tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post6035073495822653586..comments2023-11-05T03:12:10.925-06:00Comments on Renegade Eye: Bush’s Adventure in Iraq: Who Has Gained From It?Frank Partisanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-74607463049694589942008-07-28T15:10:00.000-05:002008-07-28T15:10:00.000-05:00Roman--You wrote "The "hell to pay" in this case s...Roman--<BR/><BR/>You wrote "The "hell to pay" in this case should have been on the airhead Marine commanders who made the outragiously stupid decision to house so many soldiers in an unprotected compound. "<BR/><BR/>All along, you used the phrase "hell to pay" in reference to the hostage crisis. Naturally, I inferred that to be the case here. Don't blame me for your muddled, slapdash rhetoric.K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10222703055177237209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-77706986126426397752008-07-28T15:06:00.000-05:002008-07-28T15:06:00.000-05:00So, according to you, the Carter approach of freez...So, according to you, the Carter approach of freezing assets, negotiating, and eventually securing release of the hostages without loss of life amounted to doing nothing. The "proviso" of no loss of life is a straw man, even though that's what actually occurred.<BR/><BR/>Your approach would have been to seize the Iranian embassy prior to taking some unspecified military action against a country three times the size of Iraq (where we've seen how well military action worked). You would have been willing to gamble the lives of the hostages on the shaky assumption that the Khomeini regime cared about the lives of the members of the Shah's regime now in custody.<BR/><BR/>Let's play this out. The "students" occupying the American embassy in Tehran respond to your unspecified military action by decapitating a few hostages and releasing film of it. Now what do you do? Decapitate some of the Shah's people now in custody? I know that would have made <I>me</I> proud to be an American.<BR/><BR/>The thing is, in real life an actual president (not named Bush) can't throw around phrases like "hell to pay" as if geopolitics were a game of Risk. They have to consider the possibilities that each avenue or inaction might provoke. Since the Iranis actually had custody of 53 Americans, this wasn't about a debating society proviso -- it was about actual people with actual lives and actual families.<BR/><BR/>You say Carter's response was "milktoast," I say that it recognized reality and was sane.K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10222703055177237209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-71470732857981077492008-07-27T17:58:00.000-05:002008-07-27T17:58:00.000-05:00K.Thank you for your response. Here are my replies...K.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your response. Here are my replies to your observations.<BR/><BR/>1. The hostage taking was a provocation and a challenge from the ruling Iranian clergy and their enforcers. By doing nothing, Carter’s milk toast approach showed the world that the US was a paper tiger. You, not me, introduced two straw men into my observation. The first by setting up the proviso of action dependent on getting the hostages out alive and second by introducing Reagan’s decision to withdraw instead of seeking further military action which would have been an act of vengeance resulting in harm to scores of innocent Lebanese civilians. Carter was probably the worst US president of the last 50 years and your defense of him is puzzling and almost apologetic in nature. It smacks of lockstep partisanship. As you and every liberal know but keep as a state secret, it was the ill-conceived “Carter Doctrine” that gave rise to the trouble we’re now having with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the rise of Islamic inspired world terrorism.<BR/>2. You asked a rhetorical question already knowing that “hell” means some kind of military action. I won’t bother to comment further on this point.<BR/>3. You said I was “blaming a marine commander for the hostage crisis”. Are you kidding? How did you draw that confused inference? One event has nothing to do with the other.<BR/>4. Your point about seizing the Iranian embassy here having been PROBABLY welcomed by the embassy staff is purely guesswork and is just pure speculation with no proof either way. Empty words.<BR/>5. Your accusation of “ad hominem” attack is just more projection. In my original comment, I berated the lack of sound judgment by Jimmy Carter. You, in turn, in your following comment immediately injected a negative response in reference to all “conservatives”. Something to do with conservatives hiding under the UN’s skirt, as I recall. What’s that all about?<BR/>Finally, you concluded with the invective: “Do I have it right?” Since you need help in this regard, let me clear things up for you.<BR/>What would have deterred Iran’s nuclear ambitions would have been something other than a “milk toast” solution. Carter’s solution of basically doing NOTHING.