One glaring question that struck me after reading this well written warning is .... why in the hell do we need all those bases in the Middle East and the answer to that question is infuriating.
Starting from where we are and agreeing the scene before us is a misbegotten shit-show... who offers anything of a different response to IRGC drive to nuclear weapons, their sponsorship of lethal proxies, their extortions of neighbors? One that alters a clear trajectory (never wavering from "death to...") ?
Matt?
Anyone?
... or should we simply rely on assurances that (the now dead Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa forbidding nukes) was a reliable safety against ME nuclear proliferation?
This blog has reminded/warned us of the nightmare casualties and costs of war like in the Pacific against Japan which might be our fate in Iran adventure. Yet, no discussion of ultimate costs where letting Hitler militarily re-occupy the Rhineland went unanswered?
Maybe we should instead rely on assurances from Our Greatest Ally that Iran is close to obtaining a nuclear weapon despite the lack of any evidence? The old "Trust us bro" proof. Israel has been trying to goad us into attacking Iran for decades by claiming Iran was 7 1/2 minutes away from a nuclear weapon for the last 30 years. The Israelis wouldn't lie to us of course. Spy on us, steal nuclear secrets and even nuclear material from us, attack a U.S. vessel, drag us into war after war but never lie to us.
OK, so you don't like or trust the Israelis and not much of a Trump fan either, got it.
But, Arthur, how do you square the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) reports that logged, in widely disseminated news outlets, the Iranian nuclear enrichments, with "lack of any evidence"?
Not to be argumentative for argument's sake... but how?
Do you believe and claim that the IAEA were/are Jewish puppets?
I notice you sidestepped the point about the warnings of Iran being close to a nuclear weapon for decades. Never mind, I didn't expect you would address that.
As for the IAEA, I assume you know that not all enriched uranium is weapons grade and that the IAEA has never reported the presence of highly enriched uranium in inspections.
On the other hand, Israel is widely known to possess nuclear weapons using material stolen from us. Which is the greater threat?
I missed the decades-old warnings, sorry, my bad. And that, however true it might be, has exactly what to do with "X" amount of uranium enriched to 60% in the "here-and-now"? Where sidestepping is concerned, perhaps you yourself owns a little something there?
I am both fascinated and horrified at the stance of pretending Iran has not made determined efforts to develop "the bomb". How is it so easy to divine the evil designs of Israel while failing to mention the issue of nuclear proliferation in the ME as driven by the IRGC?
Oh, and not only did the IAEA report 60% enrichment, the Iranians themselves announced they were shifting to 60% at Natanz, later at Fordow. The Director General of the IAEA provided 60% report, cross-checked by outside agencies, leaving a global consensus based on real time physical sampling and remote monitoring equipment.
The "Greater Threat". Hmmm... that's almost as good as the one where some people say, "Well America has them AND used them so WTF right is there for any further objections"?
- The Iranians do not possess highly enriched uranium that can be used in a nuclear weapon.
- The Iranians have shown no inclination to build a nuclear weapon.
- The only "evidence" we have that they even want to is a "trust us bro" broken record warning from Israel set on repeat for decades.
Well that certainly makes a compelling case for pre-emptively attacking Iran!
It requires a breathtaking level of naivete to think we attacked Iran for any reason other than because Israel sees Iran as a threat to their goal of regional hegemony. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that and argue in good faith for that being in the national interest of the U.S.
Seeing the world as it fits your needs sometimes has little to do with seeing the world for what it is. Intellectual honesty? Really? You be school'n folks left and right on that one, uj-huh.
You believe the statements of muslims whose doctrine contained in the qaran and sunnah explicitly state you must lie to the enemy to gain the advantage? Break peace treaties, perfidy- why defend islam?
Looking at the new class of aircraft carriers we are dumping untold billions into while our current carriers flee the warzone at the slightest danger and it makes one wonder why we keep building warships that are so technologically advanced and lethal that we can't risk using them in war.
I appreciate you Matt. Thank you for speaking truth. Your books kept me sane on the 31st MEU.
One glaring question that struck me after reading this well written warning is .... why in the hell do we need all those bases in the Middle East and the answer to that question is infuriating.
