[Allan from Fallbrook]

Man, I gotta quit working! Miss a day on this thread and you’re toast.

Larry: I’m not going to speak for surveyor, or any of the other more hawkish posters on this site, but from my point of view, I don’t advocate a disengagement when it comes to negotiations. I would say that without any sort of threat, either soft or hard, that negotiations with a country like Iran will go nowhere. The Europeans have been trying a carrot and stick approach, and the results have not been heartening.

As far as the US approach on North Korea, I would agree that we definitely screwed the pooch there. And mainly due to the schizophrenic nature of our approach. Having Colin Powell come out with a clearly defined strategy and then reverse himself literally tne next day doesn’t exactly send the message that we have our proverbial s**t together. I would also point out that Kim Jong-il had run out of rope as far as the bellicosity of his position and, with impending famines in North Korea, went for the money. Clinton’s 1994 Framework Agreement, widely praised as a fine piece of diplomacy and negotiations, was completely circumvented by the North Korean regime.

gandalf: Being involved with both the oil business and DoD, I would agree with your assessment of the industry (oil/gas) at present. Given that your dad has some history here, I would ask his opinion of Gazprom, Lukoil and Rosneft (the big Russian players). The Siberian fields have been experiencing a fairly significant drop off in production and the Russians are looking into Central Asia and the Middle East in terms of acquistions. Their approach is not “Western” in the sense of pure acquisition through money, but also stresses the threat of Russian power (military and otherwise) right next door. The Chinese are also actively seeking energy sources in the same region. That was the reason for my mention of the “Great Game” strategy employed by the British and other colonial powers in the 19th century. It is eerily similar in many ways. Looking at it this way, you get some sense of the importance of having a strong US military presence as a counterweight there. And, no, I am not trying to put lipstick on that particular pig (the Iraq War). To say that the war was anything other than horribly mismanaged would be a lie. I have friends there and in Afghanistan, so I get some pretty unexpurgated commentary.

Speaking of Afghanistan: The US was waging a fairly successful campaign against the Taliban prior to the NATO handover. Post-NATO, the situation has deteriorated markedly. According to a buddy of mine there, much of the problem is the way the NATO commanders are prosecuting the campaign. Among the NATO forces, only the Canadians are really willing to go into the Taliban controlled areas and duke it out. The rest of the NATO forces like to stay close to their bases and the main roads, and have essentially surrendered the initiative to the Taliban.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Man, I gotta quit working! Miss a day on this thread and you’re toast.

Larry: I’m not going to speak for surveyor, or any of the other more hawkish posters on this site, but from my point of view, I don’t advocate a disengagement when it comes to negotiations. I would say that without any sort of threat, either soft or hard, that negotiations with a country like Iran will go nowhere. The Europeans have been trying a carrot and stick approach, and the results have not been heartening.

As far as the US approach on North Korea, I would agree that we definitely screwed the pooch there. And mainly due to the schizophrenic nature of our approach. Having Colin Powell come out with a clearly defined strategy and then reverse himself literally tne next day doesn’t exactly send the message that we have our proverbial s**t together. I would also point out that Kim Jong-il had run out of rope as far as the bellicosity of his position and, with impending famines in North Korea, went for the money. Clinton’s 1994 Framework Agreement, widely praised as a fine piece of diplomacy and negotiations, was completely circumvented by the North Korean regime.

gandalf: Being involved with both the oil business and DoD, I would agree with your assessment of the industry (oil/gas) at present. Given that your dad has some history here, I would ask his opinion of Gazprom, Lukoil and Rosneft (the big Russian players). The Siberian fields have been experiencing a fairly significant drop off in production and the Russians are looking into Central Asia and the Middle East in terms of acquistions. Their approach is not “Western” in the sense of pure acquisition through money, but also stresses the threat of Russian power (military and otherwise) right next door. The Chinese are also actively seeking energy sources in the same region. That was the reason for my mention of the “Great Game” strategy employed by the British and other colonial powers in the 19th century. It is eerily similar in many ways. Looking at it this way, you get some sense of the importance of having a strong US military presence as a counterweight there. And, no, I am not trying to put lipstick on that particular pig (the Iraq War). To say that the war was anything other than horribly mismanaged would be a lie. I have friends there and in Afghanistan, so I get some pretty unexpurgated commentary.

