New Attitude

[BT]

New Attitude
The presidential gloves are off.

By Fred Thompson

Editor's note: Click here for audio.

In his address last night much of what the president said had been anticipated by the media — the additional troops, the understanding that he has with the Maliki government as to their responsibilities and so forth. But I was struck by a couple of things he said that indicated not just a change in tactics but a whole new attitude with regard to what's necessary. He’s taking the gloves off.
In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

And, contrary to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, instead of talking to Iran and Syria the president is taking them on too.

Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops…we will disrupt the attacks on our forces, we will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advance weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

I'll bet that a lot of folks who support the president on this are asking themselves "what if we'd taken care of business this way two years ago?"

 â€” Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2UzOTBlODFjYzA3Mjk1NDJlMDczYTQ3MDBkN2FjZGQ=

[Michael Tee]

Cut off those supply lines.   Make an incursion into Cambodia.  That's where their headquarters are, you know.

[BT]

If you are in a war don't fool yourself and call it a tea party.

They hate us anyway. Might as well kick their ass and give them a legitimate reason to hate us.

[sirs]

If you are in a war don't fool yourself and call it a tea party.  They hate us anyway.  Might as well kick their ass and give them a legitimate reason to hate us.

Here, here

[Michael Tee]

<<They hate us anyway. Might as well kick their ass and give them a legitimate reason to hate us. >>

I don't give a shit what happens to the Iranians but for the sake of historical accuracy, I have to point out that they have already more than enough legitimate reasons to hate you.

[BT]

I don't give a shit what happens to the Iranians but for the sake of historical accuracy, I have to point out that they have already more than enough legitimate reasons to hate you.

We'll leave that to those consumed with low self esteem. Perhaps a healing circle will help.

[Michael Tee]

What you mistakenly referred to as low self-esteem would probably be referred to as realism and honesty by most normal and sane people.  The opposite of delusional thinking. 

[BT]

Mikey

Do you honestly care what other people think about you?

Especially if they don't know what they are talking about?

Iranians hate America for stuff that happened a generation ago, we hate them for stuff that happened a generation ago.

My son is 25. He wasn't even born when Savak was doing its thing and the revolutionaries were holding americans hostage.

But he is living in an age where Iran is supplying next generation explosives being used on his brothers in arms in Iraq.

Yet he probably doesn't hate Iranians. He probably does thing they should be held accountable.

Seems like a logical if/then process.

[Michael Tee]

<<Iranians hate America for stuff that happened a generation ago, we hate them for stuff that happened a generation ago. >>

You know if the Americans gave up their evil shit when the Shah fell, it might be different.  I find it hard to hate Germans of my kids' generation because they made such a clean break with the Nazis.  But the Americans never change their spots - - they are pulling the same shit today as they did in the 50s, scheming, planning, murdering, torturing and bombing to bring Middle Eastern countries and their oil into the circle of American control.

Maybe you would like to forget who encouraged Saddam to make war on the Iranians.  The Iranians won't forget.  There are still plenty of widows, orphans and cripples and their families who will never forget.

In answer to your question, I DO care what people think about me.  Most people DO have some concern for their reputation.  They're not obsessed with it but they're not totally heedless of it either.

But in the case of the U.S.A. I am not talking about mistaken opinion - - I'm talking about hatred as a consequence of past actions.  I'm not talking about the opinion of some teenage French poseur hating Americans because it's cool to hate Americans.  I would care very much about an opinion if it came from another human being's pain, something that my country had inflicted upon him or his loved ones.  I wouldn't shrug it off and I don't see how anyone with a conscience could shrug it off.

[sirs]

In answer to your question, I DO care what people think about me.  Most people DO have some concern for their reputation.  They're not obsessed with it but they're not totally heedless of it either.

So if that were the case, why do you insist on perpetuating grosteque distortions, completely hyperbolic accusations, and connecting non-existent dots, with the proclaimation of such being facts, as concluded by yourself and like minds (read; zip objectivity and rational thinking, as it relates to anything Bush, America, and our military)??  It would seem you have "zip" concern for said reputation

[Michael Tee]

<<So if that were the case, why do you insist on perpetuating grosteque distortions, completely hyperbolic accusations, and connecting non-existent dots, with the proclaimation of such being facts, as concluded by yourself and like minds (read; zip objectivity and rational thinking, as it relates to anything Bush, America, and our military)??  It would seem you have "zip" concern for said reputation>>

I say things the way I do to make a point.  Some people get it, some don't. 

[sirs]

I say things the way I do to make a point.  Some people get it, some don't. 

Oh I get it.  Unfortunately your point generally becomes, "look at me, I'm right, you're all wrong, and if you don't agree with me, you're all morons".  So much for "concern" about your reputation & what people think about you.  Unless what you want them to think is what an unobjective, irrational, anti-american Canadian communist you are.  And if that's case, well done

[Michael Tee]

<< Unless what you want them to think is what an unobjective, irrational, anti-american Canadian communist you are. >>

No, no, that was the OLD me.  I'm here to improve my mind, to become more rational and objective.  Like you, sirs.

[Plane]

You know if the Americans gave up their evil shit when the Shah fell, it might be different.

No


This happened duing the tenure of James Carter and he did nothing to prevet the fall from power of the Shah , if there was ever a time that a president that could have been persueded to give Iran a new and fairer deal it would have been then.

The Iranan leadership was nuts and hypocritical Ian is strugleing under the same weight now even though it isn't clear whether  a majority  supports them or perhaps a majority fears them.

At earlyer times we are certainly talking about the actions of the cold war where the Soviet Union defended their hegimony with bloody repression ad the US countere their empires expntion wth every possible effort . I dop't think that apologys are required to the Iranians for our interference in their country any more than the RAF owes apologys to th French Navy for actions made necessacery by war.

[Michael Tee]

<<This happened duing the tenure of James Carter >>

The overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government happened during Ike's tenure.

<<and he [Carter]  did nothing to prevet the fall from power of the Shah ,>>

There wasn't much that Carter could have done to stop the Shah's fall at the time, but he did the right thing by not trying.  Where Carter fucked up majorly was admitting the Shah to the U.S. for cancer treatment.  The guy was a master torturer and murderer and most Iranians who weren't the direct beneficiaries of his rule wanted to see him hanged for his crimes, not admitted to the U.S.A. for "humanitarian" reasons.   That was the last guy in the world at the time to deserve "humanitarian" treatment.  Carter's action produced days and weeks of anti-American rioting.  Bad enough the Americans overthrew their democratically elected government and installed this dictator over them, the final insult was admitting him to the U.S. after his own country overthrew him.

<< if there was ever a time that a president that could have been persueded to give Iran a new and fairer deal it would have been then.>>

I don't get it.  My original point was that the Iranians had plenty of valid reasons to hate the U.S.A.  Are you suggesting that one of the major reasons was Carter's alleged failure to offer them a "new and fairer deal" after the fall of the Shah?  That was probably the tiniest reason on their radar screen.  The big ones were the overthrow of the Mossadegh government and the tortures of the Shah.

<<The Iranan leadership was nuts and hypocritical>>

Oh yeah, like the U.S. leadership is sane and straight-talking.

<< Ian is strugleing under the same weight now even though it isn't clear whether  a majority  supports them or perhaps a majority fears them.>>

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

<<At earlyer times we are certainly talking about the actions of the cold war where the Soviet Union defended their hegimony with bloody repression ad the US countere their empires expntion wth every possible effort.>>

Except the U.S. didn't have an empire to defend, Iran was an independent country, and the stimulus for the takeover was the Mossadegh government's expropriation of the assets of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.  Nice try, though.

<< I dop't think that apologys are required to the Iranians for our interference in their country any more than the RAF owes apologys to th French Navy for actions made necessacery by war.>>

The difference being that the legitimate French government had no problems with the actions of the RAF (and the Royal Navy, which I understood played the larger role,) it was only the Vichy government that protested, and even they refused to declare war on Britain as a result.  No apologies were owed because Britain was fighting for its life, under aerial bombardment and submarine attack daily, all its allies having dropped out of the fight, and the assets it destroyed could have been put to immediate military use against it if they had fallen into German hands.  A clearer case of dire necessity could not be imagined.  Somehow the expropriation of one oil company's assets in one country by a legitimate government action does not seem to match your example.

At any rate, it is a valid reason in Iranian eyes, and in mine, for them to hate the U.S.A., and I don't think you'd find too many people who aren't hopelessly biased in favour of the U.S. who would take any different position.