« Double crossed | Main | TB Patient Identified »

Sticks and stones

Like a lot of people, I was outraged when it was revealed that the United States and Iran had had its first face-to-face diplomatic talks this week -- on Memorial Day, of all days. The fact that we had chosen to break decades of opposition with a nation that has killed so many Americans on the day when we honor those who died in our nation's service seemed, to me, a grotesque insult to their sacrifice.

In retrospect, though, I am starting to wonder if it was such a bad move.

Theodore Roosevelt famously said "Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far."

Will Rogers once defined diplomacy as "the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock."

It now turns out that the timing of the talks might have been deliberate, but not because of Memorial Day. Because it turns out that the very same day that we sat down with Iran in Iraq to discuss their conduct inside Iraq, the United States Navy was waving around a very big stick.

Actually, two very big sticks.

A United States Navy Aircraft Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is, quite bluntly, the most powerful, most potentially devastating, most destructive force ever assembled in history. It consists of an aircraft carrier, about 90 warplanes of various models and capabilities, one or two cruisers, a squadron of two or three destroyers, one or two submarines, and non-combatant support ships.

Five days before the talks started, two of these forces sailed unannounced through the Straits of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf, along with an Amphibious Task Force. (Hat tip to Charles, who needs no linkage but deserves it anyway.)

This force is nowhere near sufficient to invade and occupy Iran. But it represents enough firepower to -- if I may use the appropriate military terminology here -- blow the motherloving shit out of large portions of the country. I would hazard a guess that within a week of all-out effort by the 20,000 sailors and Marines in these groups, Iran's military capabilities would be reduced to somewhere between "a pot to piss in" and "jack shit."

And those forces are hanging out just "below" Iran, off their shores in the Persian Gulf, sharpening their bayonets, rattling their sabres, and smiling evil grins.

Even more to the point, the ships crossed the Straits on the day that marked the precise expiration of a 60-day "grace period" the UN granted Iran over its nuclear weapons program.

Yeah, I wish the talks had been postponed a single day, to avoid their coinciding with Memorial Day. But in the bigger picture, I think that the timing was pretty damned good.

Now we just need to see how things play out. But I think that they're off on the right foot.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sticks and stones:

Comments (65)

"Nice country you got here.... (Below threshold)
cirby:

"Nice country you got here. Shame if something should happen to it."

"Things break."

"Yeah, things break."

Jay, you forgot the FFG fri... (Below threshold)
metprof:

Jay, you forgot the FFG frigates and the AOE supply vessel

Better watch your rear--the... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Better watch your rear--the lefty smoochers will along shortly.
After watching the clip, that is some mighty big "sticks". Wonder who is sleeping in thier bunkers?

The best way to prevent the... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

The best way to prevent the use of force is to present the convincing threat of force with no doubt of the outcome.

Oddly, those who advocate that force shouldn't be used, for any reason, make the likelihood of its necessity greater.

In in elementary school terms, I don't have to kick your ass for harassing me in order to get you to stop. I simply have to convince you that I can and will. Having 'friends' tell you that I won't, makes the likelihood of me actually having to, in order to convince you to stop the harassment, greater.

"Like a lot of people, I... (Below threshold)

"Like a lot of people, I was outraged when it was revealed that the United States and Iran had had its first face-to-face diplomatic talks this week".

Where do you get "lots of people", Jay? I haven't seen or talked to one person who is against detente and diplomacy when it comes to the middle east.

"Sticks and stones" -- is t... (Below threshold)

"Sticks and stones" -- is that what's scheduled to be left of Natanz, Bushehr and Esfahan?

And what do you nutcakes su... (Below threshold)

And what do you nutcakes suggest we do to handle this threat?

Is it time to march on Moscow, or sit down and talk about it?

Only an idiot would choose the former...

President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that tests of new Russian missiles were a response to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense installations and other forces in Europe, suggesting Washington has triggered a new arms race.

In a clear reference to the United States, he harshly criticized "imperialism" in global affairs and warned that Russia will strengthen its military potential to maintain a global strategic balance.

"It wasn't us who initiated a new round of arms race," Putin said when asked about Russia's missile tests at a news conference after talks in the Kremlin with Greek President Karolos Papoulias.

Ok, time to cue the idiots...

"Ok, time to cue the idi... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Ok, time to cue the idiots..."

Why? The king of all idiots already posted at 12:39 & 12:46 pm...

No need for more.

Does anyone think the Irani... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Does anyone think the Iranians will try to grab a few of our sailors?

So Russia is testing new mi... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

So Russia is testing new missiles because we have set up missile defenses? Maybe we can bankrupt them again!

Actually we celebrated Memo... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Actually we celebrated Memorial Day on a weekend to give the workers more time off, a few days before the actual Memorial Day date.

Thank God and the Mothers/Fathers of those that have served to protect our freedom in past years.

Too bad the anti-everything democrats are running a full blown Communist (Shrillary) for POTUS to do away with all freedoms. She thinks she can be the first in history to make it (communism) work. She's gonna take it from you and 'give' it to those too sorry to work for it. How far will the democrats go to soothe their wounded ego's from losing the 2000 election? BDS is alive and well in the democrat party.

