Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 03/14/2006 View Mon 03/13/2006 View Sun 03/12/2006 View Sat 03/11/2006 View Fri 03/10/2006 View Thu 03/09/2006 View Wed 03/08/2006
2006-03-14 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
A New "Cold War"?
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Unereth Slotle9082 2006-03-14 14:08|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [584 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 There is no stomach for a confrontation with Iran. The left and the unbalanced domestic media would want everyone in the current administrations head on a pike regardless of the reasons for war, and work doubly hard as they have in Iraq to discredit any action. If an invasion fleet isn't off the coast of the US (and even then I'm not so sure)the media will work overtime to undermine any action however obviously justified to us adults.
Posted by JerseyMike 2006-03-14 16:07||   2006-03-14 16:07|| Front Page Top

#2 Theres a big difference between Iran and the Soviet Union. The Soviets were not looking to export nuclear arms, wipe Israel off the map, was not a radical theocracy, were rational enough to understand the consequences of using them, valued their self-preservation and had enough Western ideology to negotiate and reason with to a stalemate.
Posted by Yosemite Sam 2006-03-14 16:08||   2006-03-14 16:08|| Front Page Top

#3 A new cold war?


The commies, for all their faults (and there are legion), had some ability to reason, and no religious fervor at all. We, of course, also didn't want to go up in a puff of uranium or plutonium.

"MAD" in the case of the US v. Russia cold war meant "mutually assured destruction" - and neither of us wanted our countries destroyed.

"MAD" in the case of the MM™ means they're NUTS, as in certifiably crazy - and religious fanatics to boot. They don't care if their people are totally destroyed, as long as they get to take the hated US and the hated Jooooos with them. They actually think they'll get rewarded by their god for this.

We can't let those nutcases get nukes. They have already publicly stated their intention of nuking Israel as soon as they get nuclear bombs - and the Western world is next.

You'd think that Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and the paleos would be just a tad worried by the MM's nuke-Israel pronouncement, them being so close to Israel's borders and all.

Unless they truly think dying quick in a burst of nuclear fission or slowly from radiation poisoning is the will of allen.

But then, Ahmadinejad seems to think he's some kind of god already, so who knows....
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2006-03-14 16:17||]">[]  2006-03-14 16:17|| Front Page Top

#4 The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union fell apart. The same thing will happen to Iran. The parallels are remarkable.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-03-14 16:53||]">[]  2006-03-14 16:53|| Front Page Top

#5 How so phil, and is .com still around or has he been excommunicated or something??
Posted by EP 2006-03-14 17:03||   2006-03-14 17:03|| Front Page Top

#6 The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union fell apart. The same thing will happen to Iran.

Waiting for the Soviet Union to "fall apart" took half a century. In half a decade (or less) Iran will be nuclear armed and its "falling apart" will be more in the form of vaporization.
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-14 17:40||   2006-03-14 17:40|| Front Page Top

#7 Poor .com is gone
Poor dot com is gone
All gather round his keyboard now and cry
He had a heart of gold
Even though he'd gotten old
Oh why did such a feller have to go?

Poor .com is gone
Poor dot com is gone
His comments were so peaceful and serene
He's gone of for some rest
With his hands on some babe's chest
His fingernails have never been so clean

Then the preacher'd get up and he'd say
"Folks, we are gathered here to mourn and groan over our brother .com
Who hung hisself up on always having to stomp every troll at the burg"
And then there'd be weepin' an' wailin' --- from some of those women [Gentle, JC]---
Then he'd say, ",com was the most misunderstood man in the blogosphere
People used to think he was a mean ugly fella and called him a dirty skunk and an ornery pig stealer, But

The folks that really knowed him
Knowed that beneath them two dirty shirts he always wore
There beat a heart as big as all outdoors
dot com loved his fellow man

He loved the ma-deuces of the forest
And the M1-A2s of the fields
He loved the mice and the vermin under the barn
And he treated the rats like equals (which was right)
He loved all the little children
He loved everything and everybody in the world
Only . . . only he never let on
And nobody ever knowed it

Poor .com is gone
Poor dot com is gone
His friends are weepin' wail for miles around
The new trolls in the burg
Won't get to hear the gospel word
Because dot com won't be postin' any more

Poor .com is gone
A candle lights his head
He's layin' in a heart-shaped water bed
And folks are feelin' sad
'Cuz they used to treat him bad
But now he's feelin' just a tbit too good.

