Dismantlin' a Donkey

The Garnet Donkey are my brethren in debate for the most part. Sometimes they need a younger brother smackdown and now would be that time:

As the United States’ standoff with Iran grows closer to critical mass, we are beginning to see the real consequences of the idiotic invasion of Iraq (go alliteration!) by Cowboy Bush. Though, while most Democrats (read: other than Lieberman) and many Republicans (read: the smart ones) wish that Bush would not be such a cowboy, I wish that he’d remain a cowboy, but go see Brokeback Mountain. It’d be easy to convince him. Just tell him it’s a movie about two real men and the special bond they share. He’ll make the obvious connection between him and Dick Cheney, and the world will become a better place.

Where to begin...How about with the simple fact that Iran has been at critical mass for a few months now. Nobel Laureate Mohammed al-Barradei has been hot on the case and has come away with nothing. Though, while most Republicans (read: other than Snowe) and many Democrats (read: the smart ones such as Lieberman) wish that...

Brokeback Mountain is the new rallying cry for the left but I have some news--it's a friggin movie guys, not reality. Ang Lee simply made that movie as fiction, not biography.

I'll leave out the Bush/Cheney homosexual alliteration because it just is beyond comment and shows that liberals are the true homophobes by thinking that comparing us to homosexuals is a bad thing. Sad really.

But I digress. The current situation with Iran is the fruit of failed policy from Bush, Clinton and Bush Sr. This will be part one of my report on Iran, which I will update with a new level of analysis every couple of days until I’m done.

I can't wait for your analysis. Either can the UN.

First I’ll talk about the Iraq factor, as it is the least controversial of what I will discuss here. In the coming days, I’ll move on to America’s options, the world’s role, the history of US/Iranian diplomatic relations, whether or not Iran is really going to have the Bomb, and who gets the film rights. Read on for the fist segment, The Iraq Faqtor.

I'll be sure to tune in, in'shallah.

Iranians hate Iraq. For most of the 1980s, the two nations fought in probably the most brutal, most horrific full-scale war of the second half of the twentieth century. This war was an absolute bloodbath, and the losses were particularly heavy to Iran, whose army was far less experienced and less professional than Iraq’s, and so resorted to “human wave” style attacks, many allegedly involving unarmed children as young as twelve. The war ended in complete stalemate, with total casualties over one million and no gain to show from it for either side. Economically, each nation was practically destroyed by the war, one major reason for Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. As horrible as that war was, discussing it is not my point. My point is that Iranians hate Iraq, and they especially hate Saddam Hussein.

A war I might add, started by Saddam and one in which he used WMD (namely nerve gas, which of course he never had) against Iran. Interestingly enough, he flew his planes there in 1991 when he saw the American jets screaming toward Baghdad and stood pissing his pants. But I digress.

Meaning that the US would have to screw up royally to make Iranians sympathetic to Iraq. Of course, with a President who considers himself royalty, could you really expect anything less?

Uh. dude, Iranians are Shiite and they've always had contact and support with the Iraqi south. By the way, they have hated us since Jimmy Carter decided to assist the Shah. They really liked us when they took hostages for 444 days in 1979-80. By the way, those hostages were released as soon as Reagan took office.

I'll let the Bush monarchy thing slide as it isn't even remotely clever enough for a response.

But I digress. My point is that the scene for the film, the Gulf War, actually happened. Saddam miscalculated America’s resolve to defend Kuwait, and attacked, and George Bush Sr. (reluctantly) went to war. Now, two bad things happened in the Gulf War from the Iranian point of view. Firstly, the Americans protected Kuwait, but they did so without removing Saddam from power. Saddam had started one of the most horrible wars in history against the Iranians a decade before, and while the Iranians would have loved to punish him themselves, their military was in worse shape than Arnold Schwarzenegger after his motorcycle wreck (Schwarzenegger: “It’s not a tumor!”).