Can't wait to see how you k... (Below threshold)

Can't wait to see how you knuckleheads will l justify restarting the cold war and the arms race all in the same month -- how exciting! Happy days are here again!

Who's your candidate again -- let me make a note? Who's the preferred war monger among the fact-challenged right these days...? hmmm? Which of the Republican candidates is most like to fit into the "why negotiate when we can rattle our sabres instead" -- after all, Bush's efforts were so immensely popular with the American people.

I can't wait to see who you nuts trot out next to continue this rich tradition of losing elections started in '06.

This force is nowh... (Below threshold)
langtry:
This force is nowhere near sufficient to invade and occupy Iran. But it represents enough firepower to -- if I may use the appropriate military terminology here -- blow the motherloving shit out of large portions of the country. I would hazard a guess that within a week of all-out effort by the 20,000 sailors and Marines in these groups, Iran's military capabilities would be reduced to somewhere between "a pot to piss in" and "jack shit."

I wish I could by into that, Jay Tea, but I have a really hard time thinking that we will actually follow through *if necessary*. Quite frankly, we seem reluctant to use the power at our disposal, even when scores of our GI's are getting blown away by Al Qaeda. If we won't use lethal force against a town in Iraq that we know is a stronghold of the terrorists killing our military men and women, why should I be convinced that we'll use against a rogue state that which we won't employ against a less "legitimate" but no-less-dangerous group of murderous Islamofacists?

How about Syria? Hezbollah?... (Below threshold)
jp2:

How about Syria? Hezbollah? Now Iran...

Neo-cons have been stating for years and years that their should be absolutely no negotiation with these groups/governments. But as you know the Bush administration eventually meets with them.

Most neo-cons cowardly ignore the dissonance. Jay Tea puts a new twist on that though, claiming now that it's positive. He is wrong 90% of the time, but he sure is innovative.

We *are* reluctant, no matt... (Below threshold)

We *are* reluctant, no matter that the left portrays Bush as a warmonger. (This was going on *before* 9-11 as well... Bin Laden, if he were going by our political rhetoric, could have expected that we'd either do nothing, just fold, or else nuke mecca or attack the Islamic world indiscriminately, thus finally getting all of those "moderate" muslems off their comfy backsides and engaged in the holy war.)

We are very reluctant to use decisive force.

I would like to point out, however, that "invade and occupy" would be a stupid plan for us in Iran. It's a different situation which calls for a different strategy.

As for Putin. He seemed a sane guy for a while. Now we hear about political assasinations and all sorts of vile stuff and somehow, sure, his actions are ALL OUR FAULT. This is, of course, because to certain people, everything that happens in the world is all our fault, always, no matter what.

(You gotta picture the Orbit lady saying those last three words.)

Lee, I know you love Putin,... (Below threshold)

Lee, I know you love Putin, baby. And I know you'll vote for whomever is most likely to fold and kiss his ass.

And we'll all vote for the person most likely to rattle a saber because of that irrational belief we have that ass kissing is unhygenic.


Saber rattling *ended* the ... (Below threshold)

Saber rattling *ended* the cold war... how is it logical to think that saber rattling would start it up again? Putin is doing what he's doing and blaming us when we haven't been "rattling" toward Russia at all, but rattling toward Iran. That's his free-will choice.

Putin makes his own decisions, if they are good or bad. News flash, Lee. America does *not* rule the world.

Ward, you calling anyone a ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Ward, you calling anyone a knuckle head is a laugh. Why don't you go over a bait the idiots that infest your blog? It is sort of like being called stupid by a fool. You, Lee, have no frame of reference. First, what the fuck does Russia firing a missle off have to do with U.S. Naval forces in the Persian gulf? Are you trying to start a subtopic here on Jay Tea's space? Just something for you to chew on Lee, we could simply turn out a few hundred MX or Peacekeeper Missles that would probably drive the Russian economy to bankruptsy. Here is a clue for you Lee. Seems Vlad is not looking forward happily to retirement. If he can creat a crisis maybe he can put it off. Otherwise in is ex President V. Putin.

Can't wait to see how yo... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Can't wait to see how you knuckleheads will l justify restarting the cold war and the arms race all in the same month

Yeah, because Putin got his folks to design, build, and test that new missile all in less than four weeks, just because we were installing a ballistic missile defense system that would be able to stop ONE Russian missile's warheads under normal circumstances, out of the hundreds they'd be launching in a real war.

(Ignoring, of course, that the new missile began development in 1997, as a derivative of one of their older systems, and that they've tested it a couple of times before this.)

(And also ignoring that most of the Russian ICBM fleet won't be going over Poland in a real war, but that anything launched from Russia's client state Iran towards England and Germany would go right over the spot we're planning on installing those interceptors.)

(And, of course, ignoring Russia's "nonprovocative" ABM system that rings Moscow, with 100+ interceptors, and the hundreds of ABM-capable "SAMs" they have installed all over Russia, which just happen to be on tracks which would let them intercept missiles from the Mideast states and North Korea.)

It's nice to know that the Useful Idiots are still spouting whatever Moscow wants them to say, on cue. INternational ANSWER is still on the job. The checks from Moscow must still be coming in.

"First, what the fuck do... (Below threshold)

"First, what the fuck does Russia firing a missile off have to do with U.S. Naval forces in the Persian gulf?"

