« | »

IMITREX FOR SALE

By Dan Fleshler | June 26, 2008

IMITREX FOR SALE, The plot thickens. Politico's John Bresnahan reports that:

Reps, IMITREX brand name. My IMITREX experience, Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) have issued a letter today stating that a non-binding resolution they offered on Iran does not call for a military action against that country...

...While the resolution (I repeat, IMITREX photos, IMITREX alternatives, non-binding) also includes a specific denial that it authorizes use of American military force - "Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran" - it has, understandably, IMITREX used for, IMITREX price, led some to believe that it is tantamount to a declaration of war against Iran.

"These assertions are absolutely false and, herbal IMITREX, IMITREX coupon, frankly, utter nonsense, IMITREX mg, Buy IMITREX from canada, " Ackerman and Spence wrote. "The resolution states plainly and distinctly that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran;" the economic sanctions the President is urged to seek are explicitly placed in an international context; and the methods contemplated for achieving these sanctions are no different than those currently being employed to implement existing UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, namely enforcement of export controls by UN member states within their own borders."

What to make of this, IMITREX FOR SALE. I have no ax to grind or premise to prove here, order IMITREX from mexican pharmacy. Cheap IMITREX no rx, That is the nature of this blog; I annoy everyone across the political spectrum, at one time or another, IMITREX images. IMITREX from mexico, So I would like someone who is convinced that this resolution calls for a blockade to explain why, if these Reps wanted such a thing, buy IMITREX online no prescription, IMITREX online cod, they would go out of their way to deny it.

The resolution doesn't have any legal standing; it's just a forceful message, buy IMITREX without prescription, Is IMITREX safe, encouraged by AIPAC. IMITREX FOR SALE, It is easier for Member of Congress to be more hawkish in non-binding resolutions than they would otherwise be in bills that have the force of law; the former documents are generally more convenient vehicles for political grandstanding. So, is IMITREX addictive, What is IMITREX, it would seem to me that if they wanted to convince voters they were super-tough, they would have no reason to deny that they were calling for a blockade, order IMITREX online c.o.d. Cheap IMITREX, Are they reassuring constituents who are nervous about war-mongering. If so, IMITREX canada, mexico, india, Ordering IMITREX online, isn't that good news. Or, IMITREX gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, IMITREX trusted pharmacy reviews, am I being spun by some kind of nefarious, manipulative "War Party" in ways I am too naive to grasp, japan, craiglist, ebay, overseas, paypal. IMITREX samples, If so, how, where to buy IMITREX. IMITREX from canada. IMITREX use. IMITREX blogs. After IMITREX. IMITREX pharmacy. Buy IMITREX online cod.

Similar posts: CIALISPRO OVER THE COUNTER. BUY PREDNISOLONE NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY ZOVIRAX NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY WELLBUTRIN SR NO PRESCRIPTION. ZOLOFT OVER THE COUNTER. Buy COLCHICINE without prescription. ACOMPLIA without prescription. Purchase DIFLUCAN online no prescription. ACOMPLIA used for. AUGMENTIN natural.
Trackbacks from: IMITREX FOR SALE. IMITREX FOR SALE. IMITREX FOR SALE. IMITREX FOR SALE. IMITREX FOR SALE. IMITREX overnight. What is IMITREX. Buy no prescription IMITREX online. IMITREX reviews. Cheap IMITREX.

Topics: AIPAC, Iran, Israel | 82 Comments »

82 Responses to “IMITREX FOR SALE”

  1. neoconned Says:
    June 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    While FDR was on vacation Dean Acheson passed the law that made it difficult for the Japanese to buy petroleum.

    The law did not declare war on Japan. It did not authorize force. It did not even call for an embargo on Japan.

    But the result was that the U.S. that provided 80% of Japan’s petroleum disallowed the Japanese from purchasing oil from the U.S. Thus Japan needed to invade the Dutch West Indies or pull out of China. In order to protect themselves from an American countermeasure they destroyed the fleet at Pearl Harbor.

    The neocons know their history. They know that Iran doesn’t refine their own oil. They know that once we stop petroleum shipments the clock is ticking for Iran. They either run the blockade or their military is inoperable and their economy is destroyed. They will commit force first which will allow the U.S. to “defend itself.”

    That is the brilliance of the bill. Of course the bill does not authorize force. The authorization will be given by Iran.

  2. Teddy Says:
    June 26th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Ackerman is not a neo-con. Has he been completely duped?

    It is one thing for people to favor premptive strikes on nuclear facilities, which would stupid. It is quite another to deliberately invite an attack on America, which would be insane.(the invitation, I mean).Are you saying they are insane?

  3. Pro-Israel Pro-gressive Says:
    June 26th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    I think you nailed it, Dan.

    It’s hard to understand how anyone working to peacefully lure Iran from its nuclear pursuit could object when the U.S. actually works with its allies to enforce (nonviolent) U.N. sanctions.

    Encouraging oil companies not to sell gas to Iran is a far cry from a naval blockade. And making sure that cargo from Iran is safe when it arrives in the U.S., as called for by the U.N. Security Council, is hardly an act of war.

    It has to mean something that 220-something Congressmen (so far) have said loud and clear that “nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” Is that not clear enough?

    What is all the fuss about?

  4. neoconned Says:
    June 26th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    The Neoconns are not insane— the stakes are high enough for them that they are willing to sacrifice American lives in order to control the Gulf. Have a rally around the flag for McCain. Avoid prosecution for war crimes and continue their reign. Letting the missiles fly from Iran and the ships go down kills a lot of birds with one fleet. War Inc. makes billions from Iraq. Our last defense budget was close to one trillion dollars if you include supplemental funding, homeland security, nuclear weapons, etc. If Obama gets into power the gravy stops flowing so copiously. But if there is war with Iran he probably won’t win the election but if he does he will be locked into war—– After all no politician will be able to ignore the slogan “Remember the Gulf War Massacre!!!”

    What are people willing to do for billions of dollars is not the question. The question is what aren’t people willing to do for billions of dollars?

    As for Congress some them are tied to War Inc. Some of them are afraid of AIPAC. Some of them have been duped. Some of them are cowardly. It would be impossible to disentangle the threads.

  5. neoconned Says:
    June 26th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    If Ackerman and Pence are sincere in their rejection of a blockade then paragraph three should be struck from the bill:

    (3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program;

    Also Ackerman and Pence should be willing to vote yes on the DeFazio amendment that merely restates the assertion from the Constitution that Congress has the right to declare war.

    This bill is a Trojan Horse for Cheney, Olmert, AIPAC and Bush to hide in.

    How can we place any trust in this administration not to take a mile when offered an inch? Why were Olmert and Bush laughing after their private conversation?

    People need to read their contemporary history. During the invasion of Iraq the neocons in the Pentagon and State Department were saying “Anyone can go to Baghdad, Real men go to Tehran. These people have spent the last 4 years trying to get the U.S. into a war with Iran. They should not be trusted and we will only stay out of Iran if we are vigilant. Are Ackerman and Pence on the up and up? I have no idea.

  6. neoconned Says:
    June 26th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    This is a blockade to start a war.

    The plan was most likely hatched when Bush visited Israel. After his meeting with Olmert both men were all smiles and Olmert came out of their meeting confident that the U.S. would confront Iran.
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126416

    Later Nancy Pelosi met with Olmert and they discussed the plan. Pelosi has denied that the request for a blockade was made by Olmert.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN21431390

    After Pelosi came back AIPAC launched their hundreds of lobbyists to push bill HR 362 and SR 580
    http://www.ajc.org/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.1122051/k.8A96/Action_Center/siteapps

    The campaign has been very successful keeping under the media radar and gathering 208 cosponsors in the House.
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/25/1838/11009

    Once the bill passes, then the arch-duke will lie dead and events will quicken.

  7. Jonathan Mark Says:
    June 26th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    A few historical dates:

    9/27/40: Saburo Kurusu of Imperial Japan and Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany sign the Tripartite Pact.

    7/26/41: U.S. institutes embargo on oil-export to Japan.

    Someone above seems to have forgotten the sequence of these pertinent events. This individual writes:

    “”"the result was that the U.S. that provided 80% of Japan’s petroleum disallowed the Japanese from purchasing oil from the U.S”"”

    RealisticDove may be the wrong forum for defending the Axis powers by spewing WWII revisionist dogma. Few here are inclined to view the Axis favorably.

    You see, Japan was allied with the Nazis. But the US was allied with Britain.

    Therefore it was not in the interest of the Allies to sell petroleum to the Axis powers, including Japan.

    If Japan didn’t like this situation, it could instead have renounced its alliance with the Nazis, or better yet not have signed it in the first place.

    Who did the rulers of Imperial Japan think they were? Besides Nazi allies of course.

    “”"Thus Japan needed to invade the Dutch West Indies”"”

    Why didn’t Japan buy the oil from their allies the Nazis? Surely such a powerful ally as the Nazis would have spared some oil for their ally Imperial Japan.

    Or, if Nazi Germany was unable to provide Japan with petroleum, then maybe, perhaps, signing an alliance with the Nazis was not such a good idea for Imperial Japan after all.

    Why should the US have supplied the other Axis powers with oil if Hitler didn’t want to?

    “”"or pull out of China.”"”

    All the more reason not to have sold oil to Japan. The US was allied with China, and selling Japan oil would have subsidized the Japanese occupation of our ally China.

  8. neoconned Says:
    June 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am

    I fail to recall the point in any of my posts when I said that Japan was an innocent country and deserved the oil from Indonesia.

    Japan was a brutal cooperate/fascist state. I am well aware of their many crimes and am quite happy with the outcome of the Second World War. Japanese imperialism was going to engage the U.S. at some point anyway.

    But understanding the strategic logic of your enemies is not revisionist history— it is called being a thinking human being. If there is no room for this on realist dove, I will stop posting.

    The politics of oil was instrumental in the beginning of WWII. That is not revisionist history that is the accepted theory of the war.

    Read The Prize by Daniel Yergin– or if you are intellectually challenged watch the PBS video of the same name. It’s also the accepted theory within IR– read Sagan(1987).

    The Japan analogy is important because if we blockade Iran they will attack the blockade. In your sanctimonious world that means I am defending the religious/oligarchy of the mullahs. I would be very happy if these oligarchs fell but bombing them will merely empower the regime and lead to their continuing rule for most likely decades. Pointing that out is common sense not defending their regime.

    If strategic thinking challenges you maybe you should just read some comic books- that would conform to your Manichean view of the world.

