneck, Razor, et al, I concur with your comments and thank you for speaking more eloquently than I could on this. It's enlightening to hear the wisdom born of experience in response to the somewhat embarrassing wanderings of the student mind led primarily by ivory tower pundits and conventional wisdom of the MSM.
Thanks for the nice words, but I come from the very shallow end of the experience pool when compaired to TR, x_sf_med and Razor. Real world experience always trumps academic experience IMHO. In their case they have both. I on the other hand have no experience with the implementation of national policy.
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
TR
Wow! I can't believe I haven't heard that one before. lol. Can't wait to share that one with my die hard Democrat-dad. (Respectfully of course):D