Brilliant summary.  This is why I advocate a ground invasion of Iran. That would link our forces in Afghanistan up to the rest of our supply chain over ground we control.

That lets us surround and blockade Pakistan to give up its nukes and bin Laden.  This is best done with a draft of 2 million men.

The axis of evil is and was Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The simple thing would have been to obliterate all three with nukes. North Korea is under a truce and a threat to our ally South Korea. Burn them as well. Potential terrorists would glow in the dark and terrorize the world into submission. Petty tyrants would rush to do what we order them to do.

It’s how the Romans did things and their Empire lasted a lot longer than ours. Without massive terror the Empire will fall. Our week and foolish leaders are petty crooks and murderers. We need someone to take things in hand and kick it up a notch. Then demand tribute from the rest of the world. If they want us to be the keeper of the Pax American then they should be willing to pay for it. Europeans retire at 50 with a pension and free medical care. We get ripped off be defense contractors by their pet Congressmen and are dying younger and poorer. In Europe the politicians are afraid of the people. In America it’s the other way around.

Good that you pointed out the obvious errors in Mr. Larison’s argument.  Just to elaborate on a couple of your points: A government’s “leaking” a nuclear weapon to al Qaida or whomever is less likely than their actually carrying out the covert attack themselves.  As you say, if there are several nuclear-armed suspects then it will be hard to know, much less prove, whodunnit.

Also, the realist school is looking kind of outdated in an age of non-state, religiously motivated war.  A realist analysis actually underestimates the risk, because it assumes that states such as Iran act rationally based on cost-benefit (that’s to the states, not the leaders), and that internal stuff like apocalyptic theology is not a factor.  Mr. Larison was correct that Iranian leaders want to stay in power, but it’s possible--not likely, but possible--that some might want even more to go down in Muslim history as the greatest hero since Saladdin.  Herostratus-like acts aren’t part of the realist model.

I don’t have any idea what to do about Iran, and I don’t always agree with you, but I think your voice is really important here.  It’s kind of sad that a lot of paleos sound like Noam Chomsky when it comes to foreign policy.

I asked one of my professors what he thought we should do if the Iranians really are
killing our servicemen in Iraq.  He said, “I don’t think they are—we would have heard
about it by now.” But we are already hearing about it—from the generals.  This is one
of the problems resulting from the disinformation put out there by the Bush administration
during the buildup to Iraq:  the Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome.  The Iranians may very well
be waging war against our forces in Iraq, but the American people will not believe the
spokesmen of the administration.

This is all so silly. The muslims already have the atomic bomb. I wouldn’t doubt if Iran has several. The Saudi’s financed the Pakistani bomb and have enough bombs to destroy Israel. They are held back by the knowledge that they would be destroyed, as well. The greatest threat to world peace is Israel. I would not put it past them to explode a small bomb somewhere, if they could blame the arabs or other muslims. What do you think happened to all those atomic weapons that disappeared from the former Soviet Union? Do you really think that the Arabs with all their billions didn’t get some of them?

There is a big problem with the realist school.  If you know that your enemy has a “realist”
philosophy, one in which nation-states are thought to act rationally, then you can use
that knowledge as a weapon.  You can do things covertly that your realist enemy would
never ascribe to you because he refuses to ascribe such ostensibly aberrant behaviors to
a nation-state. 

I think that Pat Buchanan has made this mistake in his handling of the
assassination of anti-Putin journalists.  He argues “Putin would never do this, as he
would not want it traced back to him.” This makes me less sad about the fact that Buchanan
lost the 2000 election (I voted for him).  If Buchanan were President and I were Putin,
I would simply use Buchanan’s ideological (for it is based on assumptions, not on
evidence) blinders to assassinate anyone I wanted.  He would refuse to trace it back to
me because, according to his “realism,” a nation-state simply wouldn’t do such things.
I fear that some paleocons fall into the same trap.  The argument goes that the Iranians
*obviously* wouldn’t do anything that would bring down upon them retaliation.  Well, if
you read history books, you’ll see that nations frequently do things that result in
retaliation.  Nation-states screw up, too.

You might also call it the “Wolfowitz Who Called Wolf Syndrome”.

Sunday. July 13. At Mass today, the First Reading was from Isaias:

Thus says the LORD:
Just as from the heavens
the rain and snow come down
and do not return there
till they have watered the earth,
making it fertile and fruitful,
giving seed to the one who sows
and bread to the one who eats,
so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;my word shall not return to me void,but shall do my will,achieving the end for which I sent it.

rewritten for a time of (constant but never enough) war…

Thus says the “conservative:”
Just as from the heavens
the rain and snow come down
and do not return there
till they have watered the earth,
making it fertile and fruitful,
giving seed to the one who sows
and bread to the one who eats,
so shall bombs go forth from the bays down upon Iran and shall not return to the B-2 but shall do America’s will achieving the peaceful ends for which we send them.

Way to keep the Lord’s Day Holy, brother Christopher; (Christ Bearer)

“Since so much of the world’s oil is dependent on the relative stability of sea lanes in the Middle East, Iran matters “

China gets most of its oil from the ME.  Why aren’t they supporting military action against Iran?  China is the number one beneficiary of the current world trading system.  If they don’t feel Iran is a threat that needs to be dealt with militarily, why does the US?

“There is no territorial self-defense reason for Iran to fund Hezbollah, but it does.  There was no territorial self-defense reason for Cuba to support rebels in Angola, but it did.”

That is correct.  But the US had no territorial self-defense reason for overthrowing the Iranian government in 1953, and we have no territorial self-defense reason for supporting Israel.  But we did and we do.

For at least fifty years we have sown fear and sold weapons in the Middle East and we have reaped failure enmity and death and purchased fear and unending troubles yet all that we keep reading are counsels to do more of the same - only at an increased pace.

To call this madness is being kind.

Earlier, I cited Isaias. If America keeps headed down the path of intervention and invasion we may all live to experience <I> Zacharias 14:12 is a quite literal way:

...the flesh of every one shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

ah, but you see, mr. Roach doesn’t believe in the Lord, as is apparent from his comment from “More Fun With Atheists”

“Atheists revel in the “courage” of pulverizing the already destroyed idols of another age. “

Posted by Christopher Roach on Jul 11, 2008.

No, it seems he is putting on the big push establishing his grand chess game, big thinker credentials in hopes of being admitted to the CFR country club or some other lucrative think-tank posting.

The replies to your post illustrate why it’s a bad idea to use violence rather than deterrence against those who have nuclear ambitions. Blood lust quickly replaces reason and “On to Teheran” becomes the battle cry. Hell’s Bells, we have two wars going on right now and we’re broke to boot!

Even if Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weapons, which the NIE stated they weren’t, they won’t get them overnight.  It will take years.  Why then the rush to attack when we are occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Part of my objection is that fact that there is no imminent threat from Iran, yet everyone is acting like we have to attack them before Bush leaves office.  And this is on the heels of the NIE report last fall.

Apparently there is no time to debate the issue openly in congress or the UN.  So it appears we might get backed into a war that nobody authorized because a third party launches a first strike which would require us to step in the finish the job.  That is a gutless way to backdoor us into a war.

If Iran is a threat to the world trading system, then the big time beneficiaries like Japan, the EU, China, India and others should openly support military action.  But they don’t.

In summary, if Iran is not a direct or imminent threat, why is there a problem with obtaining Congressional and UN authorizations?

Dr. Samuel Johnson put it perfectly awhile ago.  “The prospect of impending death concentrates the mind wonderfully.” Assuming that we’re cooland rational whilst the Iranians are spiritual homicidal maniacs is rather racist and demeaning to us as well as them.  It’s Saturday night and we’re in the Bucket of Blood Saloon.  The US is all over the place with several Colt .45s.  Pakistan, India, Russia, and India have them also.  If you were Iran, shouldn’t you have one also?  Is it reasonable to assert that the others are cool and rational while Iran isn’t?

