A lot of neo’s point you can’t really prove or argue against using evidence, facts, logic, reason, or anything else for that matter except to emotionally react in a knee jerk fashion that “this is the way it is, period”.

I’m left with the scense that you’re not really interested in knowing the truth

You are left with a sense really means “these are my feelings, unconnected to any real reason or thoughts”.

The degradation of mental faculties is expected on the Left and for Democrats. This is regardless of who you are, for to believe in an ideology based upon faith is to compartamentalize your mind and degrade whatever reasoning gifts you still had available.

It is unfortunate, because you really can’t defend Hersh and say why he is right. You can only say why his critiques are dishonest and wrong. Which begs the question of who was dishonest in the first place. (beg question in the fallacy sense, not the rhetorical and vernacular meaning)

People who recklessly act first and think 52nd later, are not very useful.

You write things like:
“Hezbollah comes into play? And here comes Al Qaeda? And where have they all been until now? Biding their time, just waiting peacefully until Bush (courtesy of Seymour Hersh’s article) declares that he might bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities?”

And:

“It seems that the burden of proof is on us to prove something that by definition cannot be proven–the existence of a secret program, as with Saddam. Nowadays, intelligence is required to be perfect. It matters not that an obviously insane regime is making wild threats that indicate it is developing a bomb and will use it once it has gained the capacity, or even provide it to terrorists. No, that’s not enough; we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the program is in place and the bomb actually developed before we are allowed to even consider–or, apparently, to even make contingency plans for the possibility of–defending ourselves and others against it.”

I’m left with the scense that you’re not really interested in knowing the truth, instead you’d rather attack– fight or flight.

By using the straw man argument so often you are merely showing that you are incapable of actually dealing honestly with a topic. I thought that it may be isolated, but going back to your previous posts I see that it’s been your approach all along.

When I first came here, I thought that you were honest, wrong on some topics, but honest. But as I’ve read more and more; I see your true colors. You, like so many others, do not seem to be interested in the truth — you’re only interested in pushing YOUR views, YOUR agenda.
That’s usually fine, I push an agenda too, but not at the expense of my intregrity.

Goodbye and good luck. I wish you and your readers well.

Spanky isn’t an enemy, he’s just (apparently) a left-leaning democrat. I’m willing to tolerate a lot of abusive comments and email from random Islamists who wander onto my site, because they are the enemy and they say some useful things. There is no reason to tolerate abuse from a bloviating leftist.

It’s a bit early in the game for that. A lot of people I’ve seen keep asking why argue on the internet, it is useless. It is only useless, in the sense that you are arguing to convince when it will not work. However, if you argue as a means to entice more information and secrets from the enemy, then it works wonders.

The direct approach will never work against people like Hersh or Chomsky. It just won’t, simply because you cannot bring summary executions onto the internet scape, and therefore you are limited tactically by your environment.

As emotional therapy, crashing on the fake liberals and the anti-neocons might feel better, but in realistic terms it will do little else.

In relation to what Nitty said, there are two counters to the blockade and air strike.

For the air strike, Iran will set off a bomb in one of their universities, killing a gruesome number of students, and televising the results as the product of the “Satan US” and their “bombs”.

THey will have schools near or over the targeting sites, and if we don’t bomb those cites, Iran will set off suicide charges planted by insurgents to do the job for us. After they move the equipment elsewhere of course.

This will hurt the United States worse than any actual air strike would hurt Iran, and thus Iran will have successfully detered an air strike because of this fact. Even if they don’t, they can win a bigger victory through propaganda than we can through an air strike. Strategically, air strikes are like sanctions in Iraq. Porous, ineffective, and very helpful to the host nation if you know which hands to grease.

The blockade scenario is a bit trickier. But Iran can probably get Russian and Chinese guarantees of support, if they would support Iran into intimidating the US with diplomatic and militaristic threats. This would be based upon the belief that the trilateral alliance of Iran, China, and Russia can gain esteem and prestige and their economic trade routes back if they focus in and isolate the US. The US would have no choice but to back down and lift the blockade, with such international pressure.

If Bush was more of a bully and more ruthless, he could use the blockade to get Russia and China on his side, but because he isn’t, Iran will get them. The economic problems with a blockade isn’t just isolated to Iran, as nitt pointed out. The diplomatic repercussions are major, and the results will be the same as the air strike on Iran.

Simply that that the counter-attack in the media and in propaganda will offset and bog down any air strike or blockade. As people pointed out before, actual policies don’t really matter, so long as you have credibility. You can threaten to invade, and even if you don’t have the forces or the will or the money to do so (Turkey), people will still submit to your demands if they BELIEVE you will do it.