  9. Richard Witty Says:
    June 28th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    The insight that I derived from “The Prize” was of the unique characteristics of oil to deliver high octane fuel that comprised a military strategic advantage, in the form of faster ships, planes, etc.

    So, militaries have a strategic need to maintain a functioning oil infrastructure (exploration, drilling, refining, delivery).

    But, civilians don’t particularly have a need for high octane forms of fuel. Cellulosic diesel works fine for cars. (Consider that Brazil functions nearly entirely on a cellulosic ethanol economy – cars, space heating (rarely needed), I assume even electrical generation.

    Oil producing states and military focused states alike NEED an oil-centered economy.

    Israel only needs peace and acceptance, NOT to be caught in the assertion of strategic geo-political domination of oil, whether pro-Israel as fulcrum in that geo-political fight or anti-Israel in that assessment of “America’s interests”.

  10. neoconned Says:
    June 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    The average Israeli wants what the average American wants— Peace. But Israel like the United States has been taken over by a war party and they are intimately linked. And those war parties want to control the oil.

    Cellulosic oil can never get the flow rate of conventional oil.

    The U.S. consumes 21 million of the 86 million barrels produced a day. This will not last. The end of cheap oil is here and the plan is bomb,bomb, bomb Iran.

  11. Dan Fleshler Says:
    June 28th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

    neoconned,

    I assume you follow Israeli politics. Which one is the war party. Kadima? Is the left wing of Kadima, e,g, Haim Ramon, part of it? Kadima-Labor. Is the left wing of Labor, like Colette Avital, part of it?

    Lkud has been out of power for some time now. So I’d appreciate it if you would define your terms.

  12. Richard Witty Says:
    June 29th, 2008 at 7:39 am

    Neoconned,
    You didn’t get the distinction in urgency of motivation to secure oil flow between military and civilian purposes.

    It very much is possible to design and apply conservation strategies to realize a match between supply and demand. (By skillfully altering the demand, not the neo and old con of only focusing on the supply.)

    Theoretically, a very high cost of fuel (which we are getting, even more than we already have), will urge innovation.

    Hasn’t happened much yet in the states.

    Ironically, it definitely hasn’t happened in the middle east. Saudi Arabia for example hasn’t taken its enormous wealth to develop a solar panel industry, or ubiquitous solar panel installation in the region of the most consistent solar gain on the planet.

    Also consistent wind is abundant in Saudi Arabia.

    Instead they “invest” in commercial real estate, strictly financial equity interests in large US companies, etc.

  13. neoconned Says:
    June 29th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Richard on the KSA.

    The House of Saud could care less about the average Saudi. The time will come when they pull the plug on their kleptocracy and move to their homes in Switzerland/London/Monaco/(you name the rich city).

    Prince Waleed has been investing their cash along with Kashoggi and others. Some of the wealth is invested back in their country but most of it goes into the world’s stock markets, currencies, and gold markets.

    On Israeli politics— it appears that they are much like our own. They have been sold out by both parties. War Incorporated killed Rabin and even Labor was responsible for doubling the settlements. The disparity of wealth in Israel mirrors the United States. Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Netanyahu, AIPAC, etc. has taken over their politics and given the people a strong dose of fear in order to pacify them.

    A country that has been traumatized by the Holocaust is unfortunately easy to pacify— just point at the most recent boogy man(Hezbollah, Ahmedinejad, Al Queda, Saddam, etc.) and while your are doing that line your pockets.

    As for oil. No amount of alternatives is going to allow us to continue this lifestyle- SUVs, McMansions, far away jobs, no public transportation- guzzling 21 million barrels a day. This will not continue. Period.

    Under all these flip responses lies a deep sadness. We are using old paradigms to understand the current system. The realist world of black box states and patriotism has been undermined and is teetering on collapse. It doesn’t involve a Clash of Civilizations or the Mearsheimer/Walt Israel Lobby, or Shiite v. Sunni. We have all been sold out by the forces of corporate cronyism.

    If you read a series of books that are coming out about who is making money then you realize that there is a corporate shell game that is not captured by the state system.

    Jeremy Scahill– Blackwater
    Antonia Juhasz— Invading One country at time
    William Hartung—How much money did you make on this war Daddy
    Jeffrey St.Clair– Grand Theft Pentagon
    Naomi Klein- Disaster Capitalism
    Peter Singer- Corporate Warriors
    Lou Dubose— Vice

    The forces of darkness have captured the state structure and they are making a killing.

    They are milking the system for a few more years or months until it all falls apart.

  14. neoconned Says:
    June 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    I’d love to be wrong on all this stuff but it seems that we are at the precipice. Everyday I pray that we can get through the next 6 months without starting a disastrous war in Iran. Just because we haven’t gone to war doesn’t mean that Cheney et.al. hasn’t been doing their damndest to get us into one.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/29/seymour-hersh-exposes-new_n_109818.html

    Hersh was right about My Lai- he was right about Perle and his business dealings- he’s been right about Iran in the six articles that he has written but unfortunately he is now seen as Chicken Little because the War Party has been thwarted every time by the NIE report, General Pace, Admiral Fallon and others but I don’t know who is going to stop the current push for war. This HR 362 seems airtight. It’s the perfect way to get us into war.

  15. neoconned Says:
    June 29th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Richard on oil.

    The U.S. military is the largest single consumer of oil in the world but still the war in Iraq as far as I know only consumes 3 to 4 hundred thousand barrels a day— that is a drop in the barrel/bucket.

    The real question strategically I think is which economies get to grow when the inevitable Peak occurs. Ever since May of 2004 we have been riding on a plateau of between 84 and 86 million barrels in production a day. Eventually we will most likely fall off the plateau.

    In which case will the U.S. Navy continue to provide security for tankers to go to China? Maybe. Maybe not. Within about five years at latest the United States is going to have to make a decision about whether we will continue to act as the world hegemon– assuring the global market. Or will begin to act as neo-mercantile power.

    Everybody thinks that their era is an important point in history. BUT this next five years is probably the most important five years since the Second World War.

  16. Richard Witty Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 8:12 am

    Neo
    I agree with you about the importance of the next five years.

    There is a great deal of stress in the world economy, and the response to the stresses seems slow and unguided.

    I disagree with you about the “precipice” though.

    There is no precipice.

    There is experienced slow decline in wealth, and maldistribution of wealth and power.

    I manage investments for a few individuals, not wealthy ones. So, my strategy is really just a fairly frequent reassessment of portfolio balance. If you look at the stock market, since the last six months of the Clinton administration, the American (and global) stock market has returned about 3%/year, compared to the prior benchmark of around 6 – 8% over very long-term.

    It definitely was not only 911, or war, or housing bubble, or even peak oil.

    The problems are more structural, and revolve around two related shifts in American and international economy:

    1. Gamut of structural revisions enabling the development of an aristocracy (tax laws favoring income derived from ownership over income derived from work, relaxation of regulation and enforcement of all commons (environment, public institutions and infrastructure).

    2. Emphasis on speculative economy over exchange economy. (A speculative economy is one in which financial and derivative gains are the measure of success. An exchange economy is one in which the relative usefulness of a product/service is the measure of success.)

    An exchange economy is only socialist in areas of commons and safety net. It is DIFFERENT than the financial or speculative economy though, even though there are many areas of overlap, necessarily.

  17. Richard Witty Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 8:20 am

    A skillful administration and Congress will be able to define and make those structural changes that make a resilient and broadly comfortable economy.

    An ideological one, a pandering one, a spineless one, will not be able to discipline themselves to make structural changes, and instead make superficial and innefective ones.

    Adopting an attitude of damning individuals’ contributions wholesale, because of prior actual or suspected policy errors, will reduce the pool of ideas and participants to the point that change is impossible.

    Anyone that ever said anything racist is untrustable (30%). Anyone that ever said anything sexist is untrustable (another 20%). Anyone that ever said anything pro-Israel is untrustable (another 10%). Anyone that ever said anything “classist” is untrustable (another 10%).

    Leaving “pure” but skill-less politically correct, to “lead”.

    Better to get present, learn, stay IN the game and transform it.

  18. Jonathan Mark Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 9:09 am

    “”"The Japan analogy is important”"”

    I don’t agree with your analogy, but someone who did would conclude from it that war with Iran is as justified as war with Japan in 1941.

    If Japan in November 1941 is like Iran today then that is an argument FOR going to war with Iran, not an argument against it.

    If war with Iran is like war with WWII Japan then that is an argument FOR going to war with Iran, not an argument against it.

    “”"Japan was a brutal cooperate/fascist state. I am well aware of their many crimes and am quite happy with the outcome of the Second World War.”"”

    Not the question. Do you think that the US decision not to sell oil to Japan, which you see as a cause of Pearl Harbor, was the right policy? You have already compared this policy to a putative blockade of Iran.

    Because if you think the US acted properly in denying oil to Japan, and denying oil to Japan is similar to blockading Iran, then that suggests that proposals to interfere with Iranian oil exports are wise.

  19. Jonathan Mark Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 9:37 am

    “”"War Incorporated killed Rabin”"”

    Glib, but false.

    Rabin’s assassin probably acted alone. Whatever accessories there were, if any, were simply a few acquaintances who probably didn’t know what he was going to do.

    Some assassinations do involve a large conspiracy, but not this one.

    “”"The disparity of wealth in Israel mirrors the United States. Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Netanyahu, AIPAC, etc. has taken over their politics and given the people a strong dose of fear in order to pacify them.”"”

    Glib, but false. Likud may win the next election, but right now it is down to 13 seats in the 120-member Knesset, less than Labor, Kadima or Shas. It is in the opposition.

    Most of the other people you mention are not Israelis and in the absence of evidence otherwise probably have little or no influence on Israel. Few in Israel have heard of them.

    “”"just point at the most recent boogy man(Hezbollah, Ahmedinejad, Al Queda, Saddam, etc.)”"”

    As opposed to the Likud/Feith/Wolfowitz/et al boogey man that you invoke.

  20. neoconned Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    I think that the decision to deny oil with Japan was fine.

    Japan was in the process of expanding out a brutal imperial empire. So no I don’t have a problem with it. BUT I do have a problem with doing it covertly.

    And no Iran is not Japan. They are surrounded by U.S. bases. They are not expanding an imperial empire. There is not one single parallel of any merit between the Japanese and Iran. I know that you will argue me but Japan is not Iran- Period.

    Why was my last comment not posted?

  21. neoconned Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Richard Witty,

    On the economy. I agree with you that our economy has been gutted by corruption and Bush’s policies.

