It is true we supported both Saddam and OBL and one time, but in fact, they evolved into something a lot more malignant than they were, because of choice they made.

Saddam was never a nice guy, that is true. When we met with him, we came away with the impression that we could deal with him. As it turns out, we were wrong. We didn’t screw him over- he screwed us over.

We did not give Saddam poison gas. We gave Iraqi universities the precursors to gas as part of a US government program to study insecticides. In fact, those same precursors were given to dozens of universities all over the world. Saddam chose to develop WMD’s and use them.

We did not ‘wink’ at his use of gas. We were simply not in a position to be able to prevent the use of gas or do anything about it afterwards. We didn’t screw up- it was Saddam that screwed us.

The same applied to OBL. We supplied arms to the mujahadeen that were fighting the Russians. When that war ended, OBL and the Taliban made a conscious decision to use those weapons in ways that were never intended.

If there is any conclusion that can be drawn, one might believe we have more than ample evidence to conclude that we should in no way be supporting any kind of Arab regime, as they have in one way or another, all betrayed the trust we have extended to them.

For example, the US is proposing to give the Palestinian Authority 85 million dollars and arm them, as well.

You don’t need a crystal ball to realize that no matter how many assurances and promises are made, Palestinian militants will attack Israeli civilians and the interests of other nations. You also don’t need a crystal ball to realize that the Arab world will come to their defense, and in time, insist that the process repeat itself.

You are right to say, “that it is the neocon philosophy that represents one of the only strategies offering a possible way out of the realpolitik dilemma. And yet those who criticize our realpolitik decisions to back dictators also criticize our neonconnish decisions to overthrow them and try to institute a better and more democratic form of government. Odd, isn’t it?”

We are guilty of stupidity and no more.

Yet for the MSM to have not provided daily reports on the [unknowable] number of bodies dumped from his torture chambers, and after we invade to report on the security situation there, is somehow unforgiveably shortsighted.

You quote:

Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam,” said Joe Wilson, Glaspie’s former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. “Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation.”

*This* was my point Neo - that according to you we can support Saddam, and even look the other way while Kurds are gassed with weapons we helped him obtain, and later we can say, “Oh, it was a miscalculation,” we should just accept that as part of how the world works.

Okay, that’s fine by me, be that way.

But then you criticize the media as “shortsighted” when reporting on violence in Iraq. But isn’t that how the world works too? (That part of the world fortunate enough to have a free press, anyway.)

The reports seem to be accurate, so I don’t see what the problem is. What do you want, a news blackout, only relying on official communiques from the Pentagon for status reports?

The only people I see saying that things are going great (or not as bad as all that, or better than living in California, we just need more willpower, less bad press, etc., etc.) in Iraq are bloggers.

EVERYBODY else—Senior Pentagon officials, DOD reports, Administration officials, even The President of the United States (!)—is saying that the situation there is unacceptable, grave, and in danger of getting much worse and destabilizing the entire region. ( I know, you neocons love instability, but hey…)

The problem is not with the reporting, it is with the mission itself, which is proving to be yet another miscalculation, poorly defined, badly executed, and with results anything but guaranteed.

If the Iraqi government had in fact been directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or even if we had uncovered the vast stockpiles of WMD, and we found ourselves in the same place, I think there would still be overwhelming support for this war.

I have always understood this argument not to mean “because we supported Saddam, we shouldn’t touch him now,” but rather something along the lines of “the support granted to Saddam by senior officials at the time - including Rumsfeld and Cheney - undermines their credibility now when declaring that Saddam is such a dire security threat that he must be overthrown.”

That is, it made it difficult (in 2003) to believe the Bush administration’s line that we had to do something or else Saddam would get us when, not that long before, important members of the Bush administration were shaking Saddam’s hand and giving him support against his enemies, both domestic and foreign. It was more of an argument that these people were two-faced and shouldn’t be taken seriously, rather than a critique of policy per se.

I’m trying to get Neo to back my argument. Which was always that the United States has power, and this power gives unto us responsibilities that lesser nations do not have, and therefore it also gives us the ability to dictate to the lesser nations by which path they shall take. So it is okay. It is definitely okay. That which we make, we shall also unmake. That includes the decadent Westerners, btw, so beware.

obviously, if we really did create and support the monster Saddam, then we certainly have a deep obligation to take him out,

Neo, Neo, Neo. Hush little baby, don’t give a cry, for why would ever the Leftists believe that you or they had a responsibility of any sort, to do anything that would lose them personal cred and comforts?