If you don’t have credibility, then you are forced into actually killing people. The only way to get credibility in the eyes of a murderer, is to murder. If you don’t kill people to gain credibility, you will be totally ineffective against Iran, and Iran will be free to kill the people in your place.

The diplomatic scenario is simply a logical extension of the sabotage Iran, the terroists, and anti-war activists have produced since 2001. The most harmful results to America derive not from intentional sabotage, but unintentional sabotage. Because it is only unintentional sabotage that can surprise “everyone”.

Blockades and air strikes alone will not work, because they will not kill enough people, they will not earn you enough credibility, and finally they will not work alone because they are ridiculously easy to counter.

If you’re dealing with a galumphing bully like Spanky, sometimes a convoluted and oblique isn’t the best weapon.

Spanky, I’m sorry that I was uncelar on this point. I didn’t mean to suggest that you were suggesting handing Afghanistan and Iraq over to Iran. What I meant was that even if we were to do everything imaginable to accomodate Iran over Iraq and Afghanistan, they will still have plenty of compelling reasons to pursue nuclear weapons.

In fact I tend to agree with you than Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons for sound strategic reasons rather than to bring on a nuclear apolcalypse. My point is that most of the compelling reasons for Iran to possess nuclear weapons are independent of the US presence in the Middle East and Central Asia, and there is little the US can do to mitigate them.

Thanks for the response on the troop numbers. The 169,000 was only over the Iraqi elections, basically since the new year US troop numbers in Iraq are steady at 130,000. But 200,000 for the entire region (from Iran’s point of view) is probably close.

I think you’re entirely right that cooperation is unlikely to stop Iran from getting nukes if it really wants them. And I am convinced that it does whether for messianic or realist reasons.

To change the cost-benefit calculation for the mullahs we need to convince them that they will suffer immensely if they continue to pursue nukes. That isn’t easy to do because, as you point out an invasion threat isn’t credible right now, and it’s unclear how much pain an air campaign can inflict, or whether we’re prepared to use one inflict an necessary amount of pain on the mullahs.

I personally think a blockade is worth pursuing. But that will put the onus on the Navy to keep the straits open while shutting down all shipping to Iran, and will cause huge economic problems for the whole world. I think it’s worth it though – a nuclear Iran is an immense problem for the US and would likely be for the rest of my lifetime.

They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.

Iran is very unlikely to give nuclear weapons to al Qaeda.

I think it is foolhardy to assume various Islamic factions are incapable of working together. The ever-shifting internecine dramas of Islam are forgotten & forgiven by most of the actors for the sake of jihad & the establishment of the Caliphate. I’m amused by Spanky’s blithe assumption that Iran would never give a nuke to al Qaeda.

Iran is probably the most enthusiastic sponsor of terror in the Middle East & has been for years. The following, released in 2005, is a State Department summary on Iran’s terrorist activity.

“Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2004. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals.

Iran continued to be unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida members it detained in 2003. Iran has refused to identify publicly these senior members in its custody on “security grounds.” Iran has also resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qa’ida detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for interrogation and/ or trial. Iranian judiciary officials claimed to have tried and convicted some Iranian supporters of al-Qa’ida during 2004, but refused to provide details. Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some al Qa’ida members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

During 2004, Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity, both rhetorically and operationally. Supreme Leader Khamenei praised Palestinian terrorist operations, and Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups — notably HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command — with funding, safe haven, training, and weapons. Iran provided an unmanned aerial vehicle that Lebanese Hizballah sent into Israeli airspace on November 7, 2004.

Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq during 2004, some of which appeared to be inconsistent with Iran’s stated objectives regarding stability in Iraq as well as those of the Iraqi Interim Government (IIG) and the Coalition. Senior IIG officials have publicly expressed concern over Iranian interference in Iraq, and there were reports that Iran provided funding, safe transit, and arms to insurgent elements, including Muqtada al-Sadr’s forces.”
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/45392.htm

My apologies to the readers for the extensive quotes. Notice all the material about al Qaeda-Iranian contact. Since the US probably has few undercover intelligence resources inside Iran, what this summary represents is no doubt just the tip of the iceberg, information gleaned mainly by researching public sources of information.

Another fallacy in Spanky’s comment is the assumption that Iran has only al Qaeda as an option. After all, Iran provides a veritable host of other terrorist groups with sponsorship & has many to choose from.

So, if it’s all the same to you, Spanky, I’ll pass on this particular anti-warrior meme.

I never did like demonizing anybody. Not because I’m morally against character assassination (I would use it if I had to), but rather it is that it is such a passe and obvious strategy now a days. The counters are pretty well known. I favor the far more silent and stealthy attack, the stilleto in the kidneys, a rather more convoluted and oblique approah than the straight line thrust to the heart.