Speaking of Afghanistan: The US was waging a fairly successful campaign against the Taliban prior to the NATO handover. Post-NATO, the situation has deteriorated markedly. According to a buddy of mine there, much of the problem is the way the NATO commanders are prosecuting the campaign. Among the NATO forces, only the Canadians are really willing to go into the Taliban controlled areas and duke it out. The rest of the NATO forces like to stay close to their bases and the main roads, and have essentially surrendered the initiative to the Taliban.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Man, I gotta quit working! Miss a day on this thread and you’re toast.

Larry: I’m not going to speak for surveyor, or any of the other more hawkish posters on this site, but from my point of view, I don’t advocate a disengagement when it comes to negotiations. I would say that without any sort of threat, either soft or hard, that negotiations with a country like Iran will go nowhere. The Europeans have been trying a carrot and stick approach, and the results have not been heartening.

As far as the US approach on North Korea, I would agree that we definitely screwed the pooch there. And mainly due to the schizophrenic nature of our approach. Having Colin Powell come out with a clearly defined strategy and then reverse himself literally tne next day doesn’t exactly send the message that we have our proverbial s**t together. I would also point out that Kim Jong-il had run out of rope as far as the bellicosity of his position and, with impending famines in North Korea, went for the money. Clinton’s 1994 Framework Agreement, widely praised as a fine piece of diplomacy and negotiations, was completely circumvented by the North Korean regime.

gandalf: Being involved with both the oil business and DoD, I would agree with your assessment of the industry (oil/gas) at present. Given that your dad has some history here, I would ask his opinion of Gazprom, Lukoil and Rosneft (the big Russian players). The Siberian fields have been experiencing a fairly significant drop off in production and the Russians are looking into Central Asia and the Middle East in terms of acquistions. Their approach is not “Western” in the sense of pure acquisition through money, but also stresses the threat of Russian power (military and otherwise) right next door. The Chinese are also actively seeking energy sources in the same region. That was the reason for my mention of the “Great Game” strategy employed by the British and other colonial powers in the 19th century. It is eerily similar in many ways. Looking at it this way, you get some sense of the importance of having a strong US military presence as a counterweight there. And, no, I am not trying to put lipstick on that particular pig (the Iraq War). To say that the war was anything other than horribly mismanaged would be a lie. I have friends there and in Afghanistan, so I get some pretty unexpurgated commentary.

Speaking of Afghanistan: The US was waging a fairly successful campaign against the Taliban prior to the NATO handover. Post-NATO, the situation has deteriorated markedly. According to a buddy of mine there, much of the problem is the way the NATO commanders are prosecuting the campaign. Among the NATO forces, only the Canadians are really willing to go into the Taliban controlled areas and duke it out. The rest of the NATO forces like to stay close to their bases and the main roads, and have essentially surrendered the initiative to the Taliban.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Man, I gotta quit working! Miss a day on this thread and you’re toast.

Larry: I’m not going to speak for surveyor, or any of the other more hawkish posters on this site, but from my point of view, I don’t advocate a disengagement when it comes to negotiations. I would say that without any sort of threat, either soft or hard, that negotiations with a country like Iran will go nowhere. The Europeans have been trying a carrot and stick approach, and the results have not been heartening.

As far as the US approach on North Korea, I would agree that we definitely screwed the pooch there. And mainly due to the schizophrenic nature of our approach. Having Colin Powell come out with a clearly defined strategy and then reverse himself literally tne next day doesn’t exactly send the message that we have our proverbial s**t together. I would also point out that Kim Jong-il had run out of rope as far as the bellicosity of his position and, with impending famines in North Korea, went for the money. Clinton’s 1994 Framework Agreement, widely praised as a fine piece of diplomacy and negotiations, was completely circumvented by the North Korean regime.

gandalf: Being involved with both the oil business and DoD, I would agree with your assessment of the industry (oil/gas) at present. Given that your dad has some history here, I would ask his opinion of Gazprom, Lukoil and Rosneft (the big Russian players). The Siberian fields have been experiencing a fairly significant drop off in production and the Russians are looking into Central Asia and the Middle East in terms of acquistions. Their approach is not “Western” in the sense of pure acquisition through money, but also stresses the threat of Russian power (military and otherwise) right next door. The Chinese are also actively seeking energy sources in the same region. That was the reason for my mention of the “Great Game” strategy employed by the British and other colonial powers in the 19th century. It is eerily similar in many ways. Looking at it this way, you get some sense of the importance of having a strong US military presence as a counterweight there. And, no, I am not trying to put lipstick on that particular pig (the Iraq War). To say that the war was anything other than horribly mismanaged would be a lie. I have friends there and in Afghanistan, so I get some pretty unexpurgated commentary.