Say “Oops, sorry!” and let his regime fester, uncorrected, forever?

They want you to do what Carter did to the shall. Depose him, help depose him, don’t give him aid because the Shah “pissed off Carter”. That’s the right way to exercise power, Neo, in the view of the Left. Revolution by the mullahs afterwards? Bah, local issues, not an issue of America. Ah, but my view is that it is an issue of America. We have the power, we have the responsibility, and we sure have the ability to unmake that which we helped make. The Left are irresponsible, to take a cue from Pat’s NASA psyche tests. They are arsonists, who reveal in destruction and death just for its own sake.

If the critics were sincere about their argument,

But they are sincere, Neo. They really believe that you should do what Carter did and damage people’s lives just because they pissed you off. If an entire generation of folks you don’t know gets wiped out by the Mullahs afterwards… the Left don’t care. why should they?

But somehow, I’ve never seen it used that way–odd, isn’t it?

I used it once or twice in response to their lame attacks. But their attacks were so lame, it just didn’t deserve my concentration at all.

In the real world–and that is the one in which we live (after all, we’re talking about “realpolitik” here, are we not?) those alliances mattered greatly, and third-world countries were somewhat like chess pieces in the power play of the large states that were struggling with each other for dominance.

One of the benefits of Limited War, that Total War didn’t have a problem with you see. The same folks who complain about proxy warfare on the US’s side, didn’t say jack about the Soviet sphere and they also screamed about Total War being bad while also screaming about Limited War’s badness during the Cold War. Being a fake liberal, Neo, is so liberating don’t y

On the basis of this, I don’t think the US can be faulted for not having seen what was to come later, under Saddam’s own watch as head of the country.

But the US must be faulted, don’t you see. Because if it wasn’t the US’s fault, then that might mean it was the fault of the Left. And you can never, never, even consider that possibility, because it is a true Thought Crime. If the Islamic Jihad ever considered even for a moment that they might be the source of their problems and humiliation instead of the Jews and the Amis… why that person would be disappeared pretty fast. It must be fault of the US, Neo. It must. Lives are on the line here.

It seemed a no-brainer at the time to back Saddam. Not only did he appear to lack designs on us (unlike the Iranians), but it seemed back then that his regime–bad though it was in many ways–was one of the better (or at least the less dreadful) ones in a region not known for its enlightened rulers.

The Left has not changed, Neo. Not to repeat something that you already know of course. But the point must be made. The Left will not bat an eye at supporting Sunni oppressors. The Left are the ones talking about how the “iraqis must step up”. Notably, this basically means everyone will do the Left’s dirty work, like back during Iran-Iraq. And then when it is over, the Left can blame it all on their political enemies. The same “realpolitekers” are not on our side. They are on the Left’s, Neo. That is an important distinction.

Odd, isn’t it?

About as odd as someone with multiple personality disorder talking to themselves.

1. He is a pol, but at least he is our Pot.

If that’s the argument, then it’s an incredibly silly one. One might as well point to the Hitler/Stalin pact as proof that Germany wasn’t a threat to the Soviet Union in the early 1940s.

It isn’t hard at all, Neo. If people can be made and coerced into believing in the Democrat’s line about race relations when not too long ago Democrats like Byrd was part of the KKK and voted against the Civil Rights Act, do you really think it would be hard to make people believe in the new line if you really wanted them to? Course not.Bush just doesn’t want to bend any arms. His and our loss, but not the loss of the Left, oh no.

If the Iraqi government had in fact been directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or even if we had uncovered the vast stockpiles of WMD, and we found ourselves in the same place, I think there would still be overwhelming support for this war.
The Unknown Blogger | Homepage | 01.18.07 - 4:31 pm | #

That just goes to show you Neo that propaganda works because everyone is susceptible to it. Especially those who think they are immune.

But the Soviets were good guys on the quest of utopia. You can’t blame them for failing. The Left don’t care. They. Never. Did.

