Do you call him eloquent and erudite because you agree with his positions, or because you actually think he expresses himself well? At least to me, he sounds like someone who's spent far too much time on Usenet and is a borderline troll. There are far better ways to express oneself, regardless of one's actual positions, than soapboxing like his - the excess verbiage and spit content-per-sentence is pretty striking.

By  pgunn01@gmail.com, at Monday, July 16, 2007 5:02:00 pm  

Here's the press release from the U.S. Army about the military exercises at the new forward operating base in Romania.

By  s9, at Monday, July 16, 2007 11:01:00 pm  

World War III, here we come!

Well, maybe not. "There's many a slip twixt cup and lip." For one thing, invading Iran would be unbelievably unpopular, and, push comes to shove, Congress might not fund it. But if we avoid an invasion of Iran, and the consequent geopolitical disaster, of whatever nature, it will be through luck, rather than political will. We can only hope the Congressional Democrats get scared enough of the consequences to take actions, and that's an awful thing to depend on--fear is a terrible master.

I don't agree, btw, that a unified voice in Left Blogistan is likely to have the kind of effect of the AM radio propaganda blitz we experienced; AM talk radio is a megaphone, Left Blogistan is a kilophone.

By  randolph, at Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:44:00 am  

Randolph, let me just stomp one meme right now. The question is not about an invasion of Iran. It's about an attack on Iran, primarily using air and naval forces.

By  Ken, at Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:54:00 am  

Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo

Didn't the Pope abolish it?

By  ejh, at Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:03:00 pm  

To Randolph: While I admit that the big players (Russia, USA, UK, Iran, Al-Quaeda, etc.) are all making power plays pretty much at the same time, I don't see a world war in the outcome; China's not made a peep yet and Russia will not make a single move against the USA without the Chinese. NK doesn't have any significant way of extending their military power beyond their own borders and even then, that military power is limited technologically - to say the least.

There is a lot of posturing, but as it stands there are only a handful of nations willing to go all in and the US isn't one of them.

I'm betting on a chaotic, all-out war in the middle-east with very little in the way of promising outcomes, but once the few superpowers their are get dragged into that quagmire, things will likely be very far from war in the rest of the world.

Basically, the entire middle-east will turn into the phenomenal waste that Iraq has become.

By  Steven Alleyn, at Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:44:00 pm  

Basically, the entire middle-east will turn into the phenomenal waste that Iraq has become.

...and how is that going to happen? Please name one nation who's going to go to war on Iran's behalf. And remember, Samuel Huntington didn't win any elections; Bush isn't going to decide to invade the entire Middle East; his rhetoric and line of action have been more along "one thing at a time" lines.

I don't even see Iran going to war with us. I see them grinning and bearing it because they'd lose bigtime and quickly if they went to war with us, and, despite Pres. A's rhetoric, Iran has been BEHAVING rationally so far. Which is good, since we have no capacity to occupy them, of course.

No, Iran's response would be to just boost support for opposition groups in Iraq. Those groups are low on cred in Iraq, though, for accepting that help, so there are limits on how much that'd change things.

jon

By  Anonymous, at Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:49:00 pm  

I didn't mean specifically the USA's causing this mess, but rather the wars already raging or threatening to explode in that region will, almost inevitably, spill over into the entire region.

The insurgency is currently contained within Afghanistan & Iraq, but the tensions in Israel/Palestine will not remain calm indefinately; last year we saw Hezbollah and Israel clash and we know that when Palestine and Israel start genuinely getting into it (i.e. when the Iraqi insurgency - whose Al-Quaeda elements are sympathetic to the Palestinians - spills into that region) that Hezbollah (and, by extension, against their will, Lebanon) will throw their weight in behind it.

Once that kind of chaos gets going, I would not at all be surprised if Iran made a power play and, lo and behold, you've got yourself a military quagmire.

Let's not forget that Pakistan is having its own trouble with groups such as Al-Quaeda and its own population, and a long-standing semi-hostile relationship with India...

No new wars have to be started by western powers, the elements for turning the entire region into one big warzone are already in place.

By  Steven Alleyn, at Friday, July 20, 2007 2:00:00 am  

Randolph: " For one thing, invading Iran would be unbelievably unpopular, and, push comes to shove, Congress might not fund it."

Bush is himself unbelievably unpopular, and able to function quite well in spite of it (or, in the short term, because of it). Congress doesn't get a vote; Bush will do it, claiming that it's all part of the Same Big War. If Congress tries to do anything about it, the GOP Senate will fillibuster anything. If Congress actually passes a budget which specifically doesn't fund some war that Bush wants, he'll shift the money, and dare Congress to do anything about it.

Basically, the entire middle-east will turn into the phenomenal waste that Iraq has become.

Anonymous: "... Bush isn't going to decide to invade the entire Middle East; his rhetoric and line of action have been more along "one thing at a time" lines. "

In my universe, Bush invaded Iraq with Afghanistan undone, and has lost both wars; he's supported Israeli wars against Lebanon and against the West Bank and Gaza.

- Barry

By  Anonymous, at Friday, July 20, 2007 1:37:00 pm  

jon: "No, Iran's response would be to just boost support for opposition groups in Iraq. Those groups are low on cred in Iraq, though, for accepting that help, so there are limits on how much that'd change things."

From casual memory, the biggest militia and political party in Iraq is allied with Iran - SCII, formerly SIRI, organized in Tehran in the 1980's, and its Badr Corps militia. I believe that a few of the others are also allied with Iran.

Interestingly, the major anti-Iranian Shiite group, Sadr and his guys, have been the most attacked by the USA.

This means that Iran probably has the power to make things very hot for the US in Iraq, since it's allied with the dominant party in the government.


- Barry

By  Anonymous, at Friday, July 20, 2007 1:40:00 pm  

ejh - the Pope abolished limbo, but not hell!

By  Ken, at Sunday, July 22, 2007 9:24:00 pm  

Steven,
> ... the wars already raging or threatening to explode in that region will, almost inevitably, spill over into the entire region.

How? And if it's so certain, why hasn't it happened in the six years since democratic military action began in Afghanistan?


Barry wrote:
> > ... his rhetoric and line of action have been more along "one thing at a time" lines. "

> In my universe, Bush invaded Iraq with Afghanistan undone, and has lost both wars; he's supported Israeli wars against Lebanon and against the West Bank and Gaza.

...all consistent with what I said, eh? First Afghanistan, THEN Iraq. And he's living within the US two-small-war limit after that, despite rightie hawk pressure to invade Darfur, Syria, and especially Iran.

And that's it. i can't seem to recall the Bush Administration being all that happy about with the Israeli military actions you've mentioned. Although, it is fair to say that, well after the Iraqi hot action was done, Bush was hoping Israel would take action against Syria, using the Israeli Army, note.

So, if we lost, then I guess the Taliban must be ruling in Kabul, and either Saddam or al'Qaeda ruling in Baghdad. Hmmm.... Looks to me like it's not over yet.

>This means that Iran probably has the power to make things very hot for the US in Iraq, since it's allied with the dominant party in the government.

"Allied with" is different from "subservient finger." Can you give us an exaample of them introducing into Parliament or voting for Iranian-style theocracy and subservience to Iran?

By  Anonymous, at Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:22:00 am