Bush wants to be a great historic hero, and this is his last chance to show the world.  Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t doing so well, but betting it all on one last spin....

Publius Vero—I think that some of the posts to which you refer were written in an
ironic vein . . .

Why should India, China, Russia, the EU, etc., be upset about Iran when they know that
America and Israelis will deter the Iranians from doing anything ridiculous?  The pressure is off them?
Maybe the Chinese *are* worried about Iran, but they figure that the United States will intervene.

Think of the Iraq War.  The American told the Europeans:  we’re going in with or without
you.  The surprising thing isn’t that France and Germany didn’t join the coalition, but
rather that so many countries *did* join (Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Japan, etc.) in
that circumstance.  The only way for us to find out what the
EU, Russians, Chinese, etc., really think about Iran would be for the United States to
suddenly become pro-Iranian, I mean back Iran the same way that Russia and China do.
Then we would see if the Russians and Chinese adopted their conciliatory posture because
they view Iran benignly or merely because they figured that the Americans could play
the bad cop role and they would profit from Iranian trade in the meantime. 

That is simply a possibility.  Another possibility is that the Iranians really are not
a serious threat.  How much consideration did you give the former possibility before rejecting it?

The scenario we have as of now is as following:

One lunatic president of the USA.
One country who’s citizen’s main preoccupation is accumulation of money, more precisely the dollar. It is this country that still keeps the aforementioned loonie president in office.
One far away country, very rich in oil, that refuses to accept dollars as payment for their oil. They only accept Euros or gold.

The first country, with the crazy president, has been printing such excessive amounts of paper money that their money’s real worth is nil.

The second country’s oil however is very real and very sought after.

The problem here is that other countries too have discovered that the US dollar is worthless. The Chinese are buying as much as they can. The British have warned that the real worth of the dollar is zero, nothing.

Just like a cuckolded husband is the last to know, so is the people of the country with the crazy president. Perhaps they simply don’t WANT to know. Their money is worthless. The bubble will burst any time now. There will be a Depression II that will make the first one seem like a joke.

The future? Think Mad Max with cannibals.

Run to the hills.

Hmmm.  Okay, so the argument is:  1) the Chinese own everything.  2) another Depression
is coming.  Just why in the hell would our creditors, who have invested in us, allow us
to go into a Depression?  Do creditors want their investments to succeed or to fail? 

I ask:  have you made doomsday prophecies in the past and been disappointed?  I mean, did
you think that Bill Clinton was going to declare martial law, or that the Soviets were
going to defeat Ronald Reagan’s anti-communist initiatives?  Have you been predicting
a great depression/sky-is-falling situation for awhile now?  I’m just curious, because
a number of people I know prefer apocalyptic futures to mundane ones and every few years
they switch their theory for believing why the future now will be worse then ever.  Are
you one of them, or have you just now come to the conclusion that this one presidency
will break our nation for all time to come?

For clarification (if necessary):  my last comment was addressed to Craig Senna.

Tobias may be pleased to learn that President Wiener has merely condensed maybe a half-century’s decline into two measly terms.

Yeah, Timon, America, the New Rome will destroy the Persians just like the Old Rome did.

What a bunch of idiots you all are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman-Persian_Wars

Patrick Hall:  ERRR.  The Romans had to deal with the Persians because when the Romans didn’t deal with
them, the Persians (or Parthians, as the case was) swooped in and tried to pick off the
Empire’s eastern provinces.  Of course the Romans never definitively defeated the
Persians, but they were definitely a persistent threat.  If your point is that the current
Iranian regime is not a threat, then you’d best not draw comparisons to the situation
that obtained between Rome and Parthia/Persia.  Some threats have no long-term solution.
Instead you simply have to deal with them time and time again, as the Chinese have had
to deal with the peoples of the steppes, etc. 

So the Roman/Persian analogy says absolutely nothing about whether a strike against the
current Iranian regime would be just.  As for Timon’s point, I never read his posts, so
I don’t know whether he’s serious or ironic in that post.

Reg Stocking:  I have been listening to Chicken Littles for a long time.  First it was
Bill Clinton was the Antichrist (Waco and Oklahoma City were just the beginnings of the
Apocalypse), then it was Y2K, then there was supposed to be martial law after September
11th, the Iraq War was supposed to result in numerous September 11ths (because the threat
has never been greater than *right*this*minute*dontcha*know), then Hurrican Katrina was somehow going to result in the dissolution of the country into absolute anarchy and a race war.  Oh, and global
warming is responsible for our erratic weather, such as blizzards and cold winters.  Just
wait for the Superstorms!

Yet somehow the human race and American people just keep slogging through it.  Over at Chronicles, there
is an article about how the weak dollar is leading to an upswing in manufacturing as
we export more manufactured goods to foreign countries.  Small manufacturers actually
would like to see the dollar stay weak (relative to other currencies, that is) for awhile
so they can shore up more of the international market.  For whatever that’s worth
(probably little to you, as it is not sheer pessimism).

Sheer pessimism!?!  Somewhere I recently read that the price of moving a container of freight from Shanghai to New York has multiplied by four from 2001 to now.  What with the decline in the value of the dollar it portends a revival of American industry, since importation is getting expensive.  I’d much rather buy American.  Who knows, we may even start growing apples in Washington rather than importing them from exotic New Zealand.

The point I was trying to make previously is that Iran has a perfectly valid reason for wanting the Bomb, whether admitting it or not.  They’re not just Muslim madmen; they really do have armed rivals and enemies.

Back in 1966, I think it was, the CIA blew up the Boeing 707 Homi Bhabha was riding in to stop India from gaining nuclear weapons.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke

India’s nuclear weapons program was started at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Trombay. In the mid-1950s India acquired dual-use technologies under the “Atoms for Peace” non-proliferation program, which aimed to encourage the civil use of nuclear technologies in exchange for assurances that they would not be used for military purposes. There was little evidence in the 1950s that India had any interest in a nuclear weapons program, according to Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1). Under the “Atoms for Peace” program, India acquired a Cirus 40 MWt heavy-water-moderated research reactor from Canada and purchased from the U.S. the heavy water required for its operation. In 1964, India commissioned a reprocessing facility at Trombay, which was used to separate out the plutonium produced by the Cirus research reactor. This plutonium was used in India’s first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, described by the Indian government as a “peaceful nuclear explosion.”

India has not used its nukes and we did not persue a ground invasion. Iran is many times larger than Iraq and a ground invasion would, I say, cost billions and thousands of lives. We did not invade or bomb N. Korea and now sanctions are being lifted and N Korea will likely be taken off the terror list, even though Bush promised N Korea would not attain nukes.

Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200.  Occupation deaths are over 50 per month. So 4 months of occupation equals one invasion in the case of Iraq.

Iran causes our occupation deaths in Iraq to be higher per month.  We would get something for a ground invasion of Iran, to remove its nuclear program and to surround and blockade Pakistan to give up its nukes and bin Laden.

One carrier has over 5000 lives.  A ground invasion that cost 10 times Iraq will be less than losing one carrier to Iran’s Russian Sunburn anti-ship missiles.  Leaving Iran’s theocracy in power will lead to their taking reprisal at some time, and right away in Iraq. 

Once we invade Iran, there is no neighboring country that can effectively support an insurgency in Iran.

Iran’s government is an unpopular theocracy.  We can replace it with a secular government and have support of many.  We will be fighting for our values in that case instead of against them as in Iraq and Afghanistan, each Islamic Republics.

Khomeini designated the US as an enemy of Islam in his last will.  That makes Iran at war with us forever, as long as it is an Islamic Republic.

