I really do not believe there will be a direct war between Iran and the United States at least through the end of Obama's term in office. If there is a war, I expect it to be historically disastrous for the United States, and that it will be written in future history books as the war that ended the US empire.
How could a war start? Let's say the US interprets either the sanctions resolutions in place or some new sanctions resolution as permitting US interception of Iranian ingoing shipping, and by holding up supplies arriving to Iran begins seriously hampering the Iranian economy. I use this scenario to point out that the US does not need more Security Council resolutions to impose crippling sanctions if it wants to. The US, right now, just does not want to because they would start a war the US does not want. Alternatively we can start the war by Israel or the US bombing any kind of targets in Iran.
But with the shipping scenario, Iran responds to what Iran, rightly, Security Council resolution or not, interprets as an act of war by escalating its support for anti-US forces in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Because there has not been an overt bombing yet, Iran does not directly use Iranian forces, but provides material and expertise in attacking US supply lines in these three countries.
Now Iran is under crippling sanctions, and eventually US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are also under crippling sanctions. Either the US will allow anti-US forces to hold sanctuary in Iran as they continue their escalating and increasingly effective campaign of preventing supplies from reaching US bases or the US will attack supply depots and training areas in Iran. Iran will become more brazen, though still indirect, in its attacks on US bases and their supplies until the US actually attacks Iran. Once this happens, it is the same as if the US had bombed Iran's nuclear installations as a first move, except that in this scenario, Iran has had more time to establish its connections with anti-US forces in the three countries.
Once the actual overt attack on Iran happens, Iran is able to move its conflict with the United States into the open. Now there are Iranian units operating at least in Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly also in Pakistan, but possibly Iran will continue operating through proxies in Pakistan. Also, because the US escalated hostilities and attacked Iran against the advice and request of the Iraqis and Afghans, Maliki and Karzai, the political will to help the US fend off the Iranians, even if it was possible to do so, does not exist in either country, especially Iraq. The US cannot count on Iraqi troops to supply its bases any more. Now US troops have to come out and defend the convoys.
I don't know if the US is going to try to take and hold Iranian territory, but if it does, it will find a dug-in prepared and resource-rich insurgency pre-positioned that will immediately surpass the worst insurgency-based fighting the US has faced so far in Iraq. If not, US activity in Iran will be limited to air strikes. Air strikes did not remove Hussein from power, did not remove Hezbollah from power, didn't even remove Hamas from power.
All air strikes accomplish practically is build an image of a cowardly armed forces that are only effective when targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. The US will get some hospitals, some power plants, some water-purification plants but these will outrage the world. There will not be direct consequences for this outrage the colonies of Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, but Turkey will be under tremendous pressure to end its alliance with the United States and Israel, possibly irretrievably. That will be the most important immediate diplomatic consequence, but the rest of the free Muslim world will turn against the US in ways that will be harmful later.
There may or may not be attacks on mainland US targets. There very likely will be attacks on Western European allies of the US. These will not be decisive, but will cause the citizens of Western countries to feel some discomfort from this war. I honestly do not think Hamas or Hezbollah would need to be activated against Israel, even if it was Israel that launched the first attack because Iran can attack the US directly more effectively while holding Hamas and Hezbollah capabilities in reserve, so that they can continue to deter Israeli attacks on their territories.
Eventually the situation will stabilize with the US taking constant casualties in defending the supply lines to its forces in Iraq and/or Afghanistan while Iran is under US bombing but not nearly enough to displace the regime. With direct Iranian involvement I think it would be conservative to project a death rate for US troops of twice the peak death rate from the Iraq occupation.
Iran already produces surface to air missiles, but not the most advanced in the world. On the other hand, Russia produces state of the art shoulder fired anti-air missiles. Russian "organized crime" groups could "smuggle" weapons to the Iranians, just because the longer the US remains in a losing stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan, the less able it is to influence Russia's regions of interest. Hillary Clinton can complain to the Russians about the "smuggling" but the Russian reply would be "or what?".
Once firing starts, Russia wants and likely can achieve a reversal of World War II. The US post war advantage over Europe and Russia, that has been eroding since that war, can be fully dissolved before the US gets out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If Iran needs help to cause this to happen, it has good internal supply lines, connections and resources to do so. Russia also has its own nuclear deterrent. The US has no leverage to prevent Russia from draining it the way the US did when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. This means Russia has an interest in preventing Iran from running out of material to continue its war effort and may well do so.
We have not talked about the Persian Gulf. At some point, shipping is likely to stop because tankers, one way or another, will be destroyed as they try to pass. More importantly though, the US Navy has not come under serious fire in a long time and how it fares under fire is important information that both the Russians and Chinese have an interest in acquiring. If Chinese "triads" "smuggle" anti-ship weapons to Iran, they will be able to experiment on active US Naval defense systems that will provide data for Chinese planners of contingencies involving Taiwan and designers of future weapons systems. Possibly an attack will get lucky and cause huge financial damage and hundreds or thousands of US troop deaths. Clinton will complain but China's reply will be "or what?" The US does not have a credible response to unprovable Chinese activity while it is already engaged in a war with Iran.
In Iraq, the US has to decide to continue trying to supply the troops, or fight their way out of the country. Either way, the US is no longer effectively able to influence Iraq's government or armed forces and Iraq will now be a fully Iran-friendly state bordering Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Israel is committed to defending Jordan and while there will not be a set-piece invasion, Iranian and Iraqi teams will be able to enter nearly at will and apply pressure to the Jordanian colonial dictatorship.
Lastly we have not talked about Iran's nuclear program. Iran certainly will direct all of the country's scientific resources toward building a weapon. Pakistan, outraged by the US' attacks on Iranian civilians will be difficult to deter from assisting in any way they can. It is very unlikely that Iran has not built a weapon two years after the shooting started. It will not use the weapon in this conflict, but once it has it, the situation on the ground has changed permanently. Iran will not give up the weapon once it has it under any circumstances, under any government even if in the distant future somehow the US gets regime change somehow.
Iran will be bombed the way Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza were bombed. Unlike Gaza, the US will not be able to prevent rebuilding. The US will face, conservatively, 200 US deaths a month until US voters decide they've had enough. Leaving means either suing for peace and paying reparations to Iran or the soldiers evacuating under fire, leaving their material behind. Once the US is gone, its positions in Afghanistan and Iraq will be gone with it. It will also have lost Turkey and the colonies in Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be under more pressure than they've ever been under.
Iran will rebuild, be fully nuclear and by the calculations of the Iranians, the war can be expected to produce both national cohesion and in some engineering schools and seminaries will be Khomeinis and Ahmadinejads for who have been radicalized and taught the importance of ideological sacrifice preparing them as leaders of future generations. With the US having no further appetite to intervene in the Middle East, it will be relatively soon that Iran will regain its position as the dominant power of the region.
The US ability to project force into the Middle East will be permanently diminished and US financing of this expanded war will accelerate the US' decline as an economic power. How did this war start again? The US didn't want Iran to have the capability, in theory, the make a nuclear weapon because that would mean Israel would lose what it considers its necessary ability to threaten its neighbors? It is very likely that a generation of Americans further removed from WWII will reconsider the US commitment to Israel after this war.
Russia will be the undisputed winner as it benefits not only from the US losing position relatively and the US' inability to concentrate on Europe or other objectives while fighting Iran, but it will also benefit from the spike in energy prices. Russia may lock in its gains with a nice color revolution in Poland just to complete the symmetry of historical justice being done for US intervention in its previous invasion of Afghanistan.
I'm pretty sure a war with Iran would be the worst mistake in the history of the United States and would set in motion a process that would result in the US being no more globally relevant than Brazil. I'm also pretty sure US strategists are aware of the risks hostilities escalating to war with Iran entail. I likely got some details wrong, I also likely missed some problems a war would cause for the US. I'm fairly confident that a decade after the end of the war, it will be generally acknowledged that between Iran and the US, Iran ended up being the victor.
134 comments:
I think that's a good analysis and might end up being what happens. More likely, no war will happen and we will never know for sure what it would have been like.
However, war happens, it would probably be under the following conditions:
1) The US will have completed its departure from Iraq and will also have either left Afghanistan, or paid the Taliban a hefty sum simply to leave them alone for while. (I understand the latter is unlikely, so let us assume the former.)
2) There will be no ground invasion of any kind and the war will resemble the 1999 bombing of Serbia.
