Article

2007-03-20 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 2007-03-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [13 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "It is Iran that is on the defensive and has realized it has way overplayed its hand," said the official.

I maintain that overreaching itself is one of the, if not the most principal hallmarks of Islam. Delusions of adequacy dont even begin to address the monumental hubris and overweening aspect of Muslim self-perception. Islams myriad violations of human rights render its pious exhortations as so much sanctimonious blather.

Counter to what many Arabs fear, according to this usually very reliable source, "The hypothesis that they (Iran) are or will become the regional power is laughable and highly delusional."

Hitler was delusional too, but that didnt stop him from killing millions. Consider what Hitler would have accomplished with nuclear weapons in his arsenal then place that sort of power into the hands of a fanatical madman like Ahmadinejad. Frightening doesnt even begin to describe it. How the remaining world manages to deceive itself on this score amounts to a willful blindness not seen since World War II. The specter of Nazism is looming once more and being steadfastly ignored just as perilously.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-03-20 00:39|| 2007-03-20 00:39|| Front Page Top

#2 Wel-l-l now. lets see, OSAMA BIN LADEN conspired in 9-11, and event which klled 3000, and was filmed orally promising to do anything + everything to bring about the defeat and destruction of America, ERGO HE'S SEEMINGLY NO THREAT 'CUZ HE SEEMINGLY HAS "NO NUKES/NUCLEAR MISSLES"???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-03-20 01:27|| 2007-03-20 01:27|| Front Page Top

#3
While it's true that Iran dwarfs Saudi Arabia in population -- 68 million vs. 25 million -- and its military is far more powerful, developed and experienced in combat than the Saudi military, the Saudis carry greater economic, diplomatic and strategic clout.

The Saudi's just bribe people to fight for them but are not invincible to Iran, as the speaker suggests.

Posted by Clinesing Bucket8193 2007-03-20 01:34|| 2007-03-20 01:34|| Front Page Top

#4 WORLDNEWS > BAHRAIN: GULF STATES CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES/ MILITARILY RESPOND IN CASE OF IRAN ATTACK - will retaliate mil in kind and btw, SSSHHHHH, will also dev own nukes iff need be. *OTOH, WAPO [paraphrased] > US MILITARY IN "DEATH SPIRAL". US Army, Marines are not prepared for other/multiple conflicts; + US MILITARY IS HIRING FELONS WHILE ELIMINATING GAY PATRIOTS.
* O'REILLY > THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE FAR/HARD LEFT IN AMERICA IS USING THE WOT AND PRESIDENT BUSH'S TROUBLES TO ATTACK THE [CONSTITUTIONAL?] RIGHTS OF AMERICANS INSIDE THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND IMPOSE A SECULAR SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE AGENDA IN AMERICA. As said before, the WOT > WAR FOR SOCIALISM, espec Socialism upon America. A War against forms of FASCISM, i.e. Ultra-Rightist Socialism, is in antithesis A WAR FOR COMMUNISM, i.e. Ultra-Leftist Socialism. Remember, CLINTONISM > FASCISM IS THE "NEW COMMUNISM", at least for time being, ERGO WOT > [collectively] WAR FOR FORM OF COMMUNISM, i.e. LIMITED COMMUNISM vz FULL COMMUNISM, LIMITED TOTALITARIANISM [Fascist "Authoritarianism"] vz FULL TOTALITARIANISM, ...........etc.

ET TU, EGGO WAFFLES???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-03-20 01:50|| 2007-03-20 01:50|| Front Page Top

#5 "I've pointed out a time or two here that Iran fought a 10-year war with Iraq that ended in a draw. We demolished the Iraqi army twice, once in 100 hours, the second time in two weeks."

Of course we could defeat Iran militarily fairly easily. But what our experience in Iraq should teach us is that nation-building in that part of the world may not lead to what we would hope for. Germany, although authoritarian, had been a highly advanced nation around 1900 and Japan has had a highly adaptive culture for many decades (and it had already begun to modernize in the Meiji period). They were more amenable to a radical change in culture and governance.

At some point we would need to hand control of Iran back over to its people, and that society is far more likely to produce a next-generation Ayatollah Khomeini than a new Mustafa Kemal Attaturk.

Posted by Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-03-20 01:56|| 2007-03-20 01:56|| Front Page Top

#6 But what our experience in Iraq should teach us is that nation-building in that part of the world may not lead to what we would hope for.

America needs to get out of the nation-building busines, forever. Especially so with respect to the MME (Muslim Middle East). From now on, we should go in, break the bad boys' toys and depart just as swiftly. Our only lingering obligation is that, should Iran try to establish another theocracy, we will rinse and repeat however often as needed.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-03-20 03:59|| 2007-03-20 03:59|| Front Page Top

#7 Grumenk,

Defeating the Iranians militarily and then not staying would put the onus on them to come up with a system that meets their needs and doesn't cause us to come back. It's their country. They're free to screw it up any way they want, with the exception of causing grief to their neighbors, who have a similar right to misgovern themselves.

I actually have a certain affection for the Iranians. I can't recall ever meeting one who's been a loon - but I've always met them here or in Europe, outside the Khomeinist element. The ayatollahs are busy trying to destroy the Persian parts of their civilization, to make them into non-Arabic speaking Arabs.

Posted by Fred 2007-03-20 08:22|| 2007-03-20 08:22|| Front Page Top

#8 Every nation in the Middle East is better off than the Saudis. Food is grown readily in Iraq, Syria, Iran, even Egypt. The Saudi desert doesn't grow much, and there's not a lot of potable water. Without proper logistics, no nation can wage modern warfare. Iran has a problem refining gasoline and other combustables. Kind of hard to fight a mechanized war without gasoline to fuel it. Neither side can fight the other and hope to win - unless they're really, REALLY lucky, or have a nuclear weapon advantage. Iran says it can close the Straits of Hormuz, but who would that hurt the most? Iran is a net IMPORTER of gasoline - is Soddy aRabida? Neither country could last ten days against a concentrated push by the United States, especially a three-pronged push from the west, east, and south. Even Russia couldn't intervene fast enough to save them. Soddy aRabida would last about 20 minutes after the nuke went off over Riyadh.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-03-20 16:39|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-03-20 16:39|| Front Page Top

18:19 the Prophet
23:47 Verlaine
23:45 Eric Jablow
23:44 Zenster
23:42 gromgoru
23:42 Eric Jablow
23:41 Verlaine
23:39 Shipman
23:39 anonymous2u
23:38 Zenster
23:37 Zenster
23:32 Zenster
23:29 the Prophet
23:26 USN, ret.
23:25 Verlaine
23:23 Uneamble Fillmore6406
23:23 newc
23:22 Verlaine
23:21 USN, ret.
23:20 Zenster
23:19 Verlaine
23:15 Verlaine
23:09 USN, ret.
23:08 Verlaine