If more than one or two such nations goes nuclear, and such “leaks” happen, we won’t know whom to retaliate against in the event a nuclear weapon is used against our people. -=Roach=-

Huh? Terrorists are always happy to claim who was responsible for the attack.

Roach’s arguments are disturbing on both the moral and political level. They are disturbing on the moral level since thousands of innocent Iranians will die only because of A)the mere potential of their leadership to misuse atomic weapons at some indeterminate time in the future, not becasue of a clear and present danger. B) the disregard of the publicly disclosed conclusion drawn by our own intelligence services that Iran is not developing atomic weapons.
and C) the further disregard of the Iranians’ right, under the non-proliferation treaty they have signed, to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
In other words, they are being condemned in advance for actions they are not capable of undertaking as well as for actions they have never even threatened to undertake.
Roach thus stands traditional morality on its head, leading us into the dangerous zone described by C.S. Lewis in the Abolition of Man, in which the first principles of morality, from which all other value judgements flow, are discarded in the favor of a moral relativism stripped of any moorings. There is nothing in the TAO, as Lewis called these ground values exemplified in the moral codes of the world’s great religions, that would justify murdering thousands of men, women, and children because of the hypothetical potential of their leaders to engage in nuclear mischief.
If the large-scale deaths and intimidation associated with weapons of mass destruction were really the ultimate goal of the Iranian regime, bioagents are already available and much harder to trace than any nuclear footprint.
But what they are seeking, as any one can see, is a measure of political and strategic stature commensurate to their size, social development, and sense of history. This would mean becoming a small regional counterweight to the decisive nuclear, conventional military, and political weight represented by the United States and its allies.
The Iranians rightly understand that just having the capability to develop nuclear weapons, even if they never do, will substantially enhance their regional influence and their own security. They no doubt also believe that their role as champions of the Palestinians in the occupied territories will be enhanced as well.
Roach does not see this as a politically justified goal under the prevailing world order established by the United States.
But Iran and an increasing number of countries do. That is the reality we face. And to believe that ongoing bellicosity and preemptive bombing campaigns will check these desires is both naive and foolhardy. They will only harden resentments and fuel even more intensified efforts to develop nuclear capability.
In another brilliant work, Mere Christianity, Lewis discussed the innate need for justice and fair play in humans that provides a clue to the meaning of the universe. Before we wade any deeper into military interventionism in the middle east to maintain our strategic monopoly, we would do well to consider what notions of fair play and justice are at issue for our adverseries there. They are, after all, no less human than we are, however demonically we have depicted them.
One issue that we know of, the dispossession of the Palestinians, hardly registers with us but is of crucial importance to them. What would happen if we took some serious political risks, as opposed to unilateral military strikes, to bring a just solution to the plight of these wretched people.
We just might find the level of suspicion and resentment directed against us diminishing to the same extent true justice takes hold. 
And then we just might find that we have far less to fear than we might have imagined.

Old Atlantic:  I don’t know—extremists from Central Asia (Uzbeks, Uyghurs) might enter
Iran through Turkmenistan.

Answer: conquer Turkmenistan.

If I have to believe Christopher Roach - and I find him more and more irrelevant- I urge Iran to go nuclear as fast as possible. It is the only way to keep adventurers and sycophants, like Roach and others at harbor. And to prove what I’m saying, I invite Christopher Roach, or any body else, to make the same kind of lecture but this time not about Iran but,say, about North Korea or, say, Russia. Both ,as you know, have nukes. So, there you are!

I’ve written some of my thoughts on the topic in a long article in TAC <http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_22/article.html> So I won’t repeat them here. But I do have to respond to a few points you make:
1. I’m not sure where you get your definition of “realism”. But no realist assumes that governments pursue policies based exclusively on “territorial self-defense reason”. What realists would argue is that a government would risk a nuclear war—which is a form of national suicide—only in support of the most valuable core national interests. Which explains why China under Mao—basically an asylum led by a deranged leader—never risked a nuclear war (despite hysterical forecasts that sounded like yours vis-a-vis Iran.)
2. In the Middle East the main deterrence to a nuclearized Iran would be Israel that indeed has nuclear weapons. In South Asia India is playing the same role with regard to Pakistan.
3. Iran, even under the Mullahs, has been a rational actor. It didn’t attack Iraq but was invaded by Iraq. It cooperated with the U.S. over Afghanistan. It supports proxies in the region in order to strengthen its strategic position. And let’s not forget that it was the Bush Administration that destroyed the main player that counterbalanced Iran in the Gulf-- Saddam’s Iraq.
4. Both Israel and the U.S. would prefer that Iran wouldn’t have nuclear military capability not because Iran is “crazy” or because it would sell WMD to terrorists, but because it would make it difficult for them to impose their will on Iran, do regime change there, etc. But you don’t go to war to prevent a country gaining such a leverage (the reason we didn’t go to war against North Korea, Pakistan, China, Soviet Union) when you have the power to deter that country.
5. I’m not sure exactly how patriotism and traditional conservatism go together with the idea of going to war in order to protect access to oil resources, especially since the U.S. is actually not dependent on oil from that region but on Canada, Mexico and Hugo Chavez. And in any case, even a nuclear Iran would need to continue selling its oil.

Another low-level sloganeering piece amateurishly concocting suggestio falsi with supressio veri for the feeble-minded.  Not worth the time to read, not worth the effort to debunk.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Roach, patientia nostra?

Old Atlantic said:

Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200.  Occupation deaths are over 50 per month. So 4 months of occupation equals one invasion in the case of Iraq.

And thus you support the occupation of Iran, a nation four times the size of Iraq? The Iraq War has riven the country in half, destroyed our international credibility, “broken” our military, and bankrupted the treasury. That’s not enough for you, so you want to do the same thing times four?

Tobias said:

Reg Stocking:  I have been listening to Chicken Littles for a long time.  First it was
Bill Clinton was the Antichrist (Waco and Oklahoma City were just the beginnings of the
Apocalypse), then it was Y2K, then there was supposed to be martial law after September
11th, the Iraq War was supposed to result in numerous September 11ths (because the threat
has never been greater than *right*this*minute*dontcha*know), then Hurrican Katrina was somehow going to result in the dissolution of the country into absolute anarchy and a race war.  Oh, and global
warming is responsible for our erratic weather, such as blizzards and cold winters.  Just
wait for the Superstorms!

Would those include the Chicken Littles who tell us that New York will be vaporized and the women of Minneapolis will be forced into burkhas by a vast Army of the Caliphate unless America keeps invading basket-case middle eastern countries that just happen to 1) have oil and 2) be unfriendly to Israel?

“Old Atlantic:  I don’t know—extremists from Central Asia (Uzbeks, Uyghurs) might enter
Iran through Turkmenistan.
Posted by Tobias on Jul 13, 2008.
“

Iran is sponsoring insurgents in Iraq as a state with resources and money.  Its not just a place to enter from, its the major supporter.

“And thus you support the occupation of Iran, a nation four times the size of Iraq?”

Posted by Nergol on Jul 14, 2008.

http://server32.irna.com/occasion/ertehal/english/will/lmnew1.htm

Last Will of founding Supreme Leader Khomeini designates US as “enemy of Islam”.

“ The USA is the foremost enemy of Islam. It is a terrorist state by nature that has set fire to everything everywhere and its ally, the international Zionism does not stop short of any crime to achieve its base and greedy desires, crimes that the tongue and pen are ashamed to utter or write. “

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution.html

“Article 107

After the demise of the eminent marji’ al-taqlid and great leader of the universal Islamic revolution, and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatullah al-’Uzma Imam Khumayni - quddisa sirruh al-sharif - who was recognized and accepted as marji’ and Leader by a decisive majority of the people,”

Articles 4,5, 107, 110 and others make Khomeini’s last will in effect the law of Iran that can never be changed, just like his fatwa against Rushdie can’t be rescinded.  Thus Iran is in Holy War with the US forever.  The last will also designates the US as Great Satan.  That means Iran can use nukes against the US because you can use nukes against Satan.

