The 2012 "Election" thread

[Rory]

In response to Rory, Arthur Silber has addressed the war criminal question multiple times.

Barack Obama, Murderer and War Criminal-in-Chief

A Choice of War Criminals

Depraved, Obscene Absurdities

And in brief, of course Obama is responsible for lots of terrible things, and if re-elected, will be responsible for countless more terrible things. I wish, on a daily fucking basis, that this country would have reached the point by now where we would have come together to demand choices beyond the criminal duopoly.

We haven't.

I am confident that a Romney administration will be responsible for all of the same terrible things as the Obama administration. I am also confident, however, that a Romney administration will be responsible for even more terrible things, and an even greater number of innocent human beings will be negatively impacted.

So, in a world where we've failed to create the critical mass to induce people to demand third, fourth, and fifth party candidates, we're left with a choice between these two colossal fucking dildo asshole lying fascist fucks, and if one of them is even slightly less of a colossal fucking dildo asshole lying fascist fuck, then that's the one we should vote for.

It's a shit sandwich, and it's going to leave a really bad taste in your mouth, but ask yourselves if you seriously thought, four years ago, that October 2012 would roll around without a war in Iran. I sure as fuck didn't, and that's the sort of thing that can make an enoumous difference to an enormous amount of ordinary human beings who are just trying to make it through the day without getting their heads separated from their torsos.

Carry on.

I generally agree with you Bruce, but I highlighted the point about Iran because in fact we are at war with Iran now, under Obama -- just not the overt bombing campaign type. Were you giving Obama credit of a sort for your surprise that the teevee war of the "shock and awe" variety didn't happen in his first term?

People are suffering now in Iran because of the sanctions. This seems so much like the provocation of the Japanese before WWII. And whether or not Obama is re-elected, he has clearly set the stage for a larger and more violent war.

Anyway, I hope you and Miss Dazzling weathered the storm ok in your fortress above the flooded streets.

The Unfolding Human Catastrophe in Iran
Sanctions imposed on Iran's banks and financial institutions could lead to a humanitarian crisis.

Iran is trying to make nuclear bombs. They are - they have a 'civilian' program also. It should be stopped - the insanity of having nuclear power in a country with as much seismic activity as iran cannot be overstated. I hope there are no overt acts of war there - how much immeasurably worse off are the people of Iran (and surrounding countries) if there is a bombing at a nuclear site?

Just because they are USA/Israel's enemies does not make them good guys. The Iranian leadership are badshit crazy - they are fundamentalist, women hating, heroin dealing, shit heads. I would hope that the Iranian people will rise up and instal a secular government, free from ties to US/UK/NATO military or business interests. Maybe economic sanctions that decimate their currency will provoke such a domestic response. Give an iranian a choice, I am sure they would prefer to have no bombs falling on them than not.

But, there is simply no (zero) comparison with them now and Japan then. None. They are not a threat to their neighbors unless attacked themselves. Japan, in case you have forgotten, perpetrated a series of horrific acts of warfare and barbarity on the Chinese and surrounding peoples. USA did not cause Nanking. USA did not cause Unit 731. They did that themselves.

Ninakat - Obama is a bad man because he is executing the powers of office (tell me stories where Obama did anything harmful that is noteworthy before he was elected?). Romney has demonstrably ruined 100s + lives through his business practices. Yet, i see you saying very little to attack the genuine threat Romney presents. it is all about Obama. Can you say a few words about how Romney won't be worse than Obama?

[Project Willow]

I semi-emphatically disagree. I seem to recall more than a few heated and bitchy arguments between the liberals/progressives on this forum long before anyone really knew diddly about Barwhack Obama. It is hardly fitting or fair to describe the cattiness and acrimony of political discussions on a website in which people earnestly debate whether or not satanic octopuses control the world as resulting from the successfully divisive strategies of the president of the United States.

If you're referring to what I've said, I never said satanic, and that is not what I meant, but thanks for the snarky derision anyway, old pal.

[barracuda]

Huh? I can't recall you voicing your opinion on the religious beliefs of cephalopods before. But seriously, it was just a figure of speech, meant to evoke "weird shit we talk about". No derision intended, dear.

[JackRiddler]

Rory, according to both IAEA and USG intel-agency reports since 2007, Iran has not had a nuclear bomb-making program since at least 2003, and is nowhere near to possessing the capability to make a bomb.

Whom else should I believe?

As for a civilian nuclear program, I'm sure most of us agree that it's a very bad idea, in any country. Nevertheless, no country should be sanctioned or bombed for developing a civilian nuclear program.

As for the craziness of the mullahs - I don't buy it. They are crazy tyrannical misogynist religious fanatics, yes, but also highly rational actors on the international stage. Their regime is very effective politically within Iran and maintains a broad popular base -- as evil as they are. They've never started a war and they're never going to make first use of the bomb in a war, which would be suicidal. (Besides that, ahem, they don't possess a nuclear weapons program.) Only one country has ever made first use of the bomb against another country in a war.* That would be the US, as you know. Only one country poses a serious danger of making first use of a nuclear weapon any time soon. And that country would be Israel, of course, the possessor of at least 150 nuclear warheads and by far the greater threat to peace than Iran. Also the biggest single recipient of USG military and other aid, which goes entirely without debate on the Republican-to-Democrat spectrum.

...

* - Not counting "testing," which I've argued here was also form of nuclear war. And terrorism, too, though it should be superfluous to add.

[Project Willow]

No derision intended, dear.