<BR/>Your classic liberal approach to political debate is on full display here. While offering no concrete solutions yourself, you wait for the other side to promote theirs just so you can criticize them endlessly. It’s just a circle game which I refuse to play. The only fact that I come away with is that K agrees with Carter’s decision to do NOTHING and is perfectly comfortable with it. More milk on that toast?romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15988548647887978919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-22222939621113890382008-07-27T12:15:00.000-05:002008-07-27T12:15:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15988548647887978919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-81478321454710556332008-07-27T12:06:00.000-05:002008-07-27T12:06:00.000-05:00O Noble Roman--You started this subthread, not me....O Noble Roman--<BR/><BR/><I>You</I> started this subthread, not me. To recapitulate:<BR/><BR/>1. You claimed that a less "milktoast" president than Jimmy Carter would have resolved the Iranian hostage crisis with "hell to pay" and that that would have taken care of any future Iranian nuclear ambitions.<BR/><BR/>2. I asked what kind of hell could have been applied without resulting in the deaths of the hostages. I observed when conservative icon had an opportunity to unleash hell, he chose not to.<BR/><BR/>3. You defined hell as seizing the Iranian embassy in Washington and blaming a Marine commander for the hostage crisis. You also added that Reagan was simply following the conditions of a UN mandate.<BR/><BR/>4. I pointed out that seizing the Iranian embassy wouldn't have accomplished anything and that this probably would have been welcomed by its occupants. I also pointed out the inconsistency in your argument about the UN.<BR/><BR/>5. You responded with a largely <I>ad hominem</I> attack, a typical right-wing tactic when the intellectual ammunition inevitably runs low.<BR/><BR/>Not that the onus is on me to prove a point, but...Reagan was right to choose pragmatism over principle. He learned the essential lesson (although at the expense of 200+ soldiers who learned it the hard way), which was the folly of American troops occupying any part of the Middle East. This being said, I saw nothing wrong with having a little artful rhetorical fun with you.<BR/><BR/>Now, let's return to hell. As I understand, your definition of "hell to pay" re the hostage crisis would have been to seize an embassy that wanted to seized and to court martial a Marine commander. Together, these two steps would have deterred Iran's nuclear ambitions. Do I have it right?K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10222703055177237209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-71688928383525906412008-07-27T11:53:00.000-05:002008-07-27T11:53:00.000-05:00P.S. You might also wish to explain how your "supe...P.S. You might also wish to explain how <I>your</I> "superior intellect makes you far more competent and informed than were the heads of the various governmental departments and foreign affairs advisors" to President Carter? Or perhaps you speaking from your armchair <I>cojones</I> and not your brain when you called him a "milktoast"?K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10222703055177237209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-83654088694383073652008-07-27T01:14:00.000-05:002008-07-27T01:14:00.000-05:00CB: The police at the RNC will do, what the anarch...CB: The police at the RNC will do, what the anarchists can't accomplish on their own, block the streets. I'll be talking to Jae, and we'll work something out.<BR/><BR/>How about how Maliki undermined McCain? It was done by the urging of Chalabi, McCain's loyal friend for almost 2 decades.<BR/><BR/>The oil contracts ultimately will go to some country, that opposed the invasion of Iraq.<BR/><BR/>My personal position on oil as the reason for invasion, is the files leading up to the war need to be made public.<BR/><BR/>Roman: The government of Lebanon is structured based on census from the 1930s.<BR/><BR/>One of the reasons Kerry lost, was his antiwar position, was based on fighting it more effectively, rather than questioning the whole basis. <BR/><BR/>The "left" and right are not a monolith. Stalin's main enemy was Trotskyism, not capitalism or fascism.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-10189796262569089922008-07-27T00:43:00.000-05:002008-07-27T00:43:00.000-05:00K. You remarked 200+ marines were killed and "Not...K.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>You remarked 200+ marines were killed and "Nothing was done about it" <BR/>Please O great sage of liberalism, bestow on us your wisdom and tell us what you would have done? Let us know how your superior intellect makes you far more competent and informed than were the heads of the various governmental departments and foreign affairs advisors to the president at that time.<BR/>I can hardly wait for your most brilliant resolution to that long ago Lebanon crisis. Such arrogance.