Roach,

Interesting analysis.  I think you’re both right and wrong.  On the one hand, nuclear (and conventional military) proliferation should concern us all and conservatives risk loosing credibility if they deny something so obvious.  Moreover (and as you pointed out) there are important differences between a country like Iran having nuclear weapons and Russia and this must factor into any rational analysis of the situation and subsequent policy decisions.

On the other hand, the problem of nuclear and conventional armaments can only be solved by strict adherence to the natural moral law (the Tao) and the constitution, by honesty and integrity from Washington, and by an honest recognition that the US government has been a major source and enabler of self-righteous error, instability and murderous evil in the world and that other countries – including are enemies – have legitimate concerns and grievances and just interests of their own.

Practically, this means no war with Iran or any other country that does not aggress against the US.  There are, however, any number of other policy options (carrots and sticks) available to address the real problem of arms (conventional and nuclear) proliferation and these should be vigorously pursued – but only within the moral framework provided above.  And it should always be remembered that minding our own business (like the Swiss) is sometimes the best option.

Unfortunately, if the last several decades are any guide I wouldn’t expect too much in the way of moral and constitutional scruples from the lying rascals in Washington, as this once “great and proud nation” slides further into the neo-Marxist abyss – with all that this entails.

Roach, in sum I think you’re right to be concerned about weapons proliferation and I find your patriotic instincts laudable.  However, I think your thought suffer from two serious errors: (1) you cling to the romantic notion that the US is still great, when the evidence suggests otherwise and (2) you seem to have difficulty accepting that we (including the government) must always strive to do what is morally right and good, even at our own peril.

I think Joseph doesn’t quite get Roach’s basic point.  Even if someone proves its immoral, we should stop Iran or other 3rd worlders nuking us, because we is us.

With regard to nuclear proliferation, that genie slipped from its bottle, two years ago, and the U.S. did not lift a finger, except to extend another handful of cash to North Korea.

If we must deal with direct threats, then the time has come to invade Mexico.

And is it not better that one man should be slain by subterfuge and duplicity to prevent the loss of thousands on the battlefield?

Must that old and jaded liberalist canard, now mechanized, for our convenience be trotted out again?

Mr. Roach and his proponents are mere dilettantes playing at philosophic propaganda with predisposed assertions that bear no connection to any reality commonly acknowledged by individuals conversant with the subject and theory.

The current society and political system of the U.S. have always prevented it from maintaining a coherent foreign policy.

“Iraq, acting rationally, should have pulled out of Kuwait in 1991.”

Roach’s above statement, precludes further commentary, as dialogue between participants of
disproportionate erudition is futile.

For weeks, Mr. Roach has attempted the impossible, seeking to reconcile Paleoism with National-Greatness Conservatism.

Essentially, he desires America to be the most powerful nation in the world, but not a governing empire—an impossible nullibicity.

Could some adult please put a stop to this?

If the mullahs have not by now procured something that is capable of doing so much damage that even US American elites recognise it as a deterrent, they must be raving mad.

Kim (a rational actor, is he not) bought some peace and quiet by exploding something - maybe a trainload of TNT - apparently nobody really wants to know, whether N-Korea mastered the bomb or not.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Roach, patientia nostra? Translation: don’t feed the trolls.

The basic point of the article is that 3rd world in equilibrium has a level of entropy or chaos that doesn’t let them maintain orderly control over nuclear weapons.  Thus to prevent them being used on us, we have to keep them out of their hands.

Its a Detroit, New Orleans, Zimbabwe, 9/11, etc. situation.  We can provide the order at a cost and keep them from using nukes.  But if we don’t expend the energy, their entropy will cause the nukes to be used on us.  The third world does every bad thing it can, unless we stop it.  That’s the world we live in.  Ergo, we have to stop Iran getting nukes and take them out of the hands of Pakistan.

That means invading Iran now while the battle phase deaths are between 200 and 20,000 not later when they have nukes.

Old Atlantic:  Yes, I know that the Iranians fund the Iraqi militias.  I was addressing your
claim that if we conquered Iran there would not be any country from which more terrorists
might enter that country.  Wrong, for they might pour in through Central Asia.

“Would those include the Chicken Littles who tell us that New York will be vaporized and the women of Minneapolis will be forced into burkhas by a vast Army of the Caliphate unless America keeps invading basket-case middle eastern countries that just happen to 1) have oil and 2) be unfriendly to Israel? “

Yes, Nergol, it would include them.  Like Dick Cheney saying that the Iraqis were going
to bomb us from their country on the other side of the globe, etc.  Thanks for reminding
me of that one. 

Note:  I referred to this when I mentioned the Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Syndrome.  Even if the Iranians were
killing our servicemen in Iraq, many American civilians would be disinclined to believe it on account
of past lies propagated by the Administration.

“Wrong, for they might pour in through Central Asia.
Posted by Tobias on Jul 14, 2008. “

They would not have an adjacent country funding an insurgency and sending in advanced missiles or munitions to use against US forces as Iran does.  Yes, a few could wander in, this is not the same as a government like Iran’s with its resources.

I do not know whether karmic cleansing is the right expression for my proposal, but could someone responsible for this site please have an evaluation of the military problems along these lines published here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery07142008.html

This is why I advocate a draft of 2 million men.  In April 1917, the US had about 200,000 men in the army. By June 1918, it had 2 million, one million in France.  We can build up and invade in 6 months to a year. At a pinch, we can invade with what we have and basically abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, because we don’t need them for supply lines.  So we could do it now. 

But we should do a draft now and invade in 6 months to a year.  In the meantime, we can have Congress lay down conditions, appoint commissioners to meet in Geneva and give Iran a timetable.  I call this plan, Vote, Draft, Negotiate, Vote. Congress gets to vote in 6 months if Iran met the conditions or if war is authorized.

Old Atlantic:  You’re right, Turkmenistan would not become the “next Iran.” It would function
more like a Syria, with some interlopers coming through without govt. approval.

Pardon me but by the looks of the commentary here, it would appear that Taki might have also hired a neo-con or two in the restructuring. Just what we need, a draft of 2 million on the heels of one of the more extended poochings of the middle class in history.

Not that they don’t beg for it.

War and conquest, how thrilling....particularly with the genteel quality of modern mechanized warfare.

Tobias, good we agree on this point at least. 

Dirk W. Sabin, neocon to me means something like what Steve Sailer calls invade/invite the world.  I am for ending immigration to below 25,000 per year.

For the 3rd world and 1st world to have a MAD game theory equilibrium without nukes used requires they be part of a rational game equilibrium.  If the 3rd world is itself not rational or capable of committing to consistent strategies in a game, then you can’t have a game theory equilibrium of the MAD type.  That means we have to prevent them having nukes at all prior to their getting them as our only rational strategy left.  I think it would be possible to cast this into a formal theorem of game theory, that MAD is not a rational strategy with a non-rational actor and denying them nukes, when they are weak is the only rational strategy.

Old Atlantic,

Just out of curiosity, do other countries (or even the rest of the world in league against the US) get to vote, draft, negotiate, and vote because they is them and we is us?