3) You simply cannot count on international outrage to deter the US and even less to actually retaliate. Mubarak is still there despite actively collaborating in the starvation of Gaza. He is hated for it, to be sure, but he remains in power.
4) If the US "wins" the war, everyone will simply accept it. Iraq's government will reorient its policies towards something that the US and Saudi Arabia would prefer. They would have no choice.
5) The goal of the war would NOT be to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. And the US would even state as much, claiming to wish simply to delay it. The real goal would be to cause maximum destruction to Iran's economy and retard its development. That the US can achieve. Yes, Iran can rebuild, but under sanctions it will be slow and never quite to what they had before.
This is hardly risk free from the US perspective. They will have a number of disadvantages.
1) There will be no local base after the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan. This will have to be conducted from carriers and bases in Europe and Diego Garcia. Gulf states are likely to decline to participate (perhaps the US can coerce Kuwait. Then again, no. Too vulnerable to retaliation.)
2) The Straights of Hormuz will be vulnerable to closure.
I'm certain there are people in government pushing that very line of thinking. They probably will be ignored. At least I hope so. But given how much a powerful Iran would hinder US/Israeli policy, I can't be sure.
"1) The US will have completed its departure from Iraq and will also have either left Afghanistan, or paid the Taliban a hefty sum simply to leave them alone for while. (I understand the latter is unlikely, so let us assume the former"
if they did, what will be of USA puppet regimes there? And if (when) they fall, for WHAT was all USA's spending of treasure and its "valuable" troops blood?
2) There will be no ground invasion of any kind and the war will resemble the 1999 bombing of Serbia.
In Serbia, they COULD make "colour revolution", but about Iran I am not sure.
The US isn't getting out of Iraq as far as I can tell. The US is relabeling its troops non-combat troops and leaving something like 50,000 of them.
If not, that leaves Iraq to Iran, and Iraq as an ally for Iran would be tremendously valuable for its borders with Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
The US invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan for reasons that will not be resolved in the next 5 or probably 10 years. I don't see US troops being evacuated from either to the degree necessary that Iran would not be able to take advantage of their presence to punish the US for an attack in the foreseeable future.
Worst case though, attack Iran and even without hostages in the neighboring countries, Iran still builds a nuclear weapon over the next two years. That's really deterrent enough.
A Serbia-style attack would serve the US very little good as Lidia says, as far as I can figure out. Nobody thinks there will still be material, plans and expertise in the country to build weapons. At least Turkey and Pakistan, led by the sentiments of their people, officially or semi-officially may even assist Iran in smuggling necessary components if they are unavailable in Iran.
All that is to say, I agree that there will not be a US attack on Iran and we'll never know how it would have gone.
The Iranians already have a Russian anti-ship missile, the Moskit (NATO designation "Sunburn"), that is more than capable of sinking a United States aircraft carrier in one shot. They are so high-tech that the U.S. cannot shoot them down, unless they simply get lucky. Our Naval presence in the area will likely be shattered, tens of thousands of sailors will die, and the Straits of Hormuz will be unnavigable due to sunk ships, naval or civilian, blocking it, effectively cutting off over fifty percent of the world's oil supply. Simply, we can't go to war with Iran.
I believe in an asymmetrical approach to war with Iran. We must go to war with Iran while acting like we are not at war with Iran. Believe it or not the Iranian people like Americans and if we don't give any obvious reason to change their minds their own govt. stability is shaky. If Iran gets nuked and a large portion of the people are killed and no US nukes are involved, I believe that would be the best possible solution where we can give aid and emotional support and attempt to find the terrorist culprit. We must use non-linear warfare while at ths same time be willing to use any and all solutions to enemies that actively work to our demise.
Let's not Waste Our Breath 'Iran will Make a Big Mistake to Go to War With Us.Keep In mind They Have Nothing we Need.We Will Continue To Build More Carriers.
Whoever wrote this article is an idiot.
I hope that you, whoever you are, learn to write with proper grammar before you pursue a career in global politics.
It will be the populi not the army that force us out.
IRAN, Would have no chance if the United States would take off the gloves and use everything we have. I would give them a month tops. Forget about winning hearts and minds. I am saying, Stealth bomb their military air defense until it is useless and dust off the B-52's and carpet bomb them back into the stone age. We need to take charge of the World before someone else steps in our shoes. It may already have happened. China, anyone.
The Iranians are self sufficient for most weaponry, even if most of their weapons are not a match for the US, they produce their MANPAD, anti-aircraft missiles, satellites, rockets (the Sejil is more advanced than the original North Korean version). They don't need so much to rely on weapon smuggling, it's just a must for some stuff like night vision googles and a few items.
But all this hardware will not give them a victory over the USA. The Americans are their worst ennemies, it's so easy for a US president to boost his popularity before an election with a war, when the medias beat the drums most American fall and become enthusiast war mongers until... Well, sorry, that's the way you (Americans) are perceived abroad, at least here.
The Iranians just need to show a symbolic resistance to win the war.
If they dammage an oil tanker occasionally that's enough to push insurance primes up,up,up and the price of oil will explode accordingly.
A massive bombardment of Iran with several missions involving hundreds of aircrafts costs several billion $ per day.
The US paid hundred of billion dollars for a war againt Iraq, imagine a much bigger,populated and sophisticated country.
Just the threat of a terrorist attack on the US soil will impede the trade so much, hiring countless people to inspect any cargo, any truck, this has a price too. The USA is no longer in 1960. Even if the Iranians don't try to attack smooth target and spread he footh and the mouse disease (the cattle industry is one of the rare one that wasn't yet outsourced to China or India), who will finance this war?
So far the US has to rely on the kindness of China or Japan to finance a 1 trillion $ deficit, will the Chinese lend even more money to he US ust to help them to punch their Iranian allied?
It's not surprising that the congress tries to ge a UN resolution that prevent Iran to import refined oil, i.e. gasoline. Prior to the the massive reduction of subsidies for gasoline in Iran (last December), 50% of the gasoline had to be import, now it's 30% and the share will shrink further.
On the other hand this is a necessary move to win a war, at least in the twisted logic of the US poliicians. The US doesn't know for sure were the Iranians could enrich uranium and they would be further in the dark if the war is declared because no inspector could go there. So the sole way to win a war without sending US troops is to destroy refineries, power plants, digs, water plants,etc... These are the real targets, as they were in 1991 in Iraq, it's just a remake.
The US politicians expect the Chinese/Russians to protest softly and they expect an uprising due to the economic hardship in Iran. But Iran has now large reserves of gold, so it can theorically purchase gasoline abroad to fill the basic needs, especially the military. That's why making it illegal to sell gasoline to Iran before a non UN backed attack is essential. And if the Chinese, the Russians, but especially the Turkish, the Pakistanese, the Armenians, the Iraqis protest, they will be told that it's illegal to sell gasoline to Iran and their government will have to prevent any truck from entering Iran. How nice to play the moralisator here, the US bombing will be illegal itself without the backing of China.
It's the likely scenario that the hawks in Washington have in the mind, winning a war without sending troops, destroying he Iranian economy and preventing any gasoline from entering the country because refineries are soft targets. But this scenario is based on the assumption that the Turkish, the Armenians, the Pakistanses, the Iraqis will be eager to collaborate, otherwise the US bombers can destroy suspeced vehicles that cross he borders and kill any of these people.
The USA has no longer the economical backbone to replay the 1991 scenario. It's popularity in the region (except in Azerbaidjan and Israel) is near zero.
He's conveniently forgets to mention that while the U.S. continues to face opposition in Iraq, the government fell very quickly. So too would the Iranian regime under intense bombing and rapid elimination of the leadership. China and Russia would anticipate such a quick loss, and therefore would have no interest in risking their relationships with the U.S. over Iran. American casualties may be high relative to the Iraq and Afghan wars, but they would still be low historically and wouldn't present an existential threat to the United States. If anything it might stimulate the economy, god forbid.
Iran's leadership could not be removed by airstrikes very quickly any more than Hezbollah's leadership in Lebanon, or Hamas' leadership in Gaza.
If the US wants to change Iran's leadership, it needs ground troops to control Iran's population and leadership centers as happened in Iraq. Nobody in Iran, the US, Russia, China or anywhere else thinks that is plausible.
The original conclusion is still valid, there is no feasible US military option against Iran and there will not be unless something fundamental changes.