<BR/>As far as your comment about Reagan's decision being in tune with the UN, is'nt it the lefties, like yourself, that are always crying for the US to be more in tune with the international community and riding every conservative administration about unilateralism. Reagan did just what the UN would have done and now you make the ridiculous comment about conservatives "hiding under the UN's skirt". Sounds like projection to me. Liberals artfully find ways to blame a conservative administration for both unilateralism and bilateralism and cannot seem to recognize the obvious hypocracy.<BR/>That's why you're "lost" and have trouble with my comments.romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15988548647887978919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-87491202394654497392008-07-26T17:04:00.000-05:002008-07-26T17:04:00.000-05:00The evil industrialist, U.S. imperialist, Israel c...The evil industrialist, U.S. imperialist, Israel co-conspirator morality play theme lacks one critical component: We haven't taken any oil.<BR/><BR/>Such contrived, convoluted constructs are extraordinary exercises in self-delusion.<BR/><BR/>Ren,<BR/><BR/>Where can I buy you and Jae a good bourbon or your choice of beverage and a cigar when I come to Minnie for the convention? I don't mind the chains, Capital Grille, Morton's and Ruth's Chris, which is what I usually do when I'm there, but what about a good local joint, even out in Bloomington, St. Paul or other burbs?Craig Bardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02247430738711822531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-26273159096080730782008-07-26T14:38:00.000-05:002008-07-26T14:38:00.000-05:00Being a Trotskyist, and neither a liberal or conse...Being a Trotskyist, and neither a liberal or conservative; I would say Regan lacked the adventurism of Bush43 or Nixon. My vocabulary is often misunderstood, particularly conservatives. Adventurist doesn't mean adventurer.<BR/><BR/>In addition Kissinger arranged deals with the Iranians, to hold them until Reagan is in office.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-35674994509425327492008-07-25T17:49:00.000-05:002008-07-25T17:49:00.000-05:00Roman--I'm completely lost. What kind of military ...Roman--<BR/><BR/>I'm completely lost. What kind of military action could Jimmy Carter have taken that would not have resulted in the deaths of the hostages? Since they were released upon Reagan's inauguration, why didn't he take any military action?<BR/><BR/>The Iranian embassy staff here represented the Shah's regime. A) They would have been happy and grateful to be under U.S. protection and B) the Khomeini regime wouldn't have cared what happened to them one way or another.<BR/><BR/>As for Lebanon, that's about as lame a reply as there is. 200+ Marines were killed. Nothing was done about it. As I read your reply, conservatives have no regard for the UN except when they need to hide behind its skirts.K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10222703055177237209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-18084693717040710462008-07-25T16:29:00.000-05:002008-07-25T16:29:00.000-05:00K.Just out of curiosity, what kind of hell would n...K.<BR/><BR/><EM>Just out of curiosity, what kind of hell would not have resulted in the deaths of the 53 hostages?</EM><BR/><BR/>You mean "would have"? In that case, let me explain what should have happened.<BR/>Iranian embassy staff here in the US should have been immediately taken into custody and held for as long as our embassy staff was held. "Hell to pay" , as you well know, means military action. The US would be justified to retaliate because the killing of our staff would have been a secondary provocation and a second act of war.<BR/>As far as the 200 Marines and Reagan's decision to withdraw from Lebanon. Ronnie did the right thing. The Marines were on a "peace-keeping" mission. There was no peace to keep and therefore no reason to risk the lives of more Marines. Just like UN forces, protocol was followed. Once peace-keeping forces are under attack, they are immediately extracted.<BR/>The "hell to pay" in this case should have been on the airhead Marine commanders who made the outragiously stupid decision to house so many soldiers in an unprotected compound. <BR/><BR/>ren,<BR/><BR/>You're right. Illegality and morality are different. One outweighs the other every time. I will leave it up to your readers to decide which is the more meaningful. All I am saying is that Maria Teresa would have made her argument much more effective by using the appropriate word.romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15988548647887978919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-17681080876421398682008-07-24T23:57:00.000-05:002008-07-24T23:57:00.000-05:00Roman: I have trouble with the idea of opposing an...Roman: I have trouble with the idea of opposing an immoral war on the basis of it being illegal. The morality outstrips legality and cost.<BR/><BR/>The hostages got home, essentially unharmed.<BR/><BR/>Pagan: The only war is class war.<BR/><BR/>K: Reagan invaded the great powerhouse Granada.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-58240147582627317892008-07-24T21:26:00.000-05:002008-07-24T21:26:00.000-05:00Roman--Just out of curiosity, what kind of hell wo...Roman--<BR/><BR/>Just out of curiosity, what kind of hell would not have resulted in the deaths of the 53 hostages?<BR/><BR/>Also, when tough guy Reagan was president, why wasn't there hell to pay when over 200 Marines were killed in the Lebanon barracks bombing? Ronnie's response was to get the hell out of Lebanon. Smart, maybe; hellish, no.K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10222703055177237209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-44467268425841777682008-07-24T20:46:00.000-05:002008-07-24T20:46:00.000-05:00Is the US at war? Hell, I didn't know that. When d...Is the US at war? Hell, I didn't know that. When did that happen?SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-8789041326584718442008-07-24T16:10:00.000-05:002008-07-24T16:10:00.000-05:00Maria Theresa,The world spoke out against this war...Maria Theresa,<BR/><BR/><EM>The world spoke out against this war because they knew it was illegal</EM><BR/><BR/>First of all, the war is not "illegal". It is only illegal in the minds of individuals who disagree with it and the policy of this administration. The term "illegal" used in this sense has no legitimacy whatsoever and thus when used by persons in opposition to the war, it has very little impact on the general populace. <BR/><BR/>Ducky,<BR/><BR/>They were the enemy because they acted like an enemy does. They invaded our embassy and held our diplomats hostage for a VERY long time. This is an act of war and the Iranians were just very lucky that milktoast Carter was our president at the time. Anyone else and there would have been hell to pay and there would not have been any need to worry about their nuclear ambitions at this time.romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15988548647887978919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-16974662361081527252008-07-23T15:43:00.000-05:002008-07-23T15:43:00.000-05:00Mariamariacuchita: I used to think of the world in...Mariamariacuchita: I used to think of the world in left/right terms. I found analysis shallow on both sides. A good example is Tibet. The Maoists pass around the lie, that the DaLai Lama, wants to return Tibet to feudalism. The right plays the Tibet card, to discredit China, and could care less about their nationalism. Tibetans are discriminated on jobs. That is the root of the rioting. Neither left or right are honest. If I take a position, its after often a long period of discussion with others.<BR/><BR/>Politically I endorse my comrades. Other groups I support and work with.<BR/><BR/>My views hopefully flow from the method of dialectical materialism. You need strong principles and flexible tactics.<BR/><BR/>You are correct, that the world is fluid. One country can be stronger than another, at a certain time, or under a certain circumstance. Argentina used to be a world power.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-64162037938905088442008-07-23T14:16:00.000-05:002008-07-23T14:16:00.000-05:00Ducky: Thank you for visiting.It's ridiculous to t...Ducky: Thank you for visiting.<BR/><BR/>It's ridiculous to think that American foreign policy, is dictated by Israel. An analogous situation is Colombia in South America. It plays a similar role as Israel in the Middle East. Nobody says Colombia dictates to the US.<BR/><BR/>To this day the CIA defends Saddam's actions against the Kurds, with the poison gases. They say they got caught in the crossfire.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-30194317153503118172008-07-23T14:11:00.000-05:002008-07-23T14:11:00.000-05:00Power is not black and white, and the art of influ...Power is not black and white, and the art of influence always has many gray areas. When I said that who has power over whom is not always clear (when referring to the US and Israel), I was speaking to power on an issue-by-issue basis. There are many ways to pit one side against another or to leverage others for more playtime. <BR/><BR/>Compromise is also in every politician's toolkit with Plan B options as well. I always assume there are many Machevallian undertones between countries, if not outright gamesmanship between even overtly friendly nations. <BR/><BR/>I do not assume that Israel does not have power of its own, or that the winds of influence do not blow in both direction depending on who has the power of the moment, the public sentiment meter of either country, and global winds of change blowing at any given time. Power/influence on a global scale is obviously not static and there are many small often seemingly contradictory cross-currents. Such as the Bushies talking to Iran.