Sorry B, I guess I am feeling a bit touchy today.

[Elvis]

For a reality check on Iran, please see the November Harper's magazine:

The Mad Mullah Myth
The dangers of misunderstanding Iran

http://harpers.org/archive/2012/11/the-mad-mullah-myth/

I forgot my Harper's password and need to get offline right now, maybe someone can post it.



We now return to our regular programming

[bks]

read the Harper's article last week. Short and to the point. Basically says what Jack said upthread, with documentation.

Excellent primer for the liberal Islamophobes many of us love.

[Rory]

I don't disagree with that - maybe my description of them as batshit crazy is somewhat pejorative. Maybe some of the Obamapologist/Obamabot/Hopmunculous dialogue is just as inaccurate . They are not nice and cuddly, passive and bullied by the big meanies, actors in all this. And they do want nuclear weaponry - rightly or wrongly. That they have not succeeded is down to a number of factors. It cannot have helped to consistently find their scientists assassinated or IT systems stuxnet'ed.

I agree that the USA is wholly inconsistent with it's muscle flexing agenda, and that Israel gets carte blanche to effect hideous criminality and warmongering. But that does not mean that the persian powers that be, should be immune from critique - it seems like the left, in the rush to rightly attack criminality and wrongdoing effected by the western elites, sometimes present that the Iranian leaders are not just as brutal, repressive and nasty in their own sphere of behavior. They disappear dissenters, torture them, and sometimes murder them. They carry out 4th generation, asymmetric warfare in Iraq and elsewhere. They kill and terrorize innocents. Just like our beloved government.

All of that said - I would prefer if everyone just got along. In the context of that not being likely in my lifetime, I would prefer hard-nosed sanctions and rough-housing of the Iranians, to any hot conflict and the certain bloodshed and senseless murder that would occur. Life is hard, and sometimes there are no good choices and while I don't condone any of it, I think Iraq is a fine example of how much worse it will get for them, should the west go in hard. Even shitty, repressive dictatorship and brutalizing sanctions are preferable to them than the hell that befell their immediate neighbors.

[82_28]

All of that said - I would prefer if everyone just got along. In the context of that not being likely in my lifetime, I would prefer hard-nosed sanctions and rough-housing of the Iranians, to any hot conflict and the certain bloodshed and senseless murder that would occur. Life is hard, and sometimes there are no good choices and while I don't condone any of it, I think Iraq is a fine example of how much worse it will get for them, should the west go in hard. Even shitty, repressive dictatorship and brutalizing sanctions are preferable to them than the hell that befell their immediate neighbors.

So that said, what about the people born and raised there who know no other life than the one's they have? Are you even gonna make an overture to the fact that conscious humans have been affected by "Americans" who don't know jack shit about anything? I mean fuck, how is it "we" can consign other inhabitants of Earth the mark of fucking death? Have you even seen Rick Steves Iran feature? I don't want anyone "roughhoused".



Sadly, it is a country on Earth filled with Earthlings.

[wintler2]

But that does not mean that the persian powers that be, should be immune from critique ..

Nobody should be, nor is, so your strawman is remarkably thin.

How is your position different from the 'white mans burden*'?

*crudely paraphrased as: "we civilised [white] westerners need to bring [enforce] [neoliberal] peace & democracy [or pro-western military junta] to other [oil-bearing] nations.

[Rory]

But that does not mean that the persian powers that be, should be immune from critique ..

Nobody should be, nor is, so your strawman is remarkably thin.

How is your position different from the 'white mans burden*'?

*crudely paraphrased as: "we civilised [white] westerners need to bring [enforce] [neoliberal] peace & democracy [or pro-western military junta] to other [oil-bearing] nations.

You misread me - I'd rather we (the west) were using all of our energy and effort towards a peaceful, non-hydrocarbon based future. That we weren't wasting crucial time and resources shaking down the rest of the planet to feed the rich, at (the mostly muslim folks) expense. That our energy is channeled wisely into preventing climactic catastrophe and educating the next generation into becoming a species who can live in symbiosis with nature. And each other.

I'd also rather we didn't bomb Iran. Given that we are already knee deep in dead brown babies.

Saying that, there are probably more than a few Iranians that aren't too happy at how their leadership has behaved over the last 30 years. Half the population there is repressed by accident of birth. They have committed brutal atrocities against themselves - there is no excusing such stupidity and ignorance.

The world is a complex place - maybe just being in power means being a shit head to some degree or other. Maybe the Iranian leadership can still be a pack of evil bastards, even if there are a more powerful set of evil bastards fucking them over.

Saying that they are shit heads is not an excuse for attacking them. Us attacking them does not excuse them being shit heads either.


Annnyyway. Slightly off topic at this point.


The election?

[wintler2]

..You misread me - I'd rather we (the west) were using all of our energy and effort towards a peaceful, non-hydrocarbon based future.

So i did.

They have committed brutal atrocities against themselves - there is no excusing such stupidity and ignorance.

I'm agnostic on whether those factors are really central; selfinterested apathy by those enriching the fruitcakes deserves more of a run imho, but i'll take that shoulder-chip up elsewhere.

The election? I thought Sandy won.

[JackRiddler]

Saying that, there are probably more than a few Iranians that aren't too happy at how their leadership has behaved over the last 30 years.

My impression is that most of them by far also don't want to see Iran bombed for any reason. Some things are that simple.

[DrVolin]

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/d ... -landslide

Just for reference, Morris piloted Clinton to the White House, presumably on behalf of the Bushes.

[Laodicean]