Speaking of Afghanistan: The US was waging a fairly successful campaign against the Taliban prior to the NATO handover. Post-NATO, the situation has deteriorated markedly. According to a buddy of mine there, much of the problem is the way the NATO commanders are prosecuting the campaign. Among the NATO forces, only the Canadians are really willing to go into the Taliban controlled areas and duke it out. The rest of the NATO forces like to stay close to their bases and the main roads, and have essentially surrendered the initiative to the Taliban.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I would also draw a parallel to another point in time: 1979. US economy in a slump, double digit interest rates, military humiliated by Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, America retreating from the world stage, Iranian hostage crisis, people mistrusting the government after Vietnam and Watergate and a general sense of overall malaise (remember Jimmy Carter’s speech to us about hard work?).

While I don’t think attacking Iran is the right thing to do, I also don’t agree that the European solution of tough talk and threatened sanctions is sufficient, either. I think the US needs to engage the people of Iraq and show moderacy in our approach, while remaining resolutely committed to military options if Iraq proves intransigent. And this isn’t similar to the “does he or doesn’t he” WMD question with Saddam. The IAEA has confirmed Iraq’s capabilities in this respect and it isn’t based on a ginned up NIE or CIA analysis.

We also need to keep a leash on the Israelis. I don’t doubt for a second that Israel will take out the reactor at Natanya (a la their recent Syrian strike and the 1981 Osirak strike) about 15 minutes after Obama’s inaugural speech. I don’t blame them, either. Iran is deadly serious about removing Israel from the map and they are rapidly gaining the capability to do so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I would also draw a parallel to another point in time: 1979. US economy in a slump, double digit interest rates, military humiliated by Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, America retreating from the world stage, Iranian hostage crisis, people mistrusting the government after Vietnam and Watergate and a general sense of overall malaise (remember Jimmy Carter’s speech to us about hard work?).

While I don’t think attacking Iran is the right thing to do, I also don’t agree that the European solution of tough talk and threatened sanctions is sufficient, either. I think the US needs to engage the people of Iraq and show moderacy in our approach, while remaining resolutely committed to military options if Iraq proves intransigent. And this isn’t similar to the “does he or doesn’t he” WMD question with Saddam. The IAEA has confirmed Iraq’s capabilities in this respect and it isn’t based on a ginned up NIE or CIA analysis.

We also need to keep a leash on the Israelis. I don’t doubt for a second that Israel will take out the reactor at Natanya (a la their recent Syrian strike and the 1981 Osirak strike) about 15 minutes after Obama’s inaugural speech. I don’t blame them, either. Iran is deadly serious about removing Israel from the map and they are rapidly gaining the capability to do so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I would also draw a parallel to another point in time: 1979. US economy in a slump, double digit interest rates, military humiliated by Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, America retreating from the world stage, Iranian hostage crisis, people mistrusting the government after Vietnam and Watergate and a general sense of overall malaise (remember Jimmy Carter’s speech to us about hard work?).

While I don’t think attacking Iran is the right thing to do, I also don’t agree that the European solution of tough talk and threatened sanctions is sufficient, either. I think the US needs to engage the people of Iraq and show moderacy in our approach, while remaining resolutely committed to military options if Iraq proves intransigent. And this isn’t similar to the “does he or doesn’t he” WMD question with Saddam. The IAEA has confirmed Iraq’s capabilities in this respect and it isn’t based on a ginned up NIE or CIA analysis.

We also need to keep a leash on the Israelis. I don’t doubt for a second that Israel will take out the reactor at Natanya (a la their recent Syrian strike and the 1981 Osirak strike) about 15 minutes after Obama’s inaugural speech. I don’t blame them, either. Iran is deadly serious about removing Israel from the map and they are rapidly gaining the capability to do so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I would also draw a parallel to another point in time: 1979. US economy in a slump, double digit interest rates, military humiliated by Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, America retreating from the world stage, Iranian hostage crisis, people mistrusting the government after Vietnam and Watergate and a general sense of overall malaise (remember Jimmy Carter’s speech to us about hard work?).