It's amazing how many armchair generals respond to these posts without an iota of military knowledge of how wars are fought and won, and laughable at how many America haters there are! The reality is that the last thing Iran wants is an all-out war with the U.S., otherwise they would have started one by now, especially with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down. Iran knows that it cannot defeat the U.S., albeit, they can inflict some heavy damage, but Iran needs to change its hostile ways before regime change becomes a necessity.
It is amazing how the defender of USA colonial wars has a gall to call Iran "hostile". Colonial warmongers just unable to get that to wage war against peoples means the people would resist. To believe him(?) one is excused to imagine that it is Iran who has invaded Canada and Mexico, build war bases there and every day threats USA, founds "opposition" in USA and arms terrorist groups in USA.
How would people here to respond to claims that if Iran ever built nuclear weapons, it would inevitably use them against Israel, on the grounds that even if Israel nuked Iran back the Iranians would go to Paradise and the Israelis would go to Hell?
It's an argument I've seen quite a bit from anti-Muslim type, that "at least the Soviets weren't likely to start a nuclear war, because they were atheists and therefore didn't believe in any afterlife."
The same ilk claimed something equally stupid about ungodly communists being ready to attack "free world" back then. To discuss something with such persons is a waste of time - they are willing ignorants.
Iran already has nuclear warheads that they receiced after the fsll of the soviet Union. They will use them! It's over!
Negative, the most powerful country in the world can ruin iran at will... (iran has a weak dictator)The people of Iran know that the regime is a loss cause. Imagine the internet blacked out. Like China, they are blinded by being free to speak their thoughts.communism crumbled when the ussr fell.It was a good experiment but Democracy is based on peoples ambitions. Nobody in Tehran will hear this because they are silenced. They think we are using the middle east for oil... they are. I am in the U.S. military (unoffically), but they have built and invested in great populations. Hegemony is a word that doesn't express the US military or US intentions. If you have visited the US you would (hopefully not attacking us)recoginze our struggle for our families. Like most, we all want lower gas prices and some alternative fuel for resources, included is educational institutions and jobs. We love our children and we want them to grow up without war. The globe has an oil driven mechanism. Many countries have caused that and we all rely on it.This whole nuclear blink (war) is based on this energy struggle. Resolution, the world powers work for a electric and nuclear derived source of energy. Beyond that, Religion differences can die out. Its not needed when, we are free to believe our separate fates. It seems that some power is based on where you go when you die. I think a lack of communication has reacted in several middle east and world powers which resulted in a war by the U.S. and NATO. We (World) have a well of oil but everyone struggles to grasp it. When they(tap out)find another source they will let the middle east go. But, reliant upon it they will sort out and its back to what they should have done. Invested trillion's in alternative energy and started fresh. In the end, the U.S. doesn't want harm to anyone that doesn't deserve it. Iran is a country like Iraq to formitable threats like the U.S.
Ha-ha, do we have their a Pentagon payed ciber-warrior :)
next time you'd better do not be SO open about from here your paycheck comes
And please, find another place to pollute with you stale propaganda. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if you believe such b...s himself.
this is just retarded.Iran would not have even a 1% chance of defeating U.S. forces if they attacked. our bombing campaigns would remove the nuclear plants from the country.there would be no ground invasion unless needed. England,France-both U.S. allies and enemies of Iran and if a war happened these two countries would support the U.S. but why the hell would there be anti-U.S. riots? there wouldn't. you're just a pissed of english hippie. a U.S. Iran war would end in complete U.S. victory. it wouldn't last more than a month. think of this war like dessert storm. AMERICA WINS. period
I wonder, is Arnold's blog SO important that it warrants its own resident imperialist warmonger - of Pentagon infame, no less?
Or is it just a bot, activated every month :)
Bombs did not have removed Saddam, Hamas, or the Taliban, but they weakened the target. And incase you haven't followed recent events (Im sure you have, seeing as you sound like a radical pan-islam), Bombings DID remove Mommoar Kaddafi.
You act as if Russia and China hate America and Would work to weaken them. Russia might do as you described, but as soon as this gets out, Other Europeans will become suspicious. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and almost Ukraine didn't join NATO simply to tell Russia to get lost.
Considering the Americans are the biggest exporters from China as well. The six other biggest importers from China (Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, us, Nederlands, and the English) are heavily aligned with the U.S. Korea is still at war, and a China going back on its non-interventionist policy will raise too many red flags to count. Japan started by purging Chinese influnce over 2500 years ago, and is well aware the Chinese are not very happy about their former empire and puppet regions. By angering these countries, China loses 458.45 billion American Dollars per year from trade. The country already has a huge rich/poor divide, lowering income will only make the people angrier.
Since I think you are in the Middle East, I will give you the argument on Turkey, however, Iran and the current Iraq regime are much more friendly to Kurds than before. Turkey has a huge kurdisch population, and granting them concessions will certainly bring up the Kurdistan Workers partei. Also, many countries with Turkisch populations are aligned to Russia currently, due to wars the tzar fought. If America takes advantage of this, im sure Turkey would be hesitant tofight against their interests.
I don't believe in excess war, but by saying this such as "US empire" and discussing how America will fall, your only breeding hatred and more war. This is why you will never move past the year 623. Before you say I am biased, keep in mind that we had a leader who felt the same way as you. He was elected in 1932, and ruled until 1945.
Für Frieden, Freiheit und Demokratie. Nie wieder Faschismus. Millionen Tote mahnen.
1) Hitler was NOT elected. He was selected by the biggest capitalists and landlords.
2) I am not going to say more in answer to the person who does not know (?) even the basic facts, not mentioning other pearls of wisdom.
Anonymous,
Thank you for the answer! However, I must ask you a few things.
First Why do you think Hitler was elected by the other, to be Chancellor? It was because of a vote! Others won parliamentary elections, and had powerful control over legislation. The NSDAP had almost half the members of the Reichstag! Hindenburg was told to Hitler into office, but by other supporters of him. Im sorry, he was not elected, as President chooses Chancellor, Hitler was suppported to be chancellor. However, a good majority wanted him. He passed laws so he could have power. Elected parliament (voted by the people) said yes.
Second, Why do you think that Hitler was a capitalist? Many people have to start up businesses, but under the party name. The people working for the party and were paid by the party. They were store managers, and the Nazis were bosses.
Third, You said I do not know the basic facts? Everything you said to me was that Hitler was not elected. I'm offended by this. If you have sources, I'd like to learn. I did some research before I said my last response, so some sites may be bad! Would you tell me please?
Fourth I do not know if you wrote the blog. However, I still want to know why violence against the West is so great. If capitalism is bad, you do not even hate communism? Do not forget, the Russians fought many other Muslims in their country and attacked Afghanistan. Is there a system that you like? I would like to know. I do not own a Koran, so I'm going to find one, but I thought, Muhammad preached peace, not hate. America is not always hostile. We have our differences, but they have freed from a demon, and from enemies of the muslims, like Saddam and Qaddafi. I think I sound like I like America, but I'm grateful for the help need at a time. Do you think that this is wrong?
Hitler did NOT "had almost half the members of the Reichstag" when he was put to power. "Although Adolf Hitler had the support of certain sections of the German population he never gained an elected majority. The best the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) could do in a election was 37.3 per cent of the vote they gained in July 1932. When Hitler became chancellor in January 1933, the Nazis only had a third of the seats in the Reichstag."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GER1933.htm
Now everyone could see WHY I said BDJ did not know the basic facts.
I am NOT going to on to argue with such person, sorry.
Anonymous,
I am surprized. I talked about what I thought was a fear of other countries for going to war. I do not believe America wants war. We are all coneccted through trade, and any attack on America would destabilize the world. China would lose it's biggest trader, Europe would view any supporters, directly or indirectly, with hostility. Germany only unified Twentyone years ago, and the cold war still is alive to some people.
You responded to me, but only talked about Hitler. He was only a point I tried to make. I take back everything I said, having read them again, about similarities. Few people liked him, and you clearly don't. I am sorry.
However, I am still wondering why that is the only thing you talk about. Am I wrong to think that China wants to be rich? Am I wrong that Russia is surrounded by countries that view them with suspicion? Am I wrong That certain allies, like Turkey or India, do not want to increase ethic tensions that would reduce their land?