    BUT- 140 dollar oil is going to squeeze this economy. If you are advising people with their assets please tell them to diversify into gold and coal. Pick a big company in West Virginia with huge coal reserves and you can’t go wrong.

    There is no single variable that is going to destroy this economy. It’s a perfect storm.

    1. The Dollar
    2. Peak Oil
    3. Corruption
    4. Housing
    5. Debt
    6. War with Iran
    7. one of Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns

    I wouldn’t keep a red cent in the stock market. But of all the variables Peak oil is going to roll over this economy like nothing else. If we bomb Iran then we are going to hit peak early. It will be like a fist fight in a china shop.

  22. neoconned Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Jonathan,

    You are right– there is no Likud/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Feith/Perle boogey-man.

    There are no AEI, Hudson Institute, JINSA, PNAC.

    Just a figment of my imagination. I will just watch Fox News and get ready to vanquish the Persian barbarians.

  23. Richard Witty Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Putting money into gold is an example of speculation.

    It is the oppossite of what I would propose.

  24. neoconned Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Richard,

    The gold comment is just a search for stability. People should invest with the knowledge that oil prices could easily double.

    What has worth in that hypothetical. Maybe it’s not gold. Maybe it’s land. But it should be something tangible.

    What had worth during the Great Depression?

  25. Jonathan Mark Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    “”"I know that you will argue me but Japan is not Iran- Period.”"”

    Actually I agree with you. That is why your analogy between cutting off oil sales to Japan ca. 1940 and blockading Iran ca. 2008 is flawed.

  26. Jonathan Mark Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    Neoconned said –“””just point at the most recent boogy man(Hezbollah, Ahmedinejad, Al Queda, Saddam, etc.)”””

    Jonathan responded –”"”As opposed to the Likud/Feith/Wolfowitz/et al boogey man that you invoke.”"”

    To which Neoconned retorted–”"”You are right– there is no Likud/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Feith/Perle boogey-man.There are no AEI, Hudson Institute, JINSA, PNAC.”"”

    Fine, in that case Neoconned is also right. There is no Hezbollah/Ahmadinejad/Al-Qaeda. There are no Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa-Martyrs-Brigade, Taliban.”"”

    Neoconned continues—”"”Just a figment of my imagination”"”

    As it is mine.

  27. Jonathan Mark Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    “”"Maybe it’s land. But it should be something tangible.

    What had worth during the Great Depression?”"”

    Actually, land prices plummeted during the Depression. When my great-grandfather attempted to walk away from a commercial mortgage during the Depression the bank forgave half the loan in order to avoid foreclosure.

  28. neoconned Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    Jonathan,

    There is a difference between the neocons and Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda.

    The neocons are attempting to push the most deadly military in the world to bomb a country. This war will be a disaster of epic proportions. The neocons are a threat to our security. Once they bomb Iran then we have to worry about Hezbollah. Hezbollah is an enemy of Israel not the United States. If we bomb Iran that will change.

    Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda are light weights. They are dangerous but not existential threats.

    The reason why the Japan analogy is pertinent is that oil embargoes cause war. A country with its military needs petroleum for its survival. If we blockade Iran, they have to run the blockade. If they run the blockade Cheney will get his war. That is why I brought it up. Dean Acheson knew that an oil embargo would most likely lead to war.
    The neocons know that a blockade on Iran will lead to war. That is why I brought it up— not to argue endlessly about history. I wanted to point out that this HR 362 is a transparent trap.

    By investing in Land, I didn’t mean buying an overpriced house in LA for speculation. I merely said to buy things that have inherent worth that you can use. A field that you can grow food on, something of this nature. It seems that you are quibbling with me and not engaging my arguments.

  29. Jonathan Mark Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    “”"There is a difference between the neocons and Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda.”"”

    You yourself implicitly recognize the difference. That is why you capitalize “Hezbollah,” et al as proper names, and leave “neocon” uncapitalized.

    Indeed, Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaeda are each formal organizations with command structures. Some Muslims join these specific organizations and in some cases receive salaries from these specific organizations.

    “Neocon” on the other hand, is an abstraction like “liberal” and “leftist” are abstractions. You don’t join the neocons the way you join Hamas. You don’t put on a neocon uniform the way you put on a Hamas uniform.

    “”"Hezbollah is an enemy of Israel not the United States.”"”

    Hezbollah blew up the Marine Corps barracks in 1982.

    Hezbollah hijacked a US airliner in 1986 and beat to death a US sailor named Terry Stethem during the hijacking and dumped his body on the runway.

    Hezbollah probably blew up the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994.

    Hezbollah may or may not be planning additional attacks in the Western Hemisphere to avenge the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh by persons unknown.

    For all of the above reasons Hezbollah is a threat to persons in the Western Hemisphere, including Americans.

    It may be, and hopefully is the case, that Hezbollah will not carry out its threats. I hope it won’t. But it is still a threat.

    “”"If we bomb Iran that will change.”"”

    It will change because they are already a threat, and will act on their threats.

    “”"Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda are light weights.”"”

    Hezbollah are heavyweights in Lebanon. Taliban are heavyweights in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was a heavyweight on 9/11.

    “”"They are dangerous but not existential threats.”"”

    First you deny they are a threat. Then you modify that to say that they are not existential threats.

    My hope would be that Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda never acquire WMD. If they do, for instance a nuclear weapon in a suitcase, then they are existential threats as well.

    “”"The reason why the Japan analogy is pertinent is that oil embargoes cause war.”"”

    Not so. OPEC embargoed the US in 1973 and no war resulted.

    “”"If we blockade Iran, they have to run the blockade.”"”

    At this point you have lost me. The US didn’t blockade Japan. You are comparing two different events. Furthermore, you say (correctly) that conflict with Japan in 1940 was inevitable. Is conflict with Iran in 2008 therefore also inevitable?

    Your would-be analogy is full of holes and exceptions.

    “”"A field that you can grow food on, something of this nature. It seems that you are quibbling with me and not engaging my arguments.”"”

    A lot of people abandoned their farms during the Depression. The Okies moved out to California.

    It seems that you do not know the first thing about what actually happened during the depression.

  30. neoconned Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    Jonathan,

    Cheney and the neocons are as real as it gets— they are not just a category as you say. And they want war and this blockade will give them their war. And if you want to support their war because Hezbollah is such a threat then hey more power to you. I would suggest you sign up if you are of age or encourage your relatives or children to sign up if you aren’t. But personally if my son is of age and this “Clash of Civilization”/Oil War/crony capitalism war is still going on then I will encourage my son to avoid the draft.

    Yes Hezbollah attacked the U.S. Marine base in Lebanon. And then we sold them weapons in the Iran/Contra affair. And we armed Iraq and engaged in a shooting war in the Gulf. Furthermore, we deposed their elected leader Mossadegh in 1954. And we also shot down a commercial airliner of theirs in late eighties. Then they paid for a group of Libyans to blow up the Lockerbie flight. A messy history of tit for tat and strange covert crap. Hardly a linear history of good guys and bad guys that you seem to think it is. You seem to argue like Michael Ledeen that we are at war with Iran already so hey let’s really try to win. This is sheer lunacy.

    And no war with Iran is not inevitable. And Israel’s enemies are not necessarily U.S. enemies.

    At no time did Hezbollah enter our country and bomb us, whereas the United States is currently arming the MEK and Jundallah to enter their country and blow up innocent human beings.

    It will change because they are already a threat, and will act on their threats. Hezbollah are heavyweights in Lebanon. Taliban are heavyweights in Afghanistan. This proves my point these small groups are important in these strategically unimportant countries. Lebanon is important to Israel not the U.S.

    A lot of people abandoned their farms during the Depression. The Okies moved out to California.
    It seems that you do not know the first thing about what actually happened during the depression.

    The oakies abandoned their farms because of the dust bowl that was created— this is such dumb analogy. Do you think that farmers with rich soil abandoned their farms during the Depression- please.

    The embargo of 1973 is not comparable to a blockade against Iran. But yes if the Saudis had continued it Kissinger made it very clear that the United States would have occupied their oil fields.

    When you cut off oil to a country, they have to respond. To argue otherwise is just stupidity.

  31. neoconned Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    No the embargo against Japan was not a blockade but it did effectively cut them off from 80% of their oil. Surrounding Iran and cutting off their petroleum and boarding ships will also lead to war.

    Technically a blockade is already an act of war.

    I don’t understand your argument. Are you saying that a blockade will not lead to war? Or that war is inevitable so let’s have a blockade? Or that this bill doesn’t encourage a blockade? What is the argument? Are you arguing that Cheney doesn’t want war? Or that Cheney is justified in wanting a war?

    Are you arguing that there won’t be a depression or that you shouldn’t diversify your assets if there is a depression? Are you arguing that thinking about where food is coming from in a Depression shouldn’t be a concern?

    Or are you just quibbling?

  32. Jonathan Mark Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    Pointing out that Hezbollah is a threat does not logically mean that attacking Iran is or is not a good idea. Thus some of your remarks above are irrelevant.

    If when you defend Hezbollah you really mean that the US should not invade Iran, then it would be better to say what you mean and drop the nonsense.

    “”"At no time did Hezbollah enter our country and bomb us,”"”

    In 1986 Hezbollah entered a US airliner (legally US territory while in the air) hijacked it, and beat a passenger, US sailor Terry Stethem, to death.

    In 1982 Hezbollah entered a US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut and bombed it, killing hundreds.

    Someone in 1994, and there is a reasonable likelihood it was Hezbollah, entered Argentina and bombed the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, killing about 80 people.

    Most people would consider each of the above to be threatening behavior by Hezbollah, both towards Americans and towards others.

    Hezbollah now threatens revenge for the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh. One theory holds that Hezbollah will not dare attack Israel or the US directly for fear of retaliation, but is scouting Canadian and Latin American targets for another Buenos-Aires-style attack.

    Hopefully Hezbollah won’t do that. But from the 1982 Marine Corps barracks bombing on there is more than ample information out there to term Hezbollah a threat to Americans.

  33. neoconned Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    As far as I am concerned attacking Iran is the issue. I am not going argue that Hezbollah is some kind of boy scout troop. But in my opinion they are Israel’s problem and not ours.

  34. Jonathan Mark Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    “”"No the embargo against Japan was not a blockade but it did effectively cut them off from 80% of their oil.”"”

    It wasn’t their oil.

    “”"Surrounding Iran and cutting off their petroleum and boarding ships will also lead to war.”"”

    You posit a cause-and-effect leading to Pearl Harbor but don’t demonstrate it.

    Stopping selling oil to a country is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for there to be a war. Saudi Arabia refuses to sell oil to Israel, yet Israel and Saudi Arabia have never fought a war against each other.

    A wise Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbor since that attack led to the temporary destruction of their nation. Nor did attacking Pearl Harbor result in more oil for Japan. It never did get any oil from the US.

    “”"I don’t understand your argument.”"”

    Nor I yours.

    Disagreeing with your statements about Imperial Japan says nothing about whether the US should attack Iran. Yet you keep arguing about Iran to defend your statements about Imperial Japan.

    Nothing that happens now in Iran can have the slightest impact on the causes of Pearl Harbor. Causality always moves forward in time, never backwards.

    If what you really mean by your statements about Japan is that the US should not attack Iran then just say what you mean and cut out the nonsense and the revisionist history.

    “”"Are you arguing that there won’t be a depression or that you shouldn’t diversify your assets if there is a depression?”"”

    Diversifying assets is always a good idea. I never claimed or hinted that diversifying assets was a bad idea in good times or bad.

    “”"Are you arguing that thinking about where food is coming from in a Depression shouldn’t be a concern?”"”

    Thinking about where food is coming from is always a good idea. i never claimed or hinted that one ought not to think about where food is coming from in good times or bad.

  35. Jonathan Mark Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

    “”"But in my opinion they are Israel’s problem and not ours.”"”

    It is extremely likely that Hezbollah will not choose to attack Israel for fear of provoking a response similar to Israel’s response in the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war.

    Since you seem to know so much about it, what do you think that Hezbollah means when it threatens retaliation for the assassination of their leader Imad Mughniyeh?

    How do you know who Hezbollah will attack, and where? If you don’t know and if Hezbollah has a attacked US and South American targets in the past, how do you know they won’t in the future.

    That doesn’t mean that they will attack. But they might. That cert

  36. Richard Witty Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 4:00 am

    There are no good simple answers.

    The first steps would be acceptance of Israel by the Arab states, Iran.

    That would enhance the likelihood of alternatives to war.

    To complain that the US should not support its ally in response to relentless incremental threat, is blind, cowardly, fraudulent.

    Its a form of complaining about the other, rather than fulfilling one’s promises, or responsibly changing the agreements by mutual consent.

    There are other courageous and responsible paths than war, but it does take two to tango, and we are dealing with stubborn, dysfunctional regimes, which seem to be getting more dysfunctional.

    Power requires accountability to remain ethical/functional. Accountability to bi-lateral relations to other states, populaces, and constituents. Also accountability to multi-lateral institutions, global populace.

    It is NOT ENOUGH for only Israel or only the US to be described as accountable in that way. It takes two to tango.

    Iran also must recognize that it is precipicing, even if slowly driving closer to the cliff, removing all exit paths and alternatives.

    Ironically, scriptures (Jewish, Christian, Islamic) contain both instructions to, and how to live a permanently ethical and humble life, AND instructions to and how to live a permanently powerseeking life.

  37. neoconned Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    Jonathan,

    I have repeated my point about Japan and the embargo again and again with authors to research and I offer this article by Scott Sagan. Normally in the field of IR when someone writes a controversial point then there are rebuttals- no one in the field of IR questions the importance of the oil embargo to the timing of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This is not revisionist history. FDR knew that an embargo would most likely lead to war. Read his quote in the article.

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/204828?seq=11&Search=yes&term=japan&term=sagan&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DSagan%2BJapan%26dc%3DAll%2BDisciplines&item=1&ttl=695&returnArticleService=showArticle

    Just as FDR understood that an embargo could lead to war, the neoconservatives are students of history and international politics– they know that cutting off the flow of oil to Iran will also most likely lead to war(I say most likely because history is not a petri dish, there are always contingencies). This is the brilliance of the blockade: that people like you and most of Americans are ignorant of how the flow of oil/petroleum effects the economics and military of a country.

    Americans think cutting off the petroleum is “pressure or “sanctions” but in reality it is an act of war and there will be a response, either a running of the blockade or shots fired. In which case, Cheney will get the war that he desires. And no the neonconservatives are not a category or a figment of my imagination- they are an organized group of people that is very outspoken about their desire for war with Iran.

    Are you being intentionally doltish about this? Or did you not understand the argument? Or are you one of those people that can not concede a point?

    As for Hezbollah and who they threaten to kill. This is not my area of research. But in terms of the game that is being played by the United States, Iran and Israel, I honestly don’t think that it has much relevance.

    Once we bomb, though, Hezbollah will suddenly take center stage. The network in Lebanon will be used to terrorize the United States. I don’t walk outside my door and fear Hezbollah assassins right now but if we bomb Iran and I am anywhere near a major city then yes I would fear Hezbollah. This seems rational and simple to me but I am sure you will do your damndest to poke holes in it.

    And no I don’t think that Iran is some innocent party in this game. Ahmedinejad is one of many players in Iran. He is a hardliner and a member of the Iranian secret police. He was elected on a platform of economic populism. His mandate is naturally breaking down as he is unable to deliver on his promises. BUT most analysts believe that if we bomb Iran Ahmedinejad and other hardliners in Iran will be empowered. Thus Ahmedinejad has an incentive for war. Just as Cheney has an incentive for war because war and terrorist acts by Hezbollah will empower the hardliners in the United States. The hardliners in Israel also appear to look forward to war.

    All three countries seem to be sleepwalking into a war that will be disastrous for the populations of all three countries.

  38. neoconned Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    There is no crystal ball but there are some reasonable assumptions that one can make about a war with Iran and to ignore those contingencies seems extremely unwise.

    1. The price of oil will immediately go up. This will have extremely negative consequences for the people of the third world because oil is intimately tied to food production.

    2. Hezbollah will most likely move against Israel on the border of Lebanon.

    3. Iran will attempt to use its missiles to hit targets in Iraq, Israel and the Gulf. Whether they will be successful I don’t know.

    4. The bombing of Iran will be condemned by Shiites in Iraq and our forces in Iraq will come under greater fire.

    This is for starters. There are other contingencies that are not foregone conclusions but they are very real possibilities.

    1. Chavez will put an embargo of oil on the U.S.(if you are living in Jonathan’s this should be no cause for worry).

    2. Iran will attempt to block the straight of Hormouz in which 17 million barrels passes through everyday. This could potentially have disastrous consequences for Japan and China that are the primary recipients of the oil.

    3. Americans might put boots on the ground in Iran in order to secure the Straight and find the Iranian missiles.

    4. Iranian military countermeasures might be taken in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    5. Russia and China may start to fund the insurgency in Iraq.

    And the Worst Case scenarios that are unfortunately very possible if we bomb.

    1. American troops are cut off somewhere in Kuwait, Iraq or Iran. In which case we contemplate the use of nuclear weapons.

    2. The massacres that take place in the chaos are viewed as a war against Muslims. This destabilizes the countries of Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia where the stakes are much higher due to oil, nuclear weapons and strategic location.

    3. The most effective and devastating targets for missiles would be the oil processing plant at Abquaiq in Saudi Arabia and the field of Gawar. A successful attack would most likely lead to a world recession.

    4. The nuclear power plant is definitely being targeted in Israel. A direct hit would be disastrous and may lead to a countermeasure by Israel such as the use of nuclear weapons.

    This all may sound like the ranting of a know it all BUT strategists on all sides of thought of these contingencies. The stakes are much higher than the war with Iraq.

    Bill Krysal is running around saying that if Israel bombs Iranian nuclear sights it will be a replay of the attack on Syria but I think he knows that he is lying.

    I don’t think that bombing will lead to WWIII but the reverberations of an attack will cross many borders and will be felt for decades. Bombing Iran is a game changing event. Iraq was a status quo war in comparison.

  39. Richard Witty Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    Neocon,
    So, why do you accept that Iran is pushing the envelope, but only criticize Israel and the US for noting what is occurring?

    Noone has acted yet to bomb anyone.

    Its been cited as imminent for three years now.

    What makes you think that Bush will get anything like a congressional authorization to bomb Iran?

    What makes you think that Olmert will seek and/or get cabinet authorization to bomb Iran preemptively?

    Israel notes the same ping-pong game that you noted.

    And, if the motion that keeps the issue HOT is Iranian nuclear weapons, wouldn’t it be reasonable for them to accept the French and Russian offers for nuclear fuel for power, rather than plutonium processing stated as for fuel, but a slight skip to weapons?

    Why would they blackmail the world so?

  40. neoconned Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    “Noone has acted yet to bomb anyone.”
    Yes and there is good chance that no one will either. But even the remote possibility scares me.

    “What makes you think that Bush will get anything like a congressional authorization to bomb Iran?”
    Bush won’t get an approval until he gets an incident- A Gulf of Tolkien Incident, A Sinking of the Main. If we blockade it will provoke an incident. The American people thinks that incidents like these can’t be constructed. The truth is more disturbing— historically they happen all the time.

    “What makes you think that Olmert will seek and/or get cabinet authorization to bomb Iran preemptively?”
    I don’t think that Israel will do it and even if they do they have to get the approval of the U.S. They have to fly over Iraq that is controlled by the U.S. Air force. This “Rogue Israel Theory” is hogwash. Cheney is using Israel as leverage. “If we don’t bomb then Israel will.” It’s part of the neocon propaganda campaign.

    Why would they blackmail the world so?
    Look at North Korea. If Iran gets the bomb then the threat of an attack by Israel or the U.S. is negated. Iran fears for their security as they should: They are surrounded by U.S. bases. The U.S. wants complete control over the Persian Gulf– only one country stands in their way.

  41. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    Thanks for the citation. Unfortunately when I go to your link I am told that I am not authorized to access it.

    Here is another way to express the matter, one which takes full account of the Japanese invasion of China as a cause of war. An alternative account which ignores China as a cause is revisionist.

    “”"Japan had sent its troops in China and the US demanded Japan to withdraw from there. To back up the demand and to make Japan comply with it, the US even imposed the oil embargo on Japan. The attitude that the US took during a series of negotiations toward Japan was very formidable and little room for compromise was given, and as a result, the Japanese leaders had to make a very difficult decision about the nation’s course of action, whether they should accept the US demand or refused to do so and prepare for the war against the US. Needless to say, they chose to fight and faced a disastrous result later. But why China was so important to Japan? And what did the oil embargo mean to Japan?”"”

    http://www.american.edu/TED/ice/japan-oil.htm

  42. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 4:44 pm

    “”"If Iran gets the bomb then the threat of an attack by Israel or the U.S. is negated.”"”

    Unfortunately, the threat of a first use nuclear attack by Iran is greatly increased.

    Saddam Hussein engaged in first use of poison gas against both Iran and the Iraqi Kurds. Iran might do the same with small nuclear weapons. It might not.

    It all depends on who blew up the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 80 people. If it was Hezbollah and Iranian advisors, which is likely, then there is a real danger of a similar anonymous attack with small Iranian nuclear weapons in the low kiloton range.

    Ahmadinejad’s various statements about destroying Israel “in a violent storm” indicate that that would be Ahmadinejad’s intent. He has also spoken of honoring today’s martyr’s and the “millions of martyrs” in the future.

    I understand that Iran is not a democracy and its elected officials, including Ahmadinejad, have little power. On the other hand, the rulers of Iran do prop Ahmadinejad up.

    When the mullahs got angry at Khatami they humiliated Khatemi by arresting his followers. Khatemi did nothing and was revealed in the end as an apologist for the Mullahs. He was soon gone and forgotten.

    The rulers of Iran have not similarly undercut Ahmadinejad. His statements are of concern, as is the threat of first use of Iranian nuclear weapons in general.

  43. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    “”"Iran will attempt to use its missiles to hit targets in Iraq, Israel and the Gulf.”"”

    At least in that case they would be non-nuclear-armed missiles.

    And the responsibility of the Gulf nations for this war would be what? Why would Iran attack the Gulf nations?

    The scenario you describe, which is indeed frightening, provides ample evidence that Iran and Hezbollah are threats in general, not simply to one or two nations.

    It does not follow that the way to deal with this threat is necessarily to attack Iran. That might be a bad idea.

  44. neoconned Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Jonathan,

    Sorry about the article not going through. But suffice to say Roosevelt was very aware that cutting off oil meant that there was a good chance there would be war.

    By cutting off their flow of oil it meant that Japan would not be able to keep it’s troops in China– this was unacceptable for the Japanese so of course China was a huge part of the equation that led to war. Japan could have pulled out of China and stopped expanding but the U.S. realized that this most likely would not have happened.

    Japan acted as they were expected to act. They invaded the Dutch East Indies for their oil and attacked the United States in order to protect themselves from reprisal.

    As for a sneak attack on Israel or the United States using a suitcase bomb. Deterrence is still in operation there. Israel would just nuke Iran. No questions asked and Iran knows it so they have little incentive to give a bomb to Hezbollah. It’s not an airtight deterrence but it’s very real. There is a lot of crap about Iran being a suicidal country but this simply false. It’s not Hezbollah that is streaming across the borders of Iraq to blow themselves up— it is Saudis.

    Yes Iran having nuclear weapons increases the possibility of some Tom Clancy type scenario but I firmly believe that if there is a major massacre or nukes are used against Iran— the possibility of losing Tel Aviv or New York to a suitcase bomb goes up exponentially. There is a self-defeating element to seeking absolute security. If you try to stop people from obtaining nukes it can make them want them more. And if you use force then it will only make the other side use force. It sounds like hippie B.S. but strategically it makes a lot of sense.

    Why would Iran attack the Gulf nations? Iran has said they will attack any nation that is used as a staging ground for an attack on their country. This means that they probably won’t attack Saudi Arabia but who knows. They know attacking oil is their form of deterrence. That’s why they have recently mentioned the Straight of Hormuz. And the U.S. immediately responded “We will keep the Straight open.”

    Iran is currently saying that they are making preparations for a blockade on their country. They say that it will not affect them. The blockade will only affect 40% percent of their refined petroleum. But I think they are bluffing. Once the blockade goes into place, the clock starts ticking. Iran could deal with a 40% shortfall for a couple of weeks but not if it lasted for a long time.

    Again— the reason why I bring up the Japan embargo is because I know the neocons. I know that they are big IR people and they slipped petroleum into the bill to provoke Iran. After studying Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle for a long time I am starting sound like a paranoid lunatic BUT these people are the real deal. They are dangerous psychopaths.

    You read their writings— Read Rebuilding America’s Defenses– it calls for researching ethnic biological weapons.

  45. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    “”"Roosevelt was very aware that cutting off oil meant that there was a good chance there would be war.”"”

    There already was war in 1941. Japan had already invaded China,and Germany had already invaded Russia.

    “”"By cutting off their flow of oil it meant that Japan would not be able to keep it’s troops in China– this was unacceptable for the Japanese so of course China was a huge part of the equation that led to war.”"”

    Agreed.

    “”"Japan could have pulled out of China and stopped expanding but the U.S. realized that this most likely would not have happened.”"”

    Quite possible.

    “”"Japan acted as they were expected to act. They invaded the Dutch East Indies for their oil”"”

    Also possible.

    “”"and attacked the United States in order to protect themselves from reprisal.”"”

    What is the evidence for this claim?

    What evidence do you have anyone in the US government expected Japan to attack Pearl Harbor?

    When did they allegedly expect the attack to occur?

    “”"Again— the reason why I bring up the Japan embargo is because I know the neocons.”"”

    Whoever it is that you refer to as being neocons, they had nothing to do with Japan’s invasion of China, Pearl Harbor and the origins of WWII.

    Knowing them, whatever that means, would not increase your understanding of WWII one whit.

    “”"After studying Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle for a long time I am starting sound like a paranoid lunatic BUT these people are the real deal. They are dangerous psychopaths.”"”

    How do I know that they are? Because you say so?

    What if you are a psychopath? What if I am? What is the basis for this claim?

    “”"You read their writings— Read Rebuilding America’s Defenses– it calls for researching ethnic biological weapons.”"”

    Read what? What were the names of its authors? Can you quote it?

  46. Richard Witty Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 am

    I think the main message of incremental escalation is the choice to incrementally escalate.

    Why is Iran doing so? Why is it not taking its oil revenues and investing in its post-petro world, thereby ensuring its permanent eminence?

    Why is it putting its resources into arms rather than in refineries, if it is so dependant on external refining?

  47. Zach Leiner Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    In post #4 neoconned wrote

    “The Neoconns are not insane”

    In #44 he wrote, presumably about the same topic

    “They are dangerous psychopaths”

    Maybe there is something to be learned from the questionable actions of the so called neocons, but a qualified source is not likely the one who entered the above-mentioned posts.

  48. neoconned Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    Richard,
    I think that many of the refineries were wiped out in the Iraq/Iran war. And subsequent sanctions also cut into their ability to obtain the necessary parts and technology. I haven’t sourced this theory but it seems plausible.

    Why isn’t Iran investing in their economy? I suppose for the same reason that Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait aren’t. They are a corrupt petro-state. Thomas Friedman rants about this and so do Fareed Zakaria and Mark Ross. The infusion of cash retards initiative and filters up to the oligarchies at the top. It is often referred to as the Dutch Disease or the oil curse.

    I think that Iran is genuinely concerned for its security— looking at its history I don’t think this is irrational. In 1954 Mossadeque was overturned and we brought in the Shaw. In the 1980s we supported Saddam with satellite photos and dual use technology among other things. We also blew up some platforms and engaged the Iranian navy on various occasions. Now our policy in the region is to encourage regime change. As Sy Hersh’s latest article shows we are also running special ops across their border from Kurdish territory, Afghanistan, and Southern and Northern Iraq: Think of the hypothetical flip side to this. A country with a military 200 times our size and a stated policy of regime change is running Zapitista rebels over the Mexican border.
    They are also running Canadian Mounty raids across the Canadian border and landing regularly on our shores to blow stuff up. Most Americans are constitutionally incapable of seeing the world through the eyes of our enemies.

    Our stated policy in the Middle East is to promote democracy and yet we are more than willing to support the most corrupt and autocratic regimes if they allow the United States to engage them economically. We are in the business of promoting our economic interests not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

    Jonathan,
    Obviously, the neocons had nothing to do with WWII. But the principle that applies to many different wars is that greedy people in countries want wars. They seek out proximate causes to engage in wars that they want to engage in. Thus the Germans held a war meeting in 1912 and discussed the timing of an invasion of Russia and France. The Admiral in charge of their Navy objected that he wanted to build up his ships and subs.

    When the Arch-Duke was killed the Germans jumped for joy— Now they had a proximate reason for going to war. Greedy people don’t just start wars — they seek incidents that offer them opportunities to go to war. So when you have a group of people that want to start a war, then you have to be discerning about the events that take place. If we are attacked by North Vietnamese ships in 1964 then you should be skeptical. You should ask the question Cui Bono– who benefits. In that case it was LBJ.

    The same goes for a naval blockade of Iran. If we do it and Iran attacks us who benefits? Ahmedinejad and Dick Cheney and his people. What I am saying to you is that the Oops version of history is often but not always false.

    When comparing wars, it is impossible to make a comparison of them. So what you do is look at the dynamics that they share in common. The dynamic that is common between a blockade of Iran and an embargo of Japan is that they are being undertaken by the leaders who understand the probable results. The people are often swept up by proximate causes. They believe that things often happen by chance or that leaders are not orchestrating things. With this lovely group of people in the Bush Administration they have already led us into one war based on a false proximate cause. WMD was seen by the average American as the reason that we went into Iraq. And if you do the least bit of research you realize that evidence was being fixed. There were a group of people in the Pentagon cherry-picking information— they called it the Office of Special Plans. It was run by William Lutti, Douglas Feith and Abram Schulsky among others. Now many of the people from Team Iraq our assembling to gather evidence about Iran. Abram Schulsky is the same person who is gathering evidence on Iran.

    If we get into war with Iran— it will be by mistake. That “Rogue State” Israel will have acted alone but meanwhile they had to get the OK from the U.S. to fly over Iraq. Or we will blockade their sea coast and there will be an incident. Or special Ops will blow up some large target in Iran and they will retaliate against a U.S. base in Iraq. In which case the American people will say “Those damn Iranians– they want a war— we’ll give em one.” But the proximate cause of the war is not the issue. The issue is who wants war? And at this stage in the Game– How are they going to bring it about?

    States never want to be seen as the aggressor— they are always fighting an insane, homicidal people out of self-defense. Even Hitler lined up concentration camp victims dressed them up in German unifors and shot them at the border of Poland and exclaimed “My God we have been attacked by Poland.” Obviously this is an extreme example and I am not comparing LBJ to Hitler but the dynamic is the same— create proximate cause for war and then attack.

    Right now the Bush Administration has six months to create a proximate cause for war. So what they are doing right now is throwing up all the spaghetti on the wall and seeing what sticks. Will it be “the Crazy Israelis, terrorist camps on the border of Iraq, an incident in the Gulf, Iranian IEDs, a supposed completion of Iranian nukes— whatever it is the American people should be skeptical. Norman Pohderetz says that every night he goes to sleep and prays that the U.S. will bomb Iran. He has stated outright the same thought that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Ledeen, Krauthammer, the Kagans, Krystol and all the other lunatics also feel— we need to bomb Iran.

  49. neoconned Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    Zach and Jonathan,
    When the history of the the beginning of the 21st century is written hopefully a more benevolent order will have replaced the current world order.

    If this is the case, the new historians will write about the Project for a New American Century in the same way that we now study Mein Kampf. They wrote down all their lunacy. They kept a website. If you haven’t read the website then you don’t know the plan. They have now taken down the website but parts of it have been copied and they are all over the internet.

    The most definitive piece on their website is Rebuilding Americas Defenses.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    It includes the line.
    “… the art of warfare … will be vastly different than it is today …
    “combat” likely will take place in new
    dimensions … advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific
    genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a
    politically useful tool.”

    Here is a nice summary of things included in Rebuilding Americas Defenses.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

    The list of signatures on the PNAC documents are real. They know each other and they are extremely powerful people. The neocons are not a category— they are as real as the Bolsheviks or the Nazis.

    Please, do your own google searches. Find out what these people have said in their own words.

    On the surface the documents seem relatively benign. But think of the implications of putting the domination of the world by the United States as the overriding goal.

    Here is another disturbing question if this is the first time you have been exposed to the PNAC documents. Why is this the first time you have seen them? Why isn’t every news source in the country talking about these documents? We have gone so far toward fascism in this country that we may not be able to go back. We are like the frog that is being slowly cooked.

  50. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    “”"The dynamic that is common between a blockade of Iran and an embargo of Japan is that they are being undertaken by the leaders who understand the probable results.”"”

    You have not demonstrated that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.

    Perhaps someday someone will demonstrate that. You have not.

  51. neoconned Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    People that watch the main stream press in this country haven’t been connecting the dots.

    If we attack Iran then we will be attacked by Hezbollah and if we are attacked by Hezbollah then it will be very difficult to maintain our freedom in this country.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

  52. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    The quote you provided doesn’t advocate the development of the weapon it describes. It may advocate antidotes for them.

    Or it may not advocate anything. The author may disapprove of what he predicts.

    You are projecting your own meaning onto it.

    Moreover, the document identifies its primary author as Thomas Donnelly. The document identifies the Chairmen responsible for the project that created the document as Schmitt and Kagan.

    I am unable to reach any conclusion at all about this document’s alleged connection to current Bush Administration officials, or its relevance to current US policy.

    I cannot even conclude that it is offensive. The quote you provided is not offensive, and may be true.

  53. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    “”"If we attack Iran then we will be attacked by Hezbollah and if we are attacked by Hezbollah then it will be very difficult to maintain our freedom in this country.”"”

    It seems that you do view Hezbollah as a serious threat to the US after all.

  54. neoconned Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    “””The dynamic that is common between a blockade of Iran and an embargo of Japan is that they are being undertaken by the leaders who understand the probable results.”””

    You have not demonstrated that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.

    Perhaps someday someone will demonstrate that. You have not.

    It’s right here:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_1_28/ai_n6172425/print?tag=artBody;col1

    He didn’t know that we would be attacked at Pearl Harbor but he knew that an oil embargo would most likely lead to war.

    The article by Scott Sagan called the Origin of the Second World War (which you couldn’t access)and The Prize by Daniel Yergin essentially say the same thing.

  55. neoconned Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    If we attack Russia, they will become dangerous to the United States. That logically doesn’t mean that I view Russia as a current threat.

    Also the PNAC page has been taken down but there is enough information out there about it on the internet. PNAC was a real organization and many of the most powerful members of the Bush Administration had signed their documents including Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Stephen Hadley etc.
    But the organization itself was not terribly important most of the members know each other intimately and share membership in various organizations. They have an ideology, a shared understanding of the world, spokespeople, and most importantly a plan. It doesn’t mean they will be successful but it just means they will attempt to do what they have set out to do. Right now they are currently attempting to orchestrate the bombing of Iran.

    The bio-weapons comment must be viewed in the context of justifying world domination by the United States.

  56. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    “”"It’s right here:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_1_28/ai_n6172425/print?tag=artBody;col1“”"

    This article neither says nor implies that Roosevelt believed that Japan would attack the US if the US stopped exporting oil outside the Western Hemisphere.

    The article states the opposite–the Japanese intended for the attack on Pearl Harbor to be a surprise. It would not have been a surprise if the US was expecting an attack.

    What did Roosevelt believe? The article states:

    “”"It was not the intent of Roosevelt to bring about a complete embargo of oil to Japan. (14) He felt that such an action would cause the Japanese to invade the Netherlands East Indies and Malaya to seize the oilfields there. This would possibly suck the United States into an early conflict in the Pacific, a conflict the United States was not prepared for and which would be at the expense of devoting energy toward the European conflict.”"”

  57. neoconned Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    Roosevelt’s freeze order allowed the Japanese to apply for export licenses for oil; however, hard liners within Roosevelt’s administration acted as if the freeze were total, so no licenses were ever approved. (16)

    This situation put the Japanese into a quandary; they did not gain any oil by moving into southern Indochina. Now they had isolated themselves from 90 percent of their annual requirements. The Japanese did have a strategic reserve in place that they had been building up since the early 1930s. So some time was available to try and find a diplomatic way out of the impasse. (17)

    Roosevelt ordered a freeze because he didn’t want an embargo but Acheson and other members of his administration treated it as an embargo. This is what Roosevelt wanted to avoid because he knew it would most likely lead to war.

    As I said earlier, Roosevelt didn’t know that they would attack the United States at Pearl Harbor but he did know what I have been saying all along—- You cut off oil and this could lead to war. The same goes for an Iran blockade. You cut off oil and this could lead to war. It’s a very simple concept. You don’t cut off a country’s oil supply unless you are prepared for war. Period.

  58. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    “”"Also the PNAC page has been taken down but there is enough information out there about it on the intern net.”"”

    Ahh, the internet. Not a specific source, just “the internet.” As in “2000 Israelis didn’t show up for work at the WTC on 9-11. This is well known. You can find out about it on the internet.”

    “”"PNAC was a real organization and many of the most powerful members of the Bush Administration had signed their documents including Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Stephen Hadley etc.”"”

    Perle was never a member of the Bush II administration. Perle was an unpaid volunteer on the Defense Sciences Board, an advisory organization composed of unpaid volunteers.

    Nor was Jeb Bush a member of the Bush Administration. He was at one point the governor of Florida.

    “”"But the organization itself was not terribly important”"”

    Agreed

    “”"most of the members know each other intimately and share membership in various organizations.”"”

    Sounds pretty vague to me. You will have to come up with something better if you wish to frighten people.

    “”"They have an ideology,”"”

    How do you know that Jeb Bush and Richard Perle have the same ideology? You say they do. How do you know?

    “”"a shared understanding of the world,”"”

    Even if that were true, it is so vague as to be meaningless. Members of the same culture will often share some understandings of the world. You and I probably do.

    “”"spokespeople,”"”

    Who? I wasn’t aware that Richard Perle and Jeb Bush have the same spokespeople.

    “”"and most importantly a plan.”"”

    How do you know they do? What plan does Jeb Bush have? Who says he even has one?

    “”"It doesn’t mean they will be successful but it just means they will attempt to do what they have set out to do.”"”

    How do you know what Jeb Bush will do?

    “”"Right now they are currently attempting to orchestrate the bombing of Iran.”"”

    How do you know Jeb Bush is attempting to do that? How do you know what he does?

  59. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    “”"”Roosevelt ordered a freeze because he didn’t want an embargo but Acheson and other members of his administration treated it as an embargo. This is what Roosevelt wanted to avoid because he knew it would most likely lead to war.”"”

    You are free to incorrectly paraphrase whatever you wish.

    However, there is nothing in the article you linked to which says that Roosevelt expected the Japanese to attack the US. Not at Pearl Harbor, and not anywhere else.

    Perhaps someday someone will show that, but the article you link to makes no such claim.

    “”"You cut off oil and this could lead to war.”"”

    There already was a war. WWII began in 1939.

  60. neoconned Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    I wouldn’t normally recommend wikipedia but they have a nice graph on all the members of the Bush Administration who were part of PNAC. For some reason I can’t put the link onto the page.
    Scroll down and you will see the members of the Bush Administration who signed onto the PNAC documents.

    “””Also the PNAC page has been taken down but there is enough information out there about it on the intern net.”””

    Ahh, the internet. Not a specific source, just “the internet.” As in “2000 Israelis didn’t show up for work at the WTC on 9-11. This is well known. You can find out about it on the internet.”

    Very Funny but I wish that PNAC was just some ridiculous conspiracy theory but there have been plenty of scholarly peer reviewed journal articles that have discussed their importance. The PNAC website was up for at least 7 years– it was really a fascinating website because it was open about its goals and purpose. It was only recently in the past few months that it was taken down. Some of the main documents have been cut and pasted to other sites and this is what I meant by you can find it on the internet. One of the most important was the letter to Clinton that encouraged him to invade Iraq.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm

    The signatories are not lightweights. PNAC, AEI, The Hudson Institute, The Heritage Foundation—- these organizations represent a network of foreign policy people that push a very hawkish agenda.

    As for the Rebuilding Americas Defenses it is just a longer version of a document that was asked for by Cheney during the George H.W.Bush Administration called the DPG
    http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

    and later formalized into the 2002 National Security Strategy of the White House.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

    “””You cut off oil and this could lead to war.”””

    There already was a war. WWII began in 1939. This is so doltish and rhetorical it’s difficult to respond. Yes there was war but the Japanese had not attacked the United States.

    ””It was not the intent of Roosevelt to bring about a complete embargo of oil to Japan. (14) He felt that such an action would cause the Japanese to invade the Netherlands East Indies and Malaya to seize the oilfields there. This would possibly suck the United States into an early conflict in the Pacific, a conflict the United States was not prepared for and which would be at the expense of devoting energy toward the European conflict.”””

    Why did Roosevelt not want an embargo?
    Because he knew that it might cause the Japanese to invade Indonesia. This invasion of Indonesia would most likely suck the United States into an area of conflict in the Pacific.

    Was there an embargo?
    Yes there was. Roosevelt’s freeze order allowed the Japanese to apply for export licenses for oil; however, hard liners within Roosevelt’s administration acted as if the freeze were total, so no licenses were ever approved. (16)

    And this led to the Japanese not having enough oil. The clock began to tick.
    This situation put the Japanese into a quandary; they did not gain any oil by moving into southern Indochina. Now they had isolated themselves from 90 percent of their annual requirements. The Japanese did have a strategic reserve in place that they had been building up since the early 1930s. So some time was available to try and find a diplomatic way out of the impasse. (17)

    Now Roosevelt’s fears were realized. An embargo was put into place and this dragged the United States into war.

    Tell me that you are not that dumb.
    The entire article was written about the importance of oil. Did you not get that?
    After reading the article and just thinking about rationally do you still maintain that oil is unimportant to war?

    If interpreting words is a problem for you– you can just watch the movie The Prize. It has some pretty pictures for you.

  61. neoconned Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    This kind of doltish literalism is also apparent in people’s interpretations of HR 362.

    The bill states: “There is no authorization of force.”

    So therefore nothing to worry about. It states it right there in black and white.

    But blockading a country is an act of force. And cutting off people’s oil is a dangerous thing to do. It’s completely disingenuous to interpret things in such a legalistic and literal fashion. Just as your failure to understand the importance of oil to the beginning of the War in the Pacific is totally disingenuous.

    Either you are too dumb to understand the significance of oil or you are rhetorically and literally arguing against me. I am thinking the latter.

  62. Tom Mitchell Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    Jonathan,
    You assert that WWII began in 1939; some historians date it as beginning in 1937 when Japan invaded China or even in 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria. But clearly until December 7, 1941 Japan and the United States were not at war.

    The European war and the Pacific war only became connected into what is known as WWII because Hitler was foolish enough to declare war on the U.S. and thereby allow Roosevelt to make war on all three members of the Axis.

    neo-conned,
    In case you don’t know the Neo-Conservatives is a term that refers to a group of former Democrats, mostly Jewish, who joined the Republican Party in the late 1970s to early 1980s over dissatisfaction with the social and foreign policies of the Democratic Party since 1972. Most were connected to either Sen. Daniel Moynihan of NY or Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson of WA. They were the elite of the Reagan Democrats.

    I constantly see references to Dick Cheney or John McCain et al. as Neo-Cons. Neither were ever Democrats. The term has largely become meaningless through careless usage as the left did for fascism in the U.S. The term fascist has been applied to so many different individuals and organizations and regimes that no respectable Western historian of 20th century European history would recognize as fascist. The same is now happening to the term Neo-Con, because most of those using it don’t even know the original meaning of the term.

  63. neoconned Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Yes the core group of neocons worked for Scoop– they were Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle.

    All of these people worked intimately with the Bush Administration.

    Cheney was the person most responsible for opening the door and bringing them into the administration. The Office of the Vice President worked closely with the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon in order to cook the intelligence for the Iraq invasion. It all sounds like a ridiculous James Bond film– I admit but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

    Their policies have had a profound effect on the Bush Administration. They are unilateralism, missile defense, RMA or a Revolution in Military affairs, U.S. Hegemony, among others. PNAC is the embodiment of this agenda and if the website were still up you could see their ideology and their connections with many important policy makers. McCain was backed by Bill Kristol and many other neoconservatives in the 2000 race. He also has stacked his campaign with neoconservative advisers and so it is only natural that he would be labeled as a neoconservative. It may not be precise but the neoconservative movement and its importance has hardly become meaningless.

  64. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    We appear to disagree about the interpretation of the following paragraph:

    “”"It was not the intent of Roosevelt to bring about a complete embargo of oil to Japan. (14) He felt that such an action would cause the Japanese to invade the Netherlands East Indies and Malaya to seize the oilfields there. This would possibly suck the United States into an early conflict in the Pacific, a conflict the United States was not prepared for and which would be at the expense of devoting energy toward the European conflict.”””

    The article states that if Japan attacked Indonesia then the US could “possibly” be drawn into the Pacific war earlier than it would be otherwise.

    There is nothing in this article which indicates a belief on the part of Roosevelt that Japan was going to attack the US.

  65. neoconned Says:
    July 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm

    Jonathan,
    Fair enough. In Scott Sagan’s The Origin of the Pacific War there is more conclusive evidence, but you have to be able to access JSTOR.

    On the neoconservatives, I was thinking about it last night and I thought of the best framework to explain them. They are a group of people that works together as policy entrepreneurs, pushing the idea above all else that American militarism is a good thing and that force is a legitimate and necessary part of U.S. foreign policy. So they push their hawkish agenda, in media, academia, and in government.

    Their movement is not necessarily dependent on one group of individuals and the original members were Jewish Democrats but I don’t see this group or their identity as Jews and Democrats as being terribly important.

    There are many different strands and players to the neoconservative movement but I am just going to throw together a few in a not very systematic way. The three godfathers of the movement were Norman Podhoretz, Donald Kagan and Irving Kristol. They became disillusioned with the left during the Vietnam war. Norman Podhoretz wrote his book The Present Danger that outlined the problems with the left. He also started the flagship magazine of the neoconservatives Commentary. Some of the contributors to the magazine also started a think tank called the Committee on the Present Danger— with such notables as Jean Kirkpatrik and George Schultz. This core group of people formed an alliance with Patrick Moynihan and Senator Henry Jackson.

    They also had strong roots out of the University of Chicago with Milton Friedman, Albert Wohlstetter, and Levi Strauss. Wohlstetter worked out of RAND corporation as a nuclear games theorist. One of his best students was Paul Wolfowitz. Wohlstetter introduced Wolfowitz to his good friend Scoop Jackson. Wohlstetter also introduced another student who wasn’t from the University of Chicago but who attended some of his lectures named Richard Perle who became Scoop Jackson’s chief aid. Three other important neoconservatives worked out of Jackson’s office–Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith and Zalmay Khalizad. Jackson believed in many causes but his main cause was keeping America strong and aggressive. He firmly supported staying in Vietnam and building up our defenses and constructing a national missile defense. He never met a weapons program he didn’t like and was referred to as The Senator from Boeing.

    In the early 1970′s all of these strands of the movement hooked up in the Ford Administration with the then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Richard Pipes, Albert Wohlstetter and Paul Wolfowitz among other defense analysts formed Team B. They did an assessment of the Soviet military that devised a new methodolgy—- if it is possible that the Soviets could construct a weapon then it is probable. Their assessment of the Soviets was a fantasy land of threats– their grand conclusion was that we have fallen behind the Soviets and we need to catch up by spending massively on the military. Their chief enemy during this period was Henry Kissinger and the realists and the whole concept of detente which would weaken America and leave us vulnerable to the Soviets.

    During the Carter Administration they fell from power but during the Reagan Administration they took some key positions, but were still unable to wrestle the reins of power away from the other rival group– the realists. Wolfowitz switched parties and joined the Reagan Admin. working under Schultz.

    In the First Bush Administration they also found themselves thwarted by the realists like Bush himself and Colin Powell.

    After chomping at the bit and being out of power, they finally came into a position to control government in the the GWB Administration. They were also firmly ensconced in academia and the media. Their new flagship magazine was the Weekly Standard owned by Ruppert Murdoch. Bill Kristol the son of Irving Kristol was a frequent contributor, as were Fred and Robert Kagan, the sons of Donald Kagan. They also had a flagship TV station Fox News where many neoconservatives were frequent contributors including John Podhoretz, son of Norman and Charles Krauhammer, and Bill Kristol.

    Within academia there are many notable neoconservatives including Victor David Hansen, Daniel Pipes, son of Richard Pipes, Bernard Lewis Faud Ajami and David Horowitz.

    The main stream medial also had some powerful spokespeople of the neoconservative movement. Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, and David Brooks were all major cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion. At the New York Times they also had two very important columnists— Judith Miller and Michael Gordon.

    They are also a part of many different think tanks the most important being the American Enterprise Institute where Michael Ledeen and Joshua Moravchik work. Cheney worked in the think tank shortly after he left the secretary of defense job and before he took his job at Halliburton.

    Within the GWB administration Cheney was chiefly responsible for putting into power many of the members of the neoconservative movement. He recommended John Bolton for the State Department. He and George Schultz recommended Donald Rumsfeld for Secretary of Defense. Cheney created a new position for Stephen Hadley. He set up a team of neoconservatives out of his office that included David Wurmser, Scooter Libby and John Hannah. The propeganda campaign to invade Iraq was run out of the Vice President’s Office with consultation of the Defense Policy Board headed by Perle and the Office of Special Plans headed by Douglas Feith.

    The media campaign was run by Fox News,and AEI among others.

    This same group of neoconservatives has started another campaign, a campaign to sell a war against Iran. I have only mentioned a few key players but it is a wide network that has many allies. One of their chief allies is the Left Behind Jesus freak crowd led by James Dobeson. They also have many allies in the Military Industrial Complex. The neoconservatives are the intellectual van guard of War Incorporated. When you see a commentator on Fox saying that there is no time left and we need to bomb Iran now he is most likely part of this loose network of neoconservatives.

    But do they really have the same overriding philosophy? I would challenge you to start looking for some of these names in the media and within government—- They generally say the exact same thing.
    1. We need to be strong with Iran and not negotiate. It may be too late and we might have to bomb.
    2. We should stay in Iraq, because we are making progress.
    3. The U.N. can’t be trusted.
    4. America is a priori good.
    5. Liberals are weak and dangerous.

    Americans don’t like to think that there are group of people that are war advocates. Americans by and large want peace and believe in multilateral ism and diplomacy BUT there are a group of people in the United States who are very strong and vocal that believe in force as the medium of exchange in International Relations. They believe that America is the most powerful and moral country in the world and that we should keep our power at any costs.

    Name heavy explanation of the neoconservatives but once you start to notice their names they start to pop up all over the place. Start looking for the push for war in their columns and on Fox News. The neoconservatives stay on message. They push hard. I don’t think they will be successful in their campaign to bomb Iran but it scares the hell out of me that they are organized, passionate and vocal. They’ve got six months left before they are out of power unless John McCain wins that doesn’t look very likely.

    But even after Obama wins the neoconservatives will still remain vocal and powerful in every media outlet owned by Ruppert Murdoch.

  66. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 4th, 2008 at 8:10 am

    Rupert Murdoch has endorsed Barack Obama.

  67. Richard Witty Says:
    July 4th, 2008 at 10:24 am

    neo,
    You’ve been conned also by the sources that comprised your summary.

