John "The 'Stache" Bolton: Israel, it's time for you to do what you do best against Iran

What, Kvetch at them and sell them diamonds?

SherKhan: He's the Hulk of idiots. The louder John gets, the wronger John gets. His incalculable idiocy can only be contained in a Right Wing think tank.

Don't make my mustache angry. You wouldn't want to see my mustache when it's angry.

There's only so many times you can hear yer crazy neighbor claiming to want to kill you before you step in and do something about it.
In a situation like this, I'll always support Israel.

Fark the U.N.
Fark Iran
end palestine

Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik: I made two points in my post: first, that my use of Anti-Semitic to describe the fairly obvious bias against the Arabs that is endemic to supporters of Israel is intended to illuminate that bias, not redefine a word; second, that an attack by Israel on Iran would be counterproductive. You didn't address my first point, only resorting to a rather tangential image, but since there really isn't any possible rebuttal to it that wouldn't make you look like an even bigger idiot than you already are. Fair enough, the fifth amendment extends to the Internet as well.

But as for your second point-- you ignored what I wrote and continue to labor under serious misapprehensions about Iran's culture and political system. First of all, you continue to see Ahmadinezhad as the leader of the nation, not Khamenei.

Second, you seem to have been living under a goddamn stone for the past month. Ahmadinezhad is as unpopular as anyone has ever been. It doesn't matter. You saw what happened when the Iranian people attempted to rise against their government. The only way that regime change will occur in Iran is if the army sides with Montazeri against the Guardian Council. The military leaders are ultimately faithful to the ideals of the nation and the principles of the Islamic Revolution, and an outside attack would only galvanize them to the defend their nation. It would unite them against their external foe, and Khamenei could easily use this as an excuse to exercise his power.

Your ability to cite history is slightly less pathetic than the rest of what I would charitably call your "argument," but comparing the situation in Iran to Galtiera is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. The PRN voluntarily relinquished power after being thrashed by the British army. On the other hand, the army of Iran-- the army that would be the target of the Israelis-- is actually a moderate force, and is not involved in the Ayatollah's holding onto his power. That is enforced by the Basij, a civilian force that Israel could not hammer as decisively as the army.

While it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty the result of any military action, the fact that the Iranian Army is not key in supporting the Iranian regime, coupled with strong Persian national pride, leads any reasonable observer to conclude firstly that Israel striking Iran would be an incredibly foolish decision and secondly that you are a massive, massive tool.

1) I think you mean the First Amendment. You may consider using the Fifth though.

2) Obviously the Teniel joke went WAY over your head.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
You may have a personal definition of anti-Semitism. The fact that it is nt the actual definition of the word is something that will be pointed out.

3) I know Ahemidijahad is not the de facto ruler, but he is their chosen mouthpiece. Then ask yourself in an election where the only canditates were hand picked by the Mullahs, did they rig the elcetion specifically for this guy?
They're afraid of any reform, no matter how modest. This makes Ahemidijahad their stand in. By investing so much in him, the catspaw becomes the lynchpin.

4) The anti-government movement has, contrary to all report, not been crushed. It is just starting. It took over a year of protests to depose the Shah and he had a good economy. IN Iran inflation and unemployment are high and the anger is growing. the regime's hold grows shakier. (Consider Sharanksy's anaolgy in 'The Case for Democracy' of the gaurd who must always hold his rifle up.) A visible show of weakness can help topple the regime. Again, I point to Farkouk as well as the post 48 coup in Iraq that topled their monarchy.

5) You talk of Persian pride, but you forget the anti-Arab strain that resides within their nationalism. With Hizboullah supplanting government forces will not add to the affection already felt.

6) Arguementum ad hominem may make you feel like you're telling someone, but it, shall we say, tells every ...

No, I meant the fifth. You have the right not to respond to arguments if doing so would make you look foolish-- and since ignorance is a crime here on Fark, self-incrimination equates to admitting fault.