Starting from where we are and agreeing the scene before us is a misbegotten shit-show... who offers anything of a different response to IRGC drive to nuclear weapons, their sponsorship of lethal proxies, their extortions of neighbors? One that alters a clear trajectory (never wavering from "death to...") ?
Matt?
Anyone?
... or should we simply rely on assurances that (the now dead Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa forbidding nukes) was a reliable safety against ME nuclear proliferation?
This blog has reminded/warned us of the nightmare casualties and costs of war like in the Pacific against Japan which might be our fate in Iran adventure. Yet, no discussion of ultimate costs where letting Hitler militarily re-occupy the Rhineland went unanswered?
History. That painful recall via rhymes/repeats?
Maybe we should instead rely on assurances from Our Greatest Ally that Iran is close to obtaining a nuclear weapon despite the lack of any evidence? The old "Trust us bro" proof. Israel has been trying to goad us into attacking Iran for decades by claiming Iran was 7 1/2 minutes away from a nuclear weapon for the last 30 years. The Israelis wouldn't lie to us of course. Spy on us, steal nuclear secrets and even nuclear material from us, attack a U.S. vessel, drag us into war after war but never lie to us.
OK, so you don't like or trust the Israelis and not much of a Trump fan either, got it.
But, Arthur, how do you square the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) reports that logged, in widely disseminated news outlets, the Iranian nuclear enrichments, with "lack of any evidence"?
Not to be argumentative for argument's sake... but how?
Do you believe and claim that the IAEA were/are Jewish puppets?
I notice you sidestepped the point about the warnings of Iran being close to a nuclear weapon for decades. Never mind, I didn't expect you would address that.
As for the IAEA, I assume you know that not all enriched uranium is weapons grade and that the IAEA has never reported the presence of highly enriched uranium in inspections.
On the other hand, Israel is widely known to possess nuclear weapons using material stolen from us. Which is the greater threat?
I missed the decades-old warnings, sorry, my bad. And that, however true it might be, has exactly what to do with "X" amount of uranium enriched to 60% in the "here-and-now"? Where sidestepping is concerned, perhaps you yourself owns a little something there?
I am both fascinated and horrified at the stance of pretending Iran has not made determined efforts to develop "the bomb". How is it so easy to divine the evil designs of Israel while failing to mention the issue of nuclear proliferation in the ME as driven by the IRGC?
Oh, and not only did the IAEA report 60% enrichment, the Iranians themselves announced they were shifting to 60% at Natanz, later at Fordow. The Director General of the IAEA provided 60% report, cross-checked by outside agencies, leaving a global consensus based on real time physical sampling and remote monitoring equipment.
The "Greater Threat". Hmmm... that's almost as good as the one where some people say, "Well America has them AND used them so WTF right is there for any further objections"?
So to review:
- The Iranians do not possess nuclear weapons
- The Iranians do not possess highly enriched uranium that can be used in a nuclear weapon.
- The Iranians have shown no inclination to build a nuclear weapon.
- The only "evidence" we have that they even want to is a "trust us bro" broken record warning from Israel set on repeat for decades.
Well that certainly makes a compelling case for pre-emptively attacking Iran!
It requires a breathtaking level of naivete to think we attacked Iran for any reason other than because Israel sees Iran as a threat to their goal of regional hegemony. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that and argue in good faith for that being in the national interest of the U.S.
Seeing the world as it fits your needs sometimes has little to do with seeing the world for what it is. Intellectual honesty? Really? You be school'n folks left and right on that one, uj-huh.
You believe the statements of muslims whose doctrine contained in the qaran and sunnah explicitly state you must lie to the enemy to gain the advantage? Break peace treaties, perfidy- why defend islam?
The ANALITICAL BRILLIANCE of this one Matt Bracken is undeniable!
Jack Lawson
Looking at the new class of aircraft carriers we are dumping untold billions into while our current carriers flee the warzone at the slightest danger and it makes one wonder why we keep building warships that are so technologically advanced and lethal that we can't risk using them in war.
Very detailed maps!
The 20th century US military in the 21st century is like Knights facing crossbows and muskets.
Good books.
Cheers!
Bracken’s a mess. Trump’s got this.
Matt’s first error is to think Donald is a golem. The rest follows from that. He and useful idiots like Alex Jones can atone and apologize later.
I sure hope we can get the famine indicated here. Africa, India, China — what’s not to love?