Biden says Bush's comments are "bull#$%@"

 What?!

 

....did someone say Guile?  Where?!?!............what?............oh............................................nevermind.......it's just the manny....

 

 

 

...carry on. 

 I sometimes drift off to sleep wishing there was some sort of Guile Signal I could deploy in the nighttime sky...

In my dreams it looks like this:

(Oh yeah, what about Llama?  He was pretty reasonable some of the time...)

The Manvalanche:

Are the Repubs so afraid of November that they are really claiming an equivalence between Nazi appeasers and Democratic politicos? 

 

Well...someone's gotta explain to the American people who they're electing.

 

 

 S

G.G.:

The Manvalanche:

Are the Repubs so afraid of November that they are really claiming an equivalence between Nazi appeasers and Democratic politicos? 

 

Well...someone's gotta explain to the American people who they're electing.

...and George W is the man for the job.  I don't know what is more ignorant, his statements or picking him to make those statements.  It seems picking him will work out when it comes keeping McCain out of the spotlight.  Anything McCain is to afraid to say the GOP will hand over to GW.

 

 I know the G man likes his snark but this is exactly why Bush's comments are truly despicable.

Nazi appeasment = Giving half of Czech territory to the Nazis so that they could unite the Fatherland.  Chamberlain did this because of the various treaties that had been laid out in post-WWI Europe.  Without this move, there would've been WWII much sooner.  If Chamberlain did nothing else, he delayed the start of WWII by a couple of years.

The problem was, this left Germany in a much stronger postion so that when they did put the pedal to the metal, it was that much harder to break their nut.  Churchill was right - Nazi appeasment was a bad move.

To draw a parallel that Bush draws, we would need an Iran that was aggressively expansionist (we don't) and evidence that Obama et.al. have plans to give up the store to buy their good will (we super-duper don't).

Bush's analogy is crap and those that are eating it up have been tasting crap for so long from their palates mistake turds for cheeseburgers.

The Manvalanche:

To draw a parallel that Bush draws, we would need an Iran that was aggressively expansionist (we don't)

 

 Their proxies are fighting aggressive wars all over the place.  Have you not been paying attention to what's going on in Lebanon?  How about Iraq and Afghanistan?

G.G.:

 Their proxies are fighting aggressive wars all over the place.

Exactly.  Iran isn't.  Don't judge a particular state by the company it keeps because no one can keep a spotless roster of allies.  Any appeal to the naughtiness of a nation's allies should be disregarded - it's just not practical.

Iran's current foreign policy is defensive and pragmatic.  This is an especially illuminating overview. 

 

 I miss Guile too, but The Manvalanche remains my hero.

The Manvalanche:

G.G.:

 Their proxies are fighting aggressive wars all over the place.

Exactly.  Iran isn't.  Don't judge a particular state by the company it keeps because no one can keep a spotless roster of allies.  Any appeal to the naughtiness of a nation's allies should be disregarded - it's just not practical.

Iran's current foreign policy is defensive and pragmatic.  This is an especially illuminating overview. 

 

 

Defensive and pragmatic?  Haven't we been watching Iran continually provide weapons to Iraqi insurgents for years now?

O-O-OhOhOh:

The Manvalanche:

G.G.:

 Their proxies are fighting aggressive wars all over the place.

Exactly.  Iran isn't.  Don't judge a particular state by the company it keeps because no one can keep a spotless roster of allies.  Any appeal to the naughtiness of a nation's allies should be disregarded - it's just not practical.

Iran's current foreign policy is defensive and pragmatic.  This is an especially illuminating overview. 

 

 

Defensive and pragmatic?  Haven't we been watching Iran continually provide weapons to Iraqi insurgents for years now?

Providing weapons and training to insurrgents in order to support a cause without actually diving in yourself?

Would not this be more similar to our actions in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviets  then it is to Hitler in World War II?

 Not defensive.  Offensive.   Just because Hezbollah doesn't wear the uniform of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard doesn't mean they're independent.  Iran owns Syria.  Its going for Lebanon while providing IED's and other assistance to Al Sadr and other unsavory fellows.  I suppose they're pursuing nukes for purely defensive purposes too, right?