The fundamental error of folks like you, Roach and the neocons is that you fail to understand or accept that a universal moral law exists, rooted in the very nature of things, and that it applies to all – including our perceived enemies and the US government.  This is the truth and there are consequences, grave and eternal ones, for failing to understand or accept this.  And that law only permits defensive and proportionate military action, as a last resort, in response to aggression that is of a grave, lasting and certain nature.  There is no substitute for trying to do what is right – death before dishonor.  Indeed, isn’t this what the U.S. military used to inculcate in its men?  Otherwise you are simply a bully – a self-righteous ideological one in the case of the neocons and a selfish and short-sighted one in the case of the so-called realists.  You simply can’t deprive a wife of her husband or a mother of her son because of some hypothetical or imagined threat or because of some post-enlightenment ideological nonsense.  Put simply, Attila the Hun and Trotsky were wrong and Benedict the 13th is right.

A few final points:

1. Have you considered the possibility that the Russians might say enough is enough and get into the mix or that we might actually get whipped by Iran?  What then?

2. It’s not only the third world that doesn’t maintain orderly control over nuclear weapons.  Wasn’t it only a year or so ago that the US air force “misplaced” several nuclear warheads?  Moreover, the US has been screwing things up and doing “bad things” and acting irrationally both home and abroad for decades.  Just a couple of things to keep in mind as the empire marches off to war to slaughter the savages.

3. Finally, in your world what would happen to folks like me who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to send their sons to kill and die for the glory of our neo-Marxist empire?  What if the mom’s and dad’s of America all yell a resounding “no!” to your proposed draft and proposed war of aggression against Iran, even if the congress and president say “yes”?

Other countries benefit by our action.  They are free riders to our keeping nukes out of 3rd world hands.

“Otherwise you are simply a bully – a self-righteous ideological one in the case of the neocons and a selfish and short-sighted one in the case of the so-called realists. “

MAD is an equilibrium outcome in a game with rational players.  If one has an irrational player that means they are a probability distribution instead of a calculation node.  So the 3rd world instead of being a rational player, i.e. calculator, is instead a per year probability of using or allowing nukes to be used. Moreover, as Roach pointed out, the per year probability will rise monotonically, i.e. go up and not go down.

So the probability per year will rise from whatever it is now with Pakistan and North Korea spreading know-how, which both have been caught in, to higher and higher levels.  Eventually we are nuked.

For the cost of a war with Iran after the battle phase with Iraq cost 200 lives we can deny Iran nukes and surround and blockade Pakistan to give up nukes.  Because the 3rd world is a random generator of using nukes instead of a rational player, this is our rational strategy.  This is close enough to be called a working theorem and proof in game theory that our rational course is to do a ground invasion of Iran.

Theorems are not bullying.  Moreover, this is not just morally allowable, but required because its been proven that it is morally required by the above proof.  Not invading Iran is what is unethical.  The free riders are free riders but that doesn’t mean we should let ourselves be nuked because free riders don’t get nuked either by our efforts.

Lets see now, “MAD, or Mutual Assured Destruction...is an , and we quote.... “equilibrium outcome in a game of rational players”. One wonders why the more scenic “Mexican Standoff is not used more.

Stockpiling magnificently expensive arms to an extent that one’s options are either not using them and watching one’s investment whither away, or using them and obliterating the taxpayer after picking his pockets to a fair-thee-well. Yes, how so very rational, giving rise to such thrilling Imperial arts as “Preemption”. “MAD” was the “Pass Go and Collect a hundred bucks cubed” that gave us the CIA, the veritable fount of rationality in what is otherwise a desert of collapsed civilization.

With rationality such as this, no wonder the irrational seems so widespread. Let us now speak of “realism”, in hushed tones and with all the gravitas possible whilst peering with steely eye out the gunport of the imagination.

I think Old Atlantic is spoofing. No one could seriously advocate a 2 million man draft. There is no money and there would be riots in the streets. And no one could possibly advocate a ground invasion of Iran and disarming Pakistan, a monumental and bloody undertaking if ever there was one, on the basis of game theory. Surely he is spoofing us.

Roach, isn’t David Horowitz and Front Page Mag hiring? I hear that is where disgruntled “paleos” often go when they have determined that their “fellow” paleos are pacifists and unpatriotic.

Red Phillips,

Witty comment that casts everything said in doubt.  But its not a spoof.
I heard the annual cost of 1 soldier is 120,000.  For 1 million that is 120 billion per year.  For 2 million that is 240 billion per year.  That is less than the FHLMC, FNMA bailout.

OA

Old Atlantic, you fit the “Perpetual war for perpetural peace” description to a T.  If your fever dream came true and the US centgov invaded Iran but found no WMD (that’s never happened before, of course), what should be the penalty paid by the invaders and their supporters, such as you? Restitution, trials, imprisonments, executions?  Your game-theory is so bloodless and abstract (for you) - what are you willing to put to the touch to back your beliefs up?  I also would like you to answer Joseph’s question #3 regarding those who would oppose your schemes.

“3. Finally, in your world what would happen to folks like me who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to send their sons to kill and die for the glory of our neo-Marxist empire?  What if the mom’s and dad’s of America all yell a resounding “no!” to your proposed draft and proposed war of aggression against Iran, even if the congress and president say “yes”?
Posted by Joseph on Jul 14, 2008. “

Decision to answer a draft is made by the draftee not the parent.  If the draftee doesn’t report, its the draftee who is found and made to serve or punished.  Most will serve, because they know Iran is already at war with us in the mind of their theocracy.

“what should be the penalty paid by the invaders and their supporters, such as you? Restitution, trials, imprisonments, executions?  Your game-theory is so bloodless and abstract (for you) - what are you willing to put to the touch to back your beliefs up? “

What punishment was given in Sep 1939 for those who had delayed stopping Hitler from when it was easy?  What bond have those who stop us from disarming Iran posted if they are wrong and we are nuked?  What bond did they post in 1998 when Pakistan did its nuclear test?  What about those who stopped us in 1945 from keeping Russia from getting nukes and occupying Eastern Europe and spreading communism to China?  One penalty is shame, and a willingness to reason based on evidence.  The law in Iran is that Iran is at war with the US as the enemy of Islam and the Great Satan. That is the law.  Now what penalty should be paid by those who keep us from winning this war now when battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200? 

Pakistan and North Korea were found selling their arms to who had money.  Small countries can’t afford a nuclear industrial complex unless they sell what they make, it costs too much to maintain. Add subs and missiles. Iran will have to take its nukes, put them on missiles on subs and sell those to Chavez, who does want to nuke us as well.

What will you say when 5 little nations have a fleet of subs with nuclear weapons off our coasts and demand 25 percent of our annual GDP? Will you post a bond for that?

“What about those who stopped us in 1945 from keeping Russia from getting nukes and occupying Eastern Europe and spreading communism to China?”

So we should have invaded Russia? Yeah, you’re spoofing. Good one though, OA. You had some of them fooled, but now I’m on to you. For future reference, that part about the subs off our coast was funny but too out there. You may want to tone it down a bit in the future. That is too obviously outlandish, and you give yourself away.

Yes RP, you can see right through me and 6 feet below me you can.  But Pakistan is working on subs and missiles and warheads to go on missiles to go on subs.  They have been caught selling all they can. 

On 9/11, Pakistan had 38 billion in external debt and gross exports were less than interest on their debt.  They couldn’t refinance because they were under US sanctions.  Their central bank governor said their financial situation was untenable on 9/11. 

Together, maybe we can see through this to a policy to stop the spread of nukes in time, by a ground invasion of Iran, and then surrounding and blockading Pakistan to give up its nukes.