Well, not really. Hitler said “Stalin is our friend, not a threat!” in part because he was a genocidal lunatic bent on world domination, and was willing to say anything if it suited his purposes, including lies like this. Unless you’re comparing Cheney and Rumsfeld to Hitler or Stalin, which I assume you’re not, the point is:

Either Rumsfeld and Cheney were willing to tell the American people whatever they needed to tell them to suit their goals (one day he’s great, the next he’s the worst threat since Hitler, OR they made a monumental miscalculation, giving military support to the worst threat since Hitler. Either way, neither should have been taken seriously.

Here, of course, is a fundamental root of a lot of rancor and hostility in debates over US foreign policy: people who know something about the Muslim world tend to doubt that “totalitarian Islamism” will take over most of the world, while other people believe it will. This isn’t the only root, but it’s an important one, and it means that a lot of bickering goes on over not much at all, when in reality, disagreement is happening because the issue is being approached from such radically different angles.

Here, perhaps, is a pretty succinct argument for while “totalitarian Islamism” won’t take over the world: they’re a small minority, even among other Islamists, and were so weak that they couldn’t even overthrow their own governments, leading them to attack the “far enemy” in an even lamer attempt to take over the world. Are they a problem? Of course. Are they a threat? Definitely. Are they a threat to our very existence? Hardly. They couldn’t even control all of Afghanistan, and were removed from power in a few months by the US. These guys are supposed to take over the world?

I can see how, if you really believed this, how many other beliefs must also follow, without their proponents being evil. Can you see how, if you really didn’t believe this, how many other beliefs must also follow, without their proponents being freedom-hating terrorist lovers?

A 9th century mentality doesn’t have the managerial skills for such an undertaking. They’ll do what they’ve done for centuries; lash out and lay dormant, lash out and lay dormant – like a duck nipping away at a hot pepper. Heheh!

Actually…

‘This is the stark choice we face: (1) realpolitik business as usual, “he’s a thug but at least he’s our thug;” (2) inaction, allowing totalitarian Islamism (or Communism before it) to take over most of the world…’

I’m confused; are you saying that jihadists alive today have been alive since the 9th century, or are you saying that the Muslim world has remained static for over a thousand years?

No, it’s commonly used as at least a component of a “critique”, however irrational, of our current policy. There is, however, an interesting aspect to this repeated meme that anon is suggesting, even if only inadvertently — it’s the willingness of much of the left, but particularly its more degraded segments, to place far more value on discrediting those they regard as their political enemies than on responding to present threats and opportunities that face us all.

After all that talk about credulity in the previous threads, I’m a bit shocked, Sally. I wasn’t talking about discrediting anyone; I said that, by their own actions, they discredited themselves. Again, it’s possible they were willing to say whatever was convenient about Saddam at the time - if he was a huge threat, then in the 1980s they lied and said he wasn’t; if he wasn’t a huge threat, then in 2003 they lied and said he was.

Alternatively, they seriously misread the situation - either he was a serious threat, and they gave him weapons, or he wasn’t a serious threat, and we started a costly war anyway.

Another possibility that should be considered is that Saddam wasn’t a threat when they said he wasn’t, but became a threat a few years later. However, considering that Saddam’s behavior was pretty clear and pretty standard for much of this time, I don’t know how much stock I place in this scenario.

Another possibility - this one just occurred to me! - is the notion that for you, credibility, that is, how a politician is regarded, is far more important than the actual substance behind that appearance - whether he’s willing to lie, the quality of his policies, etc, and you’re projecting that onto me. Hm.

But, in the end, it boils down to: they either lied when it was convenient, or they were very bad at judging vital security issues; in either case, I don’t see much reason to trust their ability to make good policy or tell the truth in other areas.

Certainly. Some who don’t believe this are both intelligent and decent, and with such it’s possible and reasonable to debate; some who don’t believe it are decent enough, but are simply unable or unwilling to think about long-term, or frightening, possibilites; and some, unfortunately, are freedom-hating terrorist lovers (to a greater or lesser degree). Ironically, one of the factors that makes the concern a plausible one is just the proliferation of the last two categories within the West.

It’s worth pointing out, though, that one of the ways deniers of the possibility comfort themselves, or attempt to allay the concerns of others at least, is by trying to focus on the great varieties of factions, sects, groups, parties, movements, etc., within the islamic world generally and even within the islamists themselves, insisting that only a “small minority” actually constitute a threat. But this is a classic example of seeing so many trees you miss the forest — it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a sufficiently fanatical and vicious minority was able to impose its will on a faccid and complacent majority, and thereby on history.