<BR/><BR/>In this instance, Bush may have bigger fish to fry, such as saving his party from a complete trainwreck in the next election that may trump any outraged concerns of Israel. <BR/><BR/>Seeing things does not make one’s views either left or right unless stated as such; many have views that are variable by topic. Sometimes putting people and views in boxes seems like a convenient method for deciphering their overall political position, but most people are far more complex than that, don't you think?Mariamariacuchitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795651584150694329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-8914348056345562292008-07-23T11:52:00.000-05:002008-07-23T11:52:00.000-05:00Why is it so rarely remembered that back in the da...Why is it so rarely remembered that back in the days after the Iranians kicked out the Shah they were the enemy.<BR/><BR/> We started shipping all kinds of munitions to Hussein. Even helped him with poison gas and that was cool as long as he killed Iranians.<BR/><BR/> So he got pissed. Yeah, thought he was going to get all the benefits of a U.S. client puppet.<BR/><BR/> I wouldn't worry about Israel. Remember they got their ass kicked by some irregulars armed with bottle rockets when President Chuck L. Nuts had them fight that proxy war in Lebanon. <BR/> Their air force has hit a couple of undefended reactors but isn't up to the Iran gig. They'll do what they are told to do.Ducky's herehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608115001116619877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-68252061522686041552008-07-23T10:50:00.000-05:002008-07-23T10:50:00.000-05:00MZ: I've been finding out, when I use Marxist term...MZ: I've been finding out, when I use Marxist terms as idealist, it's not universally understood.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-48796642022515185852008-07-21T21:34:00.000-05:002008-07-21T21:34:00.000-05:00Ren, as I told you on my blog: You cannot buy peop...Ren, as I told you on my blog: You cannot buy people's most deeply held convictions. Money and materialism is not the answer here.Mad Zionisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02368389951636950238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-86842105714597138522008-07-21T21:13:00.000-05:002008-07-21T21:13:00.000-05:00Mad Zionist: People don't fight for nations in the...Mad Zionist: People don't fight for nations in the abstract.<BR/><BR/>White Rabbit: I'm sure we'll find out what the fallout is about that video.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-18675963590940084582008-07-21T19:47:00.000-05:002008-07-21T19:47:00.000-05:00You need a materialist explanation, not an idealis...<I>You need a materialist explanation, not an idealist one.</I><BR/>Quite the opposite, actually.Mad Zionisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02368389951636950238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-23853570436349803372008-07-21T17:56:00.000-05:002008-07-21T17:56:00.000-05:00This is becoming interesting.Mariamariacuchita: Th...This is becoming interesting.<BR/><BR/>Mariamariacuchita: The US is in direct, unconditional talks with Iran. That certainly is not Israeli policy.<BR/><BR/>It makes no sense, when Israel depends on the US for funding, that it could pull the strings.<BR/><BR/>Since 1967 the left, in the US defined itself as pro-Palestinianian. It is a worldview that doesn't critique reactionary elements of Palestinians. My position is the Trotskyist position from the 1940s. It calls for a Middle East Socialist Federation. Just like to travel from Texas to Arkansas, you don't need a passport. I support the same structure as the USA. for the Middle East.<BR/><BR/>K: What I like about your comment, is that it puts the idea Israel runs the US, in the rightist camp, where it belongs.<BR/><BR/>Mad Zionist: I'm a dialectical materialist. To answer you I'll go off pn a tangent and talk a little about Tibet, then return to Israel.<BR/><BR/>I believe neither the right or the left understands Tibet. The Maoists lie that the Dalai Lama will return Tibet to feudalism. The right just uses the issue to bash China. There was recent riots in Tibet against the Chinese government. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon to support or oppose the Tibetans without looking at the material conditions.<BR/><BR/>The second highest wages in China are in Tibet. All the good jobs go to Chinese. With that knowledge the riots have a different meaning. They were not about abstract nationhood or self determination. It was a question of bread. The national question is one of bread.<BR/><BR/>You can support a religious Israel all you want. There has to be a material reason for Israel to change.<BR/><BR/>Your ideas would have more followers if this was an era of feudalism, and Jews had a unique role as collecting debts, being a basis for anti-Jewish thought. Now collecting debts is a normal feature of capitalism, not unique to Jewish enterprise. Another time would be during WWII.<BR/><BR/>You need a materialist explanation, not an idealist one.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.com