O-O-OhOhOh:

Defensive and pragmatic?  Haven't we been watching Iran continually provide weapons to Iraqi insurgents for years now?

 Ay-yi-yi.

Try and keep this straight.  There is a difference between protecting interests and exercising a foreign policy.  Sticking their noses into Lebanon and Iraq and such won't win the Iranians many friends over here, of course.  But it is NOT indicative of their foreign policy.  Perhaps their leadership sees an advantage to such mischief.  American expansionism in the region has been much more heavy-handed (obvious-fucking-ly).

Does the funding of Hezbollah make Iran expansionist (like the Nazi's were so many years ago)?  No.  It makes them a player in the region.  You can bet your shiny ass that, were there say a sizeable Jewish population in Saudi Arabia, that Israel would be funding the hell out of their homemade militias.  Iran has no apparent interest, currently, of expanding their territory.  Do they have an interest in expanding their influence?  Of course.

That is the difference.

 

G.G.:

 Not defensive.  Offensive.   Just because Hezbollah doesn't wear the uniform of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard doesn't mean they're independent.  Iran owns Syria.  Its going for Lebanon while providing IED's and other assistance to Al Sadr and other unsavory fellows.  I suppose they're pursuing nukes for purely defensive purposes too, right?

 

 This is the scary part - when seemingly reasonable people can ignore a consensus because it conflicts with their prejudices and need for a moustache twirling villan.

At one point, shortly after the 1979 revolution, one might have said that Iran was a territory-hungry monster with blood on its brain but much has changed since then and there are many moderates in relatively powerful positions in the government.  And, like any large nation that is not a monarchy, it has its own internal struggles to worry about.  Amindijackass can act all blustery about Israel if he wants but everyone that I've read on the region seems to think that there is no present danger of territorial expansion from Iran.

Anyway, I'm leaving for now, but I'd like to return to my first point.

Iran is not Nazi Germany.  Obama is not Chamberlain.  Anyone who thinks these things really should stop scaring the children and read some history.

The Manvalanche:

Iran is not Nazi Germany.  Obama is not Chamberlain.  Anyone who thinks these things really should stop scaring the children and read some history.

 

That does deserve repeating

 

 Two questions, Manvalanche.  Hopefully you'll address them when you return.

1.)  Whose "consensus"?

2.)  Why is Iran pursuing nuclear capabilities?

G.G.:

 Two questions, Manvalanche.  Hopefully you'll address them when you return.

1.)  Whose "consensus"?

2.)  Why is Iran pursuing nuclear capabilities?

 

 

3.) When are we gonna get the truth about what Manny did to drive Guile away?

G.G.:

 Two questions, Manvalanche.  Hopefully you'll address them when you return.

1.)  Whose "consensus"?

2.)  Why is Iran pursuing nuclear capabilities?

 

 1.)  Good question - it pays to be skeptical and, I admit, it's kind of a copout to appeal to some "consensus" when arguing something as slippery as another nation's foreign policy.  But it's the enormity and complexity of the situation that supports my point, I think.  That is, we can't consider Iran to be a single-minded nation of zealots, aggressive and deserving of a prejudicial beatdown (militarily speaking).  North Korea and Zimbabwe?  Maybe.  But Iran?  No way - their political situation is just too complex to merit that kind of response.

I've never read anything or heard from anyone that has an estimable level of expertise about Iran that suggests it has a desire to conquer foreign territory or foreign people.  They may have a desire to affect the internal situations of foreign govts...so do we...every country does.  So, they give money to Hezbollah and other jerks.  But this is not necessarily proof of a desire to expand their territory - just a desire to support jerks.  The US supports jerks sometimes.  I don't like it, but we do and I don't think that our support of the Contras in the 80's was proof of American expansionism - just a country protecting what it percieved as its interests.

2.)  Why would any country pursue nukes?

First, for relatively safe and cheap energy.  But I'm sure that's not where you would like this converstaion to go.