Russia fired off a missile test, taking another step towards a cold war arms race, in reaction to our stepped-up efforts in Eastern Europe which weren't first and properly preceded by diplomacy and detente, you fool.

In this post, you jackass, Jay is suggesting that detente and diplomacy with respect to Iran is uncalled for. Russia's missile firing and ratcheting-up of tough talk is a prime example, you moron, of the reasons Jay's beloved sabre-rattling doesn't work.

Do you have another questions? Come on, Zeldorf -- and be sure to use profanity again -- it really impresses the girls on the playground, you simple-minded Nazi-worshiping imbecile.

Neo-cons have been stati... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Neo-cons have been stating for years and years that their should be absolutely no negotiation with these groups/governments. But as you know the Bush administration eventually meets with them.

"Negotiate" has a much different connotation when you're parked off the coast with that much firepower.

Now, if it were a Democratic "negotiation," instead of a huge fleet, we'd have Jimmy Carter supervising the Iranian elections and certifying them as valid, while Nancy Pelosi would be trying on the newest women's styles (black burqa, or black burqa with grey trim), and Al Gore would be giving lectures about how great the Iranians were for helping cut back on that evil greenhouse effect by raising oil prices.

Didn't we win the Cold War?... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Didn't we win the Cold War? Just askin'.

Bush tries to install missi... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Bush tries to install missile defense with the support of the E European governments whose countries he's installing it in. We've offered to share it with ANYBODY for years. It takes a TRULY impressive mind to find a way to blame a desire to protect people from missiles for being "responsible" for a common thug like Putin (what next? His treatment of the former Soviet Republics was out fault TOO?) doing something like this.

Russia's decision here is, somehow, our fault.

But, hey, at least Lee doesn't blame the US for everything.
-=Mike

Russia fired off a missi... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Russia fired off a missile test, taking another step towards a cold war arms race, in reaction to our stepped-up efforts in Eastern Europe which weren't first and properly preceded by diplomacy and detente, you fool.

Bullshit.

Putin claims that, but this test is just one in a series (for a system that's been in development for a DECADE), and has pretty much nothing to do with our proposed ABM system in Poland, except as a way to get people like yourself to put pressure on the West, in the hopes of keeping Russia "in charge" for a lot of Asia.

"Useful idiots," indeed.

you simple-minded Nazi-w... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

you simple-minded Nazi-worshiping imbecile.

The irony.

Why, again, did Wizbang giv... (Below threshold)
Wizbang long gone:

Why, again, did Wizbang give this idiot Lee a platform? Are you wanting to turn into Daily Kos?

Or are you seeking traffic increase through daily games of "slap the moron lib"?

Lee is right on this one. A... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Lee is right on this one. As soon as the Warsaw Pact dissolved, the US tightened the military noose by building installations in former Warsaw Pact nations. This at a time when Yeltsin had invited in the Harvard rip-off crew to privatize many state holdings. Ukraine was even allowed to keep the Soviet Black Sea Fleet as a further sign of Russian military divestiture.

Then came the agitprop campaigns from US-financed "private groups". Most notably the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine playing off the old religious rivalries of Polish-oriented Catholics in the west, and the Russian-oriented Othodox east part of the country. Luckily the winning Catholic side was exposed as tools and utterly corrupt and lost their standing as a legitimate opposition, thus averting possible civil war.

So now the west has reverted to "allowing" phoney Chalabi-style gangster billionaire ex-pats to denounce Putin as illegitimate by hiring PR firms and thus, air-time as "news". The penultimate step to establishing a government in exile. How soon will arms be channelled in?

As for Iran. They haven't invaded anyone since the 1760s or something. Israel needs us worried and involved in the area to keep the welfare checks flowing in. Israel is one gigantic housing project.

Remember, Russia and Iran offered their assistance against AlQaeda. We ignored the Russians and said No to the Iranians.

Remember, Russia and Ira... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

Remember, Russia and Iran offered their assistance against AlQaeda.

I believe that you believe that.

Lee is right on this one... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Lee is right on this one.

No, he's not. For one thing, he's claiming that the events of the last MONTH are what triggered Putin's claims, not the events since the late 1980s (and the collapse of the Soviet Union, which used to make noises just like Putin's making now).

Remember, Russia and Iran offered their assistance against AlQaeda. We ignored the Russians and said No to the Iranians.

Source, please. Considering that Iran is one of the strongest financial and political supporters of AQ, you're going to have to come up with something spectacular to back that up. And no, getting some senior Iranian official saying something like "we are willing to cooperate," with no specifics, is just naive.

If Iran seriously wanted to do something, they'd just have to run some cops by the safe houses they've been providing for AQ members for the last few years, and close off their border with Iraq to the AQ guys they keep sending over with Iranian money and weapons.

And Russia? They can claim to "offer assistance" all they want, but until they start doing things, it's just one more propaganda line for the (one more time) "useful idiots."

Read Woodward's Plan of Att... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Read Woodward's Plan of Attack. Lays it all out. Here's some background:

http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=8590

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5463.html

ps: consider changing name from "Who's John Galt" to "Where's My Ass"

That antiwar.com link is hi... (Below threshold)
cirby:

That antiwar.com link is hilarious.