OA, the Iranian gov says it has no nukes, our NIE said the program was abandoned in 03, El Baradei and his people say they cannot find evidence.  I don’t believe that we have the right to disarm Iran even if they did have the weapons, but where is your evidence that they do?  So we invade another country under false premises and then go “Oops, we are ashamed” when we find nothing? I disagree with your historical claims above, but that is for another thread.  You posit nightmare scenarios as if they were fact, and then proceed to commit the US to war.  There can be no rational discussion because your setting does not exist.  Iran can claim it is at war wiht whoever it pleases, but it has yet to publicly allocate $400 million for the overthrow of the US goventment.  If the Iranians were giving the Iraqi patriots advanced anti-tank and anti-air weaponry, we would be suffering armor and air losses that cripple our entire criminal enterprise in Iraq.  As pointed out by another poster above, we are after Iran because it has oil, is at odds with the Israeli gov, and may I add, gone off the dollar for oil payments.  And you still haven’t answered Joseph’s question #3.  Thank you for your reply, but I too think you are a japester who likes mordant satire.

The point is to invade before they get nukes.  They have worked on them. They bought stuff from Pakistan. They are violating the law with their P2 centrifuges in safe houses around Tehran. 

I did answer Joseph #3.  Nothing happens to parents of a draft resister.  Its the young man’s responsibility to report. 

Also let me point out in reply to a comment above from Simon Tregarth, good game theory is bloodless. Bad game theory
leads to much blood.  Assuming MAD applies to Iran when its already designated us an Enemy of Islam and the Great Satan in the Last Will and Testament of its founding Supreme Leader is bad game theory. That’s not what one’s rational game theory partner says when the equilibrium outcome is a standoff.  Thus its bad game theory to assume rationality in Iran when its own law says we are the Enemy of Islam and the Great Satan.

Mr. Roach’s comments display the same cultural arrogance that is fostered by the neocon’s: Only Americans (and Israelis)are rational people and all the other nations are a bunch of irrational underlings, who need to be kept in check. Considering that we have used that attitude to justify our occupation of half the known world and wholesale killing of millions I am just wondering, when we will recognize that other nations have the same right to pursue their happiness and the right to defend themselves. With respect to the notion that nuclear weapons are not safe in their hands: How safe do you think our nuclear know-how has been from espionage (e.g. by Israel)?

First five navy phantom nuclear fleets, and now undetectable Iranian safehouses.  OA, you have quite an imagination, but you and I occupy different realities.  Good luck to you and yours.  ST

Together, maybe we can see through this to a policy to stop the spread of nukes in time, by a ground invasion of Iran, and then surrounding and blockading Pakistan to give up its nukes.

Pakistan’s nukes are in the 20-30 kiloton range.  There is no need for a blockade, an invasion is possible when facing such a weak nuclear power, especially in your scenario of drafting a 2 million man army.

Any way, what la-la land are you living in?  There’s no way the American public could be convinced to go to total war.  Total war would inevitably lead to nuclear war, and nuclear war means the annihilation of most of the world for the sake of eliminating all competition to what is left of America.  The American public, and leadership, is not prepared to do that.

The goal of America right now is to win the economic race against China and the other East Asian economies, and that can only be done through a cultural reawakening, which is what this site is about.

Old Atlantic,

I had no idea that you were in possession of apodictic certainty regarding complex and unprecedented human behavior.  Indeed, I had no idea that entire societies, composed of men made in the image of God, are nothing but irrational “random generators”.  How stupid of me to think that free agency and the complexity and subjectivity of human relations will forever frustrate all efforts at predictive certitude in human affairs.  And to think that physicists and chemists, skilled practitioners of real and mature sciences, are still struggling to predict and explain dumb and comparatively simple things, like the motions of electrons.  By the way, what’s the success rate for your geopolitical predictions?  Did you get the Iraq war right?  How about the fall of the Soviet Union?  I fear for the day when your “proof” forms the basis for social, military and police policy here at home or forms the basis for global policy against the US.

More importantly, for the sake of argument, let’s grant your claim of predictive certitude.  In point of fact, nothing of moral significance follows from “knowing” that some country, someday, for some reason will try and launch a nuclear attack against the United States.  Until the blanks are filled in, nothing of special significance follows.  The principles of a just war require much more than a vague “certainty” that something really, really, really bad is going to happen someday.  For example, the question of the attempted attack’s success springs to mind; maybe those imaginary Pakistani SLBM’s will always implode just prior to launch – a real possibility given how irrational all those third world folks are.

OA, you’ve got to be pulling our leg

Roach and those who share his wild view of the world,seem oblivious of the fact that all Empires derive their power from their wealth...and one has only to look at the news programs with tales of a collapsing US economy,and a growing social crisis in the USA to see how wild and improbably silly all their wild tales and plans for an even greater US Empire...get over it ..the Empire is on it’s deathbed..even as we watch..and the money is GONE GONE GONE..we now await the post-American world....any day now the Boys from the IMF will have to secure the US dollar!!so much for talk of a draft of 2 million boys to pursue dreams of war in the sands of Central Asia..have the Israelis bewitched so many in the USA??..some power that Lobby !!

“now undetectable Iranian safehouses.  “ Simon Tregarth

Search Iran P2 Tehran

and you get many recent articles. See Daily Telegraph in the UK

Search “outskirts of Tehran” in
Telegraph article Con Coughlin, 7 7 2008

Joseph, consider the following argument.  This addresses the issue of ethical decision making under uncertainty.

The 3rd world is not a moral being that is responsible for its action.  Its a random generator of outcomes. We are the morally responsible being.  It is thus
our behavior that has a moral responsibility.  We can stop the 3rd world as a random generator from getting and spreading nukes until they are used.  If we don’t
use that power while its easy, then we are immoral and unethical.

Old Atlantic,

Many of the terms in your argument are too vague; what, exactly, is the definition of the third world?  Every premise in your argument is either false or begs the question.  There is no difference in kind between the third world and the communist USA; there’s no guarantee that we can stop the third world from getting nukes; in this latest argument you make no mention of Iran, a 2 million man draft and preemptive war; hence, this argument necessarily fails to prove that wee need a 2 million man draft for a preemptive war against Iran.  Finally, until you falsify the principles of a just war (something that can’t be done) you will always fail to convince me.

Now consider that the USA introduced nuclear weapons to the world, is the only country to ever use them in anger, has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, has recently loosened the controls on their use, and “lost” a few of them about a year ago.  One the other hand, the rest of the world, including the so-called third world, has a perfect 60 year record of non-use.  Finally, there are natural incentives / dis-incentives that make it very unlikely that a country would be foolish enough to use nuclear weapons preemptively against the US: (1) if they launched an attack that would guarantee their total annihilation by US retaliatory strikes; and (2) if they turned over a weapon to a terrorist that would make them subject to blackmail / takeover by the terrorist.  All of this suggests to me that a policy short of preventive war can successfully deter nations from attacking the US and that other countries should be just as worried about a US attack as the US is worried about an attack from them.  Of course all of this assumes other people are rational agents, something you deny.  And on that note, I suspect there’s nothing left for us to discuss.

Moreover, you have yet to fasify the principles of a just war and/or show that your call for

OA, thank you for the info re: the safehouses.  Pardon me for not becoming hysterical about unsourced quotes from “Western intel” - sounds like the rock-solid research done prior to the current Iraqi holocaust.  Let me know when there is hard evidence of treaty violations, even though we have no right to interfere with the Iranians as long as they do not threaten us in any realistic way. Given the job the State does to protect ordinary blokes like myself, I will be checking for the hostile naval flotilla lurking off the east coast when I’m in the area.  ST

Right now, Israel is the only regional state in the Mideast with nuclear weapons. As long as that’s extant, Israel needn’t give an inch in “negotiations” with its neighbors, periodically ravage everything in fighter-bomber range and treat the Palestineans as it wishes. Another nuclear power would change the equation considerably - and forever.

That’s the only issue here.