While I don’t think attacking Iran is the right thing to do, I also don’t agree that the European solution of tough talk and threatened sanctions is sufficient, either. I think the US needs to engage the people of Iraq and show moderacy in our approach, while remaining resolutely committed to military options if Iraq proves intransigent. And this isn’t similar to the “does he or doesn’t he” WMD question with Saddam. The IAEA has confirmed Iraq’s capabilities in this respect and it isn’t based on a ginned up NIE or CIA analysis.

We also need to keep a leash on the Israelis. I don’t doubt for a second that Israel will take out the reactor at Natanya (a la their recent Syrian strike and the 1981 Osirak strike) about 15 minutes after Obama’s inaugural speech. I don’t blame them, either. Iran is deadly serious about removing Israel from the map and they are rapidly gaining the capability to do so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: I would also draw a parallel to another point in time: 1979. US economy in a slump, double digit interest rates, military humiliated by Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, America retreating from the world stage, Iranian hostage crisis, people mistrusting the government after Vietnam and Watergate and a general sense of overall malaise (remember Jimmy Carter’s speech to us about hard work?).

While I don’t think attacking Iran is the right thing to do, I also don’t agree that the European solution of tough talk and threatened sanctions is sufficient, either. I think the US needs to engage the people of Iraq and show moderacy in our approach, while remaining resolutely committed to military options if Iraq proves intransigent. And this isn’t similar to the “does he or doesn’t he” WMD question with Saddam. The IAEA has confirmed Iraq’s capabilities in this respect and it isn’t based on a ginned up NIE or CIA analysis.

We also need to keep a leash on the Israelis. I don’t doubt for a second that Israel will take out the reactor at Natanya (a la their recent Syrian strike and the 1981 Osirak strike) about 15 minutes after Obama’s inaugural speech. I don’t blame them, either. Iran is deadly serious about removing Israel from the map and they are rapidly gaining the capability to do so.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SDR: The problem is you’re not paranoid. This guy does believe what he says, and he was selected by the hardliners in Iran for that reason. I also agree that the last thing in the world we want to do is attack Iran. The majority of Iranians are educated, literate, politically moderate and pro-Western/pro-US. An American-led attack on Iran would not only galvanize moderate Iranians against us, it would serve to further inflame the Muslim world. The problem is this: How do you engage the populace when its the hardliners running the country?

As to beliefs and Hitler (by way of analogy): Hitler did believe in racial purity, and had a Pan-Germanic view of not only Europe, but the world (remember his line: “Today Germany, tomorrow the world”?). He very thoughtfully laid his plan out in his book, “Mein Kampf” (My struggle). It appears that, with few exceptions, most European leaders (save Churchill) failed to take it seriously.

President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is doing the same thing. He has made his thoughts on the US and Israel quite clear: Both need to be literally obliterated. He is a rabid Holocaust denier, and has made it clear that Iran has nuclear ambitions as part of a larger regional domination program.

Nope, I don’t think paranoia has anything to do with it. Iran’s intents are clearly stated. It is what we do in response that will determine which outcome follows.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SDR: The problem is you’re not paranoid. This guy does believe what he says, and he was selected by the hardliners in Iran for that reason. I also agree that the last thing in the world we want to do is attack Iran. The majority of Iranians are educated, literate, politically moderate and pro-Western/pro-US. An American-led attack on Iran would not only galvanize moderate Iranians against us, it would serve to further inflame the Muslim world. The problem is this: How do you engage the populace when its the hardliners running the country?

As to beliefs and Hitler (by way of analogy): Hitler did believe in racial purity, and had a Pan-Germanic view of not only Europe, but the world (remember his line: “Today Germany, tomorrow the world”?). He very thoughtfully laid his plan out in his book, “Mein Kampf” (My struggle). It appears that, with few exceptions, most European leaders (save Churchill) failed to take it seriously.

President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is doing the same thing. He has made his thoughts on the US and Israel quite clear: Both need to be literally obliterated. He is a rabid Holocaust denier, and has made it clear that Iran has nuclear ambitions as part of a larger regional domination program.