We did learn a few things about Saddam in the 20 years after 1980. One could argue that the 1980s approach to Saddam was the prefered position of the Europeans: build bridges through economic relations and hope that we can influence behavior on that basis. It didn’t work.

Fine. Don’t trust them. I don’t, no more than I “trust” Kerry or Gore. So let’s put that as decided, then — don’t trust any politician, period (end of issue). (Of course, unfortunately for you, anon, this just leaves you with your judgment, and as you’ve repeatedly both stated and demonstrated, that seems to leave you helpless — you have no idea how you know, or how you know you know, or how you … well, you get the picture. Or others will if you don’t.)

Meanwhile, back in the larger world, we also have a problem with islamist terrorism in general. We had a problem with Saddam Hussein but now we don’t; and now we have a problem with an Iraqi insurgency that’s fed by state enemies in the region. None of which would be of much interest to the left, I realize, were it not for the hoped-for potential of such events to tarnish their political enemies. Which makes the left in general largely either irrelevant or malignant, historically.

The “reports” from the MSM aren’t “accurate,” they’re slanted propaganda and outright lies – the recent AP non-existent mosque burnings illustrate a bit of the problem and they are surely only the tip of an very large iceberg. From ineptly staged rocketed ambulances to the successfully faked Muhamed al Durah incident runs a gamut of propaganda legerdemain at various skill-levels.

Most of the bias and lying is unquestioned and not amenable to investigation but every once in awhile the depth of collusion is strikingly revealed. For example the repeated denial of various entities of the MSM and assurance by self-anointed do-gooder orgs that human shields are NEVER, NEVER, mind you, used by the terrorists. Then of course came the photos, videos, articles and finally recent confirmation by the shields themselves.

I believe questions that have surfaced in recent years about so-called “unnamed sources” and their wholesale use in newspapers to justify opinions being passed off as news, coupled with the fact that many are realizing that there IS no “source” other than the writer’s imagination, may have put a bit of pressure on the AP and others to assign names to these bogus ‘tales’ they pass off as news. The AP thirsts for credence because it’s realized they are endangered without it. But the folks on the other side of this argument will never “see” the problem. Oh, no.

If the Iraqi government had in fact been directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks

One wonders how the commentor would view WW2. What did Germany or Italy have to do with Pearl Harbor, anyway?

the support granted to Saddam by senior officials at the time - including Rumsfeld and Cheney - undermines their credibility now when declaring that Saddam is such a dire security threat that he must be overthrown.

But WHY? Why would support for Saddam when Saddam was relatively benign and harmless to the US undermine Rumsfeld and Cheney’s credibility after Saddam had become a threat? Were they supposed to be foretelling the future? My goodness, who knows which former ally might prove to be dangerous in the future? They are ALL bloody ruthless in that part of the world. Aren’t Rumsfeld and Cheney SUPPOSED to be warning us if they see someone is going around the bend – whether or not they had previously supported any particular regime? Was the US supposed to be supporting Iran instead of Iraq? Oh my.

Either Rumsfeld and Cheney were willing to tell the American people whatever they needed to tell them to suit their goals (one day he’s great, the next he’s the worst threat since Hitler, OR they made a monumental miscalculation, giving military support to the worst threat since Hitler. Either way, neither should have been taken seriously.

The comment above ignores a host of real alternatives that lie outside its false dichotomy, which is also tainted by hyperbole and dis

that they(“Islamists”) couldn’t even overthrow their own governments

Here the ignorance of history is breathtaking. Someone should take the commentor aside and explain about the Iranian Islamists overthrowing the Shah. Whew!
 

You create false dichotomies paragraph after paragraph, Anon. “either you must believe… or you must believe…” Yet the choices do not cover all possibilities. I would suggest, in fact, that they cover precious few real-world possibilities. You are hoping to find a reductionist equation to make a clear moral choice. Do you fear the moral choices of reality that much, that you have to misrepresent them?

Current day example: We are helping Ethiopia fight the Islamic Courts in Somalia. We do this because it meets our current objectives. But the Ethiopians are unsavory at times as well. We did not make them this way, we are not encouraging them this way, and if in five, ten, twenty, or thirty years we are fighting against them, there is not necessarily a moral contradiction. Groups change sides in the middle of a war, for crying out loud, and often for good reason.

Link

No, it was the obvious answer you omitted to provide.

