The Neocon Threat to American Freedom

Ahh more Liberal propaganda... Nicely laid out there, MarinJohn

 

thanks for the reality check MJ. It's still nice to know someone gets it.

And it's not conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy reality. C'mon people, wake up!

 

I definitely agree with some points, but not all. I think that attacking Iran at this point would be a huge mistake, and that the Bush administration needs to do more in the way of negotiations and political pressure to bring the situation under control than they have done.

His discussion of the possibility of a nuclear response to Iran is a troublesome thought. This isn't to say that i believe this is what is planned by anyone, or that the President would take such actions. But when examining the possibilities, it is pretty obvious how things could escalate in the region to the point where Bush could feel that he "has no choice".

I sincerely hope that none of what the author is saying is true. I hope there isn't a big neocon conspiracy to take these actions, or any actions that would escalate the conflict in the region. At the same time, i feel that it's something we should consider a real possibility, if only for the fact that the end consequences to the region and to the US would be so dire.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Jun 22 2007, 12:35 PM) [snapback]466378[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. A neocon is just a liberal who either has been mugged, lost a friend or relative in 9/11, or matured.

Lets see the liberals/democrats threats to America:

1. jimmy carter - the midwife of the current iranian problem; current husband of hamas and hezbollah - go jimmy go - please
2. cant torture enemy combatants
3. no electronic eavesdropping
4. cant use the banking system either to track their finances
5. giving them habeus corpus rights too
6. letting iran go nuclear - here is a good one for the libs
7. cutting back on defense spending/intelligence spending etc
8. want to retreat in defeat from iraq creating a vacuum for iran to enter
9. big UN backer - wants to place US forces under the control of the UN.

 

google PNAC

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ 2007 June 22 10:08 AM) [snapback]466402[/snapback]</div>

Matured? Oh, be serious. Neocons are hardly the pinnacle of evolution to which we should all aspire.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 22 2007, 12:08 PM) [snapback]466402[/snapback]</div>

1. Yes, lets place all the blame on an 82 year old man who hasn't held office in the past 26 years. way to go.
2. OMG, you mean we're actually treating the enemy like humans?
3. Wow, we're upholding the bill of rights in preventing unreasonable search and seizures? (keep in mind that you can still do this with a warrant)
4. See #3
5. See #2
6. Twisting our words. just because we would prefer pursuing a diplomatic solution instead of instantly jumping into a military one... oh wait, did you just prove out the OP's post?
7. We're spending 440 billion on the military this year alone, more than the next 14 biggest spenders combined. What are we doing wrong that we can't win the war in Iraq when spending so much?
8. Did we ever say pulling out would be easy? Or that it could be done without putting significant effort into other areas? We're calling for the administration to put in place a plan for an ordered pull out of our troops. So far the administration hasn't shown any reasonable plan that would make the Iraqi government self sufficient.
9. This one's new to me... I've always said that we need to utilize the UN to help serve our purposes (like Iraq and Iran) instead of going off practically on our own like Bush did in Iraq...


and a liberal is just a neocon that's either lost a friend or relative fighting a stupid, pointless war, or has graduated high school.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jun 22 2007, 12:24 PM) [snapback]466415[/snapback]</div>

I'm surprised it isn't Clinton's fault.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jun 22 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]466415[/snapback]</div>

Defense Rests

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 22 2007, 10:08 AM) [snapback]466402[/snapback]</div>

So, being able to torture people (in violation of the Geneva Convention, btw), electronically eavesdrop on whomever is decided to be a risk, and taking away EVERYONE'S habeus corpus rights is supposedly a GOOD thing?
Do you have a clue as to how much of OUR constitutional rights have already been taken away from us, and how many more we are likely to lose, under the current "administration"?

Oh, and as far as number 6, "Letting Iran go nuclear"... who died and made the United States the boss of the world? This is exactly WHY there is a UN! We are NOT the boss of any other country but our own. Seriously. This global Imperialism is one of the main problems of our leadership... thinking that, somehow, the USA is superior to the entire rest of the world, and that we are the only ones that can/should decide what other soverign countries do.

Maybe we should go UN-nuclear... hmm?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 22 2007, 12:08 PM) [snapback]466402[/snapback]</div>

Yawn. Here we go again. Yet again another attempt by dberman to initiate a thread to nuke iran. We all know that you think muslims are all subhuman trash and deserve less rights than your dog. We also all know you think the libs would rather root for a 9/11 attack every day for the rest of our live before supporting bush.

These delusions of yours have been acknowledged, you can stop now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Jun 22 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]466378[/snapback]</div>

Reread the first paragraph of MarinJohns post.It was written by a conservative.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 22 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]466424[/snapback]</div>

Meanwhile, the judge and jury decide the defense is full of BS.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jun 22 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]466452[/snapback]</div>

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Jun 22 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]466429[/snapback]</div>

Defense Rests again - way too easy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 22 2007, 01:57 PM) [snapback]466439[/snapback]</div>

Stale argument.
Defense keeps resting.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jun 22 2007, 02:23 PM) [snapback]466452[/snapback]</div>

Another LIBERAL judge?

 

What about another viewpoint? Here's a neocon who does NOT advocate military action against Iran. So much for your conspiracy theories.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200601311250.asp

Terrorists Going Nuclear
Tehran’s recent efforts add to their history as terror masters.

...
Regime change is the only solution that will insure the world's safety against clerics who believe their right to have nuclear weapons is an apocalyptic defense for a final confrontation with the West that would guarantee their survival. Until then, and until they have a critical mass of nuclear weapons to carry forth their maniacal plans, they will bide time with a menacingly effective outsourcing strategy to hold their enemies in check — fingerprint-less state-sponsored terror.