"The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the United States,"

Yes, they had "real contacts," they were called "The Taliban." So this moron wanted us to enlist one of the primary backers of the Taliban to, well, help us unseat the Taliban and put in a NEW group to directly replace them. The rest of that article is basically "we should have worked with the Iranians so they could move right in and take over Afghanistan."

The second link is really funny, too.

"Putin on Monday coupled the offer for talks on Chechnya with his offer of limited support for the U.S.-led effort to combat global terrorism, which
Fleischer said included permission for humanitarian flights over Russian territory, intelligence information and help in potential search and rescue operations."

Yeah, that'll help. Notice the complete lack of specifics, and the "limited support" part of the deal.

From another bit of that second link:

"Hence, Russia's initial statements of support were modified by considerations unrelated to the anti-terrorist campaign, such as the desire to add legitimacy to its Chechnya campaign and to strengthen its influence in Central Asia."

Most of that second link just shows how desperate Putin has become to appear relevant, and goes a long way towards explaining why he made up that silly story about the ICBM test.

"Russia fired off a missile... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Russia fired off a missile test, taking another step towards a cold war arms race, in reaction to our stepped-up efforts in Eastern Europe which weren't first and properly preceded by diplomacy and detente, you fool."

Yeah, Bush's mistake has been to be too hostile with Putin:

"But it is a balance of interests. It is based on a belief by Mr Bush that Mr Putin is genuinely trying to bring Russia into line with the Western world.

Mr Putin has not made big issues out of the policies which Mr Bush has favoured - especially the missile defence system.

And they have just reached agreement on a new Nato-Russia consultation mechanism and on reducing deployed missile warheads from some 6000 to 2,200 each."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2000197.stm

Must be W's fault and not the power-hungry, former KGB communist's. Typical leftist idiocy.

cirby, You read the links, ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

cirby, You read the links, so I we'll agree to disagree. However, AlQueda in Chechnya and OBL's fatwa against heretics including the "rebel" sect of Shiia, of which, Iran is the center, is a factor in their willingness to help. Mutual interest is a guarantor of good faith. And the Northern Alliance was armed by Iran before the US was even on the ground in Afgnanistan.

"Didn't we win the Cold ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Didn't we win the Cold War? Just askin'."

Depends on who you mean be "we" John. The side that Lee Ward, Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barak Obama, John Edwards, George Soros, Markos Moulitsas and the rest of the far left are on definitely lost that war.

And Lee seems pretty p'd off about it.

Read Woodward's Plan of ... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

Read Woodward's Plan of Attack. Lays it all out. Here's some background: Cut & paste links here...

Bwahahahahaha! That is the absolute best that you can do? Seriously,let's try again with credible sources. What do you say, Kiddo?

ps: consider changing name from "Who's John Galt" to "Where's My Ass"

Hey, that should be fun. I'll call you fartface and you can say "are not". Then I'll say "are too". Then you say "are not". Then...

What happens after the supe... (Below threshold)

What happens after the super wicked awesome Carrier group kicks the sugar coated shit out of Iran? Do the Iranians just roll over and do what we want them to do?

"Where do you get "lots of ... (Below threshold)
KendraWilder:

"Where do you get "lots of people", Jay? I haven't seen or talked to one person who is against detente and diplomacy when it comes to the middle east.
Posted by: Lee Ward at May 31, 2007 12:39 PM "

Well, you have now. The countries in the Middle East have historically proven themselves to be liars, manipulators, and feudal and tribal in nature to the max. When they're not fighting the rest of the world, they're Israel. When they're not fighting Israel, and long before the rest of us came into the picture, they were and are fighting each other.

We can pull out, force Israel to hand over their country, and walk away, and they'll -still- be fighting each other for whatever trumped up reasons of, ahem, honor, and/or territory and/or religious interpretations of the Koran/Islam.

They have proven over and over and over again that when they actually sit down to "talk", it's nothing more than a tactical move to buy them time while they fall back and regroup and change their plan of action/attack.

No amount of sabre rattling will change any of that until their own people rise up and put down the militant/terrorist factions of their own people..... witness what happened, finally, with the IRA. It was in their blood, too. But the people finally had enough and smacked them down.

That's the only thing that will work in Iran, and the Middle East in general.

"That's the only thing t... (Below threshold)

"That's the only thing that will work in Iran, and the Middle East in general."

And what might that be? - cause what Georgie tried in Iran for the last for five years made things worse rather than better -- so you can't be talking about duplicating the Iraq debacle in Iran and elsewhere.

So if unilateral nation-building blood-for-oil doesn't work invasions don't work, and diplomacy doesn't work - what exactly are you suggesting is the "one thing" that will work, KW?

Are we up to plan C yet? Is there where the warmongers tell us that "George made mistakss but hey - we're smarter now - just give us several trillion and 150,000 soldiers and we'll do better next time, honest injun we will..."

Lee Ward:Can't... (Below threshold)
marc:

Lee Ward:

Can't wait to see how you knuckleheads will l justify restarting the cold war and the arms race all in the same month -- how exciting! Happy days are here again!

More Lee:

And what do you nutcakes suggest we do to handle this threat?

Lee you wouldn't know a cold war if you were locked in a freezer in mortal battle with Mr. Freeze of Batman fame.