Mark of regimeofterror.com

(Yes, I know it’s silly; that sort of “reasoning” always is.)

Of course, the Serbs were our allies, as I recall, during WWII, but I don’t recall anyone on the Left arguing that, because they’d once been our allies we had no moral right to attack them.

There is a fourth alternative, which is to stop supporting dictators everywhere. The Iran problem blew up in our faces because we used to support the dictator, Reza Shah Pahlavi — because he was “our thug”.

Why can’t we stop supporting Putin, Mubarak, the house of Saud and the sundry other dictators that we still support?

See: http://www.newyouth.com/archives/balkans.asp

Wrong, because we didn’t accidentally or unintentionally create “the monster Saddam,” but rather chose to use him as our monster, a surrogate, a puppet of sorts to serve OUR interests—however monsterously. Then, when he got too big for his britches, and preferred to serve his own interests irrespective of ours, we conveniently and hypocritically demonized him, pretending that we, his enablers, were the soul of rectitude, and used some of the same crimes we supported or had ignored before to convict him. The Iraq war was sold to us not as penance, but as righteous crusade by some of the very people most responsible for the conditions they claimed made it necessary.

Leftists are alert to such moral hypocrisies, as is most of the rest of the world, even those portions of it whose support we temporarily buy. Of course the Arab/Muslim world is particularly alert to our hypocrisy. Thereby our hypocritical actions only further conflict with them and give them true moral ground to oppose us. You can’t find a better motivator for jihad than that. As a therapist you should be able to figure out that elementary political equation.

Second, Saddam, whatever his evils, was effectively neutralized as a force outside of Iraq. He was contained to an extraordinary degree. There was no need for further intervention. The containment was really a model of world law enforcement at work. And, as long as he remained in power he was the enemy of our enemy, Al-Qaeda, so it would have been circumspect for us to keep him contained there. So what did the neocons do? –they whip up a hypocritical war fervor, phony up the evidence for war, remove Saddam in a “pre-emptive attack” (the most severe of war crimes) and create a massive cause (our attack on a fellow Arab) for further anti-American sentiment—which means more terrorism directed our way.

The terrorism conclusion, you can note, is from the right wing American intelligence establishment, and a former Nuremberg prosecutor has stated that Bush should stand trial for war crimes.

And, again, why is the Left so quiet about Bosnia, and Kosovo these days? Our troops are still there, the fighting hasn’t stopped, the same arguments that have been made about Iraq could certainly have been made about that—America definitely had no interests in that part of the country, and, in fact, our intervention might have helped Al-Queda set up a stronghold there. Yet the Left still regards the bombing of the Serbs as some sort of great victory. How can we trust the Left, when it’s blind to its own moral hypocrisy?

And, again, you’re dodging Neo-Neocon’s question; even assuming we were responsible for Saddam (which we weren’t) is just keeping him “contained” (contained, where he can seek to build nuclear weapons, aid Palestinian terrorists, threaten the Kurds and murder his own people by the thousands) really the best practical, and moral, solution?

It is a bunch of horse s**t, there is no evidence whatsoever the the CIA or any other arm of the U.S. government “created” or supported Bin Laden.

As for Hussein, he was the Soviets’ and China’s son of a bitch, not the U.S.: he was armed by the Soviets, Chinese and France. The U.S. did not have diplomatic relations with the Hussein regime until 1984 (ie. more than sixteen years after the Ba’athists have taken power)…

The U.S. of course cynically pursued its interests in the MIddle East during the 1980s, double-dealing with both Iraq and Iran, in order to neutralize BOTH powers.

This was, of course, amoral: it is, also, an embodiment of the “realpolitik” that the establishment left is now so eager to embrace (like other concepts it condemned during the Cold War: like “containtment” and “deterrence”).

The left-wing elite is only intereted in power: it will change its basic principles at the drop of a hat, for this precise end…

thanks
Roundhead.

The Left adores Marxist dictators. And, despite the article you link to, the majority of the Left/Democrats/progessives were most enthusiastic about the bombing of Serbia.

grackle, again, making my point about shifting alliances—during WWII we fought Imperial Japan, and supported China. Now we support Japan, and are against China. Nations change, governments change, policies shift; we couldn’t be on the side of Imperial Japan in the 40’s; we can’t be on the side of the totalitarian Chi-coms now.