The idea that an Iran packing nuclear hardware would endanger the United States in any way is sheer, idiotic fantasy. Regardless of the difficulty of delivering such weapons to targets, one simple fact remains from the U.S./Soviet Cold War: No nation can employ nuclear weapons without risking suicide.

We are bumbling toward yet another Mideast quagmire, one in which, evidently, we intend to help Israel bomb Iran out of its bomb-making capacity and appetite. And if they try it again, a few years down the road, we’ll bomb them again. And again. And again. ...On into eternity. We’ll have to; after the first bomb falls, we’ll be locked into the savage, dead-end process. We will no longer have a choice. Our powers that be seemingly have sworn a blood oath to never negotiate with anyone Israel deems a foe. And as we’ve been told, real me go to Tehran.

No one sane can argue in favor of yet another nation acquiring nuclear weapons. But keeping them out of the hands of sovreign nations is formidable. Unless we’re willing to bomb and terrify any nation, anywhere, that seeks them, we can’t accomplish nonproliferation. No one country or group of countries is that powerful, even in the unlikely chance they could coalesce into a truly united front. And we could maintain this consensus-by-terror only for awhile. Then we would have to bomb again. And again. Despite Robert Oppenheimer’s punchy observation, controlling nuclear weapons was futile even the day after Trinity: The genie was out of the bottle the moment the first device turned the desert floor to glass.

It has been decided that our “democracy” will not talk, will not negotiate. We will bomb instead.

If so, we deserve the fruits of our savagery.

“, I will be checking for the hostile naval flotilla lurking off the east coast when I’m in the area.  ST
Posted by Simon Tregarth on Jul 15, 2008.”

Russia and China have them already, as you know.  In 1945, Russia had no subs with nuclear missiles.

“In September of 1955, the Soviet Union was the first country to launch a ballistic missile from a submarine.[citation needed]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_missile

But then its too late.  The time to stop this is when battle phase deaths are 200.

You can search

Pakistan warhead submarine

if you want to see information on Pakistan’s work on putting nukes on subs.

http://www.nukewatch.org/media/more_media/03-00-01/PMPNOS.html

So Mr. Roach is now using the leftist causes of nuclear proliferation and the immorality of MAD (Mutally
Assured Distruction)to make his interventionist points? Along with writing in bold too so in case we
don’t forget it? (I hear writing in caps works real well also).

What’s the point of even having nuclear weapons if MAD doesn’t apply to them? Our secruity is directly
tied to them which is why North Korea, despite being ruled by a madman, has not tried to lob one towards
LA. Nor have the Chinese, who bomb was developed during the madness of the Culutral Revolution. Even
despite Pakistan’s chronic instability, has not threatened control of its nukes. It seems that having
nukes does focus one’s responsibilities which is why the fear of “loose nukes” (which is not an
irrational fear) whether through Pakistan, North Korea or the states of the former Soviet Union, has
not become a nightmare scenario.

Nukes are about security and status. In a way they provide their own logic of stability. Regimes like
North Korea and Iran wants nukes because they protect the ruling regime and provide security from attack.
Such nations have figured out (thanks to this Administration) that the U.S. treats you a lot differently
when have nukes then when you don’t have them which is why Iran wants to build one. The idea that Iran
wants to build such a weapon to launch to watch it go BOOM! on Israel is sheer sillyness. Iran knows
if it does this Israel will strike back with everything its got and the Islamic Revolution becomes vaporized. This
is MAD in a nutshell. It’s also why Israel does nto want Iran to have a bomb because it would have to
treat Iran, Hezbollah and Syria differently if Iran security was based on a nuke rather than old U.S.
warplanes it doesn’t have the spare parts to operate and would blown out of the sky by Israeli jets.
Israel doesn’t like nations they can’t bully with their own substantianl nuclear deterrance. Thus peace
in the Middle East is more enhanced in this manner rather than by having an Israel that can strike its neighbors
with impunity.

Since you taken with left then on the issue of nuclear weapon Chris, I’m curious what your next column will be about? The benefits of unilateral nuclear disarment? Or will it be “Let’s Bring Back the Nuclear Freeze!”?

We can take our policy towards Russia and say it relies on the lemma that Mutual Assured Destruction implies Mutual Assured Survival, or MADisMAS.

In the case of the 3rd world,
Intervention Only Assures Survival (IONAS) or Prevention ONly Assures Survival, or PONAS is the name of the lemma.  To remind you, the 3rd world is a random variable not a rational actor, so prevention only assures survival.  Failure to prevent assures destruction, FtoPAD.

Mr. Roach,

You are wasting your time. Most people here are unable to understand Islam, will not look into what the radical Twelver Shias believe, will ideologically ignore all information on past statements by Rafsanjani and Ahmadenejhad on using nukes.
That the Twelvers believe taht the Mulsim messiah will come when teh Islamic world is irrelevant. That Rafsanjani indicated that MAD will not apply to Iran is ignored.
For them the only thing that matters is ensuring American isolationism. And for a subset, the destruction of Israel is a bonus.

At least two people posting here would have prefered Soviet domination of Eurasia to America getting involved, imagining that we would never be conquered or Finlandized.

Two others are loyal to violent anti-Zionism, and not to the US.

“At least two people posting here would have preferred Soviet domination of Eurasia to America getting involved, imagining that we would never be conquered or Finlandized.”

Pardon me if I am being presumptuous, but I suspect one of the two people being referred to is me. And perhaps the other is Sean Scallon. RonL, please explain to me a plausible scenario whereby America would have been conquered. Was Russia going to send troops across the Bering Straight? Paratroop them into the Heartland? Invade Miami Beach via Cuba? The notion is just silly.

Of course I think Soviet domination of Eurasia would have been tragic, but it is not our job to prevent that anymore than it is the job of the Republic of Cameroon. Who gave us this responsibility? I don’t recall anything at all in the Constitution about our military protecting Europe.

That the Roach/RonL position presupposes an unnatural role for America in the world seems to me not disputable. How is this conservative? Please explain. It is the international equivalent of megalomania.

Finland acted as it did on the basis of weakness. America would be adopting the position of non-intervention, not based on weakness but on strength. Knowing we are too strong to be significantly messed with.

Thanks again, OA, for the sub update.  Still nothing to indicate that now or in the future the Paks will attack the US (although I am concerned about the USA’s tiny, undefunded military being able to protect the shoreline).  Re: penalties for not lashing out at enemies, real or perceived: there is never a penalty for the State’s bungling either way, unless the State is overthrown (but even then it’s ‘here comes the new boss, same as the old boss’).  The State is always held to a lower standard, and then given more money and more power. Rather than go after boogie men of the future how about some help to diminish the toll of the US abortion holocaust?  RonL, I believe it is A Lieberman’s party (third largest in Israel) that is just as rabid sounding as the most bloodthirsty Moslem.  Are you concerned about the 150 to 400 plus nuclear weapons (with delievery mechanisms) the Israeli centgov possesses?  I find it interesting how you equate anti-Zionism with anti-Americanism.  What do you think about the Sampson option, RonL?  Shouldn’t the Israeli centgov be disarmed?  ST

RonL, OA and Roach,,

This is my last post in this thread.

All men, including our so-called enemies and US government officials, share a common and rational nature; as such all men, including our so-called enemies and US government officials, are subject to the natural moral law – with all that this entails.  So, folks like RonL, Roach and Old Atlantic need to start holding the US government to the same moral standards that you hold your neighbor and the so-called enemies of the US too.  This is the beginning of wisdom in all things political – to recognize and accept that your government is under the same moral law as all people and all governments.