As for nutcakes, there is no more nuttier cakes than you and a few or your commenters in this thread about Russia's missile mechnations.

The reality of Bush's defensive missile shield for Eastern Europe was portrayed as a threat to Russia is laughable.

Even more comical is how many in the thread spent so much time debating the "threat" to Russia the "interceptors" that are part of the Bush plan posed. Oblivious to the fact intercepters in the plan are missiles NOT FA-18's and F16's.

The comedy in the thread turns to what MUST be satire (no can be that stupid can they?) when Lee states: "So then, Heralder, having interceptors in place to take out missiles Russia launched in response to an attack on them is not "aggressive" in your view?"

All the while ignoring the system will be inplace to counter missile threats posed by Iran and others NOT Russia.

THEN Lee goes off the deep end by wrongly thinking the sytstem as planned will consist of
Patriot missiles: "If we upped the Patriot sites to 20 - would that be a concern? 50? - where is the threshold point where concern kicks in?"

Ah no Lee, you're a delusional buffoon and know little to nothing about the planned system and you proved that in spades even after being smacked down to earth by Concerned Student ("The fact that Lee, nay, anyone on the left, can't comprehend what her point is shows the writers, and the left's, ignoranace of the program and lack of ability to cognitively think.") then continued to flail away like a chicken with its head cut off.

All that work and on pay of... (Below threshold)

All that work and on pay off Marc. Hope you didnt work up a sweat.

I said "So then, Heralder, having interceptors in place to take out missiles Russia launched in response to an attack on them is not "aggressive" in your view?"

And you reply:

"All the while ignoring the system will be in place to counter missile threats posed by Iran and others NOT Russia."

Obviously Putin doesn't believe that's the case - that the system couldn't be used to neutralize a soviet response to an attack on them... in fact - he appears to believe that it could effect Russia's ability to respond to an attack against them launched from eastern Europe.

....but since you say he is wrong, well, that proves he has nothing to worry about. Why don't you give him a call and we'll clear up this whole mess.

You really should stick to slot cars, Marc, which I assume you actually know something about. You're a putz when it comes to politics.

Obviously Putin doesn't ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Obviously Putin doesn't believe that's the case - that the system couldn't be used to neutralize a soviet response to an attack on them... in fact - he appears to believe that it could effect Russia's ability to respond to an attack against them launched from eastern Europe.

Given Putin's treatment of his neighbors, E. Europe has far more to fear from him.
-=Mike

You're a putz when it co... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

You're a putz when it comes to politics.

And Jack's mom doesn't see the irony in calling little Jack a son-of-a-bitch. The two of you have something in common.

marc:It's worse th... (Below threshold)
cirby:

marc:

It's worse than that.

Not only does he get the KIND of missiles wrong (no, they're not Patriot batteries, they're a completely different piece of hardware that's pretty much useless for anything except shooting down very fast, very high-altitude targets on a moderately ballistic path that takes them within a certain angle of the interceptors), he doesn't even know anything about the number of missiles (or the kind of threat they're aimed at).

Hell, he didn't even know the Russians have a primary ABM system that's bigger than anything we currently have planned, and is OPERATIONAL.

It takes a pretty bent mind to interpret a DEFENSIVE system of limited capability (few missiles, specific trajectories) as a major strategic threat to the Russians - mostly because Putin held a press conference, and they lapped it up like dogs.

Meanwhile, the Russians fire off a planned test of an updated, MIRVed, full-scale ICBM, and Lee and the others think that was a "response" to the ABM system in Poland - when the single missile that was tested carried enough warheads to completely overwhelm those ten interceptors. If Putin was worried about the "threat" of those ABMs, he could have just kept the missile for future use.

Then, of course, Lee is just ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that whatever Putin says about this is true, and those ten interceptors are going to completely erase a few HUNDRED incoming Russian missiles (and upwards of ten times that many warheads) from the sky. Which may sound really stupid to someone with any amount of technical knowledge, but, by gum, Lee is just CERTAIN that, for some reason, Putin suddenly decided (against all prior history of Russian and Soviet rulers) that he should admit to the pathetic weakness of the Russian missile force.

Because, you know, the Russian President would never say something not-true about an American strategic or tactical plan. If he lied, he might gain political influence with, say, Iran (who buys a lot of Russian-made military hardware that they might not invest in if they figure out it won't work as advertised).

You are a puck Ward, and a ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

You are a puck Ward, and a liar. STFU. You asshole. You successfully diverted the conversation here to your mental migetry. I don't know if you are the town dunce, the village idiot, the city baffoon or the county fop. They are titles you hold exclusively. One thing about your and your ilk. One of you lies and the others swear to it. If there was a way to abuse free speech, you are it. Sorry about the diatribe, but I am tired of the BS from this punk.

Lee:....but si... (Below threshold)
marc:

Lee:

....but since you say he is wrong, well, that proves he has nothing to worry about. Why don't you give him a call and we'll clear up this whole mess.

Considering you're the one misguidedly conflating a purely defensive system into some kind of threat to Russia you seem to be enjoying carrying Putin's water for him and would be more likely to have his phone number on your speed dial than I.

So tell us Lee, how is it to be actively, or by simple omission and benign neglect, to side with Putin as he kills those that oppose him both in and outside The Motherland and uses his LNG pipelines as clubs to beat down former satellites and members of the EU?