Poor .com is gone
A candle lights his head
He's lookin' oh so purty and so nice
But his hand's begun to creep
And he'll make a comment here in just a trice.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-14 17:53||   2006-03-14 17:53|| Front Page Top

#8 Damn! Say it ain't so?
Posted by 6 2006-03-14 18:09||   2006-03-14 18:09|| Front Page Top

#9 and slummers are commin on
and we're runnin outta nice.

Posted by 6 2006-03-14 18:10||   2006-03-14 18:10|| Front Page Top

#10 There is one common element.

The Soviet Union fell partly because it was bankrupt. If oil would go down to $40 and stay there for a few months, Iran would be too.

But there are vast differences also. Iran is an advanced kleptocracy with Mullahs and their friends amassing large fortunes and the people with the money are getting frustrated with the ruling clique because of its economic policies and also afraid of the ruling clique for its potential to just execute people.

Iran's military is another question mark. They have a multitude of security forces. Some probably can be assumed to be loyal to the Malarky, others not.

Anyone who thinks they know how this will come out is fooling themselves.
Posted by mhw 2006-03-14 18:40||   2006-03-14 18:40|| Front Page Top

#11 No shiite?

All dynasty's end, and its never purty.

When did they pull ol .com's plug? I'd love to read those posts!

Mean old bastard.., but so enjoyable to read.

I haven't been around since Chrimas or so, so i ain't noticed who's hangin round the burg these days.

So who else has been censured or deemed unfit recently?

I thought I saw anonymoose still out there, but lots of the old regulars semed to have split. Dan Darling still around? Whom else?

Posted by ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2006-03-14 18:43||   2006-03-14 18:43|| Front Page Top

#12 "pending civil war in Iraq"


Ah, turn off your CNN dude.

One thing is for sure, if the mooslims ever get the bomb life will be over as we know it. The Soviets never want to use theirs but they were not fueled by hating everything civilized. Time to break out the B-1s for some high altitude bunkerbusters. One good pass would take care of the whole Islam with a bomb mess.

9-11 folks could like like small potatoes...
Posted by Icerigger 2006-03-14 18:45||   2006-03-14 18:45|| Front Page Top

#13 I've covered many of the parallels in the past. Just to highlight two.

The Iranian system deliberately copies the Soviet system with the party (called the Pasadran in Iran) and state having largely duplicate structures. The SU fell apart when the state institutions took full control.

The ethnic layout of Iran is very similar to that of the SU, with a heartland where the main ethnic group dominates and various ethnic minorities dominating regions on the periphery. The main difference is Russians were an absolute majority in the SU, whereas Persians are likely a minority in Iran (there hasn't been a reliable census in 30 years).
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-03-14 18:53||]">[]  2006-03-14 18:53|| Front Page Top

#14 Phil you believe that I got a bridge to sell ya.

The Soviets were atheist who feared death. The Mullahs are radical Islamist who believes death while killing infidels is guaranteed access to heaven, milk, honey, and even 72 virgins.

What use is it to threaten death to someone who wants such and is even rewarded by such as long as they get such trying to kill you? The only way to deal with such people is not threats but pre-emption simple kill them first.

As for the political situation saying Bush cant hit Iran, why not? Bush polls are already in the tank, he’s on the defensive, CNN is openly saying “the so called WOT” on their front-page stories about Afghanistan Pakistan. The Repubs in general are looking at getting whipped in the mid terms. The Dems are on full offensive with the media setting the debate. We will see full partisan attacks all the way to November with media overblown scandal after scandal.

How exactly hitting Iran something the majority believe is eminent maybe even with some quite passive support by the EU would hurt? It would switch the debate off the all out attack by the Dems to Iran. The Dems and their pacifist radical anti-war BS just don’t sell.