I try very hard not to be caught demonizing anyone. For one thing, it removes from the real subject, which is a weakness on the Democrat’s side. For another, it’s sloppy.

It is quite unprofessional to trade insults as if we’re in a bar getting drunk and having a good time. If you can’t control your emotions with a minimal of discipline, you don’t belong in the realm of international politics, diplomacy, or war. Hotheads do not contribute to peace or harmony.

If your policies are the same as the Left’s, but you claim not to be of the Left, then it’s not my identity problem to solve.

There are absolute or simply relative truths, that are independent of your personal politics, you know. And the possibility that I have already considered and implemented that into my position, should already have occured to people reading my words.

Btw, there’s about a 50-70% chance the guy who first cries “projection” is projecting himself. Type in projection on wiki, and read up on what it says, Spank.

A person’s political leanings define their ability to understand another culture?

If you want to defend and echo the Democrat’s line, then you can do so. But I didn’t call you a Democrat, I only noted that this is what Democrats have said and believed. And that you shouldn’t bring that line into fruition.

As for understanding other cultures. The people who least understand other cultures, are multiculturalists. Not a lot of multiculturalists in the Republican party, so yes, your politics do determine how parochial and cosmopolitan you are.

TO use simple basic logic, someone who believes X, has trait A, because of reason B.

I don’t see how you can possibly come up with 200,000.

Try picking a number from a hat, you might come up with it, nitty.

Nothing says “immature” like demonizing

You need to look up what parochial and cosmopolitan means. The next time someone says all politics are local, I’ll love to hear you say that they are demonizing local politicians.

Some people need to regraduate college, forget high school. No, college wouldn’t help. Not enough logic there. So some people instead of going to college and graduating from high school, would benefit a lot more from self-education. That works.

Please, tell me, what did you learn in undergrad about these things?

Last time I checked they didn’t teach diplomacy in college. Nor do they teach torture techniques, hand to hand, psychological warfare, guerrila warfare, military history, logistics, strategy, or tactics. But learning can be independent of a formal school, you know.

Realists will also pursue a deterrent if they think they are threatened. If Iran has recourse to nuclear weapons, and we say “here we come, Iran!” then, in all likelihood, Iran will pursue nuclear weapons.

Not really. The idea of deterence mandates that both sides have equal Mutually Destructive Deterents. Iran has no bomb right now, if their objective is to seek a nuclear deterence, then they have already failed and Iran should be extinct already if the mullahs were correct in that they were pursuing a nuclear deterent strategy. Because the mullahs are lying and reality bears that proof out, nuclear deterence is what is called a “pretext” in international politics. You may not have heard of it, but a pretex is something that is used when you don’t have a Real Reason to do something internationally. You can think of it as fake WMDs, except real pretexts can’t be disproven or proven.

How old are you, ‘Spanky’? From the level of your ad hominem arguments, I’d guess 12?

Nothing says “immature” like demonizing half of America because they disagree with you over policy.

Care to read a few million quotes from Democrats demonizing the Republican half of the country? Just google ‘wingnuts’, ‘Chimpy’ or ‘Howard Dean hates Republicans.’

The fact that Sunnis don’t always get along with Shi’ites didn’t stop the Iranians from working with al Qaeda before and it probably won’t stop them from working together in the future. Everybody hates each other in the Middle East, but the totalitarian wannabes and their terrorist paramilitaries will work together when they have to.

Realists will also pursue a deterrent if they think they are threatened. If Iran has recourse to nuclear weapons, and we say “here we come, Iran!” then, in all likelihood, Iran will pursue nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad has said:

“Our enemies can deal a blow to us any time they wish. They did not wait for permission to do this. They do not deal a blow with prior notice. They do not take action because they can’t.”

Does he sound like he’s afraid of us?

I don’t agree that we should invade Iran because I don’t think we can handle the resulting insurgency. But as a statesman, Ahmadinejad’s behavoir and goals are closer to John Gotti’s then to Khrushchev’s. He’s a cheap punk, not a leader. Would you hire him to deliver pizza? I wouldn’t.

Ahmadinejad is currently fighting with the punks down the street, the Saudis, for leadership of the ummah. The Saudis are snubbing an Arab League gathering in the genocide capital of the world, Khartoum, because they’re not talking to Gaddafi. (you know, that whole assassination attempt thing). Our worst mistake has been to treat these idiots like real leaders. We give them a legitimacy they shouldn’t have.

We can’t analyze their actions if we assume they see the same reality as us. Iran’s nuclear program is most likely like Gaddafi’s – a ruse designed to get those carrots and cooperation you keep talking about.