I think this will be my last comment here, seeing as you refuse to say why Im wrong. You said Hitler wasn't elected, and gave me a website saying he had no majority when he was chancellor. Never did you say anything about Soviet rule in Afghanistan. You never said what you thought about what civil war in Libya. On a side note,
Libya want to recognize Israel! The rebels rule the country, and many join the celebrations. I think many are glad for France and Englisch help. Before you say Libya was bombed, the blog said "Air strikes did not remove Hussein from power, did not remove Hezbollah from power, didn't even remove Hamas from power.
All air strikes...are only effective when targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. " Im March, the Death toll for civilians was thought to be 6000.The current deaths is at least 25000 civilians. Kadaffi must slow down to keep people under control, but that doesn't stop him from killing.
These are all I have to say. You are saying I don't know the basic facts, yet only refute a comparison. I will go unless you have something good to say. I doubt you will reply to this, and only call it stupid.
Side note: You still missed "elected" Hitler as dictator. Hitler did not put a gun to Hindenburg and say, "Im Führer now!" He was given power through the reichtag. In march, before the Enabling Act, he won 44 percent of the votes for seats. This is to high for "Capitalists and Land Owners." Your thinking of the DNVP, which gave him a majority. However, He made an agreement with the unaligned parties. He later betrayed them. However, making such deals is normal in politics, and is a way of having a political base.
1) Hitler had not need to threat Hindenburg, Hindenburg handed power to Hitler because big capitalists and landlords had wrote a letter of recommendation for Hitler, and Hindenburg was on their beck and call. Of course, Hitler HAD support and got votes, a third of Reichstag , or the same capitalists/junkers would back somebody else. But he had NOT enough votes to be elected a popular leader, enough of it.
I am just tied of people who "support" their posts by propaganda pieces with no basis in facts. I am irritated by it, it is all. Otherwise, posts by BDJ have no interest to me, sorry. I also am not interested in what "star" wears what outfit and divorces whom and so on.
But we have something you have & thats ur WHITE-ASS. talk is cheap , u know that , right ?
Hog wash, Iraq has had sanctions since the over threw the Shah. They could not defeat Iraq and they would not last any longer then Iraq did in a war. Also we should have learned enough in Iraq to make the clean up easier. Just get rid of the religious nuts and put the military in power this time.
Why this post still attracts imperialist nuts and armchair Napoleons ? I suppose Arnold did a good job to nettle them :)
By the way, the fundamental colonialist ignorance of l9162 is comparable only with his(?) colonialist arrogance. I suppose he is going to volunteer for this "cakewalk"?
I've been lurking on this blog for a while, don't really say much since my voice would get shot down. Google "America Iran War" and this was one of the first results, and the only in depth one. Over here, we are still kind of rattled over the supposed "assassination attempt" of the Saudi ambassador. Of course, the 1979 revolution is fresh to us too, and certain protests get heavy media exposure.
1) Thank for the answer. it is good if Arnold's blog could be more visible this way - it deserves to be widely visited.
2) Arnold is very liberal and I cannot remember him banning anyone.
world war 3 probably starts today maybe....
You are letting what you want to believe or what is poltically correct to cloud your judgement. The fact is Iran military is divided between the military and the revolutioary guard. For all practical purpose they dont even have an air force. Iran would not last as long as Iraq because we now have bases in that region and more then half million combat veterans.
I spelled out a pretty detailed scenario. Which statements in the scenario do you think are wrong?
The US is not going to go to war with out a good reason an the support of the American people. I would assume if we did it would be the result of a 911 type attack or Iran going to war with Israel Kuwait, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia.
Iran has a military budget of about 10 billion, ours is 700 billion. The very idea that our military can defeat theirs is ridiculous.
For all practical purpose we are out of Iraq and almost out of Afganstan.
If they block oil shipments they will have the entire world against them.
The Arabs dont like the Persians
and the Shi'a dont like the Sunni , just cause they are Muslims dont mean they are going to stick togather.
If they attack Israel with nuclear weapons or WMP Israel is going to use their Samson Doctrine and use several hundred nuclear weapons against the entire middle east.
Iran can not do what ever they want with out the risk of war.
Every thing you say about the fall out could have been said and was said about Iraq and Afgan, it did not happen.
Like Murphys Law, and Afgan and Iraq its going to cost more and take longer then we would expect.
“I quarrel not with far-off foes, but
with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far
away, and without whom the latter would be harmless.”
Henry David Thoreau quotes
Yes, sure, the aggressive war of USA against Iraq was because 9/11, too? Because it was Iraq to blame, was it not?
I have a strong suspicion that "Cowboy" is pulling our legs :) Even the most ignorant American knows for now that USA ruined Iraq only because USA big-heartness, to bring democracy to Iraq :(
Thoreau was a great person and had NOTHING to do with colonial, aggressive wars by USA - for ex, against Mexico
"On July 24 or July 25, 1846, Thoreau ran into the local tax collector, Sam Staples, who asked him to pay six years of delinquent poll taxes. Thoreau refused because of his opposition to the Mexican-American War and slavery, and he spent a night in jail because of this refusal. (The next day Thoreau was freed, against his wishes, when his aunt paid his taxes.[35]) The experience had a strong impact on Thoreau. In January and February 1848, he delivered lectures on "The Rights and Duties of the Individual in relation to Government"[36] explaining his tax resistance at the Concord Lyceum."
For "Cowboy" to cite him is the same as to Obama to cite MLK - to befoul the memory of the person who was a FOE of his colonialist imperialist politics.
If any one ever needed killing it was Saddam and sons, I dont have a problem with it what ever the reason.
if any one needed to show a sordid state of mind of a typical imperialist cheerleader for colonial wars under any pretext, n7 did it. So much for "rule of law" and other shams of USA "democracy" - the pure thuggery.
If we were a colonial power we would still be in Iran and Canada would be a state. Its a sick world that is critical of the USA but allows people like Saddam to use posion gas on women and children. When you accept that or refuse to do any thing about it, you are the one killing them.
Iran? Last time I checked Iran booted colonizers out :)
It is a colonial ignorance who does not even know that "
The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list ofState Sponsors of Terrorism" So, yes, YOU were killing them, because YOU were not merely "accepting", but enabled it.
Not mentioning USA using a-bomb against civilians and then defending it - till today.
Try not to get hysterical.
Concentrate on the topic.
Iraq thus presents an intolerable situation. There were possible benefits from
ending the Iraqi regime, not the least being the ending of the torture that some
Iraqis suffer from. The U.S. chiefs decided that these benefits are greater
than the cost of the war. There was just too much risk leaving a psychopathic Saddam and Sons in power. It cost more and took longer. Murphys Law, but then what doesnt.
When one resorts to personal attack, I know that one has no arguments :)
Of course, it is not that I needed one MORE proof of n7 utter lack of knowledge and utter colonialist arrogance.
The person who, by its own logic is guilty in colonial mass-murder and torture millions of Iraqis just does not need to be exposed by me - he did the job well enough.
Pretty words and good intentions doesnt change the facts . And your coming off a little colonial obsesed
I just get a little tired of stupid. If we were a colonial power we would not be leaving Iraq. Iran military would not put up any more fight then the military of Iraq. I am not saying we should go to war with Iran, I am just saying any one is stupid to think we could not win a war with Iran.
OK, I am repeating SLOW - colonial powers DID leave a lot of their colonies, because they could not sustain the colonial occupation anymore. Even Hitler left Russia :) By the way, Hitler was sure that after winning the war against France, which put not much fight, he could win a war against USSR.
By the way, calling opponents names is SO strong an argument, sure. I, on the other hand, prefer Arnold's reasoning and facts, but I guess it is just me :)
So according to you the reason the US went to war with Iraq and might go to war with is Iran is because the US wants to make them a colony of the US. I expect if the US does not oppose the development of nuclear weapons by Iraq and Iran and there ends up being hundreds of nuclear weapons used in the middle east like Israel Samson doctrine calls for, that will some how be the US fault also.
The short answer is that the United States went to war with Iraq and is threatening to go to war with Iran, along with the US' intense anti-Iranian economic and diplomatic efforts, to ensure Israel's viability despite the unpopularity of its premise in the region.
The 400 million people in Israel's region must either effectively be ruled by US colonies or endure the various forms of warfare directed from the US against Gaza, Iran and Iraq.
http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2007/11/israel-to-blame-for-iraq-mess.html
With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq winding down and the United States facing economic hardship at home, Americans have little appetite for further strife. Yet Iran’s rapid nuclear development will ultimately force the United States to choose between a conventional conflict and a possible nuclear war. Faced with that decision, the United States should conduct a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, absorb an inevitable round of retaliation, and then seek to quickly de-escalate the crisis. Addressing the threat now will spare the United States from confronting a far more dangerous situation in the future.View This Article as Multiple Pages
Time to Attack Iranhttp://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran
I'm curious, noname. Do you even know that the dispute over Iran's nuclear program is based on the US/Israeli position that Iran must not have legal nuclear weapons capabilities such as those Japan has?
http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2009/12/council-on-foreign-relations-mostly.html
http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-is-it-important-to-westerners-that.html
I ask if you know that for two reasons.
1) If so, that's what you're suggesting the US should go to war to prevent.
2) Going to war wouldn't prevent that. In fact, going to war would more likely lead to Iran ending up with deployed weapons than that it would cause Iran to relinquish legal nuclear weapons capabilities that Japan, Brazil, Germany, Canada and many other countries have.
It concerns me that we have a regime thats supports terrorism with an ideology that is obviously evil, combined with a desire to procure technology to act on that ideology," I dont see that as a problem with Japan. What if Iran happens if Iran has nuclear weapons, then decides to block the Persian Gulf to achieve its objectives.
Arnold, this one is hopeless, not worth reasoning, I am afraid. He(?) only knows how to repeat imperialist propaganda -i.e. "terrorism", "evil ideology". Not able to see the grand-scale terrorism of USA imperialism and its evil ideology :(
When one becomes a liberal, like Lindar she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but she is doing so for purely selfish reasons. It's the human equivalent of a puppy dog's face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching peace makes you look cooler.
The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things -- war and hunger, liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.
No all they have to do is leave Israel alone. Its not complicated.
Excellent article, Arnold!
I agree, it is an excellent article, well thought out. I am just not sure when it comes to Iran we have the luxury of doing nothing.
If Iran attacks any U.S. naval vessel, the U.S. will respond with shock and awe.
when one is an imperialist, one is not only cannot see that my name is NOT Linda, but that I am NOT a liberal :) I am a Marxist. And even not an American. It seems that n7 just has one ready-made response for his(?) foes, not bothering even to read what I have said.
So, all n7 tirade was wasted, I even pity n7 a bit. Next time n7 could call me Laila, an Islamist and an Arab. I suppose it is all the same to n7 LOL
Yes, it is NOT complicated. Israel is a settler colony on others' (Arab) land. As such, it is a robbing, murdering, torturing and bombing entity, which is impossible to "leave alone" if only one is not a masochist and suicidal.
SE means "if USA attack Iran, Iran will respond". USA is aggressor here, just to let SE know. As a matter of fact USA IS attacking Iran just now, including by helping terrorist bands.
On the other hand, if SE want to be a victim of another 9/11 or worse, he could go on with cheer for more USA imperialist aggression. Or even enlist.
Israel has showen far more patience then I ever would have. If some one was shooting rockets and bombs at me on a daily basis there would not be anyone left alive in that direction.
So, n7 is comparing himself with Israel? Has n7 robbed some people and murder some of them, and tortured and raped some of them, and then blamed his victims for resisting? Or, as one could suppose from n7 own words, n7 has committed even more crimes than Israel colonialists?
Defenders of Zionists just could not get how their "defense" sounds to non-racists and anti-colonialists. n7 just repeats some prop (I suppose Dershovitz bragged about using it), without bothering to think about its meaning :(
Funny I did not realize that Jews were a race, I though it was a religion.
I wonder if there is something twisted and sick that sees Muslems as the good guys in that part of the world. In Iraq, savage killings of Christians have led thousands to flee the country. In Egypt, Christians are under severe pressure and siege. In Pakistan, there are too many cases like that of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who is facing a death sentence under Pakistan's blasphemy laws for allegedly slandering the Prophet of Islam. Add in the honor killings the gang rapes and burying of youn girls alive in the name of honor.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/21/ahmed.chane.christians.muslims/index.html
For racists - Jewish and anti-Jewish alike - there is "Jewish race". But Zionist colonialism is not about racism only. As every colonialism it is about taking others' land and repress the natives - with army and all kinds of arms, including tanks and planes. All else is Zionist colonialist propaganda and has nothing to do with colonialism. All colonialists (including Hitler) tell us how awful are peoples which land they want for themselves.
Islamism has inflicted misery through its wars, suicide terrorism, tyrannical and brutal governments, and oppression of women and non-Muslims."Radical Islam derives from Islam but is an anti-modern, millenarian, misanthropic, misogynist, anti-Christian, antisemitic, triumphalist, jihadistic, terroristic, and suicidal version of it. It is Islamic-flavored totalitarianism, This is just more of the same. In Israel and the USA we see the modren world in conflict with the barbaric past.
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes: Literature: 1988 - Najib Mahfooz Peace: 1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat 1990 - Elias James Corey 1994 - Yaser Arafat: 1999 - Ahmed Zewai Economics: (zero) Physics: (zero) Medicine: 1960 - Peter Brian Medawar 1998 - Ferid Mourad TOTAL: 7 SEVEN
Jews are better than Muslims
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes: Literature: 1988 - Najib Mahfooz Peace: 1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat 1990 - Elias James Corey 1994 - Yaser Arafat: 1999 - Ahmed Zewai Economics: (zero) Physics: (zero) Medicine: 1960 - Peter Brian Medawar 1998 - Ferid Mourad TOTAL: 7 SEVEN At least
185 Jews and people of half- or three-quarters-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel
Prize,1 accounting for 22% of all individual recipients worldwide
between 1901 and 2011, and constituting 36% of all US recipients2
during the same period.3 In the
research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Physics, and Physiology/Medicine, the corresponding world and US
percentages are 27% and 39%, respectively. Among women laureates in the four
research fields, the Jewish percentages (world and US) are 38% and 50%,
respectively. Of organizations awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize, 25% were founded principally by Jews or by people of
half-Jewish descent. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.2% of the world's
population and 2% of the US population.)14 million people.
SO what? On the other hand, the typical Zionist post shows n7 is a racist, or at least Islamofob.
By the way, if Jews are religious group, the majority of 200, I believe, were NOT religious at all :) They were mostly secular.
Anyway, having Nobel prize does not meant anything regarding colonialism and imperialism. USA, UK and others are imperialist states, mass-murdering and robbing, torturing and raping, while collecting Nobel praises.
1) USA was and is the main supporter of islamism in the world. Al-Qaida was a result of CIA efforts to topple a secular Afghan government.
And in Libya and Syria USA support Islamists against secularist government.
2) Western imperialism and its off-shot Zionism are waging countless imperialist wars all over the world, usually toppling progressive regimes and installing oppressive ones - from Iran to Haiti.
3) USA support the most reactionary islamist states - Saudis, for ex. Not mentioning the oppression of women by Zionists, esp. non-Jewish women, but Jewish as well. Judaism is also anti-Christian and oppress Palestinian Christians as well as Muslim ones.
4) USA imperialism is murdering millions of people by bombings, and still n7 has a gall to speak about "terrorism".
In short, n7 is a typical Zionist troll, and has nothing to say on his(?) one but the rotten Zionist hasbara.
A good example is the 280 million people, the great majority of them Muslim, who live in the 22 Middle Eastern and African nations that make up the Arab League. According to a 2002 UN report by a group of Arab scholars, 65 million adults in these countries are illiterate, two-thirds of them women; the 1999 gross domestic product of the entire Arab League was less than that of Spain; for the past decade average annual growth in per capita income in the Middle East has been the lowest in the world outside sub-Saharan Africa; the 15 percent unemployment rate is one of the highest in the developing world; and Arabs have translated as many books in the last thousand years as the Spanish now do in one. Being inbred, stupid and retarded is not a good way to survive in the 21st century.
There is no benevolent way to ensure that fewer than six million Jewish people in Israel remain militarily dominant over more than 400 million non-Jewish people in their region who, given the option, would prefer there be no Jewish state.A country that commits to that has to oppose democracy
By that logic then I assume since there are 1.4 billion muslems in the world and only 300 million american then if the Muslems prefer it, all americans should convert to Islam and have 4 wives and start stoneing people to death for adultry and blasphemy. I hate to tell someone this but for you to have a democracy, you also have to protect the rights of a minority or you dont have a democracy.