Let's assume Iran wants a nuclear bomb.  What would that achieve?  Domestically, it would boost the current power structure's standing, making it more difficult for dissidents to achieve reform.  A nuclear bomb would increase domestic pride and might ensure that those currently in power would increase their hold on it (although this hasn't apparently worked in Pakistan).  Second, it would increase Iran's standing in the Middle East, especially as regards the Arab (especially Muslim) populations.  It would allow an Arab coutry to join the nuclear club..  A nukey Iran would be a grand PR coup for Ithem and their leaders would be considered serious badasses by pro-Arab folks around the world.

Would Iranain nukes be used against Israel?  I don't see how, as that would ensure complete and total obliteration of Iran and anyone who was within spitting distance of them when the first bombs went off.

The Manvalanche:

Would Iranain nukes be used against Israel?  I don't see how, as that would ensure complete and total obliteration of Iran and anyone who was within spitting distance of them when the first bombs went off.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.   This is putting a western culture perspective on mutual assurred destruction.   Martyrdom is still a powerful force in that part of the world. 

I think many of the PC crowd want to believe that the arab mindset is similar to the western.  I don't think it is.   Look at Myanmar(not arab but illustrates my point).  They are claiming today that France is trying to invade them with a French naval ship loaded with relief supplies.  They are refusing its entry.   There are still many cultures in this world that are living with a worldview that we consider antiquated.  Don't assume that everyone on earth thinks the same and that all cultures are equally evolved.  They aren't.

I would bet there are plenty of ayatollah in Iran that would be fine with lobbing a few nukes at Israel in exchange for the obliteration of Iran.  I also don't think the current state of the American public would allow such a response.  The US public has been trained to take punch after punch.  Those who wish to fight back are dubbed evil.  

 

 

The Manvalanche:

No way - their political situation is just too complex to merit that kind of response.

 

They're a theocracy.  There may be a number of different political parties but their leadership is static and their judgement is decidedly in question considering their history.  With regards to their pursuit for nukes and their cozy affiliation with known terrorist organizations I'm not convinced Ahmadinejad is hugely relevant.  At the end of the day the mullahs run Iran.

 

GOOTS:

I think many of the PC crowd want to believe that the arab mindset is similar to the western.  I don't think it is.   Look at Myanmar(not arab but illustrates my point).  

 This is such a totally awesome statement.

Listen.  You can't claim to speak with authority on a foreign state of mind by referencing a third state of mind and then somehow leaping to the assumption that this completely unrealted reference supports your initial point.  It makes no sense.

Interestingly, though, Myanmar does support my point (however PC you wanna call it).

Myanmar is run by a small group of people, like N. Korea and Zimbabwe and other shitholes.  Nations like this can be quite unpredictable, as they do not have the natural controls that internal political competition provides.  If Kim Jong Il wants to hold a National Underwear party and Rabbit Stew Cookoff, it happens.  If he wants to nuke Japan, it happens unless an internal political obstacle appears - say a deputy who is a PETA member or a general who is sane enough not to nuke Japan.  This hypothetical internal political obstacle could affect change in any number of ways.  Assasination?  Sure.  Legislative reform?  Less likely, but sure.

Iran is different in many ways.  First, there is its pre-revolution history of connections with the west.  Sure, the revolution happened thirty years ago, but there are many Iranians still alive who remember this period and what it took to get rid of the Shah - independent thinking in Iran is stronger than most of us realize.  Also, Iran is not an Arab country.  Sure some Arabs live there but not many.  Iran is predominantly Persian but hosts a wide variety of ethnic groups.  Most of the country is Muslim (and most of those Shi'a) but the percentage of Muslims in Iran is not much greater than the percentage of Christians in the US.  Also, did you realize that there are actually elections for the presidency of Iran and that in 2005, there was a runoff between Ahmadwhatever and Rafsanjani that was somewhat competitive?  Not terribly so, I'm sad to say, because American involvement in Iraq inspired a wave of nationalist fervor that brought that jerkoff of a Tehrenian mayor to replace the comparatively progressive Khatami.

Isn't it interesting that since the American invasion of Iraq (that is, since Bush and Co. began stirring the pot), elections in the Middle East have provided us with leadership positions for hard-liners in Iraq, the Palestinain Authority and a resurgent Hezbollah?

If an American president wants to talk to Iran, he/she won't just find mouth-frothing knuckle draggers and zealots.  There is a rich political and intellectual history there.  You just have to want to recognize it.