And no, I didn't miss the Tenniel reference. I just think that you continue to misunderstand what I meant, as I've said twice now already, when I "redefined" anti-Semitism. Read-- really read, don't skim-- what I've written. You'll see why I said what I said and what it means. I'm not interested in playing semantic (or Semitic) games with you, I'm using the roots of a word whose meaning has little to do with its etymology to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Israel's biggest boosters.

As far as Ahmadinezhad is concerned, do you really think the Iranian regime has an "investment" in him that would threaten their dominance if he was to be toppled? Yes, he was the chosen candidate, but had Mousavi been elected, the regime would persist. Ahmadinezhad is the chosen mouthpiece but by no means the only one. Even Khatami, as liberal a ruler as any Iran has had, didn't topple the regime or even effectively mitigate its repression.

As for Sharansky, I have little time for his doggerel; as a strong advocate of regime change, little separates him from Mao's power from the barrel of a gun. Anyone who advocates forced regime change, even to democracy, is a crypto-fascist, since no matter how loudly you shout "liberty," you are still crushing the liberty of people to pick their rulers.

Again, I refer you to the Iranian revolution; while it does continue, it is out of the hands of the people in the streets. As the army goes, so goes the nation, and if the Israeli army gives the Iranian army an external threat to focus on, they will be unable to help the protestors. Argentina provides one counter-example, but there, the army was used to prop up the government, and in the absence of the army's ability to effectively oppress the citizens the unpopular government was toppled. Since the Iranian army does not function as the main organ of repression, any damage done to it does little to harm the regime's credibility or ability to suppress the populace.

Anti-Arabic sentiment in Persia turns them against Hizballah but does little to turn them against the Persian Basij, nor the Persian government. And anti-Israel sentiment is not confined to Ahmadinezhad-- the Persian "man on the street" is not particularly fond of them, either, though perhaps not as rabidly as their president. It's difficult for me to swallow your assertion that Iranians will see the assault on their army and government by Israel as the impetus to take up arms against said government, especially since any sign that the West was funding the protests or directly supporting them through military or material aid would galvanize the army to weigh in on the side of the regime and end all hope of true reform in Iran for decades.

As for ad hominem, well, perhaps I was harsh, but when you are as willfully obtuse as this, my frustration gets the better of me. Do not recycle old arguments, but explain to me how anything I said RE the logical outcome of an Israeli strike against Iran is false.

natas6.0: There's only so many times you can hear yer crazy neighbor claiming to want to kill you before you step in and do something about it.
In a situation like this, I'll always support Israel.

Why?

I know this is pissing into the wind, but here's some food for thought:

Iran knows full well what happened to Iraq's nuclear reactor and has built its hardened nuclear sites with that in mind. They are deep underground and redundant, and close to population centers. They have calculated that while Iran will easily survive an Israeli first strike, Israel will not survive their counter strike. Israel doesn't have 'bunker-busters', but the US does.

A nuclear Iran is a grave threat to the entire world, as follows:

1. A nuclear Shiite expansionist regime is anathema to all Sunni Moslem states.
2. A nuclear Iran can blackmail and control most of the world's supply of oil.
3. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to nearly half of all the world population of Jews, who are in Israel mainly because of what Hitler (sorry, Godwin!) tried to do to them with the cooperation of most of the governments of Eastern Europe.

So basically, despite what the Walrus thinks, Israel is neither inclined nor likely capable of destroying Iran's nuclear capability single-handedly. Israel has continuously said that this is a global problem and asked the nations of the world to deal with it. I have heard that the Israeli intelligence services have tried to infiltrate the supply chain for uranium production, hoping that any bomb they do create can be sabotaged by inferior or flawed components slipped into their production process.

In my opinion America is being cowardly in trying to fob responsibility for this crisis off on Israel. And I have grave doubts that President Obama's stated policy of constructive engagement will give Iran the cover, and the time, it needs to achieve its long-term objective of becoming as difficult to 'contain'--read: "be dictated to by the West"--as Pakistan and North Korea.