Nope, I don’t think paranoia has anything to do with it. Iran’s intents are clearly stated. It is what we do in response that will determine which outcome follows.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SDR: The problem is you’re not paranoid. This guy does believe what he says, and he was selected by the hardliners in Iran for that reason. I also agree that the last thing in the world we want to do is attack Iran. The majority of Iranians are educated, literate, politically moderate and pro-Western/pro-US. An American-led attack on Iran would not only galvanize moderate Iranians against us, it would serve to further inflame the Muslim world. The problem is this: How do you engage the populace when its the hardliners running the country?

As to beliefs and Hitler (by way of analogy): Hitler did believe in racial purity, and had a Pan-Germanic view of not only Europe, but the world (remember his line: “Today Germany, tomorrow the world”?). He very thoughtfully laid his plan out in his book, “Mein Kampf” (My struggle). It appears that, with few exceptions, most European leaders (save Churchill) failed to take it seriously.

President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is doing the same thing. He has made his thoughts on the US and Israel quite clear: Both need to be literally obliterated. He is a rabid Holocaust denier, and has made it clear that Iran has nuclear ambitions as part of a larger regional domination program.

Nope, I don’t think paranoia has anything to do with it. Iran’s intents are clearly stated. It is what we do in response that will determine which outcome follows.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SDR: The problem is you’re not paranoid. This guy does believe what he says, and he was selected by the hardliners in Iran for that reason. I also agree that the last thing in the world we want to do is attack Iran. The majority of Iranians are educated, literate, politically moderate and pro-Western/pro-US. An American-led attack on Iran would not only galvanize moderate Iranians against us, it would serve to further inflame the Muslim world. The problem is this: How do you engage the populace when its the hardliners running the country?

As to beliefs and Hitler (by way of analogy): Hitler did believe in racial purity, and had a Pan-Germanic view of not only Europe, but the world (remember his line: “Today Germany, tomorrow the world”?). He very thoughtfully laid his plan out in his book, “Mein Kampf” (My struggle). It appears that, with few exceptions, most European leaders (save Churchill) failed to take it seriously.

President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is doing the same thing. He has made his thoughts on the US and Israel quite clear: Both need to be literally obliterated. He is a rabid Holocaust denier, and has made it clear that Iran has nuclear ambitions as part of a larger regional domination program.

Nope, I don’t think paranoia has anything to do with it. Iran’s intents are clearly stated. It is what we do in response that will determine which outcome follows.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SDR: The problem is you’re not paranoid. This guy does believe what he says, and he was selected by the hardliners in Iran for that reason. I also agree that the last thing in the world we want to do is attack Iran. The majority of Iranians are educated, literate, politically moderate and pro-Western/pro-US. An American-led attack on Iran would not only galvanize moderate Iranians against us, it would serve to further inflame the Muslim world. The problem is this: How do you engage the populace when its the hardliners running the country?

As to beliefs and Hitler (by way of analogy): Hitler did believe in racial purity, and had a Pan-Germanic view of not only Europe, but the world (remember his line: “Today Germany, tomorrow the world”?). He very thoughtfully laid his plan out in his book, “Mein Kampf” (My struggle). It appears that, with few exceptions, most European leaders (save Churchill) failed to take it seriously.

President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is doing the same thing. He has made his thoughts on the US and Israel quite clear: Both need to be literally obliterated. He is a rabid Holocaust denier, and has made it clear that Iran has nuclear ambitions as part of a larger regional domination program.

Nope, I don’t think paranoia has anything to do with it. Iran’s intents are clearly stated. It is what we do in response that will determine which outcome follows.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: So she believes that the US adheres to the “Realpolitik” school of thought? I don’t fully disagree, however, I don’t fully agree, either. Lest that sound completely evasive, I would point out that there have been instances where the US has intervened solely for humanitarian reasons and instances where it was driven by national or economic reasons (or both).

I personally admire Otto Von Bismarck’s “Weltpolitik” school of policy (with props to von Bulow and Kaiser Wilhelm II). I also like his adage: “Those wishing to retain respect for either laws or sausages should refrain from watching either being made”. No one like a Prussian to deliver such pithy, trenchant observations, no?

Deutschland uber alles. Don’t forget: As misguided as we occasionally are, there are worse alternatives, and, with all due deference to Mrs. Rustico, it is often a choice between bad and worse. The Soviets were an evil empire and they did seek global domination. We stopped them cold, just as we did Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Warts and all, America remains, on balance, a force for good.

Stay away from that Turkish hashish. It really messes with those Pink Floyd lyrics.

[Author]

Posts