'Comrade Wolf' and the Mullahs

[xiinfaniin]

...Yet, in this same quarter century when the U.S. military has been so busy it is said to be overstretched and exhausted, Iran has invaded not one neighbor and fought but one war: an eight-year war with Iraq where she was the victim of aggression. And in that war of aggression against Iran, we supported the aggressor. Hence, when Iran says that even as we have grievances against her, she has grievances against us, does Iran not have at least a small point? And when Russian President Putin calls Bush's America "Comrade Wolf," does he not have at least a small patch of ground on which to stand? . Nomads, read Patrick J. Buchanan at his best!

[codetalker]

You must ask yourself: For whom did Mr. Buchanan write this piece? The rednecks in Kentucky and Texas, of course! They must be convinced that if a war started, "superpower" America will crush Iran into submission because those Persians (like the Pashtuns and Iraqis before them) are no match for Anglo-Saxon superior military power on the blind drive to total global hegemony.

 

A comment to convince Rednecks that Iran is scared of America:

 

If she [iran] did want war with America, all the old ayatollah had to do was continue holding those American hostages after

Ronald Reagan

raised his right hand. He didn't. As Reagan recited the oath, the hostages were clearing Iranian air space.

In this regard, Mr. Buchanan intentionally fails to mention two things: the fact that negotiations were ongoing for a long time + the other reason for Iran's softening stance on the hostage crisis: an invasion by Saddam's Iraqi army, supported by American pres Carter! That's a huge point to miss but, of course, for the sake of making the rednecks happy, its better to mention how macho Reagan was and how "terrified" the Iranians were of him, blah blah.

 

To Mr. Buchanan's credit, however, he writes:

 

In all those years, Iran has never attacked the United States and has been tied to but one terror attack against us: the Khobar Towers 10 years ago. No evidence has been found that Iran had any role in 9/11, the first attack on the World Trade Center, the suicide attack on the USS Cole, or the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Tell that to Western media spin-doctors!

[xiinfaniin]

^^^^Iran is no match for America’s sheer military power and its logistical reach. Get that good code. Buchanan made a very good point; talking to Iran is better alternative than the status quo. He thinks the letter from Iranian president could open an opportunity for that route. And he is reproaching --not praising-- America’s misused power.

 

Despite all the redneck association attributed to him, I respect this guy for his intellectual honesty. He calls thinks for what they really are. He never wavers.

[codetalker]

^

 

Did I say Iran can match America's military might? No. But America isn't the world's first "superpower." Others came before it and collapsed.

 

Secondly, America does not want to talk with Iran (thus, disregarding Iran's letter). They made up their mind as soon as Iran made up its mind about switching its currency in oil/natural gas trade from the U.S. dollar to the euro. That's a real threat, not to American military power but to America's greater global economic influence (a threat to the dollar: the basis of American Capitalist society).

 

You need to get that. Buchanan's love letter to the redneck community isn't going to change that fact.

 

p.s. You respect a redneck who publicly calls for the deployment of American troops at the U.S.-Mexico border? LOL

[Duufaan]

The reality is, the only accetable outcome of this isue is. IRAN must stop it's nuclear technonlgy. Otherwise America and it's allied will do everything from diplomicy to military to stop IRAN getting nuclear technolgy. President Ahmed have no other choose. to give up or treated by west as another Sadaam. oppoinion of a liberal writer in America who is defedending IRAN mean little the big popular media in America. Final decision will be made by isrealis.

[xiinfaniin]

codetalker, I don’t know what’s your grievance about Buchanan but you seem to have a problem with him. I can’t do much about that. What I can do, however, is to remind you that you need to judge the letter on its merits and not who wrote it. Perhaps jogging your memory about that might help. Now good Buchanan eloquently narrates military interventions of post Second W. W. America and lists its plunders. Read between the lines and you realize his is not an endorsement of those military adventures. Rather it’s a perfect prologue for his subsequent conclusion. Talking to Iran is what Bush needs to do. Talking to your enemy is better than Threats. Buchanan thinks so.

 

What could your problem be with that^^? Other than seeing the looms of Buchanan in his writing, it could be one of two. One, you don’t think, at this age of the conflict, that America is going to listen any voice of reason. Hence letters of this nature ring hallow in your assessment. On that account many would agree with you. Or, two, you seriously think that Iran is capable of defending itself--if it comes to that--and you didn’t like how the author depicted this (Iran) great power. You may be right on that accounts as well, and although I don’t know what the future holds, still I tend to agree with him on that. If this conflict comes to being (God forbid), from my secular assessment Iran would suffer greatly. All it can master to do would be to disrupt oil shipments from the region, and that would directly impact American economy, which in turn complicates the smooth follow of American life.Inconvenience, however, is not akin to utter destruction of a nation, saaxiib. Defending yourself and dying with dignity is a world away from exacting a victory or inflicting damage on your enemy. Neither of which Iran could do. For now. Get that !

 

As for your characterization of this letter as a one intended for redneck consumption, that’ s a clear failure from your part. You see, good codetalker, it is either you are economical with the truth or this piece requires a lot of elbow grease from your part. How could you’ve come such a bizarre conclusion, saaxiib? And yes I respect HIS intellectual honesty. And your LOLing, needlessly to say, is a mirth whose subject escapes me!

[Castro]

I saw this article as Xiin did. It's by no means an appeasment of Americans (or even Iranians). If anything, it assaults America's hegemony and imperial ambitions.

 

The transformation Pat Buchanan has undergone in the past 15 years is remarkable. Not unlike that of Ariana Huffington (also a former right-wing hawk and now a tree-hugging liberal), he shows incredible clarity and lucidity in the face of much jingoistic rhetoric and rabid flag-waving punditry. That takes courage.