Realpolitik has been the name of the game in the 20th Century. (The Left practices it too; they support the dictators they agree with, wholeheartedly.)

Just remember the simple formula: America = WRONG. No thought required, which is why American liberals rely on it so heavily.

Actually, this is incorrect. Certainly the Islamists were a major component of the revolution that overthrew the Shah, but were not the only component. Indeed, the revolution had wide popular support, as most elements of Iranian society took part in some way. It was only after the Shah was overthrown that Khomeini was able to consolidate power. It’s worth pointing out that the students who seized the American embassy were a separate faction from Khomeini’s followers, and that they did so without his knowledge. In other words, the situation is slightly more complicated than I think you realize. I highly recommend, as a good place to start, the updated version of Nikki Keddie’s “Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution.” Also, the International Crisis Group has done a number of good pieces on the differences between Shi’a Islamism and Sunni Islamism, as well as political dynamics in modern Iran, which indicate that the situation isn’t exactly as cut-and-dry as you believe. When talking about “totalitarian Islam” taking over the world, Iran and al Qaeda aren’t synonymous and are in many ways very at odds with each other - Shi’a Islamism is built around the Shi’a clerical hierarchy, which al Qaeda views as utterly apostate.

Sally, I hope you’re terribly ashamed that you’re secretly reading everything I suggested, but are far too proud to admit it.

Ymarsakr, you’re fortunate in that what one says when one is very young is not, or at least should not, be held against one when one is older.

For anyone else who’s interested in more on the Middle East and have been getting their fix from the same sources, especially blogs, I highly recommend some of the following:

The Carnegie Endowment’s Arab Reform Bulletin

The International Crisis Group’s reporting on Islamism (scroll down for the reports; skip the op-eds) and

The Carnegie Endowment’s Arab Reform Bulletin

The International Crisis Group’s reporting on Islamism (scroll down for the reports; skip the op-eds) and

The Carnegie Endowment’s Arab Reform Bulletin

The International Crisis Group’s reporting on Islamism (scroll down for the reports; skip the op-eds) and Middle East/North Africa

The Jamestown Foundations Global Terrorism Analysis

The Middle East Review of International Affairs

ISIM Review

The best blog on the region, that of Marc Lynch

For broader military issues, I recommend: Parameters, Strategic Insights, the Strategic Studies Institute publications, anything from the National Defense University’s Institute for Strategic and International Studies, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (especially Anthony Cordesman’s work on the Gulf/Iraq), the Institute for Science and International Security (good for nuclear proliferation issues), the journals “International Security,” “American Political Science Review,” and “Terrorism and Political Violence.”

Please remember that I have no personal investment in whether you read this, but would be pleased if someone did and found some of it enlightening; it doesn’t really matter whether I read this, or skim them, or understand them, but rather that they’re good sources. The only person harmed by stubbornly refusing to read them (cough Sally cough) is, well, you. Enjoy!

If we depose dictators, we’re bad, because we’re reaching for empire and brutally conquering sovreign nations. If we don’t depose dictators, we’re tolerating evil, and not doing enough to succor the oppressed of the earth. If we work with dictators we’re bad. But if we’re isolationist, that’s bad too. If we don’t work with dicatators we’re bad, because our economic sanctions harm their innocent subjects.

Just as an aside—given the current situation in the world, working with dictators is sometimes going to be inevitable, if unpleasant, since very often the choice is between bad, badder and worst of all. Here, in the (imaginary) country of Basketkazia, you have three leaders contending for power: General Sy Kotik, who wants to wipe out one-half of the population, and install a Marxist dictatorship (badder); Ayatollah Ubu Roi, who wants wipe out three-fourths of the population and establish a religious dictatorship (worst of all), and strongman Ali Kapone, who just wants to wipe out his political enemies and put himself, and his cronies in power (bad). So, which one do you pick?

America would probably go with Ali Kapone as being the least obnoxious of the three—and the Left will be furious, because they were backing Sy Kotik (he’d Marxist). So America will be WRONG!

Or, America could just sit on the sidelines, and watch Sy, Ali and Ubu duke it out among themselves—but then it would be accused of heartless indifference towards a war-torn nation.

(The UN will strongly condemn Israel, and ignore the problem for as long as it possibly can; no help from that quarter.)

Of course, the US could go in and try and install a democratic government—but then they’d be denounced as warmongers. See how simple things are when you adopt the America = WRONG philosophy?

