It's certainly important to distract with this news rather than address the fact that Iraqi militiamen looted a base the British no longer wanted to protect.

The base was "protected" instead by the Iraqi Army. The Army we are training to "stand up" as we "stand down." With protection like that, who needs Iranians.

The loot taken was mostly just stuff to help people live, because after all Iraq is just going "swimmingly" economically, but it does point out the fact that Iraq is essentially in a low grade civil war and the chaos and privation that have ensued are making us just "loved like kittens" (to satire our own Donald Rummy).

Mitch, your raving lunacy comparisons of Hitler to Ahmadinijad are absurd in the extreme, even for you.

First, Iran has hardly any military productive capacity. However, our destabilization of Afghanistan and Iraq certainly has emboldened their desires to politically dominate the region.

Second, unlike Hitler, at least not yet, Ahmedinijad hasn't been declared "Chancellor for Life", he is President of a country with essentially no history of military aggression.

Third, seizing an oil rig I'm sure is the next closest thing to retaking the Ruhr, taking Austria, taking the Sudetenland, siezing the balance of Czechoslovakia.

You're nuts, or as you like to say prolific(ally paranoid). You white-wing nuts have one hammer in your hammer box, and the real irony is you don't even grasp your hammer is broken. You seem to think that our sabre-rattling should scare a soveriegn nation into doing anything we want.

This seizure was a message to the country who's actions more resemble Gemany's than any other, "If you pee in our cup, we're going to pee in your's too." The wing-nuts think we can simply intimidate the world because "we're right, and they are scared." If we attack Iran in some sort of attempt to distract the electorate from the debacle that is Iraq, the Iranians are going to push oil to $110 a barrel. On second thought, we're more like Japan pre-WWII, we are desperate for oil, and are willing to attack anyone, anywhere, sleep with anyone (the Saud family), to get it.

Wow Ted, so many explicitly stupid statemrnts in one post! I thought I was reading D.U.

Stupid stement #1
Mitch, your raving lunacy comparisons of Hitler to Ahmadinijad (sic) are absurd in the extreme, even for you.

"Isreal should be wiped off the map". "The holocaust didn't really happen". "The Jews should be resettled...somewhere else".
But Ted, if his statements don't convince you, how about the new Iraninan dress code? Jews will be required to identify themselves by wearing a yellow strip of clothe in public. Sound familiar?
But don't take my word for it. Look up Mohammad-Ali Ramin and educate yourself.

Stupid statement #2
First, Iran has hardly any military productive capacity.

"In 1989, following a costly eight-year war with Iraq, Iran initiated a major military build-up intended to rebuild, expand, and modernize its ravaged armed forces and thereby transform itself into a regional military power. Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, its naval build-up in the Persian Gulf, its efforts to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process, and its support for radical Islamic movements throughout the Middle East raise disturbing questions about Tehran's intentions and the long-term implications of its efforts to bolster its military capabilities."

Read the whole thing. Michael Eisenstadt is a bit more well informed than you are Ted.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC10.php?CID=4

Stupid Statement #3
Second, unlike Hitler, at least not yet, Ahmedinijad hasn't been declared "Chancellor for Life", he is President of a country with essentially no history of military aggression.

Well you finally got one right, even though your point is totally irrelevant. Ahmadinutjob is a puppet mouthpiece of the mullahs and doesn't move his bowels without thier direction.

It was only a matter of time until history would repeat itself. Wolfawitz compared Hussein to Hitler in the runup to war. Now we learn Ahmadinejad is Hitler. I wish you people would make up your minds. How many Hitlers are there? With its weak industrial capacity, its diplomatic isolation, its internal differences, Iran is not keeping me awake at night.

Mitch may be on to something here. (1)Why only last month the US Coast Guard seized a Mexican fishing vessel in a commercial dispute in the Gulf. (2)The US has a dangerous stockpile of nuclear weapons, and remains the only nation to ever use them. (3)The US is ruled over by an individual who thumbs his nose at both international and domestic laws.