The WOT is Bush’s legacy Iran is at a cross roads in this war if we falter here the whole effort up to now was a waste of time its win the damm thing or lose it. You cant just quit in the late 3rd quarter because your tired and beat up and expect to win the game.

Not promoting Iran as a wag the dog scenario Iran is definitely one of those things that must be done and whether good politically or not should be done. After all that’s a leaders job to make the hard decisions not the popular ones. But just saying I don’t really see the political effects as bad and if things don’t go south big time may even be a sweeping benefit.

Posted by C-Low 2006-03-14 19:00||   2006-03-14 19:00|| Front Page Top

#15 Both the SU had and Iran have their 'true believers, but also large numbers who pay lip service cos thats the way to keep out of trouble.

We shall see who's right.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-03-14 19:09||]">[]  2006-03-14 19:09|| Front Page Top

#16 Wrong Phil C-low hit it on the head. No where in the Soviet doctrine did it call for everyone else's conversion, death or dhimmitude.

No where.
Posted by Icerigger 2006-03-14 19:38||   2006-03-14 19:38|| Front Page Top

#17 Actually, the Soviet communists had a near religious zeal in their desire to free us "downtrodden wage slaves" from the shackles of capitalist servitude. Marxism demands the same sort of suspension of disbelief that fundamentalist religion also requires. There was the same obsession with conversion, and a de facto sort of dhimmitude as seen with the satellite countries of the Warsaw pact.

C-Low is correct in that the Soviets were not so insane as to relish death over patient waiting. Mutual Assured Destruction had a definite neutralizing effect over the Soviets. Something that is entirely absent in the Iranian mullahs. Give these loons their wish, pronto.
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-14 20:06||   2006-03-14 20:06|| Front Page Top

#18 Ann COulter said it best on FNC yesterday [Guam time], in paraphrase - the Dems prefer to wait until an American city(s) gets blown up vv WMD/Nuke Terror attack(s) before a Dem POTUS-Congress does anything, iff and when it ever does decide to do something, anything, in response, ergo vote for the Dems in 2006 and 2008. IOW, America must be attacked first and 00's, 000's, or Zilyuhns of Americans must be dead first before the Dems decide whether or not to retaliate, iff at all. 9-11 occurred, amongst other reasons, becuz the STATUS QUO IS UNACCEPTABLE TO AMERICA's ENEMIES, INCLUD BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FAILED/ANGRY LEFT AND COLLUSORY INTERNAT LEFTS AND ANTI-AMERICAN AMERICANS. Any so-called "New Cold War" vv IRAN, etal is at best a short/near-termer in length. Iran's Radical Mullahs want Nukes and Iran-centric EMPIRE, and they are fanatical enough to induce a US-Russia-China geopol- and military confrontation in order to get their way, i.e. ala North Korea are willing to commit national suicide vv regional and global belligerencies. IRAN > "Iran gets Nukes and Empire, or everyone in the ME and World dies".
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-03-14 21:10||   2006-03-14 21:10|| Front Page Top

#19 .com still comes round. Not every day though --- there are lots of pretty girls in Las Vegas, and he's too much of a gentleman to let them languish. ;-)
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-14 23:36||   2006-03-14 23:36|| Front Page Top

#20 No where in the Soviet doctrine did it call for everyone else's conversion, death or dhimmitude.

The inevitable triumph of world socialism, victory of the proletariat, etc. Death to the Borugeous revisionists. Change the terms and the rhetoric is identical.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-03-14 23:49||]">[]  2006-03-14 23:49|| Front Page Top

10:50 mmurray821
23:59 Snuns Thromp1484
23:58 JosephMendiola
23:49 phil_b
23:44 Snuns Thromp1484
23:41 DMFD
23:36 trailing wife
23:30 lotp
23:28 DMFD
23:27 Angump Slomosing6697
23:19 Formerly Dan
23:16 3dc
23:11 Inspector Clueso
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:34 BH
22:26 Frank G
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:24 Frank G
22:18 Frank G
22:13 Frank G
22:13 Frank G
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:54 Ulaigum Ebbereck6419
21:51 JosephMendiola

Search WWW Search