Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
The second half has some very interesting thoughts on Obama...
Hitchens: There's something everyone has forgotten, and Obama has never tried to remind them. He doesn't get credit because he's never asked for it. Do you remember when the American crew was taken by the pirates off the coast of Somalia? It's the same country of origin of the axe-wielding maniac who just tried to murder Kurt Westergaard in Denmark.
Someone went to the Oval Office and said, "Mr. President, you have three choices. We can have a standoff with the Somali government, we can negotiate with the pirates, or you can order the Navy SEALs to fire four shots."
I wouldn't like to be a newly elected president and have that dumped on my desk. He must have said, however long it took him, "Use the SEALs."
But that's not what impresses me. The point I'm making is not the one you thought I was going to make. What impresses me is that he didn't give a speech later about it. If Reagan had done that, everyone would remember it. There would be hubris. "They can run, but they can't hide."
I like his nature. Those who need to know, know. We don't have to make a big fucking circus out of it.
This bit will cause some head explosions, I think:
MJT: Well, you know what Karl Marx thought of Russia.
Hitchens: He hated Russia. He loved America.
MJT: How counterintuitive that is if you don't know it.
Hitchens: Karl Marx's best writing is on America. He said it was the great new country for worker's equality. There was free land for the peasants. It was republican, not monarchical, and it was anti-imperialist. If you look at Henry Adams' memoirs, when his father was at the embassy in London, the Times of London was in favor of the Confederacy. Gladstone helped the Confederacy build a navy. Karl Marx, meanwhile, said Lincoln is our man. The United States is our future. That's not what they teach you in school about Marx.
This bit will cause some head explosions, I think:
I've always thought that the US created the worker's paradise with a few union member's deaths, and a little violence that the CCCP wasted tens of millions to fail to create.
Just my opinion. And I'm not condoning the deaths, I'm just saying it was better than lots.
Yea but when Obama hate is so strong, he gets credit for nothing :(
Hitchens has everything down perfectly. All the players and the scenarios, but he seems to be saying we need to go into Iran and get it over with. While a first strike is always preferable, I really can't see us doing this. Iraq, Afghanistan AND Iran? How many wars will this country stand? And for another quagmire if we can't topple their government? More soldiers doing double and triple tours? No no... it won't work.
The Iranians have to do it themselves otherwise it will be another occupation and whether it is or it isn't it will always be perceived as one.
Ariel Sharon told Bush if you're going to go into Iraq you better be prepared to own the place or don't bother. He didn't listen either.
I agree. I wish Totten had pushed Hitch a little bit more on how much direct action would be realistic politically. Bush couldn't muster the political will to take action on Iran. Obama might be able to make it happen but it would be a stretch to summon enough support.
I take Hitch's criticism of Obama much more seriously because it doesn't appear he's affected by ODS which is all too common these days.
Once someone tries to impose order or change from without most countries with any sort of "sense of nation" will band together to throw the invader out first, then go back to their internal fighting. You can put a lid on the issues for a period of time (e.g. Tito in Yugoslavia), but it is simply deferring the outcome.
Afghanistan seems to be an area where the native's "preferred" form of government appears to be tribal anarchy.
I agree. I wish Totten had pushed Hitch a little bit more on how much direct action would be realistic politically. Bush couldn't muster the political will to take action on Iran. Obama might be able to make it happen but it would be a stretch to summon enough support.
I take Hitch's criticism of Obama much more seriously because it doesn't appear he's affected by ODS which is all too common these days.
I didn't finish reading the back end, but I will this evening.
If Bush would have gone into Iran, they would have drug his sorry arse out of the Whitehouse and that would have been the end of him. The only thing we could possibly do is take out their nukes like the Israelis did in 1981 in Iraq. The Iranians have to do the rest. The country must have its own revolution. They must take back their government. It's the only way.
I agree. I wish Totten had pushed Hitch a little bit more on how much direct action would be realistic politically. Bush couldn't muster the political will to take action on Iran. Obama might be able to make it happen but it would be a stretch to summon enough support.
I take Hitch's criticism of Obama much more seriously because it doesn't appear he's affected by ODS which is all too common these days.
I don't think any President could make action against Iran politically viable, if there ever is any action it will be purely for military reasons & it will never be popular. IMO.
Once someone tries to impose order or change from without most countries with any sort of "sense of nation" will band together to throw the invader out first, then go back to their internal fighting. You can put a lid on the issues for a period of time (e.g. Tito in Yugoslavia), but it is simply deferring the outcome.
Afghanistan seems to be an area where the native's "preferred" form of government appears to be tribal anarchy.
LOL how true!
It's inevitable, I guess, that you're seen as an occupier. It would be dreadful if we attacked Iran. Not that they don't deserve it! Or that Ahmadineajad should be a historical footnote as fast as possible, but we can't do it.