Oh, and Israel has said that it prefers to see Amadmaninadinnerjacket return as president because he's an obvious enemy to the West's interest, while his challenger, a seeming moderate, is also committed to the nuclear project while projecting a much more palatable facade to the rest of the world. The Mullahs at the top of the Iranian power pyramid are quite happy with either figurehead president while they pull the strings.

Tatsuma, back me up here.

To use the word "Semitic" as an opposite for "anti-Semitic" is the same as saying "dote" as the opposie of "antidote." Anti-Semitic is a polite German euphemism for "Jew bashing" which would brought over as in into English.

The origins of "Aryan" and "Semite" referred to linguistic groups. Max Muller, who invented the word "Aryan" was shocked to see pro-slavery groups in the US using it in their propaganda to apply to races in the runup to the Civil War. They and others took scientific words and hijacked them for the pseudo-science of racism, but all that got discredited with WWII.

There is no such thing as a "Semitic" race. There is a Semitic group of languages. People divide into different skin colors but the only way you could know who belongs to which pseudo-scientific race is to know where everyone's mother came from.

Sygerrik:
1) I know what you were trying to do. For me it is a red cape for the bull. Too many Jew-baiters use the exact same semantic dodge to try not to get tarred with the label they deserve. A better literary refrence for illustration is in Stoppard's 'Travesties' where Tzara and Carr debate what it means to be an artist. Carr uses the analogy of claiming to fly when not actually leaving the ground. I'd get the exact quote, but I can't dig out my copy of the play now.

2) Sharansky is saying just the opposite of Mao. And when you use the word 'Fasict,' well, I'd get the Princess Bride pic out... Sharansky's main point s that most totalitarian regimes use fear and external enemies to quiet the population. When the dictator is no longer feared it's Caucescu time.

3) I know all the candidates were hand chosen, But with so much invested in Ad'jad, he is now the Mullah's man. If he falls they lose a dangerous amount of face.


geedavey: 3. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to nearly half of all the world population of Jews, who are in Israel mainly because of what Hitler (sorry, Godwin!) tried to do to them with the cooperation of most of the governments of Eastern Europe.

1) Don't let the collaborators in Western Europe off so easily.

2) And also remember nearly 1 million Jews from Arab/Islamic lands were expelled or fled after 1948 and 1967. Most went to Israel. And funnily enough, they were resettled and not kept in camps for generations.

idov: To use the word "Semitic" as an opposite for "anti-Semitic" is the same as saying "dote" as the opposie of "antidote." Anti-Semitic is a polite German euphemism for "Jew bashing" which would brought over as in into English.


Main Entry: 1 Se·mit·ic

Function: adjective
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Sem Shem

Date: 1813

1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic

2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites

3 : jewish


Main Entry: Sem·i·tism

Function: noun
Date: 1851

1 a: Semitic character or qualities b: a characteristic feature of a Semitic language occurring in another language

2: policy or predisposition favorable to Jews



Main Entry: Sem·i·tist

Function: noun
Date: 1881

1: a scholar of the Semitic languages, cultures, or histories

2 often not capitalized : a person favoring or disposed to favor the Jews

Link (new window)

There is no such thing as a "Semitic" race. There is a Semitic group of languages. People divide into different skin colors but the only way you could know who belongs to which pseudo-scientific race is to know where everyone's mother came from.

If Semite = Jewish (definition 3), then an anti-Semite = one who is opposed to Jews or Judaism.

If Semitism = "policy or predisposition favorable to Jews" (definition 2), then anti-Semitism = opposition to "policy or predisposition favorable to Jews".

If Semitist = "a person favoring or disposed to favor the Jews" (definition 2), then anti-Semitist = a person (or policy) who does NOT favor or is not disposed to favor the Jews.

Some would no doubt prefer that ALL persons and policies always automatically favor Jews. Unfortunately they don't. But that does not necessarily make them "evil", does it?

idov: here is no such thing as a "Semitic" race. There is a Semitic group of languages. People divide into different skin colors but the only way you could know who belongs to which pseudo-scientific race is to know where everyone's mother came from.

Arabic is a Semitic language, no?

Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik:
1) I know what you were trying to do. For me it is a red cape for the bull. Too many Jew-baiters use the exact same semantic dodge to try not to get tarred with the label they deserve. A better literary refrence for illustration is in Stoppard's 'Travesties' where Tzara and Carr debate what it means to be an artist. Carr uses the analogy of claiming to fly when not actually leaving the ground. I'd get the exact quote, but I can't dig out my copy of the play now.

2) Sharansky is saying just the opposite of Mao. And when you use the word 'Fasict,' well, I'd get the Princess Bride pic out... Sharansky's main point s that most totalitarian regimes use fear and external enemies to quiet the population. When the dictator is no longer feared it's Caucescu time.

3) I know all the candidates were hand chosen, But with so much invested in Ad'jad, he is now the Mullah's man. If he falls they lose a dangerous amount of face.


geedavey: 3. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to nearly half of all the world population of Jews, who are in Israel mainly because of what Hitler (sorry, Godwin!) tried to do to them with the cooperation of most of the governments of Eastern Europe.

1) Don't let the collaborators in Western Europe off so easily.

2) And also remember nearly 1 million Jews from Arab/Islamic lands were expelled or fled after 1948 and 1967. Most went to Israel. And funnily enough, they were resettled and not kept in camps for generations.

I don't think the Supreme Leader is concerned about losing face. People were chanting "Death to Khamenei" in the streets. What threatens him isn't the populace, it's the army, as I keep saying. That's why an Israeli strike would do no good. Not to mention, making Ahmadinezhad look weak does not make the regime look weak, since their "investment" in him ties up none of their political capital (as far as the term can be used in Iran) or their power. Were he to be assassinated tomorrow, Khamenei would not lose a single iota of power, because the instrument of repression responsible for preserving the regime does not answer to Ahmadinezhad. The people don't fear him. They fear the Basij. And no military strike can take them out-- it's not like they cluster conveniently to be bombed.

That's what you seem not to understand: the regime holds power not by popular consent but by a mixture of civilian support and paramilitary oppression. The civilians who support Khamenei tend to be more conservative and West-phobic and would likely see an attack on Iran as a reason to rally behind the banner of the regime, not to lose faith in it. And the civilians that hate the regime don't need outside forces whipping them up to hate them even more.

And I know you're smarter than that when talking about Sharansky. I don't mean his stance on democracy. I mean his belief that regime change can be external and still be effective-- the Bush Doctrine, so thoroughly vindicated in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say he's a crypto-Fascist not because I like to fling poo, but because he fundamentally believes his viewpoint is right so much that he has no moral qualms about forcing it on other societies; he's one of those idiots who says "if everyone had the choice, they'd obviously choose democracy! non-democratic societies have simply been denied the choice!" Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, according to Sharansky; no matter the rightness of your ideas, rejection of them by external forces indicate the corruption and therefore illegitimacy of said forces.

Not to mention his ardent defense of "national identity" as a code word for religious and ethnic homogeny. He's one of those people who thinks it's ridiculous that Islamic states are allowed to get away with a religious regime, but has no idea why anyone would oppose labeling Israel a Jewish state. In other words, he's an asshole, a crappy writer, and politically stuck in the mid-20th century. He deserves neither respect nor citation.

fark Israel. They've gotten too big for their own britches. Remove U.S. financial and moral support from them, and let them stand on their own. Let's see how quick they are to chest-thump then. Everyone has to grow up and stand on their own two feet at some point, and now it's Israel's turn.

Has everyone forgotten that Israel is a UN creation?

That is all.