Some history.
The 1948 Israeli War of Independence was between the
neighboring Arab countries and the newly formed state of Israel. The Arab
countries did not send troops to help the people that are today known as
"Palestinians" but rather they sent troops to drive the Jews into the
sea. Most of the "Palestinian Arabs" fled to avoid the fighting.
Remember, in 1948 they were not referred to as "Palestinians". This name
was invented by newspapers around the world after 1967.
United Nations Resolution 181 partitioned the territory from
the British Mandate for Palestine into two states - one for Jews and one for
Palestinian Arabs. All of the Arab countries objected to the creation of the
Jewish state and fought a war against its creation. This was Israel's War of
Independence in 1948. Despite their superior numbers, the Arab countries lost
the war and the Palestinian state never materialized because of this loss. In
the war that was waged, the territory allotted to be the Palestinian state by
the UN partition resolution was divided between Israel and Jordan. The
"Palestinian Arabs" were rejected by every single Arab country, with the
exception of the small percentage that ended up in refugee camps in Jordan where
they remain to this day.
When you compare Jews and Muslims, you see a distinct
truth in the ideology of Islam.
With one group, there is reason and a desire to help humanity; to improve life
for all people through science and intellectual endeavors. Proof of this is in the 200 (20%)Nobel Prizes awarded to the .02 Jewish population of the world. The extreme difference between jews and Muslims is illustrated in their contributions to mankind. The only goals Muslims have is to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth and in the process have become parasites living off the accomplishments of Jews and the rest of the world.
Israel is a settler colony on Palestinian land. No one has the right to give others' land to strangers.
All else is irrelevant
A good example of USA imperialism is the USA support for the most backward regimes in Islam world - esp. Saudis, but not only. And if some Muslims (the same as non-Muslims) are against USA-backed backwardness, USA wage colonial wars against them, or at least starve them by sanctions. Without Western imperialism and Zionism the life of Muslims (and other non-imperialists) would be much easier.
Does C know how to read? It is not the matter for Muslims to decide what to do with USA as long as USA does not bomb them (but often USA does bomb). USA is NOT built on "Muslim" land, while Israel is built on Palestinian land. It is NOT about "Muslims", it is about Jewish colonialism.
In short, C, n7 and other(?) Zionists here could not read, do not know anything but Zionist propaganda and are SO boring :(
Thanks for responding so I don't have to.
Arnold, I am glad to be helpful to you, in thanks for your posts. Zionists are boring to answer, but I have some experience and could do it with my eyes closed :)
Given you seem to be of Third-Worldist orientation (virtually a "self-hating Westerner") I'm wondering what you think of the Anti-Germans?
They are also Marxist-influenced leftists who hate their own country (Germany in their case) but unlike you they are ardently PRO-Zionist, equating anti-Zionism with Nazism. Their only dispute with neocon foreign policy is that they strongly supported Milosevic's regime in Serbia, seeing it as a victim of "German imperialism".
Don't Ashkenazi Jews (but not Sephardi or Mizrahi Jews) have an average IQ of 120?
I understand that because they were historically endogamous, almost entirely urban and concentrated in careers demanding high intelligence, that they actually became more intelligent via Darwinian natural selection in the last millennium or so.
Given GC seems to call me names, what does he seems of some Zionist calling me "Linda"?
GC is also seems to defend imperialism, so what does he seems about people like Bush or Obama?
In short, I could ask a lot of questions without any real meaning. But I am NOT usually asking them.
PS By the way, I am anti-imperialist. All other words used by GC are meaningless propaganda noise, invented to muddle the clear picture - there is imperialism and its victims, and people who are against 1st and for 2nd. All else is words, words, words....
Of the European colonial powers in Africa, only Portugal fought to the bitter end to retain its colonies (pulling out only after the army back home mutinied and overthrew Portugal's fascist government). If colonial plunder was crucial to maintaining a high standard of living, why didn't ALL the colonial powers fight to the bitter end?
IQ is a meaningless gimmic, used widely to show that non-whites are stupid. It really measures NOT intellect but some experience. Gould wrote about it is his "mismeasure of men".
there is NO facts showing that Jews (of any extraction) are more smart than goim. The long history of Jews in Europe shows that only emancipation brought some smartness. Before that, Jews were ignorant of anything but religious texts, including their own history.
They did. GC could look into history of French colonialism, for ex. A lot of blood.
UK did the same in Kenia, for ex, Netherlands in Indonesia and so on. But sometimes former colonial powers just had no power to support status quo. USSR was also a factor to include into the picture.
But, even when SOME colonies stopped to be such without much bloodshed, they still were (and some are) not independent. It is called "neocolonialism", and one could look into Ivory Coast (nice colonial name, by the way) to see, that till today colonial powers ARE shedding blood in their "former" colonies. See also Libya and now Syria.
Haiti and Cuba are good examples of USA, not being formally colonial master there still fights against their independence, by armed and other means.
In short, it seems that imperialist politicians know a bit more about the value of colonies that GC
The entire Islamic world has a GDP including oil less the the GDP of spain. Scientific achievement of the Muslim society cannot be considered to be of any
consequence. Out of the total of 2,60,000 articles published every year on
scientific research, hardly 2,500 i.e. about 1% are published in Muslim
countries.
Now while Muslims, and people like Lidia would like to bame the US or some one, any one with half of a mind would realize that the true reason and really the only reason is Muslims have been straitjacketed by a religon that did not allow them to change enought to adapt to the modern world. Its change or die or change or suffer in this world.
The truth is that the Islamic world has become so weak that the US could annihilate ever Islamic Country in the world in a matter of hours.
There is an Island about ten miles off the Iran Coast , about 50 square miles with an airport. I think its name is Kish. I would think that would make an excellent US base of operations. Nothing is risk free in this world.
Zionist-Islamophob n7 is getting more boring, as if it were possible:(
I am NOT going to waste more time, repeating my posts which n7 ignores (could n7 even read? I doubt it). Anyone really interested in reality could read my previous posts, esp. regarding USA role in promoting the most reactionary kind of Islamism (as well as Christianity and Judaism)
Lidia, you can't force someone to stop posting, unless you ban them or delete their comments, which I don't want to do. So if it's important enough to them, they will get the last word. But that's OK, because once the argument becomes random collections of negative statements about Muslims, it isn't an argument any more.
The French fought (and pretty brutally) in Indochina and especially Algeria, but after being defeated there they abandoned the rest of their colonies without a fight. (Although I suppose there is a parallel with Portugal, in that defeat in Algeria led to a regime change in France, with the 4th Republic giving way to the 5th.)
I fully agree.
The French also mass-murdered natives of Madagascar ( I would not call it "fight", but colonial suppression) before leaving "peacefully". In short, the pattern is clear - colonial masters usually did NOT leave colonies without resorting to mass-murder first. But even after leaving most of them still try to keep power over natives.
Maybe "self-hating Westerner" was a step too far, but I don't think you can deny being a Third-Worldist any more than David Duke could deny being a racist.
It's a description, not a pejorative.
Wouldn't invading Japan or starving it into submission have killed more Japanese than the A-bombs killed though?
I thought that those who do argue that there are racial differences in intelligence argue that blacks are inferior to whites, but East Asians are SUPERIOR to whites. Doesn't look like an excuse for white supremacy to me...
Since Islamic civilization flourished in medieval times, I don't think it's fair to blame the current backwardness of Muslims on their religion. I think the appalling mass murder of Muslims by the Mongols, plus the inherent population limits in a region that is mostly either desert or mountains, are more important factors.
The Ottoman Empire at the height of its power had only slightly more people than France, despite having ten times the land area.
(And a good proportion of the Ottoman's subjects were non-Muslims who weren't available for military service.)
They were poorly positioned to benefit from colonialism as they were hemmed in by the Straits of Gibraltar to the west and the Straits of Hormuz to the east, so East Africa would have been the only viable place to establish an Ottoman colonial empire. But they didn't even do that due to their own underpopulation.
By the 19th century the Ottomans were outnumbered 2 to 1 by the Austrians, and 6 to 1 by the Russians. They lost some of their best territories (including Bulgaria, which was beginning to industrialize when it was lost) to Russian aggression in the 1870s. The Ottomans were actually better fighters man for man but were overwhelmed by Russian numbers (and note that the Russians were themselves running on fumes by the end of that war). The remaining Ottoman territory in Europe was by then so hopelessly indefensible that they were bankrupted by military spending, leaving virtually nothing for education or infrastructural development.