Why care indeed. After all, none of these actions were taken by any brown people.

My comment was refused for content it did not contain.

Kermit: If Iran frightens you, then surely you must question the strategy that handed them regional hegemony.

Tehran is stalling in face of the August 31 deadline. Clearly it hopes Moscow and Beijing - both of whom protected it in the past - will help delay sanctions. Before you wet your pants, let's see how this round goes.

"Why care indeed. After all, none of these actions were taken by any brown people." Yeah, Jeff, not wanting a terrorist supp lying religious dictatorship led by an apocalyptic visionary to get its hands on nukes is a racist position.
"[I]f Iran frightens you, then surely you must question the strategy that handed them regional hegemony." I don't get this, Jeff, are you condemning Carter's appeasement of the mullah's in the late 70's or endorsing the the pro-saddam US foreign policy of the Reagan years?

Terry, Jeff didn't mention "brown people". I did. I was merely pointing out the striking similarities between Iran and the US. Why I bet that their's even a number of stupid fuks in Iran who think that their idiot of a President is doing a good job too.

Will-
Sorry about the mistaken attribution. And yet I stand by my words -- actually, I'll go further:
"(1)Why only last month the US Coast Guard seized a Mexican fishing vessel in a commercial dispute in the Gulf."
Possibly you're refering to this story: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20060817-9999-1n17arellano.html
We seize a mexican fishing boat full of drug criminals, the Iranians seize and oil platform full of oil workers. Right-o. Not even close to comparable but since the Romanians are publicly calling this a commercial dispute I'll give you a "C".

"(2)The US has a dangerous stockpile of nuclear weapons, and remains the only nation to ever use them."
Iran has no nuclear weapons and of course has never used one. No comparison at all. Grade? F.

"(3)The US is ruled over by an individual who thumbs his nose at both international and domestic laws."
The US is "ruled over" by a constitution, not an individual, but I'll assume you meant "led by" and so I'll let that slide. Since virtually every US president since Eisenhower has ignored international law when they felt it was in the best interests of the country, and done the same with domestic law when they felt they had a good enough reason (or could get away with it) the comparison isn't informative. You might as well say Bush & Ahmadinejad both have brown eyes or have two ears. D.

Your GPA is 0.5. Try harder next time.

Mitch,

Your responses simply aren't worth the read, sorry about that, but there you have it.

Fundamentally, the issue upon which this election will focus, and should focus, is Iraq. Any attempt to distract to something else, is just that, a distraction.

This administration has made effort after effort to control information and message, to limit debate, to limit access to details, Mitch repeats that anti-democratic tactic here over and over again.

Now Mitch talks about "not having a strategy for dealing with Iran", which is an interesting turn of phrase considering the President was recently asked what his strategy for Iraq was.

His response was to say that the boys at the Pentagon were constantly adapting tactics, and that the strategy was simply to stay to help the people of Iraq develop a free and fair democratic Iraq.

In similar messages today I heard the Editor of the National Review talk about how the administration has done a poor job of communicating its message.

What the President, that woman and Mitch don't get, because they are hyper-focused on winning and on message, is it's not the message, it's the actions, the lack of plan, the lack of strategy.

Here's a news flash, saying you're staying isn't a strategy. It's a goal, so is saying helping the Iraqi's achieve a free and fair Iraq. That's a vision, a goal, but not a strategy.

A strategy is also more than "as they stand up, we'll stand down." This President, and his Goebells (Rove), believe too much their own hype, that communication and politics is everything, and apparently results nothing. Simply set the vision and everything will fall in line.

The reality is our strategy in Iraq has failed because we essentially had none. At first it was apply force to localized resistance, then it was allow the Iraqi's, then it was crush the resistance, then it was back-off and let the sectarian interests deal with the problems, then it was "well that didn't work" so now let's try acting as buffers between sectarian interests as they are now doing in Bagdhad.