MarcSo tell ... (Below threshold)

Marc

So tell us Lee, how is it to be actively, or by simple omission and benign neglect, to side with Putin as he kills those that oppose him both in and outside The Motherland and uses his LNG pipelines as clubs to beat down former satellites and members of the EU?

Lee and his fellow traveler jim on the other thread have no problem cracking a few eggs to make a communist omlette. They protest this, but they believe it.
They really should read some Santayana to find out who they really are......."the fanatic is a person who has lost sight of their goals and redoubled their efforts.".... The veritable spittle flinging histrionics served up by them the last two days illustrates well what the far left has become. There is no amount of logic or reason that will persuade them.

"Considering you're the ... (Below threshold)

"Considering you're the one misguidedly conflating a purely defensive system into some kind of threat to Russia "

Let's see, an attack is launched on Russia from eastern Europe, and Russia responds. Our system could be used to neutralize their response.

Even a speed racer like you can figure that out, right Marc, and see that by reducing Russia's defensive capabilities, we're threatening their security -- by making them less capable of defending themselves.

Don't you play chess?!?!?? I guess not. Maybe you have a GI Joe collection instead.

SAYING that we would only use the system against Iran might have been sufficient when people could trust the United States, but the Republicans in the White House destroyed that trust, and it now needs to be rebuilt.

That trust is rebuilt through diplomacy, not by waving our hands saying that "Putin just doesn't understand"...

... and trust in international relations certainly is not built by parking an aircraft carrier off a country's coast and telling them that damn better trust or else.

"So tell us Lee, how is it to be actively, or by simple omission and benign neglect, to side with Putin as he kills those that oppose him both in and outside The Motherland and uses his LNG pipelines as clubs to beat down former satellites and members of the EU?"

DO you think Putin has reason to be concerned about Americans who harbor feelings such as yours expressed in that paragraph, Marc?

Is this the hidden agenda behind the placement of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe? Have the neocons intentionally ratcheted yp the cold war and launched a new arms race because they have concerns about Putin's anti-democratic antics?

Next Cheney will tell us that Putin is harboring Osama bin_laden, and we need to invade...

"Lee and his fellow traveler jim on the other thread have no problem cracking a few eggs to make a communist omlette."

Ah, I'm a commie - that explains it. Lol!

Let's see, an attack is ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Let's see, an attack is launched on Russia from eastern Europe, and Russia responds. Our system could be used to neutralize their response.

No, it can't, as as pretty much EVERYBODY has pointed out.

Get someone to do the math for you, since you obviously can't do it yourself.

TEN DAMNED INTERCEPTORS. That's ten missiles, each of which carries ONE interceptor at the tip. Each missile can stop ONE, count 'em, ONE incoming warhead from a full-sized ICBM (like the ones he Russians have by the gross).

On the other side: Hundreds of Russian ICBMs, with up to ten warheads per missile. It takes a real idiot to make ten "neutralize" thousands. Strike that: it takes a completely dishonest person, ON TOP OF being a moron, to hold to that concept.

The only thing those ten ABMs can neutralize is a limited strike, in a limited orbital path (and no, most Russian ICBMs don't fall into that category). Or, as EVERYONE has pointed out to you, one or two missiles from Iran aimed at our allies in Europe.

Putin, on the other hand, has a great weapon: Quislings.

Putin should wait until the... (Below threshold)

Putin should wait until there are 20? 30? 100? sites...

The stakes are the same, Putin has decided to draw the line now, and balk at 10 sites, rather than wait for 20 or 30 or 100. I would do the same, and only an idiot would let this camel's nose under the tent without having some serious negotiations to go along with it.

IF there had been diplomacy -- IF there had been effort to assure Putin that the number was limited to ten and would never increase, and IF he could trust that he as being told was true, then we would have made an effort.

He can't trust the people in the White House, and he's made it very clear that he doesn't.

Lee, you've actually missed... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Lee, you've actually missed the diplomatic significance here. The snubbing of Putin is a response to his failure to help limit the threat Iran poses. It's his turn to be diplomatic now, and offer concessions.

But in any case, cirby pretty much hit the bullseye, stuck the landing, and scored the full-court shot.

Putin should wait until ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Putin should wait until there are 20? 30? 100? sites...

The stakes are the same, Putin has decided to draw the line now, and balk at 10 sites, rather than wait for 20 or 30 or 100.

Wow - suppose we build a THOUSAND, all over the world.

That means we could stop nearly ONE-THIRD of the warheads they could throw at us, if they stupidly decided to fire them in extremely predictable ways, and didn't use cruise missiles or sub-launched ICBMs.

These are NUCLEAR FUCKING WARHEADS, Lee. The reason they have so many is for just such an occasion.

Honestly- get someone to do some math and science for you. You suck at it.

wee wee lee lee p'p' Lee Wa... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

wee wee lee lee p'p' Lee Ward (snicker snort) how do you have the time to make such an ass of yourself here on W'bang when your old "blue site is overrun with "comments"? (last count there were 3 in just one day). Don't see how you stand the strain.