Lidia (as she has already mentioned) isn't a liberal. She's a Marxist Third-Worldist.
Then again, some Islamophobic liberals have claimed that Maryam Namazie was a liberal, when SHE is a Communist (a Worker-Communist to be precise -- they emphasize the anti-religious component of Marxism).
I already mentioned the "Anti-Germans" as yet another example of a Marxist-derived faction -- "Monty Python's Life of Brian" was actually a satire of the self-destructive factionalism of Marxists in Western countries.
Are Spain, Portugal, Serbia and Bulgaria illegitimate states too? All of those were established by ethnic cleansing of Muslims...
Why should I tell what do I think about some stupid people who do not even understand that Nazis were just applying old colonial methods to Europe. To be a Zionist means to be an imperialist, so they just turned into pro-USA/UK/French imperialists instead of pro-German ones.
If one read the book I cited, one could learn that IQ hoax was used for a long time to call "inferior" ANY group the users dislike - including Ashkenazi Jews about 100 years ago. Only English-speaking immigrants were usually "smart", and Jews were usually not speaking English. Of course, some peoples were "upgraded" to whiteness, and their IQ shot up incidentally :)
So, GC is whitewashing USA war crime as well - a good example.
1) Japan was ready to surrender, in part because of USSR participation in the war.
2) USA used a-bombs to test them and to scary USSR.
3) of course, then USA (Truman)lied that they had bombed "war bases" and did it only to save lives (American ones)
4) It is very nice of GC to point to good-heartedness of USA who did not just murdered ALL Japanese, or at least a lot of them, like in Philippines, for ex. But Japan, like Germany, was an imperialist state, so it was more or less "spared" at least by USA war criminal standards.
(posting here as the column width is getting too narrow)
You suggest that Japan was ready to surrender even without the A-bombs.
If that was the case, how come even AFTER the A-bombs (and the Soviet
invasion of Manchukuo) some extremist IJA officers tried to storm the
Imperial
Palace to prevent Japan's surrender?
Maybe you're just miffed that the Commies weren't able to grab all of
Korea and part of Japan (as they probably would have done minus the
A-bombs...)
Spain, Portugal, Serbia and Bulgaria are NOT colonial settler states. More than that, I have mentioned that Zionists are not just "Jews" against "Muslims" - not all Palestinians are Muslims, some of them are Christians. Israel is just like Rhodesia, no more no less.
Iran doesn't really need an air force, as long as they have SAMs. Look at the 1973 Arab-Israeli War where the Egyptians were able to cross the Suez Canal by using SAMs to neutralize Israeli air power.
Of course the Egyptians came a cropper later, but that's because they were on the offensive and advanced beyond the range of their SAMs, allowing Israeli air power to cut them to pieces. Iran fighting a defensive war wouldn't have that problem though...
Also, Iran's regime (despite 2009) still has a lot more legitimacy than Iraq's did, so the Iranians would be more willing to fight than the Iraqis were.
I am NOT "s uggesting" that Japan was ready to surrender. It is a FACT. of course, SOME crazies could be against, but they were not the rulers.
of course, GC is a one more time a good example of a Western imperialist, who, even when not as ignorant as some others here, still cannot get what Arnold got. Because of it I admire Arnold - he is as rare as a unicorn (in Chinese tradition).
USSR went to war against Japan because allies begged to do it. In Korea, the result of USA aggression was a destruction of the half of the country, countless murders of civilians, bloody dictators (pro-USA ones) and South Korea still not being independent, and the virtual sedge of the North. Now USA politics are making much more possible the new war on the Korea peninsula, all in order "to put China into place". But, at least, it made GC happy, so, I suppose, we should be happy as well :(
Actually, the Nazis weren't "just applying old colonial methods to Europe".
European settler imperialism (as opposed to resource-exploitation imperialism) only generally happened in lands that were largely depopulated beforehand -- either by disease (the Americas and Australasia) or by native-on-native genocide (South Africa, with its Mfecane wars).
It was successful precisely because the natives were too primitive and too few in number to resist -- the whites were able to defeat them using just a few battalions-worth of men (at most).
By contrast, the Nazis were trying to extirpate a population with a density and tech level not too far removed from their own. The same can be said of the Zionists too, although their ambitions are on a rather smaller scale.
And you whitewashed North Korean aggression against South Korea, by falsely claiming the US was the aggressor in that war. South Korea may have been a US puppet state, but the North Koreans definitely fired the first shot.
what do you think about iran and america relationship?
do you think 2012 is the year were a war might break out?
do you think iran could attack america on its own soil if war is born?
who do you believe will win ?
I really should update this now that the US is less vulnerable in Iraq and exiting Afghanistan. Those were Iran's main threats of retaliation when I wrote this, and they are much more important than Iran's ability to limit shipping through Hormuz.
I don't expect to see war in 2012 because the US does not believe war would make a nuclear Iran less likely, which is right. The strategy of bleeding a western army until it makes a political decision to leave territory it is holding worked in different variations in Lebanon and Iraq. Iran, I think, expects that it would eventually work if the US tried to hold any Iranian territory. Over the medium term I think that is right and after its over, Iran expects to feel that the struggle was worth it, the way Iran, if I understand what I've read correctly, believes the Iran-Iraq war, which was hugely costly, much more costly than a direct Iran-US war today would be, was worth it.
So if I was to rewrite this today, it would not include the threat against US forces in neighboring countries as importantly, but it would still end about the same way, with a US withdrawal having failed to accomplish any political or strategic objective and Iran having endured a lot, but considering itself the winner.
In a war there most likely would be some attacks somewhere in the West. The United States itself is more difficult to attack today than it was in 2001. But if I had to guess, there would be at least some small-scale attacks on US civilians in the US proper. That would be more symbolic than meant to impact the conflict. But Iran and other potential adversaries of the US would work after that to increase their abilities for inflicting civilian casualties in the US. Later wars will see more and more of that.
drop the damn nuclear bomb on them and get the shit over with.....come on
Hitler said that Russia would be Germany's India. if GC knows better than Hitler what Nazis did and how, I have no comments.
If SK was a puppet of USA (it was), so NK was just liberating ALL Korea form foreign rule, just as they liberated Korea from Japan rule.
Were North Vietnamese "aggressors" when they fight against South Vietnamese puppets of USA?
Usually it is Zionists who want to nuke Iran, not even smart enough to see that it would mean Israel turned into victim as well.
of course, such "humane" wishes just show one more time what sort of people are against Iran - the same good old imperialist war criminals who are mass-murdering all over the world non-stop, Obama being just one of them.
Hitler also said that the Volga would be "Germany's Mississippi", likening his planned expansion into Russia to American Manifest Destiny. My point though (or rather my source's point is that these analogies were faulty, and that this led to the Nazis' defeat.
Wouldn't attacks on US territory though unite Americans behind the war effort, like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 did?
So, Hitler lost. Does not mean he did not try. After all, Brits lost their own India not long after Hitler lost "his".
The source of GC is not worth much. Hitler was a tool of German imperialism, just as Churchill and Rhodes - of British one. The need for land in Germany was the same as in UK - because of big landlords, and Rhodes did the same that Hitler wanted to do - "found" some natives lands to give to less privileged of master race to keep them from turning against their masters at home.
All else is just word, words, words...
While unequal distribution of farmland was indeed a problem in Germany (and there were lots of advocates of land reform, in all areas of Germany's political spectrum) there still wasn't really enough to go around even if the great estates of East Prussia had been broken up.
Of the major countries of Europe, only Italy had less land per farmer (which may be why it went fascist almost a decade before Germany did). German farming had a lot in common with that of backward peasant countries like Ireland, Poland or Romania.
Funny how AFTER Germany lost WWII they still managed with the same amount of land :) of course, now Germany wages colonial wars under another pretext, but for the same goals - grand robbery of native sources. Just look into Germany role in former Yugoslavia.
Colonialism is "natural" to capitalism, it does not means that it is the only way.
Post-WWII West Germany (like pre-WWI Germany) was an integral part of the global economy, exporting manufactured goods and importing raw materials (including food).
The rise of the Nazis was because the Great Depression caused international trade to break down, placing a premium on countries being self-sufficient. Regarding farmers, post-WWII Germany greatly reduced the population employed in farming (which the Nazis were loath to do for ideological reasons). My metric was land per farmer, not land per total inhabitants
BTW, what material benefits do you think Germany (and the West) got from their wars against Serbia? (I've seen the argument that they were intended to divert Muslim attention away from Palestine, but that isn't classic colonialism.)
What a thoroughly ignorant comment.
The US can't even annihilate poverty in its own country. It got whipped in Vietnam, failed in Iraq and is failing in Afghanistan. (and don't throw the 'we should have nuked them' argument in: if you had, there's every reason to suppose the Russians might have nuked you)
The last major conflict won by the US and its powerful allies was WWII.
In terms of science and culture, the golden age of Islam lasted over 400 years and brought us a huge treasure trove of learning, from algebra, though alchemy to chemistry, astronomy, medical advances, architecture, it brought us all the ancient texts from Greece and Roman times through translation into Arabic and thence into medieval Latin, the largest libraries the world has ever seen... it's a long list which a basic education would have informed you upon.
The golden age of the US began in 1890 by which time the influx of educated Europeans had swollen the US population to exceed any single European country and hence enabled great industrial expansion. If you consider the golden age to still be continuing, that would mean it has lasted so far just 120 years.
The focus by many Americans on the tiny minority of Muslims who are radicalized and the assumption their dangerous views represent the entirety of Muslim culture is the result of consistent anti-Muslim propaganda from the Zionist lobby and the ultra Christian right, who openly proclaim America's duty is to 'wipe out the Muslim religion'.
The idea that an apparently strong militaristic regime can wipe out apparently weaker cultures is precisely the way of thinking that led to the wars of conquests by ancient Greece, ancient Persia, then Rome, then the endless wars throughout the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, then onto the colonial annihilations of Spain, Portugal, Holland and Britain and thence to the conflicts that ravaged Europe right up until 1945.
There has to be another way. Sabre rattling has had its day.
The greatest 'force' America could deploy is the Peace Corps and the army of charitable and friendly Americans one meets down at the coffeehouse.
So, Hitler was just going to feed Germans on Russian land, right? As a matter of fact, drang nach osten was the centuries-long tradition of German imperialism. And the hunger in Germany was not a result of not enough land, but of not enough money in the pockets of the workers.
Regarding Yugoslavia - of course, Germany, as well as other imperialist states just went to rob it. They turned some part of Yugoslavia in real colonies (Bosnia and Kosovo), while others (including Serbia) are now in the state of pre-revolution China. There is a good article about it with a lot of facts
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/germ-j24.shtml
or there
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/trep-j28.shtml
Or you could look at as if Pallestinians are living on the Jews Land from as long as 2000 years ago. Plus the Muslims have driven far more Jews out of Islamic Countires since the creation of Israel then the Jews have driven Palestinians out of Israel.
It may not be fair and it may not be poltically correct to blame the failure of Islamic Countries on Islam, but it just a fact of life that they are going to have to face.
The fact is that the entire Islamic world of 52 comuntries GDP and intellectual productivity is less then that of Spain.
Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran (all three being Islamic countries) are the clearest examples of this definition of a Failed State in the modern era. In the past, whole civilizations and empires have failed and had their clocks turned back. A very good example was the Islamic civilization. From being innovators and leaders in science, literature and almost all forms of knowledge the Muslims became superstitious, childish, unhygienic, violent and poor. -- Syed Akbar Ali
URL of this page: http://www.newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1809
The Only Common Dominator for all 52 countries is Islam.
Outrageby James DunniganJanuary 3, 2012
Palestinians are enraged because an American politician recently pointed out that "Palestine" does not exist, never existed, and was invented during the Cold War by the Soviet KGB as yet another ploy to expand Russian influence in the Middle East. The 1964 charter founding the Palestine Liberation Organization was created by the KGB and "approved" by 400 pro-communist Palestinians. This charter explicitly denied any Palestinian claims on the West Bank (then part of Jordan) and Gaza (then part of Egypt). After Israel conquered these two areas, in the 1967 war, the PLO dropped that clause. But there was no real effort to push the concept of "Palestine" until the 1970s. The Arab world, humiliated from losing five wars with Israel, and seeing Israel outstrip its Arab neighbors in so many ways (economically, educationally, politically, and so on), got behind the idea that the Jews and Israel were oppressing the newly invented "Palestinian people" and must be destroyed. Most Western media ignored the ensuing decades of ugly anti-Israel propaganda. This myth of the "Palestinian State" became popular with pro-communist groups and leftists in general, and that enthusiasm survived the collapse of most communist states in the late 1980s and the end of the Cold War. But just because a lie is widely accepted does not make it true. So Palestinians are outraged at this exposure of their origins.
I thought Arnold's point is that support for Israel is and has always been detrimental to the West's true interests (which is something I would agree with).
Your Third-Worldism will probably just alienate most Westerners, perhaps driving them deeper into the pro-Zionist camp.
1) I am not Arnold, even though
I like him a lot and agree with him mostly. Anyway, I suppose Arnold
agrees with me more than with GC.
2) I am not going to sugar pill my words to make some western supporters of
Zionism happy. I am sure they would only
be better off to know some new (for them) facts about Zionism
and its nature. Arnold tries to
reason with them. Good luck. I do not think that liberation of Palestine
could be achieved by benevolence of the West, but sure, Arnold's
posts are good and could bring some positive results. But, as I have say, I am
not him, our jokes notwithstanding
Imperialism never had as many vititims as marxism, in the last 70 years Marxist have murderd directly or indirectly more then a hundred million people in China and Russia alone. And all of it was for a poltical they force on other people that was a complete and utter failure.
There is not any question that differant races have differant physical and intellectual characteristics. It is just not poltically correct to say it. A good example is East Africans have a near perfect biomechanical package for long-distance endurance: lean physiques and large lung capacities. And West Africans are tall, perfect for Basketball.
So I geuss we were just mad at the Vietnamese, Koreans, and any of the two countries we are or recently have been at war with. Korea and Vietnam were as stated throughout the war by officials, a blocking of communism towards the south, win!!! Australia is still same as it was with a shitty military.Iraq and afgahnistan well that was a deliberate weaking of the governing body and to surplant a western view of govt. Into the country which can be closely watched. And ya your golden age of Islam couldn't even manage to invent toilet paper. It's not the time of the religious crusades anymore, kinda hard to make smart bombs in a cave so you have to smuggle, well here comes good old infidel technology flying around above to stop major shipments of anything getting to a war zone. Technology, resources and location is why the USA is here to stay. The UN is the US's bitch we pay 70% of the budget so we get to do what we want underdog the cover of the UN. I just hope we keep sponsoring overthrows of muslim govts to give us some time before we start the war with Iran. Weaken. The govt weaken the resolve. Most Iranians do not like the govt that is why 2009 happened and the govt accused the US of intervening in iranian affairs.
Then why aren't there more blacks playing soccer world wide. Which in my opinion the most athletic sport there is. Ya they may be good runner's but that's evolution, just like there curly hair and flat facial features. Good for running through brush. Whites are historically shorter and broader which enabled metals to be used as heavy weapons taking more muscle to swing and defend against. Also could the European whites had more of a mentally developing food supply hence the difference in technology and invention back in the day.
Plus the NFL, and NBA are racist, your trying to tell me there aren't more peyton hillis's and Toby gerharts in the world. Add in jordy nelson and wes welker. And who cares about the NBA that's why nobody gave a shit about there lock out. It's cool though well stick to hockey and NASCAR.LOL
Well I geuss the ally's in WW2 do
Lidia I hope one of these Iranians your defending mercs you or one of your family members, see how big your words are then.
No one is doubting the great achievements of the islamic golden age but its achiements in comparison to those made in europe and the us in the last 400 years is simply dwarfed, hopefully a change will come and people will focus less on religion and more on scientific development.
The problem with that argument is that the us has relations with a large number of muslim nations and their level of devolopment and freedom varies widely, another problem with this argument is that nations with little us support such as syria and iran are quite behind in terms of human rights.
The reason you dont see the same world wide are because there are few blacks in most European and South American and Asian countries. I have been to South America, Chile and Argentina and a number of countries in Europe in the past couple years and you rarely see a black person compared to the USA. In an average crowd in the USA you see a mix of differant races that you rarely see in foreign countries.
Post a Comment