A strategy is a set of high level moves, steps, tasks that are undertaken to win a series of engagements. Tactics are actions taken on the battlefield to win perhaps a battle or part of it. Simply saying "we're going to stay" is not a strategy. I heard recently a description that "at first we had poor tactics, but perhaps the idea of a strategy - namely to train the Iraqi's and cross assign them into differing areas, but now we have decent tactics and no strategy." That comment came from a former General in the US Army. From George Will to Bill Buckley to this woman who was on Face the Nation today, the conservatives with intellect get that Iraq is failing or already has failed.

You cut and ran from Afghanistan, I have no doubt you'll declare "mission accomplished" at some point soon and cut and run from Iraq, but the real question is, when do you start holding your President accountable for successful action, rather than simply succesful poll numbers?

Succesful planning has goals, tasks, and target dates to achieve them, real leaders are expected to provide a plan, with goals, and targets for accomplishments. The President should be expected to define the STEPS HE PLANS TO TAKE to accomplish success in Iraq, and by when he'll make them happen. Then the American people can hold him accountable for doing so, or not, or is accountability yet another thing that is simply talked about but not acted upon? and please, don't give us all this crap about "can't broadcast when we're leaving," because such comments are patently condescending, but more than that, you aren't broadcasting any such thing, if you don't make your goal, you don't leave, but then YOU as the President get held accountable for not making the goal. The truth is the complaint about broadcasting our target dates was hollow in the first place because you never had to leave by that date unless you were ready, but the whitepeopleonly-wing wanted some way to deflect being held accountable, and of course the President then started making comments about withdrawal dates on his own.. but even so, no one says define your date for leaving, but there is not one thing wrong with being required to define a Strategy, a real list of goals, tasks and accomplishments you must achieve to be considered successful, and by when you'll get them done.

The failure in Iraq has been so manifest, so complete, that it defies logic to claiim otherwise. We can't even secure the munitions that may be used against us, and it's high time the President answer for that failure in fact and action, no matter the efforts of folks like Mitch here to define Iran as Germany (incorrectly). It is the US that invaded Iraq, not Iran.
Oh, and Kermit, "soon they'll be producing heavy water" yeah, in 2009, when their plant opens, they'll start, and a year later, they'll have enough material for one device, a simple one, but one. The US has roughly 8000 nuclear weapons of strategic capability, and probably another 10,000 tactical devices. I'm sure that I'm most worried about the Iranians.

You all use fear, whether it's fear of communism, fear of crime, fear of islam, fear of terrorism, fear of blacks, fear of hispanics, to justify anything. You run around like chicken little advocating the destruction of our basic liberties, and claim that we're not taking you seriously, that "the next Hitler" is just around the corner, the problem is, you become the boy that cried wolf. Then, in response to the threat, IF you get the freedom to act you want, you go and screw it all up, invading a country and inserting (at the point of a gun) a government with the result that only made Iran much more able to act, and you want US to take you seriously.

Here's a better question, when do you start seeing your own actions? When do you start taking our concerns at your absolutist BS, seriously? You invaded Iraq, claimed it would be the paragon of freedom in the Middle East, that it would pressure Iran to change, not to mention Saudi Arabia. The exact opposite has occured, precisely what was predicted by the left, the center and anyone with a brain has occured. Iraq has devolved into a three-way race for power, with the Turks and Iranians worried about the Kurds, and the Iranians have gained a free hand with the Shiite majority in Iraq.

Why should we take your chicken-little crappola seriously twice? You messed up Iraq and now you want liberty to mess up Iran too. Sorry but we can't afford any more of your "concern about message w/o any real strategy for success" policies. The simpleton's version of foriegn policy by aggression has failed, it failed for Germany, and it's failing for you. The real tragedy is that the reputation of the US, and its soldiers, has been so sullied by the likes of you, this President, and the rest of the neo-con crowd that it will take decades to recover. I'm sorry, but I'm just unwilling to continue to let you ruin my country's name.