You don't even have to worry about the politics if the proposed action isn't realistically feasible. Removal of the Revolutionary Guard, as Hitchens proposes, would require an invasion of Iran. Where would we get the troops to launch an assault of that magnitude? It simply can't be done until after the army has withdrawn from Iraq.
Q: Who's fault is it that country X is a dictatorship?
A: The citizens of country X, for putting up with it.
===
Q: What should be done to help the citizens of country X be able to self-determine the form and format of their government?
A:... This is where you get the gamut from "nothing" through "invade country X now".
===
It would be nice to think that an invasion of country X to "free them from internal oppression" would be quick, simple, and welcomed with open arms. However, such an intervention is going to face a variety of real-world issues as various factions and groups in or neighboring Country X try to take advantage for their own benefit. Plus you have our own factions trying to maneuver the invasion to help their own partisan interests. Using good intentions to pave a road and all that...
You don't even have to worry about the politics if the proposed action isn't realistically feasible. Removal of the Revolutionary Guard, as Hitchens proposes, would require an invasion of Iran. Where would we get the troops to launch an assault of that magnitude? It simply can't be done until after the army has withdrawn from Iraq.
I agree that isn't realistically feasible. However the troops in Iraq would hypothetically be an asset as they are already right there...
You don't even have to worry about the politics if the proposed action isn't realistically feasible. Removal of the Revolutionary Guard, as Hitchens proposes, would require an invasion of Iran. Where would we get the troops to launch an assault of that magnitude? It simply can't be done until after the army has withdrawn from Iraq.
I think the neocons had every intention of using Iraq as a staging area for an assault on Iran--hence the 14 permanent military bases they began constructing soon after the Iraqi army evaporated into the air. Sadly, they associate the people of Iran with its leadership, when evidence suggests otherwise.
The best thing that could have happened to Iran was for their election to have been fully counted. If Ahmadinejad had won legitimately, there wouldn't have been the protests we saw, or the crisis we see now. I doubt he would have won, which is why the election was called 90 minutes after the polls closed and before counting could actually begin. Mousavi, while not exactly pro-America, is at least moderate enough and realistic enough to recognize that isolationism doesn't exactly breed trust between nations (rejecting isolationist ideology was also accomplished here in 2008, by the way).
Imagine if Iran had a government that reached out like ours is currently doing. Negotiations would be a cake-walk by comparison.
I just had the shallow thought that if the Obama Administration carried an invasion of Iran that would possibly be one of the few events that might trigger the formation of a (at least short term) viable third party in US politics.
However, Iraq is a sovereign nation, and politically the government could not possibly allow the US to use Iraq as a staging area for an invasion of Iran. I don't think Turkey would allow us to invade Iran from their territory, either.
Hitchens: I would say, as I did with Saddam Hussein—albeit belatedly, I tried to avoid this conclusion—that any fight you're going to have eventually, have now.
My mom taught me that at age 5, it's hanging on a plaque on my wall.
Q: Who's fault is it that country X is a dictatorship?
A: The citizens of country X, for putting up with it.
===
Q: What should be done to help the citizens of country X be able to self-determine the form and format of their government?
A:... This is where you get the gamut from "nothing" through "invade country X now".
===
It would be nice to think that an invasion of country X to "free them from internal oppression" would be quick, simple, and welcomed with open arms. However, such an intervention is going to face a variety of real-world issues as various factions and groups in or neighboring Country X try to take advantage for their own benefit. Plus you have our own factions trying to maneuver the invasion to help their own partisan interests. Using good intentions to pave a road and all that...
There are tell-tale signs of a dictatorship creeping up on a population. One is when the government touts nationalism, like Hitler did or any of the communist countries. That always leads to trouble. Also having the checks and balances like we have pretty much insures against it. And where the rule of law is with the people, not the government.
There are things that we can do to help the Iranians, but I don't think we should talk about them :) even in a forum such as this.
Hitchens advocates that the US invade Iran, quickly destroy the Revolutionary Guard, and get back out.
I like the fact that he advocates immediate military action against Iran, but his assumption that regime change and an end to the nuke program could be accomplished surgically and quickly seems just a bit optimistic. He also seems to dispense with the need to destroy the nuke infrastructure by assuming that a new regime would not pursue the nuclear program.
For one thing, wouldn't there have to be a occupation plan (a la Iraq) just in case the Revolutionary Guard did not cooperate by meeting the coalition forces at the border to be rounded up en masse? For another, does he really think an invading force would forego the opportunity to destroy sufficient infrastructure to make sure that Iran's ability to threaten its neighbours with nukes was set back by many years?
A military strategist Hitchens is not.
Frank says: