Article

2005-05-16 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-05-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ... âThe Security Council does not worry Iran,â Asefi said, but acknowledged that Iran had also received appeals from South Africa, Malaysia and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan â who telephoned Iran late Sat.

No but the US and Israel do!

That story about one year worth of Globalhawk and Predator targeting missions over Iran might have sent a few chills up their dark force robes.

Posted by 3dc 2005-05-16 00:38|| 2005-05-16 00:38|| Front Page Top

#2 a very lovely and appropriate pic.

Posted by Creng Angailet7698 2005-05-16 01:01|| 2005-05-16 01:01|| Front Page Top

#3 It's a win-win for the mullahs no matter what happens. If Israel/and or the US attacks Iran, ordinary Iranians, indeed the Iraqi Shiites as well, will throw their support behind the mullahs. The mullahs will be in a position of strength with their people and fellow Shiite states for the first time in recent years.

If the mullahs are allowed to build nukes, they will not be easily removed by "their enemies" from without.

So exactly what is "to fear" from Israel or the USA? We make their day either way.

Posted by Elmeath Floluse6930 2005-05-16 01:53|| 2005-05-16 01:53|| Front Page Top

#4 EF,

Iran under raidoactive glass. There's your win!

Posted by Slim Pickens 2005-05-16 02:06|| 2005-05-16 02:06|| Front Page Top

#5 The blazing saddles cowboy routine isn't going to work with Iran. For one thing the Iranians look Caucasian - like us -they are not the swarthy Arab foreigner looking types at all. There's an empathy factor that Westerners feel towards Iranians that does not exist with Arabs, ie. typical Middle Easterners. Even Israelis look more Arab than Iranians do. Many Iranian diplomats come across very Dr. Zchivago-ish when interviewed on TV - I've never even heard a "mullah" speak on public television, have any of you? We will not be able to get the UK on our bandwagon, much less the average mid west American, to see Iran as a threat to the US. On the other hand the guy wearing high heels and lipdtick in N. Korea comes across as a believable threat to the world. No offense, but "Israel's help" is like no help at all for all the bad baggage that Israel brings. We're kind of tapped out on picking up the tab for blowing up things in other countries -the meter is still running in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seriously, I think we need to go back to the drawing board for new ideas on the Iran issue.

Posted by Elmeath Floluse6930 2005-05-16 02:35|| 2005-05-16 02:35|| Front Page Top

#6 For one thing the Iranians look Caucasian - like us -they are not the swarthy Arab foreigner looking types at all. There's an empathy factor that Westerners feel towards Iranians that does not exist with Arabs, ie. typical Middle Easterners. Even Israelis look more Arab than Iranians do.

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-16 07:30|| 2005-05-16 07:30|| Front Page Top

#7 yeah, Ship, I caught that too.

EF, it's hard to know where to start in responding - you offer such a target rich environment.

But since you are SOOOOO savvy, perhaps you'll deign to offer Secty Rice your wisdom. No doubt you've seen all sorts of options that she and her staff have missed.

Posted by anon 2005-05-16 09:35|| 2005-05-16 09:35|| Front Page Top

The blazing saddles cowboy routine isn't going to work with Iran.

Which one? "One false move and the n----r gets it?" or "Doin' the French Mistake"?

For one thing the Iranians look Caucasian - like us -they are not the swarthy Arab foreigner looking types at all.

Neither are Arabs, now that you mention it. They're Mediterranean in looks, ranging from the swarthy through olive-complected to blonde. Fill a room with 50 percent Spaniards, Italians and Greeks and 50 percent Arabs and Persians, dress them similarly and have everybody keep their mouths shut, and you won't be able to tell one ethnic group from the other.

There's an empathy factor that Westerners feel towards Iranians that does not exist with Arabs, ie. typical Middle Easterners.

Perhaps we do regard Persians as more civilized than the Arabs. That's because they used to be. However, Persian civilization was clobbered in the 7th century A.D., and since then they've been subject to the same problems the Arab-dominated areas have had. This is because since then they've been effectively living under theocracy.

Even Israelis look more Arab than Iranians do.

That's quite a hangup you have on people's looks. Israelis include (mostly European) Ashkenazi, (mostly Middle Eastern native) Sephardim, plus the occasional Ethiopian or whoever else manages to convince the rabbis they're Jewish. They range in appearance from swarthy to blonde. Grab a few people from the middle of the spectrum, throw them into that room full of southern Europeans and Arabs, and you'll have a hard time picking them out.

Many Iranian diplomats come across very Dr. Zchivago-ish when interviewed on TV - I've never even heard a "mullah" speak on public television, have any of you?

Dr. Zhivago was a character in a novel, not a real person. He was played in the movie by Omar Sharif, who's an Arab. Ayatollahs speak reagularly on Persian TV, as do the holy men on Arab and Pak TV. Do a Rantburg search on "Khamenei" and you'll get a few of Fearless Leader's statements, though not all.

We will not be able to get the UK on our bandwagon, much less the average mid west American, to see Iran as a threat to the US.

You're a better reader of the future than I am, I guess. I'd point out that in 1938 and in 1913 there was no way Britain was going to war with anybody. In 1940 and 1916 there was no way the Americans were going to support participation in a war.

On the other hand the guy wearing high heels and lipdtick in N. Korea comes across as a believable threat to the world.

Actually, I don't take Kimmie as seriously as a threat as I do the ayatollahs. Iran's military strength was on a par with Iraq's a few years ago. North Korea's a fearsome place to behold, but they'll have no staying power at all. In the event of war, Seoul is going to get clobbered, but NKor's going to last no longer than a week. You heard ~~read~~ it here first.

No offense, but "Israel's help" is like no help at all for all the bad baggage that Israel brings.

Which help are you referring to? Military help? Technological? We spend a lot of time exchanging information with them, and we've got a lot of joint development projects. Politically they're a bone of contention because the Arabs generically hate them, have in fact hated them since well before the creation of the state of Israel. They remain the oldest functioning democracy in the area, even giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming the steps toward democracy by the Arab states other than Lebanon are legitimate. Curiously, it's my feeling that if there was peace in the Middle East this year, Israel would be much more closely aligned with Europe next year. That's where their roots are, that's the kind of parliament they've got. For now they're on our side, and you don't sell your friends down the river. All it takes is once, and then you've got no more friends, only acquaintances.

We're kind of tapped out on picking up the tab for blowing up things in other countries -the meter is still running in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seriously, I think we need to go back to the drawing board for new ideas on the Iran issue.

You're assuming we're not doing that now. The graphic associated with this item's a pair doing a minuet, which is an antique dance noted for the intricacy of its steps. The game right now is political and diplomatic, with Europe and the U.S. playing separate roles and Iran reacting to the stimuli even as it plays its own role. The diplomatic part involves talking until all parties are out of breath, while the political part takes place behind the curtain. That's things like monetary and political support for anti-ayatollah factions within Iran, maintaining credible outside threats -- that'd be MKO and probably the PKK, setting up or explanding relations with the Azeri, Kurdish, Arab and Whathaveyou minorities within the country, all with the ultimate aim of weakening the ayatollahs. The diplo game's probably going to amount to nothing; probably all parties realize that, though there's that one percent chance that something will actually happen. The political games involve a lot of stuff thrown at the wall, some of which will stick, probably (bare probability) nothing of which will cause singificant change within the regime, but which may set the stage for later military operations. Military options are at the further end of the spectrum, and can range from supporting an indigenous guerrilla war against the turbans to a full-scale invasion. With regard to the cost, nothing's free, it's our country, we're responsible for defending it, and the cost of not doing so is much greater than the savings.

Posted by Fred 2005-05-16 10:03|| 2005-05-16 10:03|| Front Page Top

#9 Iranians look Caucasian - like us -they are not the swarthy Arab foreigner looking types at all. Was this a statement about Kurds? Baluchis? Arabs? Turkmen? Azeris? (all 24 million of them) since they are all Iranians.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-16 10:13|| 2005-05-16 10:13|| Front Page Top

#10 elmeath: If the mullahs are allowed to build nukes, they will not be easily removed by "their enemies" from without.

Two comments:
1) That's why they can't be allowed to build nukes. A good argument for a pre-emptive attack.
2) not be easily removed - If they are stupid enough to move the conflict to a nuclear venue with a handful of bombs they are seriously forgetting that the USA was prepared to duke it out to the bitter end with a USSR armed with about 60,000 nukes (from strategic through battlefield types). Duke it out. Our strategic inventory has been greatly reduced but is still much greater >> than a handful. I have no idea what our tactical levels are but am sure that they are more than a handful too.
3,4,5,6 -- The post nuclear age hyper-targeting weapons now in and entering the inventory can be just as effective as the old nuclear ones without all the messy side-effects. Don't believe me. Consider the old 60s-70s era ABM system. It had a nuke at the end to wipe out any missile/bomber in the general area. The current ABM is still prototype but non-nuclear. Not near as messy!
Factor the same across the whole broad spectrum of weapons. The Mad Mullhas are toast if they continue down their primrose path. They are just to stupid to see that they are toast.

Posted by 3dc 2005-05-16 10:43|| 2005-05-16 10:43|| Front Page Top

#11 "Seriously, I think we need to go back to the drawing board for new ideas on the Iran issue."

Good place to start would be to call around to find out which mental institution is missing a Drooler, and get you back there before you hurt yourself or something.

Then the rest of us can discuss the matter without the distraction of listening to your bullshit.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-05-16 11:00|| 2005-05-16 11:00|| Front Page Top

#12 They are just to stupid to see that they are toast. Yep, agreed.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-16 11:05|| 2005-05-16 11:05|| Front Page Top

#13 Many Iranian diplomats come across very Dr. Zchivago-ish when interviewed on TV - I've never even heard a "mullah" speak on public television, have any of you?

1) These diplomats represent the government that held our Embassy staffers hostages back in 1979. You recall that incident, correct?

2) To what degree does listening to a mullah speak in a language I don't understand improve (if that's the right word) on what's been widely available in print? That issue's a red herring in my book.

3) The fact that the Iranian government has been playing footsie with the EU and everybody else (one day threatening Israel and / or announcing resumption of their program, the next pledging not to resume it) is classic doubletalk and deception. I find it wiser to show them the hammer.

On the other hand the guy wearing high heels and lipdtick in N. Korea comes across as a believable threat to the world.

That's because it's extremely likely they're closer to having nukes - This ring a bell? Come on - North Korea is just as nuts as the mullahs. They are a threat and it's inherently wiser to act as if they're legit. You feel like waiting for a field test of their payload and delivery systems?

We're kind of tapped out on picking up the tab for blowing up things in other countries -the meter is still running in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You can pay a little now or a lot later.

Posted by Raj 2005-05-16 11:50|| 2005-05-16 11:50|| Front Page Top

#14

For one thing the Iranians look Caucasian - like us -they are not the swarthy Arab foreigner looking types at all. There's an empathy factor that Westerners feel towards Iranians that does not exist with Arabs, ie. typical Middle Easterners. Even Israelis look more Arab than Iranians do.

It occurs to me that "looking European" didn't save the Germans from a bombing campaign meant to kill German civilians, which ultimately caused the cities of Hamburg and Dresden to be bombed flat... it also didn't help them much when the Russian Army showed up and laid waste to the areas they passed through.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-05-16 12:39|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-05-16 12:39|| Front Page Top

#15 Iran has a large, restless young population. ISTM that economic sanctions would lead to rising unemployment, which under Iranian conditions would probably lead to revolution.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-05-16 13:22|| 2005-05-16 13:22|| Front Page Top

#16 I was responding with tongue in cheek to the ridiculous, hyperbole #4 post, which apparently all of you sounded very pragmatic.