I find it ironic, by the way, that the Iranian people arenow rebelling against the very mullah-ocracy they supposedly deperately wanted back in the bad old days of the Shah. If we support them now, we’ll be WRONG—but if we don’t support them, that will be WRONG too!

See how easy it is?

Let us not forget that it was an Iraqi-flown but French-built Mirage that put two French-built Exocet missile into the USS Stark in March 1987. http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm

The Iraqis claimed it was a mistaken attack and reportedly paid some reparations.

The US Navy, at that time, was working hard to keep oil shipping lanes open and to prevent attacks on shipping by both Iraq and Iran.

The US might have been biased toward Saddam, but we knew what he was.

Despite the commentor’s complicated denial, MY assertion IS correct.

To bring the reader up to speed: In his eagerness to deny the obvious threat to the West by the Islamists the commentor earlier stated hotly that … “they[“Islamists”] couldn’t even overthrow their own governments.” However, the commentor forgot(or never knew) the Shah’s government was overthrown by Khomeini – an ISLAMIST. My, how exquisite we get when we are caught in a glaring error.

In order to cover for his ignorance the commentor commits the laughable strategy of throwing up smokescreens comprised of long lists of books WE should read. Get that? HE screws up but WE have to read books to cure OUR ignorance. The arrogance of these folks is sometimes dumbfounding. Here’s the relevant quote from Wiki:

Khomeini rejected Dr. Bakhtiar’s demands fiercely and appointed an interim government on his own. Shortly after, with the military announcing their neutrality in the conflict, the dissolution of the monarchy was completed at the hands of the revolutionaries led by Khomeini.
 

Useful Idiots have mundane uses too – howling laughter

Everything has to be put in its context. If someone suggests a link or two to read in the course of a reasonably respectful debate, that’s one thing. But if some anonymous person appears on a blog and not simply provides a long list of their favorite papers, links, monographs, blogs, videos, etc., that they’ve collected over the years, but also insists — begs, pleads, and whines — that everyone else should take time from their lives to consume such a list, well, that’s another. Such people, of course, quite typically announce such lists by assuring everyone that it will illuminate their otherwise dark minds, and such people usually find it difficult to avoid an arrogant and insulting manner for very long, since in their own minds, only they are on the path of true enlightenment. But such people are really only one more sad member of the that tribe of obsessive hangers-on, trying to get some attention. I won’t mention any names (cough).

Here’s something for YOU to read. One link. One soldier’s take on the war, shared, I’m sure by many, and ignored by the likes of you:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/

Scroll down to “Lt. Mark Daily, RIP”

Ten times—nay, a hundred million times the man you pretend to be.

Just remember, America = WRONG. In the mind of the Left, that’s all you need to know.

Fact is, Khomeini overthrew an already established government, after the Shah was gone.

TK: that’s the consensus among DC insiders.

The above is part of a common evasive tactic when the Islamist threat is debated. The commentors make quite a do about the various hostilities amongst the Muslim sects, as if all that means a hoot in hell when it comes to these Muslim frick and fracks’ enjoyment of murdering Westerners and anyone they see as friendly(or even neutral) toward the West and as if many readers don’t already KNOW the info contained in their little ‘lectures’ - and more. And it never seems to occur, never seems to percolate to the surface of their awareness, that these internecine differences in the Muslim world make little difference when the Jihad is on.

A gang could be mauling someone and these debaters would be standing around waxing starry-eyed about where each thug came from and what style of brass-knuckles and truncheons they were using on the hapless victim.

If other onlookers expressed concern they would hotly deny a beating is even taking place and would threaten to call the (International) police if anyone interfered with the carnage.

If THAT failed they could always resort to blaming the victim: The Islamists are ‘caused’ by the Great Satan, a mere reaction to Western Imperialism’s Conspiracy With The Vicious Jew.
 

Another Wiki quote:

“The monarchy was abolished in 1979 when a revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, pressured the last Pahlavi shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, into exile, and established an Islamic Republic.”

The fact is: Khomeini, an Islamist, overthrew the Shah. Details about the constituents of the event do not change this simple historical fact.
 

I mentioned the interim government, only because so many on the Left talk as if Khomeini were somehow elected to lead the country, in some sort of democratic election. He didn’t. Basically, he seized power.