    The neo-conservative movement is far more disparate and internally conflicting than your description.

  68. neoconned Says:
    July 5th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    Rupert Murdoch has endorsed Barack Obama.
    Baffled by this one. He has loosed the dogs(Kristol, Hannity, the rest of the brainless message keepers) on him but I would imagine if he thinks Barack is a foregone conclusion than he will start filtering money his way, just as he did with Hillary. Murdoch also threw his considerable weight behind Blair. Murdoch is a player and he hedges his bets.

    Richard,
    My sources are good— the Iran war campaign is being run out of the Office of the Vice President and AEI. That doesn’t mean that AEI is all neocon, I have friends that worked for the domestic side of AEI but the foreign policy team is pure evil in my book.

    There is a war party and they don’t sit around in a room and plan out their strategy but they do have many links and they are friends. Foreign policy in this country has been run for however long by a small group of people— they don’t always agree with one another. But the neocons are unified in their overall principle of force and American domination. There might be some criticism from the fringe like Adelman, Fukyuyama, and a few others but most of the neocons keep the faith. And the hard core members are thick as thieves—- they live next to each other in Virginia, their children go to school together, they have barbecues on the weekend. They believe in the cause. Maybe I have overdone it with the labels- like psychopath and evil but I have a big problem with killing innocent human beings. People that are flippant about dropping bombs on major urban centers bother me. Especially when they sat out Vietnam as almost every last neocon did. Kristol doesn’t think that bombing Iran is evil– he believes that in the long run it will lead to the greater good, but that goodness of purpose doesn’t really help you if your family gets killed in a bombing raid.

    Of the names that I have mentioned, I would challenge you to show me any public statements by them that we should negotiate with Iran or that we should withdraw from Iraq. In your research, I am certain that you will find one or two(one or two exceptions does not overturn a political science model— if you can capture 80 percent of the variance in a messy political world then you have a kick-ass model) at most and conversely you will find that the most important cheerleaders for the Surge and bombing Iran are the names that I have mentioned.

    The neocons really dislike the Brezsinki/Walt/Mearsheimer/Scowcroft crowd. There are ideological struggles in this country to control U.S. foreign policy and who comes out on top makes a big difference. There is a huge body of work that is coming out in mostly journalistic accounts and there is an overall consensus. We were pushed into a war by a tight-nit coalition of people that put together a coordinated campaign to attack Iraq. Many of those same people are part of the bomb Iran campaign.

    But most of the military were lukewarm on Iraq and now the military is really uninterested in starting a third war especially against such a formidable opponent. Most capitalists(outside of the military industrial complex) are really not keen on the idea of potentially blocking off the Straight of Hormuz. There is major opposition to the bomb Iran campaign but it doesn’t mean that the neocons aren’t pushing hard for the bombing.

  69. neoconned Says:
    July 5th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    The only way that I can be proven right is if a blockade touches off some incident that justifies bombing. Or there is some other incidents that are seized on in order to bomb.

    I’d rather be wrong or at least I’d rather things remain ambiguous.

  70. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 5th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    “”"Rupert Murdoch has endorsed Barack Obama.
    Baffled by this one.”"”

    There is nothing to be baffled about. Kristol and Hannity don’t support Obama. Murdoch and the New York Post editorial board do.

    “”"He has loosed the dogs (Kristol, Hannity, the rest of the brainless message keepers) on him but I would imagine if he thinks Barack is a foregone conclusion than he will start filtering money his way”"”

    In that case, Murdoch also “loosed the dogs” (as you put it) and “the brainless message keepers” at the Murdoch-owned New York Post to endorse Barack Obama on Jan.30, 2008.

    “”", just as he did with Hillary”"”

    Contrary to what you wrote, FCC records show Murdoch never gave red cent to Hillary’s presidential campaign.

  71. Richard Witty Says:
    July 5th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    NeoCon,
    You are wrong about the roots and threads of the neo-conservative movement (if there is one that could be called one movement).

    It doesn’t all “lead up to this moment”, in a grand conspiratorial dance.

  72. neoconned Says:
    July 5th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    I said filtered money to her, not personally gave. And frankly I don’t think that the New York Post endorsement is really enough for me to send a congratulatory letter to Murdoch.

    If the Wall Street Journal came out for him or if Fox News stopped attacking him then I might be worried and being endorsed by Murdoch certainly would worry me. But like I said, it is not outside of the realm of possibility.

    My point is that Murdoch and the vast majority of his media sources are pushing for war and against Obama. If you can show me articulate voices on Fox News arguing against bombing Iran then I might reconsider. And I don’t mean one or two interviews, I mean the steady drum of propaganda like you normally hear on Fox.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/04/fox-news-repeatedly-lies-about-obamas-voting-record/#comments

  73. neoconned Says:
    July 5th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Richard,

    There is no conspiracy. They are very open and if would just take the time to read the body of their work and see the outcomes of their actions then I think you would think differently.

    Name some sources that show that the neocons are some kind of fantasy of mine.

    I’ve read tons of stuff by these people.
    Present Dangers-Kagan and Perle
    PNAC Website
    Cheney 1999 speech in London
    Wurmser- Tyranny’s Allie
    Dangerous Nation by Robert Kagan
    World War IV by James Woolsey
    World War IV by Norman Podhoretz
    Read any column by Michael Ledeen—- he’s very open.

    Plus books and books and books that detail their activities.

    Rise of the Vulcans– Mann
    Vice- Dubose
    The fall of the House of Bush– Craig Ungar
    The New American Militarism by- Andy Bacevich
    Column after Column by Krauthammer, Brooks, Goldberg, Kristol
    Hubris
    Fiasco
    The Assasins Gate
    On, and on and on. This is just of the top of my head in a matter of seconds. I could send you pages on this. Read anything by Robert Dreyfuss. Read the award winning series on Cheney in the Washington Post.
    There have been hundreds of books, articles, speeches. No conspiracy.

    Just google search some of the main actors. Obviously there is lot of crap on the internet but there is also a lot of other sourced quotes and articles.

    What is the basis for your ho-hum attitude?

  74. Richard Witty Says:
    July 6th, 2008 at 7:03 am

    “What is the basis for your ho-hum attitude?”

    I’m not “ho-hum” in action. But, the response to bad options is to articulate better ones, not ONLY to criticize the bad ones.

    Its our homework.

  75. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 6th, 2008 at 8:33 am

    It is clear from your remarks that Neocon is a concept, rather than an actual organization which one joins on the physical plane.

  76. neoconned Says:
    July 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    It is clear from your remarks that Neocon is a concept, rather than an actual organization which one joins on the physical plane.

    You get to the level of these neocons and enter their organizations and then try to exercise your creative freedom, you would find out how real and tangible they are. But that is thing— the average person never gets to that level. Even if I had a total conversion, I don’t think that I’ve gone to the right universities in order to join. Elites only need apply.

    Hypothetical
    1. You are a journalist that writes for the Weekly Standard and you travel to Iraq and find, “Oh my God most these Iraqis want us out of their country.(I am not necessarily arguing this- only a hypothetical)” You write up an article on it and does your article get published?

    2. You work hard your whole life getting Republicans in office and then are hired by the Office of the Vice President. Having read the newspapers, you realize bombing Iran is a bad idea. You start telling your co-workers this. How long before you lose your job?

    3. You work in academia your whole life and write countless papers on Islamic extremism. American Enterprise Institute likes your work and they hire you. While in the think tank you realize that bombing Iran will fuel the fire of Islamic Extremism. You write an article about this and publish it. Will they keep you on at AEI?

    These are all very hypothetical because once you get into the hallowed halls of the OVP, Weakly Standard, AEI you have been vetted by your words and actions for many years. They don’t hire mavericks in these groups. And no you can not just join them. You have to earn your stripes for decades before you can enter the groups. Loyalty is the number one criteria for membership. That is why they like the second generation folks because the family/friendship ties assure absolute loyalty-Pipes, Kagan, Kristol. They hate the apostates– Paul O’Neil, Scott McLellan, Lawrence Wilkerson, Richard Clarke, Michael Lind, L.Paul Bremer(Bremer is not a total apostate). Really take the time to look at their books. Obviously they may have an ax to grind but the situations they describe seem pretty real to me—- they all say the same thing. The OVP ran the war campaign. They were organized, efficient and more on their game than any other faction.

    The neocons occupy certain groups and their ideology is very real. As for what to do about it— you are right— I should be writing my article and my dissertation on the same topic instead of talking about it on the internet.

    Thanks for listening. Sorry I hurled insults at times instead of arguing like I should have. My Irish upbringing gets the best of me. I think its just the three of us at this point. Good Luck to you Jonathan and Richard.

  77. Jonathan Mark Says:
    July 6th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Good luck to you also.

  78. neoconned Says:
    July 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/05/talk-to-iran/

    Can’t help myself. Just an article from Col. Sam Gardiner(strategic genius) and another academic I’ve never heard of. Bizarre that it would be published in Moon’s paper but occasionally the truth comes from the strangest sources.

  79. Richard Witty Says:
    July 6th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    neocon-

    Thanks for the reading list. I’ve frankly never read a single book by a neo-conservative, that I’m aware of.

    Its necessary.

  80. Mike Sparks Says:
    July 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    All updates on current status of “Iran Blockade Bill” aka Resolution 261, which is essentially ALREADY PASSED! We all need to work together to overwhelm this PRESS BALCK-OUT on the most important news in the world today! http://mikepsarks.blogtownhall.com/

  81. Mike Sparks Says:
    July 13th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    All updates on current status of “Iran Blockade Bill” aka Resolution 261, which is essentially ALREADY PASSED! We all need to work together to overwhelm this PRESS BALCK-OUT on the most important news in the world today!

    http://mikepsarks.blogtownhall.com/

  82. criminal case astuce gratuit Says:
    November 28th, 2013 at 4:38 am

    Felony Circumstance peutêtreconnue détectiveprivé créationSport produitpar Jolie Simple Jeuxenligne. Danscette Jeuenligne vousarrived’être avecPosition associé Police quisouvent besoind’ fixremèderetourclair nombrede Conditionscirconstancesetplusieurs impliquant puis estgénéralement trèsraclée. Jeuvidéo s’avérer très plusdifficile en après tâchesainsi primaire situations tendentàêtre similaireà Cours, pourvousaider étudeactivité principes. Avec scènes vousdevriez déguisée objets.articles ainsi quipourraitêtre hard foisvous progrès avec activité, etunefoisquevous fix vision vous’allezpourobtenir superstarspersonnalités.

Comments