However, tongue in cheek aside, I'd like to re-iterate some of my points in a more serious vein:
1. Iranians are not viewed as crazy primitive despotic nomadic wack jobs that we can mow down and whom we need to bring up to speed from the 7th century per the Afghans and Iraqis. I read an article about 6 months ago that stated of all the immigrants who come to the USA, Iranians reach the highest levels of education and income earnings in the shortest time frame. ie. American born citizens interact with Iranians in all occupation levels and respect them as an immigrant group who are very productive "new Americans". It's not going to be so easy to convince Joe average public that we need to drop bombs in the middle of Tehren to "protect" America from these misguided/evil Taliban/Baathists/Sunnis whatever. Iranians are not virewed as any of the aforemenytioned.
2. And yes, if it offends your PC sensibility, too bad, but people that look like you are nore easy to empathize with/identify with. Haven't any of you taken basic marketing or intro psych classes? And golly gee, unless I'm mistaken, we fought Germany after its head of state declared war on us? Small technicality I know for folks like #4 who want to level Tehren per any given post they make.
3. Guns blazing is old, has been over used, and currently still in play in 2 war fronts.
4. Fat chance that Israel is going to be "accepted" by EU countries anytime soon. Read Haartz letters to the editor from Israelis citizens. Israelis themselves feel like they are pariahs of the world due to the anchronistic warrior actions of Sharon and the extremist settlers and the zealous American Jews who fund the latter from their comfy homes stateside. Israel needs to put Sharon in an old folks home and elect a new PM who is more sincere about getting the peace plan with Palestine done and over with and with no more silly games and finger pointing. The Palestinians are what they are and they will not get to be any better neighbors if Sharon screws them around on land he promised to give them. Sharon is Israel's worst PR man for gaining "acceptance" in the EU.
5. As I said before, the EU will likely have heads of state who are Muslims 50 years of now. They will have access to nukes in the EU anyway. You want to burn bridges irrevocably with Muslims by invading their countries hither and thither and yon now? Stupid short sighted thinking.

Posted by Elmeath Floluse6930 2005-05-16 13:36|| 2005-05-16 13:36|| Front Page Top

#17 Which one? "One false move and the n----r gets it?" or "Doin' the French Mistake"?

Neither: We offer a laurel and hearty handshake.

Posted by badanov">badanov 2005-05-16 13:41|| http://www.rkka.org]">[http://www.rkka.org] 2005-05-16 13:41|| Front Page Top

#18 "The fool's...I mean, the Sherrif's going to do it!"

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-05-16 13:50|| 2005-05-16 13:50|| Front Page Top

#19 They are just to stupid to see that they are toast.

Maybe that is the problem... explaining the concept of "toast" to a culture that does not eat bread ;)

Posted by Capsu78 2005-05-16 13:59|| 2005-05-16 13:59|| Front Page Top

#20

1. Iranians are not viewed as crazy primitive despotic nomadic wack jobs that we can mow down and whom we need to bring up to speed from the 7th century per the Afghans and Iraqis. I read an article about 6 months ago that stated of all the immigrants who come to the USA, Iranians reach the highest levels of education and income earnings in the shortest time frame. ie. American born citizens interact with Iranians in all occupation levels and respect them as an immigrant group who are very productive "new Americans". It's not going to be so easy to convince Joe average public that we need to drop bombs in the middle of Tehren to "protect" America from these misguided/evil Taliban/Baathists/Sunnis whatever. Iranians are not virewed as any of the aforemenytioned.

I, personally, view Iranians as a group as religious fanatic whack jobs. I have ever since they occupied the embassy in Teheran. I certainly sympathize with those who aren't, but I recognize the danger from those who are: ayatollahs, Basij, Iranian Hezbollah, Revolutionary Guards, and similar vermin.

2. And yes, if it offends your PC sensibility, too bad, but people that look like you are nore easy to empathize with/identify with. Haven't any of you taken basic marketing or intro psych classes? And golly gee, unless I'm mistaken, we fought Germany after its head of state declared war on us? Small technicality I know for folks like #4 who want to level Tehren per any given post they make.

You're looking at only a single incident. In the Great War we went off and fought the Hun, too, despite the fact that he looked a lot like we did. In the U.S. Civil War we fought each other. We looked so much alike we had to wear different uniforms to tell the sides apart. People who look like you are easier to empathize with, but even if they looked exactly like me, I'd want to fight back when they attacked us.

3. Guns blazing is old, has been over used, and currently still in play in 2 war fronts.

And will be on more. Bush is cleaning out the Augean stable, using the tools available.