I owe Mitch an apology, sorry Mitch, I thought Kermit's rant was your's.

Kermit, Eisenstadt is a Foxpert, i.e. someone who is simply yet another republican stooge, his veracity is in question, but I'll agree he knows more than me about Iran's military.

That said, your expert in no way addressed what we're talking about. I didn't say Iran didn't have a military, and suggesting they rebuilt after the Iraq war is hardly earth-shattering. They had been devestated, just like Iraq, and Iraq rebuilt, so why would Iran not? There was no reason to believe Iraq wouldn't attack them.

The comment, and apparently I know more at least than you on this subject, is that Iran has very limited military productive capacity. Please try to read more carefully. I have little knowledge of their assets in bauxite, Iron, mangenese, malibdinum, tungsten or platinum, but my little knowledge suggests they have little of many of these vastly important strategic military materials. They also have nearly zero industrial military capacity. It's not really zero, but very close. The fact is, Iran, like Iraq, bought it's military hardware, and as any military historian will let you know (even one as blindered as Mitch) without the ability to produce to replace your losses, you rapidly become impotent. If you don't believe it, go study Japan in WWII. Japan certainly made some headway against mostly unarmed and unprepared Pacific Island nations with very little of their own capacity, but they were no match for even 20% of the US Military output during the war.

Again, it's chicken little squawking, IRAQ, no wait, IRAN, no wait, LIBERALS, no wait, FREE ACCESS TO INFORMATION, no wait, THE VOTE (naw, you all wouldn't corrupt the voting process, right?) We'll take you seriously precisely when you start making serious suggestions.

Oh, and as for the Hitler comparison with Ahmadenijad, Hitler defined communists, aetheists, gays, mentally retarded, jews, gypsies, slavs, and blacks as sub-human. I don't recall Ahmaddenijad doing so. He claims Israel should be wiped out, and has a deep, and apparently abiding hatred toward Jews, but both his faith and his people recognize the faith of Abraham as valid. Their argument is with the conduct and formulation of Israel. I don't support their violent, extremist view on the fate of Israel, but that hardly makes them Hitler, and it hardly makes you or your leader, Churchill. The differences between Iran's leader and Hitler are so vast that such comparisons insult the legacy of those who opposed Hitler. You trivialize the reality that was the monstrosity inflicted on the world by intollerant, hypermilitaristic, pro-totalitarian bigots by making such a comparison. They faced a real threat, and you try to co-opt their sacrifice as your own against an opposition that, other than it's view on Israel, has acted far more sanely than we have over the past 5 years.

If you don't like what's going on in Iraq, neither do I, I just happen to recognize we brought this idiocy about. I support military action against any Iranian presence in Iraq, after all, those ARE our troops, but I also fully understand why Iran is there. Any long term solution has to address that reason, and will never do so successfully with guns.

Washington handed regional hegemony to Iran after it overthrew the Ba'athists. The Shia majority in Baghdad now looks to Tehran for guidance. Hussein resisted inspections during Washington's escalation because he relied heavily on this mythical arsenal to keep Iran in check. He miscalculated Washington's desire to tip power in Tehran's favor. The wisdom of the administration's move escapes me.

Terry-
(1) As far as the Coast Guard story, I was refering to this.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_comments.php?id=71873_0_10_0_C

(2) The whole nutosphere's paranoia with Iran stems from their perception that Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear arsenal, and that they will then give those weapons to people who will use them.

(3) I'm glad you're so comfortable with a leadership which feels it can ignore the laws which are there to define it's powers. Why have a Constitution at all.

(4) As far as Iran and US both having their share of ankle grabbers goes- your third statement says it all.

Kermit: Perhaps you could explain Islam to Ted in the context of this thread....

zpolstkxv efylhutnk bkdeqzmi aqfzutmcr hurkazpxg ipjarmfc qgvhxfs