Something That You Said or Implied Makes Me Doubt You

Jules Crittenden, military strategy supergenius and keen observer of ass, or perhaps elbow, he's not sure which:

Persians magnanimous agree to call off their Shiite militias. I guess this means we don't have to "alleged" or "U.S. accuses Iran of involvement" or any other qualifiers anymore. Apparently the mullahs are calling the shots. Iraqi lawmakers went to Qom over the weekend to ask an Iranian general to kindly stand down his murderous stooges....

Iran can be a partner for peace. But if anyone had any question, it has just been amply demonstrated that Iran has the power to turn it on and turn it off. That makes Iraq, in the absence of American troops, Iran's bitch.

Dumbass. The more obvious point is that makes Iraq, in the presence of American troops, Iran's bitch.

Someone who failed to see that Iran was going to win the American invasion of Iraq has some frickin' balls getting snotty about the predictions of the "peaceniks." Crittenden is such a tool.

Comments

[bandit]

Good insults - it makes your idiocy so much more convincing.

[Thers]

Good insults - it makes your idiocy so much more convincing.

Thanks for your input.

[aimai]

I like "murderous stooges" myself. How do we tell a "stooge" from an "ally" from an american backed splinter group?

aimai

[Righteous Bubba]

Persians magnanimous agree to call off their Shiite militias. I guess this means we don't have to "alleged" or "U.S. accuses Iran of involvement" or any other qualifiers anymore.

The contents of a can of alphabet soup are more coherent.

[actor212]

I'd go you one better, Thers: Iran picked Iraq as the battlefield for Bush.

[SteveB]

Yes, Al Sadr is a Persian stooge. That explains everything, doesn't it? Kind of like explaining Vietnam by saying that Ho Chi Minh was a Russian stooge.

I guess dumbing the world down is a necessary step if you're, well... dumb.

[Bitter Scribe]

If nothing else, at least we've managed to help reconcile Iraq and Iran. There's nothing like two former mortal enemies deciding to band together against you.

[Urban Sombrero]

Iraq wasn't Iran's bitch before we invaded Iraq.

If we didn't want Iraq to become Iran's bitch, maybe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

[Jay B.]

Thers' insults are made to emphatically accent his point:

Stupidity like Crittenden's is, indeed, inseparable from the overall nature of his folly. Or, to Gump it down for the mouthbreathers, stupid is as stupid does. We won the war -- for Iran. It's stupid to think otherwise.

What intrigues me is those who point out the insults (and add to the conversation with insults of their own, drenching the proceedings with unintended irony) -- rarely counter, as if the insults were indeed the entire case.

Did we not make Iran the kingmakers in the region? Was this not inevitable -- as was pointed out by the millions on liberal blogs? Is there any reason, contra-Thers', that we should think anything else?

Alas, we speak into the void.

[winfernal]

Perhaps it's a redacting error, but who or what the hell are "Persians magnanimous"?
A support group? NGO? Charity organization? Rock group? I need to know.

[merlallen]

We helped Saddam defeat Iran in the Iran/Iraq war, then we gave the victory to Iran. Jesus fucking Christ.

[Jinchi]

it has just been amply demonstrated that Iran has the power to turn it on and turn it off.

Of course, it was Maliki who turned it on. Cheered on by McCain and Bush.

[SteveB]

Interesting how so many liberal Democrats, in criticizing the Iraq war for "handing Iraq over to Iran" are inadvertently reinforcing the Bush administration's frame that Iran is some kind of "strategic rival" to the U.S. When the bombs start falling on Iran, having a public that's been conditioned to think this way will be very useful.

[Gummo]

Interesting how so many liberal Democrats, in criticizing the Iraq war for "handing Iraq over to Iran" are inadvertently reinforcing the Bush administration's frame that Iran is some kind of "strategic rival" to the U.S. When the bombs start falling on Iran, having a public that's been conditioned to think this way will be very useful.

1. Unlike modern conservatives, most liberals are not afraid to face facts, even if the facts don't display their usual liberal bias.

2. Without the Bush invasion of Iraq, and the reduction of Iraq to a shambles, there would have been no "in" for the Iranians in Iraq. So, tragically, as usual, Bush's actions produce the exact opposite reaction to the one they were supposed to produce.

[SteveB]

1. Unlike modern conservatives, most liberals are not afraid to face facts, even if the facts don't display their usual liberal bias.

1. The people who are fighting us in Iraq are Iraqi nationalists who don't want their country to be under the thumb of anyone, whether it's the US or Iran. To miss this point is to make exactly the same mistake we made in Vietnam (see above comment).

2. Is Iran a regional power? Yes. Does it have influence in Iraq? Yes. Would it have influence in Iraq under any democratically elected Iraqi government, whether that government was installed by a US invasion or a popular uprising? Yes.

3. If the US and Iran are "rivals", it's a rivalry of our choosing. We didn't have to go into their neighborhood and try to set ourselves up as a "strategic rival" to Iran or anyone else.

[Thers]

Interesting how so many liberal Democrats, in criticizing the Iraq war for "handing Iraq over to Iran" are inadvertently reinforcing the Bush administration's frame that Iran is some kind of "strategic rival" to the U.S.

The reason to deplore Iranian influence is that it was always likely to cement illiberal and vicious living conditions -- as it has, for Iraqi Shiite women in particular.

Yes, there is a danger in frame reinforcement, but that in and of itself is not sufficient reason not to recognize the horrific nature of the Iranian regime.

As to the nationalist point, yes, but the irony is that the Maliki faction is less nationalist than the Sadr faction. Sadr has demonstrated far more independence from Iran than our own boy.

The main point is that we shouldn't be meddling in this hamfisted way in a situation we don't understand and can't control, as we're just making things more miserable for ordinary people. More bombs won't get out balls out of the vise, either.

[spencer]

who or what the hell are "Persians magnanimous"?

That sounds like a Pastor Swank-ism to me.

[Righteous Bubba]

More bombs won't get out balls out of the vise, either.

How about our tits out of the wringer?

[SteveB]

Yes, there is a danger in frame reinforcement, but that in and of itself is not sufficient reason not to recognize the horrific nature of the Iranian regime.

Not sure how you do the cost-benefit analysis on that one. Liberal hand-wringing about the opression of Iraqi (and Iranian, and Afghan) women doesn't do those women a damn bit of good, but it is very useful to those who want fire up the F-15's to drop bombs on those same women, and their children, and their husbands, fathers and brothers.

Maybe the best thing at this point is to just STFU?

[the Rev Jerry Gloryhole]

Yeah. It's better to STFU and not annoy those who like to soften civilians up with air strikes before destoying their country.
Because, you know, if liberals would just quit impeding conservatives, their compassion would blossom like daisys in manure, and there would be world peace.

Interesting how so many liberal Democrats, in criticizing the Iraq war for "handing Iraq over to Iran" are inadvertently reinforcing the Bush administration's frame that Iran is some kind of "strategic rival" to the U.S. When the bombs start falling on Iran, having a public that's been conditioned to think this way will be very useful.

You're right, Steve. We shouldn't say anything about yet another massive fuckup about the war we opposed. It's way easier -- and better, lest we fall into "Framing" -- to ignore everything. Ignore the fuckup. Ignore the fact that we fucked up OUR country in service to Iran, regardless of their stance toward the US. Ignore that which we find repulsive because, ultimately, it's counterproductive to note it.

If we say nothing, I'm sure the reality will be completely different.

[Righteous Bubba]

Liberal hand-wringing about the opression of Iraqi (and Iranian, and Afghan) women doesn't do those women a damn bit of good, but it is very useful to those who want fire up the F-15's to drop bombs on those same women, and their children, and their husbands, fathers and brothers.

This is stupid. Feel free to donate to an NGO that provides aid to women in these countries in recompense. Said NGOs may sometimes - only guessing here - receive donations when people find out they do good things for people who are having a hard time.

[Thers]

Not sure how you do the cost-benefit analysis on that one.

I didn't. I'm just totting up the atrocities.

[SteveB]

Yeah. It's better to STFU and not annoy those who like to soften civilians up with air strikes before destoying their country.

How is it annoying to Bush and Cheney to have the "Iran is strengthened" meme put into wide distribution? If Iran is strengthened, isn't that yet another reason to attack them?

It's way easier -- and better, lest we fall into "Framing" -- to ignore everything.

Ignore everything? What the fuck are you talking about? Some observations we could make about the Iraq war - that it has resulted in a million Iraqi dead, that it has cost, or will cost our country $3 trillion - help to discourage an attack on Iran. Some observations - like ones that reinforce the idea that the US and Iran are locked in a struggle for control of Iraq - help to encourage an attack on Iran. Get it?

Look, for forty years following WWII, the US looked at every development in every country in the world in terms of whether it strengthened of weakened the Soviets. Did Allende's election in Chile strengthen the Soviets? Well then, best install Pinochet! Can we all agree that was a bad thing? Do you think we could avoid doing the same thing now?

Feel free to donate to an NGO that provides aid to women in these countries in recompense.

If you're a woman or child living under a repressive regime, the absolute worst thing that can happen to you is for the US to take a sudden, intense interest in your oppression. Because that means the bombs will be falling soon. On the plus side, some well-meaning liberal (is there any other kind?) might buy your kid an artificial limb.

[Righteous Bubba]

If you're a woman or child living under a repressive regime, the absolute worst thing that can happen to you is for the US to take a sudden, intense interest in your oppression.

Yes, talking about the oppression of women on a blog instantly generates military plans. Jesus Christ is this stupid.

[SteveB]

Yes, talking about the oppression of women on a blog instantly generates military plans.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the plans have already been generated. You're just throwing your miniscule weight in their favor. I know it's not much, but Dick Cheney appreciates your help anyway.

Perhaps you rendered a similar service in 2002? Were you expressing your deep concern about the plight of the oppressed Iraqi people then? How did that work out?

[SteveB]

Yes, talking about the oppression of women on a blog instantly generates military plans.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the plans have already been generated. You're just throwing your miniscule weight in their favor. I know it's not much, but Dick Cheney appreciates your help anyway.

Perhaps you rendered a similar service in 2002? Were you expressing your deep concern about the plight of the oppressed Iraqi people then? How did that work out?

[Righteous Bubba]

Steve you're pretty dumb. You might perhaps have noticed that Afghanistan was invaded over something that happened in New York and Iraq was invaded over a cooked-up threat of terrorism - which is also the manufactured case against Iran.

The protection of women is, sadly, a third-rate issue.

Perhaps you rendered a similar service in 2002?

Perhaps you're an ass who's lost an argument?

[SteveB]

Every American war is built on a coalition of two groups: Republicans who want to go kick some ass, and Democrats who want to go save some women and children.

Afghanistan, since you brought it up, is the perfect example. I still remember being at a teachers convention in 2001 when Sandra Feldman, the then-president of the American Federation of Teachers, made an impassioned argument in favor of the US invasion of Afghanistan, because women were being oppressed by the Taliban. Is that why we invaded? Of course not. But it was helpful, just the same.

Now that it looks like we can expect a Dem in the White House next year, expect the "save the children" arguments to take a front seat while the "kick some ass" arguments take a back seat. But it's all the same to the people under the bombs.

[SteveB]

Oh, and are you saying you weren't expressing your deep concern about the oppressed people of Iraq back in 2002? Why not? Weren't they at least as oppressed as the women of Iran?

[Righteous Bubba]

But it was helpful, just the same.

Yes, clearly after September 11th the balance was tipped by Sandra Feldman.

[SteveB]

Yes, clearly after September 11th the balance was tipped by Sandra Feldman.

Now you're just being silly. What people say matters, because it contributes to a political climate that either facilitates war or makes war more difficult. Is that really so difficult for you to understand?

[Righteous Bubba]

Now you're just being silly.

Yes it's fabulously silly acknowledging the blindingly obvious fact that women are not treated all that well in Iran. I search the Googles and they are free of references to human rights problems there. Nobody knows about this stuff and I should keep my mouth shut because Robert Gates will hear me and move a carrier group into the Persian Gulf to launch cruise missiles.

[SteveB]

Going back to the original topic of this thread, those who insist on viewing events in Iraq through a lens of US-Iranian "competition" are just helping to foment a hot war or a cold war.

Not a good thing to do, in my opinion.

[SteveB]

I should keep my mouth shut because Robert Gates will hear me and move a carrier group into the Persian Gulf to launch cruise missiles.

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a cartoon.

I'll leave now, so you and your cartoon can be alone together.

[Righteous Bubba]

Tune in next thread when I agree with Pam Oshry that Saudi women are mistreated and Mecca somehow gets nuked!

[John Caruso]

SteveB: Great points all. You'd think anyone who didn't understand it already would have learned the danger of adopting a war-enabling frame back in 2002-2003, but the response you're getting here certainly proves otherwise. And I don't doubt that when the right people start dropping the bombs (on Iraq, Iran, or any other country), many of these same people will suddenly discover that they object to war a lot less than they did for the past eight years.

[Save the Oocytes]

I like the final justification: "We can say what we want; we're unimportant!"