4. Fat chance that Israel is going to be "accepted" by EU countries anytime soon. Read Haartz letters to the editor from Israelis citizens. Israelis themselves feel like they are pariahs of the world due to the anchronistic warrior actions of Sharon and the extremist settlers and the zealous American Jews who fund the latter from their comfy homes stateside. Israel needs to put Sharon in an old folks home and elect a new PM who is more sincere about getting the peace plan with Palestine done and over with and with no more silly games and finger pointing. The Palestinians are what they are and they will not get to be any better neighbors if Sharon screws them around on land he promised to give them. Sharon is Israel's worst PR man for gaining "acceptance" in the EU.

For feeling such revulsion and contempt for Sharon, the Israelis seem to given him a sufficient number of votes to keep him in office. Peres was ever so much more sincere than Sharon, and didn't accomplish as much.

5. As I said before, the EU will likely have heads of state who are Muslims 50 years of now. They will have access to nukes in the EU anyway. You want to burn bridges irrevocably with Muslims by invading their countries hither and thither and yon now? Stupid short sighted thinking.

Better to fight the bastards now than to take the cowardly way out and leave it to our grandchildren.

Posted by Fred 2005-05-16 14:33|| 2005-05-16 14:33|| Front Page Top

#21 Really Extreme Xcrement

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-16 15:45|| 2005-05-16 15:45|| Front Page Top

#22 I, personally, view Iranians as a group as religious fanatic whack jobs. I have ever since they occupied the embassy in Teheran
You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are judging an entire nation based on one moment in history that occured 35 years ago. Then how can you accept Russians or Iraqis or Pakistanis or British, for that matter, as allies today which they appear to be in the WOT, if single historical events influence your judgement of peoples as a whole? I have a different opinion of Iranians based on American Iranians I know well - I have 2 physicians who are Iranians, my child's primary babysitter was Iranian, my child attends school with some Iranian students and based on my personal interactions, I hold Iranians in very high regard. I could never ever support the invasion of Iran - it would seem to me like we were bombing close friends and indeed we would probably be killing some relatives of the Iranians I know and respect.

For feeling such revulsion and contempt for Sharon, the Israelis seem to given him a sufficient number of votes to keep him in office.
I have no contempt for Sharon. I simply think he is the wrong leader for Israel at this juncture of their history. Sharon brings old vision to problem solving, like he brings combat boots to press conferences. Sharon is also making wild and crazy deals with Israeli Communists to stay in power and he's made bargains with God only knows what elements in Israel to keep himself and his son from being prosecuted for financial indescretions. Therefore, Sharon not only has old ideas but he "owes" too many people and that may cloud his judgement further. Sharon was a great General and Israel needed his mindset as a leader in the past, but now I think Israelis just want a future without continual battles and barricades and boycotts. They just want to get on with their lives and take their combat boots off. Sharon represents their past and not their future.

Better to fight the bastards now than to take the cowardly way out and leave it to our grandchildren.
Iranians are not our enemies now. The mullahs had nothing to do with 9/11. Iran is pretty insular - they just want to be left alone. Your grandchildren may well need the goodwill of Shiites in Iran and Iraq to fight the enemies on the horizon 50 years hence. China, N. Korea have enormous armies and China is quietly building its weaponry arsenal. Couple that with the Russkie Commies who never have given up their quiet dreams of world domination, and our grandchildren have their work cut out for them. What goof ups we do now with reckless actions could alienate potential future allies irrovacably.

I think liberalhawk has the right idea of how to get rid of the mullahs stranglehold on Iran - its to discretely support the restive Iranian intellectual and youth classes of society. However, I don't think sanctions are the answer. We would end up alienating the very Iranians classes we want to support by creating physical hardship for them. The mullahs will still be accessing 3 square meals and hot tub soaks sanctions or not.

Also, I think America needs to start engaging the current Iranian gov't in direct dialogue. How immature/'70's mindlock it is to have "intermediaries" act as our go-between emassaries with Iran? Please fast forward to the present, Mr. President. You need to deal with the reality of the gov't that faces you in Iran today and not be constrained by rigid arcane diplomacy. Having Putin and Chirac act as our intermediaries with Iran is the height of foolishness. We are contemplating going to war with a nation whose gov't we have never talked to directly and we are relying on 2 backstabbers to convey our messages -what's wrong with this picture???

Posted by Elmeath Floluse6930 2005-05-16 19:59|| 2005-05-16 19:59|| Front Page Top

#23 Elmer Fudd:
The people of Iran might not be our enemies, but the people of the Soviet Union weren't, either. Unfortunately, they don't get to decide policy.

Iran is at war with us (and Israel and free Iraq). 9/11 is not the only terrorist event worth mentioning. The Shoho, Ryujo, andZuiho had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, either. Should we have let them go?

Posted by jackal">jackal 2005-05-16 22:45|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-05-16 22:45|| Front Page Top

#24 Iran is pretty insular - they just want to be left alone.

What a ridiculous statement. Iran is the biggest supporter (and exporter) of international terrorism!

Posted by docob 2005-05-16 23:03|| 2005-05-16 23:03|| Front Page Top

#25 Iran is at war with us (and Israel and free Iraq).
Iran has not declared war on America. Iran has never intruded on our air space,our shores, or violated our sovereignity.

Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is part of the Sunni led insurgency in Iraq. Iraq's most influential cleric, Sistani, who is revered by 2/3 of free Iraqis is an Iranian himself. Sistani sought shelter and safety in Iran during Saddam's Baathist rule of Iraq. Why on earth would Iran want to cause trouble in the newly liberated Shiite ruled Iraq? Indeed, there have been few if any Iranians detained in the Iraq insurency - no small coincidence. Claiming that Iran is at war with "free" Iraq has no lrational, logical support.

Iran has not declared war on Israel, nor vice versa. Both countries have continued back and forth verbal tirades in recent years but that is the extent of it. Maybe you would like for Israel and Iran to have a war but I'm not so certain that the majority of Israelis or Iranians would share your desire for bloodshed - theirs, not yours - but of course it's so easy to call for war when a person has no personal risk at stake.

Do you think it's reasonable for a first world civilized nation like ourselves to support a war on a foreign nation like Iran that poses no threat to us when our president and his state officials cannot/will not even take the time or energy to speak to the leaders of Iran? How is such a war rational?

Posted by Cluse Jiting2689 2005-05-16 23:20|| 2005-05-16 23:20|| Front Page Top

#26 Whoa baby, now that's a DU tool.

Posted by .com 2005-05-16 23:34|| 2005-05-16 23:34|| Front Page Top

#27 Ha'aretz is the New York Times of Israel -- and both its journalists and its readers are just as likely as the NYT-ers to vote against their country and their government on any given issue... and feel superior to their countrymen as they do so.

If you want to have a better idea of what the generality of Israelis think (accepting that they feel more strongly about everything than Americans do -- Israeli politics is very much a full contact sport) try the Jerusalem Post (yes , you must register, but it's free, and they keep their list private).

And yes, Israelis accept that the majority of the world is so anti-Israel as to be antisemitic -- including the Western European nations. As more than half of Jewish Israelis now are descended from Middle Eastern and Sephardi Jews (intersecting, not identical, sets), not European/Ashkenazi Jews, the emotional thread tying Israel to Europe has been attenuating for the better part of a generation. I would be willing to bet that there are more Israeli Jews living in Los Angeles ("the climate is so like home!") than in all of Western Europe combined ... and there may well be more business contacts with the U.S. as well.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-05-16 23:41|| 2005-05-16 23:41|| Front Page Top

00:06 trailing wife
00:01 Anonymoose
23:59 trailing wife
23:57 badanov
23:57 docob
23:56 Al Bundy
23:42 docob
23:41 trailing wife
23:40 .com
23:40 docob
23:34 .com
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:34 .com
23:32 Silentbrick
23:30 .com
23:26 docob
23:23 Atomic Conspiracy
23:23 John in Tokyo
23:20 Cluse Jiting2689
23:18 trailing wife
23:16 trailing wife
23:15 docob
23:12 trailing wife
23:07 Anonymoose