Ha, ha, Kindergarten Cop humor. How did Bush reluctantly go to war? He amassed the largest coalition ever to evict Saddam, even bigger than the coalition W put together. You know, that unilateral effort that included Australia, England, Poland, Spain and myriad other nations. Update 2/11/06 1006: The "unilateral coalition" still has 24 nations involved. Via Bill Quick.

I agree that we should have taken out Saddam in 1991, but what would George Galloway and Kofi Annan have done to supplement their incomes if we had marched to Baghdad? Where would their ill gotten gains come from in the following decade?

The Iranians felt that a madman like Saddam should not be allowed to run a nation, and the fact that America left him in charge made Iran feel vulnerable to another 1980-style or Kuwait-style invasion. As important is what we let Saddam do after we left Iraq. Bush encouraged the Shiite population of Iraq to rise up against Saddam, and promised support in their cause. Of course, when the Shiites rose up, the US twiddled their thumbs, and watched the Shiites massacred worse than the Seattle Seahawks.

First, to equate the murder of thousands to a football game is distasteful at best and it shows that you really didn't watch the Superbowl.

Anyway, Bush allowing the massacre of the Shiites was almost as bad as Kennedy encouraging the Cubans to invade and leaving them to die at the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy didn't even twiddle his thumbs, he just allowed them to be captured and executed.

So? Why would Iran care if we turned our backs on a portion of the Iraqi population? Because Iran is a Shiite nation. Not that George W. would know, as he did not even know there was a difference between Sunnis and Shiites until 2003. This fact is terrifying to me, so, in case you are skimming this (very likely, it has a lot of words — I am a Swattie, after all), I will repeat it: Geroge W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, did not even know there was a difference between Sunnis and Shiites until 2003. (For a rough idea of my reaction when I first heard this news, see here).

You base this entire portion of your dissertation on heresay and something quoted from Kos--a man who replied to the death and dismemberment of Americans by saying "screw them".

'Nuff said.

The reactions of Gulf War II: Clone of the Attack, by Iranians at least, are less complicated and less interesting, but to summarize: removing Saddam from power? Good.

Good to the Iraqis also who suffered decades of rape and abuse mind you.

Cluster bombs killing thousands of innocent women and children? Bad.

The US military and our allies are the only militaries in the world who even take civilians into account. I know when I served, I would've taken a bullet myself before shooting a civilian. Do me a favor and stop with this talk because I and my fellow military members take it as a personal affront.

Instability to the point of a nation becoming a sort of terrorist training center/Wal-Mart right next door? Bad.

Let's see, Iran has Afghanistan on its east and had Abu Nidal-sheltering Iraq on its west, I'm sure terrorist training centers are nothing new to them. However, if they had Wal-Marts, perhaps they'd be happy because it would mean a major decrease in the unemployment rate and they wouldn't have so much time to fiddle with nukes and support Hezbollah and Hamas.

Perception of an imperialistic nation invading a (at the time) non-aggresive nation and conquering an Islamic people? Bad.

The weasel words "at the time" after saying how Iraq invaded Iran and Kuwait (leaving out Saudi Arabia). Let's see, he invaded three sovereign nations and was beat back but he'd never do it again. Right.

Increased US military presence in the region, representing a nation more addicted to foreign oil than Rush is to hillbilly heroin? Very very bad. (Bush to foreign oil: “I wish I knew how to quit you!“)

Dude, give up humor, libs just don't do it well.

Many analyists (sic) point to an anti-US invasion backlash as the reason Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a certified nutcase, and a dangerous one at that, was elected President last year. Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man, and living, breathing proof that Bush’s assinine attack (alliteration, round two) had much more far reaching implications than simply the nation of Iraq.

This shows just how ignorant this post is; Ahmadinejad is President but has no power. The power is held by a ruling council of Ayatollah's. Yeah, Bani Sadr held immense power while Khomeini was alive, too.

This was part one of my many-part report on Iran. Leave comments, and check back frequently for more on this developing firestorm. My next peice will be less history-intensive and more policy-intensive (read: I get to make more jokes).

I look forward to it, especially the jokes as they had me cracking up so hard my Heineken came out my nose...or not.