Lee:an attack ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Lee:

an attack is launched on Russia from eastern Europe,

And what country would that be Lee, who has not only a creditable threat but a valid reason for doing so knowing they may cease to exist within hours? You know the whole Cold War Mutual Destruction thing? (minus the "mutual")

DO you think Putin has reason to be concerned about Americans who harbor feelings such as yours expressed in that paragraph, Marc?

The "feelings" expressed were directed at you Lee and your possible agreement with Putin's thoughts.

The FACTS expressed were related to Putin. Are you attempting to dispute the reality Putin has killed some of his opposition and used his LNG pipelines politically?

If you are, you're "off your rocker" as my Grandmamma used to say.

LeeAre you channelin... (Below threshold)

Lee
Are you channeling Putin? You seem to be way in his head.

Putin has decided to draw the line now...

Obviously Putin doesn't believe that's the case ...

BTW, ...Ah, I'm a commie - that explains it. Lol!, you wouldn't know a communist if you saw one....for the same reason you don't know what a fellow traveller is.

And Gorby would have begged for this treatment in Iceland.." IF there had been effort to assure Putin that the number was limited to ten and would never increase, and IF he could trust that he as being told was true, then we would have made an effort.". You will never grasp the reasons why Reagan didn't let him have his way.

But perhaps worst, you have been intellectually pummeled here and you continue to stick your head up in this whack a mole thread....and you don't know which side of the game you're on.

LyingLee:Ah, I'm ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

LyingLee:
Ah, I'm a commie - that explains it. Lol!

No, you're a blithering moron. Now wipe the spittle off the monitor and call the nurse to change your diaper.

"Lee, you've actually mi... (Below threshold)

"Lee, you've actually missed the diplomatic significance here. The snubbing of Putin is a response to his failure to help limit the threat Iran poses. It's his turn to be diplomatic now, and offer concessions.".

Oh, I understand that completely, plus the fact that Russia is helping Iran with their nuclear capabilities, both reasons enough to seriously slap Russia around - - but you're the first person honest enough to admit that this is not the simple "we just want to defend eastern europe from Iran with our ten widdle missile sites" bullshit that the winguts here have made it out to be.

There is some serious talking with Putin that needs to be done and just yesterday Bush scheduled July 1 and 2 to do it. It's about friggin' time.

The GI Joes 'round here think that 10 missile sites are nothing to worry about - which shows how far up their rectum they live... GAnother good reason to get the Republicans war-mongers out of Washington - they have no sensibilities whatsoever, and get enamored by the simple, shiny objects, and miss the big picture entirely.

"Putin has decided to draw the line now...

"Obviously Putin doesn't believe that's the case ..."

Feel free to put out your own theories, HughS, and quit being one of these wimps who just lash out without stating any real arguments, like jhow66.

and underscoreMIKEunderscor... (Below threshold)

and underscoreMIKEunderscore.

Good solid argument there, Mike. Your point about the diaper - deep thinking my man.

The GI Joes 'round here ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

The GI Joes 'round here think that 10 missile sites are nothing to worry about

No, it's something to worry about. For Iran, at least.

Russia? Only in the "we can't sell Iran a bunch of old 1970s tech that we don't have any use for" fashion.

Of course, Russia has a big interest in getting Iran to do something really, really stupid, like try to launch a nuclear-tipped missile at Europe. That way, Iran will get the crap pounded out of it, they'll stop selling oil, and Russia will have a massive increase in income from THEIR oil.

Of course, a little event like the loss of a major European city to a nuclear weapon isn't going to bother Putin that much, and if the Iranians suddenly decide to fire one off at Moscow, well, the Russians HAVE an ABM system...

LyingLee:Good sol... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

LyingLee:
Good solid argument there, Mike. Your point about the diaper - deep thinking my man.

I simply made my point on your level, where even you could understand.

Lee,Here is my opini... (Below threshold)

Lee,
Here is my opinion, which is not to be misconstrued as "lashing out":

A) Any high school or college debate coach would declare you the loser in this thread. I will not copy and paste the many comments that defeat your position. Look it up, Lee

B) I stated very substantive arguments last night and tonight. For example: Putin's playing the Reykjavik card is an old ploy by the Sovs. Do you have or understand the historical perspective of the Putin response to this? The Sovs responded the same way when Reagan deployed Pershings. Look it up, Lee.

C) Do you understand that the deployment of a limited missile shield in Europe (see the above thread for cogent explanations of which) in no way compares to the strategic deployment of Pershing missiles by Reagan? Hint: Reagan was prepared to destroy Gorbachev; the Bush deployment will at best shoot down a few missiles, maybe. But, for the sake of argument, let's expand that Bush deployment to 500 launchers. The Sovs can defeat that in thirty minutes IF they saw it as a threat...which the above posts clearly demonstrate.

D) Do you understand the phrase "fellow traveler"? I don't think you do. Hint: unwitting fool. Think Lillian Hellman, Walter Duranty. Want me to "lash out"? Think Alger Hiss.

Lee:There is s... (Below threshold)
marc:

Lee:

There is some serious talking with Putin that needs to be done and just yesterday Bush scheduled July 1 and 2 to do it. It's about friggin' time.

(quickly borrowing a "Rosie-like voice) "Just Google it ['putins meetings with bush']," the "about time" seems to have occurred many times over the last few years and not just a single meeting scheduled for 1-2 July or the G8 Summit.