The necessity of thwarting the use of untraceable terrorism as an offensive strategy for redressing policy imbalances, not the necessity of repealing Iran's right to civilian nuclear power, is why the world can never allow Tehran to have access to materials that could one day be converted into radiological "dirty" bombs, or shaped into nuclear warheads atop ballistic missiles that could launch electromagnetic pulse attacks.

...
In Iran's case, the international community has not yet mustered the resolve to do what needs to be done — to devise a cogent strategy aimed at removing the mullahs from power. The world community, which has tried every diplomatic option since Iran's clandestine program became apparent in 2002, has suffered the ignominy of not knowing which of the two governments in Tehran, the mullahcracy led by Ayatollah Khamenei or the democracy it coerces, contains and controls, it should deal with. Now that Iran is led by the firebrand Ahmadinejad, democracy has no voice and there is no ambiguity about where the mullahcracy stands — Tehran should be dealt with decisively.

Washington, which never believed in any of the diplomatic options tried by Germany, France, and later Britain, has military options available that will incinerate Iran's nuclear facilities without much collateral damage. But in the process, such a unilateral military step will destroy what is left of America's goodwill and credibility in the world.


What to do?
Sanctions will be tried, but they won't work unless they are global and aimed at what undergirds Tehran's clerics — the currency of oil. To go nuclear, Iran needs a lot of money. With the world's second largest oil reserves and a need to modernize and expand its oil pumping and distribution infrastructure, it also needs a lot of equipment and expertise it does not have at home.

...

The military options are not attractive either, unless Washington and its allies conclude the Iranian state is really about to launch an offensive strike against, say, Israel. Demolishing Iran's nuclear facilities through a preemptive Israeli air strike would do little to stop the program, since Tehran learned from the 1981 air raid which flattened Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor that dispersing key elements of the program, hiding most of them deeply below ground, was one way to make air attacks more difficult. Assassinating Iranian scientists or making attempts to hack into their nuclear computer software infrastructure are not considered debilitating moves that could stop the program's development.

A massive air campaign, which only the U.S. could launch, could require attacking as many as 100 sites, destroying a good part of Iran's air force before attacking its facilities, and causing a lot of collateral damage. Iran's retaliation could be to close the Straits of Hormuz and force a showdown with America's naval forces. Iran would probably manage to get a handful of ballistic missiles in the air. No Gulf country wants a nuclear Iran, but neither do they need another Gulf war.

All of which leaves Washington policymakers to consider a hybrid solution: encouraging an internal uprising against the Iranian theocracy buttressed by the threat of unprecedented use of force with a new class of U.S. weapons that would selectively but completely destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. Tehran has masterfully conducted a destabilizing guerilla war against U.S. interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time for Washington and its allies to return the favor by enabling an equally capable insurgency force to rise up inside Iran — students, average workers on the street, even sympathetic police forces and army officers — to coalesce into a truly revolutionary force aimed at overthrowing the clerics.

The insurgency force could target Iran's vital infrastructure systems. Shutting down parts of Tehran's electricity grid, or having truckers stall their vehicles en masse on Tehran's streets, or flooding Iran's airwaves with radio messages, or taking over rail lines moving critical supplies to Iran's military and nuclear installations could all play a role in unnerving the clerics while creating the conditions that would bring hundreds of thousands of demonstrators out into the streets of Iran's biggest cities. Ukraine's Orange Revolution of November 2004, or Georgia's Rose Revolution of November 2003, would pale in comparison to what is bubbling up under Iran's theocratic veil.

The ensuing bloodless revolution would give Iran back to its people, free the world of its maddened rulers' nuclear threats, and enable the West to help build Iran's nuclear infrastructure in a verifiable and accountable way, much in the same way that the U.S. has agreed to assist India. Iran would also then be free to pursue what is innately ingrained in the minds of its people — democracy, freedom, and liberty for all.

— Mansoor Ijaz is chairman of Crescent Investment Management

* * *

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 22 2007, 02:16 PM) [snapback]466478[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, it must be one of those 2 SC justices that were nominated by Clinton... Couldn't imagine it's one of the 7 nominated by republicans...

What about the jury though... you going to claim a liberal bias there too? Oh wait, i forgot... reality has a liberal bias.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DelerPrius @ Jun 22 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]466491[/snapback]</div>

These two sections were what caught my eye the most here - First, pointing out that an air raid by the US would incur heavy collateral (read:civilian) damage. It would not be the simple "surgical strike" that some individuals on the boards here have claimed. Second, i don't believe it would be a bloodless revolution. The religious leaders that control the government won't be willing to give up their power so easily or quickly. a bloodless revolution would take time - years, even decades. It would require the people to start working from within to change their leaders viewpoints and bring about a more peaceable leadership. The type of revolution he's talking about would almost certainly involve large civilian casualties as the leadership attempts to protect its power.

Unfortunately, the author is not a neocon. over the past 10 years or so, he's donated extensively to the democratic party - $250,000 of his own money, plus $200,000 at a fund-raising reception he held for then VP Al Gore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 22 2007, 02:16 PM) [snapback]466478[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, and your arguments are always new and refreshing. I've seen the same racist comments from day one from you when I started viewing FHOP. You have yet to convince anyone to join your side of hate and bigotry. Stale? Only as stale as the rebuttals to your same old diatribe. Your post count is 2575 as of right now. 2570 of them have been about rationalizing killing as many muslims as possible dotted with the occasional search for jewish sympathy.