The next thing folks like you, Roach and Old Atlantic need to learn and accept is that the United States government of today (roughly since Wilson) is a force for neo-Marxist and self-indulgent evil both here and abroad and that the US government is fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy.  There’s no crime you can accuse other governments of that the US government isn’t morally complicit in too; the difference between the US government and other governments is one of bloody degree and artful versus crude methods and propaganda.  Incidentally, the crimes of the US government include, for example, supporting and enabling the very Muslim’s that you apparently think are on the verge of conquering the world.  Amazing isn’t it that the rational and honorable freedom fighters of the recent past are today’s irrational monsters that threaten to enslave us all.  Who knows, maybe Orwell was right and RonL, Roach and OA are wrong.

Once RonL, Roach and OA understand and accept all of this, then we can all begin to have a serious discussion, worthy of real conservatives, about what needs to be done both here and abroad.  Finally, and for whatever it’s worth, as a former neo-con and young man who’s dream it was to fly combat missions for the empire I can personally attest to how long it might take and how difficult it might be to come to terms with all of this.

This makes sense: The real motive for attacking Iran may be to deepen U.S. engagement in the Middle East. After all, we can’t leave the farm if the shacks are burning down.

Who’ll feed the hogs?

Former intelligence officer Ray McGovern has an interesting piece on this tack over at Antiwar.com:

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/07/15/candidates-punt-on-iraq-israel/

Forget the phantom nukes and the missile panics: Our dear li’l allies in the region don’t want us to quit the party. They only have six months left of their Bush/Cheney puppet regime, McCain has as much chance of being elected as Stephen Hawking winning a decathlon, and American public support of our Grand Imperium has tubbed.

But a fresh war? Against a real enemy? We’re trapped all over again.

On with the show!

“Still nothing to indicate that now or in the future the Paks will attack the US “ Simon Tregarth.

Pakistan has links to 9/11, and to terrorism before and since.  Its supported al Qaeda.  It helps kill Americans.

Ever heard of Daniel Pearl? Killed in Pakistan while investigating Pakistan ties to 9/11.

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Read Christina Lamb on Pakistan at UK Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article607597.ece

Pakistan likes to kill Americans.

OA, would you then agree with me that the US centgov should stop stealing from the taxpayer and eliminate all foreign aid to Pakistan?  Dan Pearl was one man murdered by unknown parties - the testimony obtained at Gitmo via torture is tainted. The Pak centgov has killed or turned over to the US centgov more AQ suspects than any other foreign country.  No one denies that the Pak empire is riven with rival factions.  How many Paks has the US centgov murdered since 9/11?  By your logic, not only does the US likes to kill Paks, but we should also invade Saudi Arabia and Yemen, since most of the 9/11 suspects came from those countries.  OA, why don’t we just murder everyone in the mideast - would save all sorts of bother.  Thanks for the informative links in your last post - I keep learning.  ST

ST, I agree no aid to Pakistan, except to lull them into supporting our invasion of Iran before we turn it into an opportunity to surround and blockade them.

Yemen released some of those who killed our people on the USS Cole.

“ Justice Department ‘dismayed’ over release of USS Cole bombing leader”

Saudi Arabia has supported al Qaeda to this day.

“From The Sunday Times
November 4, 2007
Saudi Arabia is hub of world terror
The desert kingdom supplies the cash and the killers
Nick Fielding and Sarah Baxter, Washington”

LA Times
“Saudis faulted for funding terror”

By Josh Meyer
April 02, 2008

“Saudi Arabia remains the world’s leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration’s top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.”

It doesn’t like links on this post.

OA, thanks again for the links, but we are arguing past one another.  The dying US empire will fortunely spare us the war crimes you contemplate inflicting upon so many.  I am finished posting at this link, barring mjor revelations and to the relief of many, so to you OA, “Well, chin-chin, do carry on with your mud pies”.  ST

“One thousand British soldiers have been massacred. While I stood here talking peace, a war has started. “

Bravo, OA!  Fabulous film given a noticeable anti-war flavor through the mischaracterization of all the major players (did I tell you I like well-made anti-war films?).  Great lines, great acting, great action - I now feel sorry for the Zulus and the Afrikaneers - the Brits had no right being there. Are you aware of the real story of what occurred at Roarke’s Drift?  ST

“Did I tell you I like well-made anti-war films?” No ST, I think in all the rush of documenting Iranian, Pakistani, Yemenite, and Saudi perfidy that was overlooked.

“I now feel sorry for the Afrikaneers.” Me too.

“Are you aware of the real story of what occurred at Roarke’s Drift?”

Are you referring to the eternal struggle of the good against 3rd world death, chaos, and indifference?

“Are you aware of the real story of what occurred at Roarke’s Drift?”

Are you referring to the eternal struggle of the good against 3rd world death, chaos, and indifference?
I don’t consider the Imperial Brits to be good - bloody brave and effective cutthroats for “the Queen and Sargeant Maxfield” but not good.  Something like a proto-Wehrmacht.  Third world death - Zulus and Africaaners fighting for their homes with aggressive perfidious Albion seeking pelf and presence. Chaos - all wars produce it.  Indifference - neither Cetawayo, his people, or the Africaaners were indifferent to the situation they found themselves in.  No, I asked whether or not you knew the fact behind the fiction?  Not so dense to not realize that the paragraph above from your last posting was written tongue-in-cheek, but I accept the bait.

“I asked whether or not you knew the fact behind the fiction?  “

ST, please tell me the fact behind the fiction, other than the gift of the white man’s burden being rejected then as now?

Qualifications to the following: I have only read a few books as well as a few print articles about the engaement and have not checked for the latest scholarship on the Internet, but here goes ...  The only items the movie accurately portrays are the date, the names of the major participants, and the location (the outdoor battle sequences were shot near the actual location of the original clash).  The rest is ‘poetic license’.  Cetawayo did not want his impis (Zulu regiments) to hit RD - he thought that after Ishandlawana he could negotiate with the Brits - a mistake on his part.  The MVP for the Brits was the Rev Witt - he convinced the Imperials to stay at RD behind boxes, mealie bags, and wagons around RD’s perimeter (if he were a drunkard, he was a tactically effective one).  The Zulus had to come at their opponents over not only several feet of earth but added footage of boxes and bags, around 8 feet of total obstacle.  Most of the British causualties were from Zulu rifle fire, not hand to hand combat. Chard and Bromhead were both battle-hardened vets - not sure if they saw action other than in s. Africa.  Hook was not a petty criminal but another battle-tested imperial. The Zulu salute at the end of the film most likely did not occur but makes stunning cinema (unfortunately it is not on any soundtracks that I can find).  For details, the Brits were most likely wearing khaki uniforms, not red, and they were often quite fascially hirsute, as indicated in pictures taken shortly after the battle. OA, if you can add details or corrections to the above I would appreciate it (I realize that lining up the next target for the US imperials is a time-consuming task, but give the RD research a go anyway).  “Do you think I could stand this butcher’s yard a second time?” ST

Thanks for the info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke’s_Drift

Many links to bios of the individuals and external sources.

Pte. Thomas Cole: Why is it us? Why US imperials?

Colour Sergeant Bourne: Because we’re here, lad. Nobody else. Just us.

Here’s the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rourke&#x27;s_drift.  Dug out my copy of Ian Knight’s “Rorke’s Drift 1879”, from Osprey.  I may have confused Witt with Commissary Dalton, so now I will read the book to find clarification, if any. “Do you think he wanted it that way?”.  My heart goes out to the braves on both sides , victims of needless carnage.  Man’s Fate, indeed.  ST

ST, “The Lord of Hosts is with us. “ OA.

“Then dahft they is, runnin’ to fight a ba’il”.  With that, I’m out.  I’ll keep my eye out for you at this site, and have enjoyed our exchanges (they beat me being called either an apostate or a traitor by other posters.  Ah well, I’m playing in the major leagues now - if I can’t handle a fastball that moves I must relinquish the plate). Take care, OA.  ST