What else you got?

Feel free to put out your own theories, HughS, and quit being one of these wimps who just lash out without stating any real arguments, like jhow66.

You mean like lashing out with cheap remarks like "slot cars" and attempting to portray an EU defensive program as being about FA-18's and F-16s "intercepters?"

Gottcha Lee, I fully understand your "theories," they are the same ones that drive the truthiness crowd, carpet muncher Rosie and the soon to be forgotten Ron Paul.

Once again, little Lee hija... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Once again, little Lee hijacks a thread. One would have thought that when Kevin gave him a little playground of his own, he would play there and at least act more civil here.

But no, since hardly anyone visits Lee's little blog, he has to come back here to get his attention fix.

By accident, though, he does manage to bring attention to the one fact that links back to the original post here: Iran and Russia are in cahoots on a lot of things that make the world a scary place, and GWB did well in this instance to make the mad Mullahs collectively sh*t themselves over two carrier groups sitting a stone's throw off the beach. Now if only the Dems would recognize the threat and come together like they did under FDR so long ago, flexing that much military muscle so close would have resulted in the Iranians disavowing their nuke ambitions, not just playing what Spook86 refers to as "nuclear rope-a-dope" yet one more time.

Militant Islam is a constant threat, and it happens to be practiced by most of the leaders of the 22 Arab League nations - some of which are sitting on a lot of oil. Whether the Left likes to admit it or not, the Arabs' crude oil runs our economy, just as it does the economies of Europe and Asia. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this fact, or the threat that the mad Mullahs push onto the West when they continually threaten war, are just as short-sighted as Joe Kennedy Sr. and Neville Chamberlain were back in the late 1930's. Back then, millions paid the price of their lack of vigilance.

Now, Lee, if you and your few blog buddies want to actually work towards a solution to all of this political and military posturing, rather than getting into continual fruitless negotiations (or worse, your penchant for name calling and playing loose with facts), you could:

* Support the development of domestic crude oil resources, including drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and ANWR;

* Support the development of near-term crude oil alternatives, such as Shell's "in-situ" refining of oil shale and Hom Tov's chemical oil shale processes (keeping in mind that in Colorado alone, oil shale reserves are potentially five times greater than proven reserves in Saudi Arabia), not to mention commercialization of coal gasification processes (commercialized by South Africa during the apartheid regimes 20 years ago);

* Support the development - and construction - of efficient nuclear energy power plants, which was spurred on through the 1990's under Clinton (one of his few successes, in my opinion) and pushed just a bit harder under GWB;

* Focus on gaining further reductions in atmospheric pollutant emissions from coal and natural gas fired power plants; and

* Understand that the "anthropogenic(sp?) global warming" pseudo-science is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth scheme designed to hamper the West while funding the thugs of the United Nations, and work instead to make existing industrial processes more efficient in terms of real waste, rather than reducing CO2 because of some worry about climate that has no basis in fact.

Here's a dirty little secret, Lee: Iran does not have refining capacity to supply gasoline to meet its domestic demand, so Ahmadinejad has to purchase gasoline on the open market. He then has to subsidize that gasoline so that his people can buy it at ridiculously low prices, because he made promises on such economic disasters as this one in order to get voted into office.

Even without Western intervention of any kind, Iran is going slowly broke.

Now let that sink in, Lee.

If Iran goes bust, Mahmoud loses power...so he has to keep his people focused outwards, on phantom "threats" by Israel and the US that simply do not exist - other than those he brings upon himself with all the "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" rallies, and his desire to arm himself with nuclear weapons. Israel has never threatened Iran with a unilateral nuclear strike - but Iran has threatened Israel with one. So if Iran goes broke, Mahmoud losing power isn't a bad thing.

If Iran goes broke, Russia loses a major cash cow, and I think we agree that the so-called "peace dividend" of the post cold-war world never materialized for the Russians. Yeltsin was the man of the hour in 1992, but he was no leader - and the Russian Mafia supplanted the Communists. The Mafia cannot run Russia, though, so the people want back the only power that they knew - the Communists - and so Putin is trying to bring them back around to it. But because Putin's economy is still crap, he depends on foreign investment in a big way, which includes arms sales and oil.

Are you getting a hint yet?

A focus on supporting domestic US production of crude oil and other energy resources takes precious dollars away from Iran and Russia. By the way, it does the same to Saudi Arabia, who we likely agree is not much of a friend to us either. In one fell swoop, the money required to support Ahmadinejad, Putin, and the remaining Islamists dries up.

And the world becomes a better place, a safer place, in which we can all live.

Are you up to the task, Lee? Or will you instead argue problems, and assume that talk alone will fix them (forgetting the first basis of negotiation, which is to have some leverage over the other party as much as you can)?

Lee,Or will ... (Below threshold)

Lee,

Or will you instead argue problems, and assume that talk alone will fix them (forgetting the first basis of negotiation, which is to have some leverage over the other party as much as you can)?

I'll shamelessly second that point.

Wanderlust - he's scurried ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Wanderlust - he's scurried under the covers.

Lee is going to vote for Ob... (Below threshold)

Lee is going to vote for Obama, because it is pretty clear that Obama doesn't even know what a saber is.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy