In response to Obama Doctrine; An Astonishingly Good Deal? "Only Rand Paul Could Do Worse" Says Senator Graham reader Michael says I am naive and we should "cut out the cancer" now.
In a subsequent email Michael called me "Neville" ...
I'm sure a compassionate, but determined U.S. President, could figure out a way to work with pro-western Iranians to overthrow the Iranian regime while minimizing collateral damage.
I guess I'm just more concerned about losing a million New Yorkers than you are. What the hell, they're mostly Jews anyways.
Sig Heil Mr. Chamberlain
Dear Michael, let's take a look at the track record of US overthrows starting with the very place the madness started, an overthrow in Iran.
The 1953 Iranian coup d'état was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, masterminded by the United States under the name TPAJAX Project and backed by the United Kingdom under the name 'Operation Boot'.
The US installed Shah of Iran ruled as a brutal, corrupt puppet of the US until a violent overthrow in the Iranian revolution of 1979.
In 2013, under freedom of information lawsuits, the Guardian reported CIA Admits Role in 1953 Iranian Coup.
So dear Michael, how well did that coup work out?
Netanyahu Lesson from 2002
Here's another history lesson: Who said "If You Take Out Saddam, I Guarantee It Will Have Enormous Positive Reverberations."
Here's the answer: Benjamin Netanyahu in 2002.
Iraq War: Predictions Made, and Results
Let's take a look at previous predictions, when they were made, and how accurate they were, starting with a Christian Science Monitor report Iraq War: Predictions Made, and Results.
Ahead of and shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a number of officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz suggested the war could be done on the cheap and that it would largely pay for itself. In October 2003, Rumsfeld told a press conference about President Bush's request for $21 billion for Iraq and Afghan reconstruction that "the $20 billion the president requested is not intended to cover all of Iraq's needs. The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community."
In March 2003, Mr. Wolfowitz told Congress that "we're really dealing with a country that could finance its own reconstruction." In April 2003, the Pentagon said the war would cost about $2 billion a month, and in July of that year Rumsfeld increased that estimate to $4 billion.
I believe we all know how that turned out.
On July 24, 2010 I wrote Afghanistan is a "Lost Cause"; Leaked Documents Show Futility of Afghanistan War
The questions on my mind are: How many trillions of dollars do we have to spend, how many lives need to be wasted, and how much longer are we going to be involved in the boondoggle known as Afghanistan?
The total amount of the waste and lives lost is unknown, but we now have an answer to my 2010 question: "how much longer are we going to be involved in the boondoggle known as Afghanistan?"
The unfortunate answer is "until 2024 at least."
How much will fighting ISIS really cost? No one can answer that now, but a safe starting point for discussion is somewhere between 10 and 100 times initial projections.
In Iraq Splinters Into Pieces, Al Qaeda in Control of Several Cities, Kurds Take Oil City Kirkuk; Thank George Bush and the Neocons; Iraq Before and After I held the Bush Administration largely responsible for this mess.
Sure, president Obama made many mistakes but the initial, most damning mistake was the Iraq invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
In a follow-up post, Assessing the Blame for Iraq: Bush, Obama, McCain, Others; Iraq Sunken Costs I asked for self-assessment.
Time for Self-Assessment
I can and do blame Obama for countless things. But Republicans would be very wise to self-assess on Iraq, on nation building, and on warmongering in general.
Instead of self-assessment, warmongers want more war.
As is always the case, John McCain leads the war rally cry in the Senate. In the House, Speaker John Boehner Says U.S. may have 'no choice' on combat troops.
Not once have these Republican deficit-hawk hypocrites said how they propose to pay for this. Not once has McCain ever placed the blame for ISIS where it belongs.
ISIS a U.S. Creation
ISIS is 100% a US creation. ISIS arose following inane US nation-building policies starting with the absurd belief the "Iraq war would pay for itself."
This self-made mess produced Strange Bedfellows: To Fight ISIS, US Now Supports Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Other Terror Groups.
I concluded "Strange Bedfellows" with a warning "Just remember ... To make matters worse, you have to begin somewhere."
In 1993 the Washington Post stated Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Costs Top $4 Trillion./p>
Oops. They forgot to factor in ISIS fighting.
How well is the US sponsored overthrow of a democratically elected president in Ukraine working out?
Nonetheless reader Michael asserts "I'm sure a compassionate, but determined U.S. President, could figure out a way to work with pro-western Iranians to overthrow the Iranian regime while minimizing collateral damage."
To top it off Michael takes out the Hitler card as if Iran wants to conquer the world.
Finally, proving that he is also a hypocrite, somehow it is OK for Israel to take out Iran preemptively but not the other way around.
Why are We Working with Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Inquiring minds should take a look at a Glenn Greenwald appearance with Glenn Beck: Why are We Working with Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Matter of Life and Death
Arguably, it makes far more sense to work with Iran than Saudi Arabia. Not only was it Saudi nationals behind 911, it is now extreme Sunnis that form ISIS.
It is Saudi groups that fund and support ISIS.
Iran is predominately Shiite. Given that Sunnis and Shiites look alike, here's an interesting set of Questions Rebels Use to Tell Sunni From Shiite.
When ISIS captures a village, Shiites are killed on the spot.
Lesson in Trust
Reader Michael sides with war hawks and says we cannot trust Iran.
Good grief. We inspired a military coup in Iran, installed a brutal regime for the benefit of US oil interests, we back Israel no matter what it does, and let Israel have a nuclear program.
In the wake of 911, Iran offered assistance to track down Bin Laden and the US refused.
Now, people bitch we cannot trust Iran.
Hell, Iran is damn near crazy to trust us given that track record, especially when leading Republicans vow to overturn any agreement in 2016.
Accord Speaks for Itself
- Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges
- Iran will give up all but its most rudimentary, outdated centrifuges: its first-generation IR-1s, knockoffs of 1970s European models, are all it gets to keep. It will not be allowed to build or develop newer models.
- Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms of its 10,000-kilogram stockpile in its current form.
- Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.
- Inspectors will have access to all parts of Iran's nuclear supply chain, including its uranium mines and the mills where it processes uranium ore. Inspectors will also not just monitor but be required to pre-approve all sales to Iran of nuclear-related equipment. This provision also applies to something called 'dual-use' materials, which means any equipment that could be used toward a nuclear program.
Even if Iran reneges down the road, as long as those points are verified before sanctions are removed, Iran's nuclear program would be set back years, if not longer.
But that is not enough for reader Michael or the war hawks. Both want to take out Iran (at minimum cost of course).
Then both have the gall to bitch about Iran logically wanting a weapon to defend themselves from just that.
Israel Demands Changes
This reports just in: Israel calls for changes to international nuclear deal with Iran.
Israel stepped up its lobbying campaign against the agreement on Iran's nuclear programme on Monday, listing the changes it regards as essential in the framework accord that Tehran reached last week with world powers.
Yuval Steinitz, the minister for intelligence and strategic affairs, said on Monday that Israel would try to persuade the powers -- the US and five others -- "not to sign this bad deal or at least to dramatically change or fix it."
Mr Steinitz said that Israeli military action remained an option, despite the framework accord. "It was on the table, it's still on the table, it's going to remain on the table," he said. "Israel should be able to defend itself, by itself against any threat."
It's no wonder Iran is paranoid.
My comment: People, especially warmongers, pull the Hitler card at the slightest provocation. It's nearly always wildly off base. Please read the article for discussion.