« "A Ramble on the Greeks" By Richard Sale | Main | A couple more things ... »

04 February 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Castellio

Geeze, you're kind. The blood on their hands is endless and on-going.

BraveNewWorld

Trumps family has raised money for the same settler groups so that is going to disappear like a fart in a dust storm. Besides sooner or later some lawyer is going to say Palestine isn't a real country, the Palestinians are a made up people so they can't have diplomatic relations with the US so can't have standing in an American court. No Palestinian will ever win a case in an American court.

ked

Once again I'm afraid you've missed my point ... it was aimed at LG (& his ilk), not you. I have nothing but respect for intel pros, civilian & military. In my life (getting kicked out of Havana during the revolution) & education (amongst those from the civilian intel sector &/or being prep'd for it), & career (developing adv tech for spl ops & sigint / masint apps, going to SO/LIC & AFCEA conferences for years, doing briefings at McDill, Benning, Gordon, Leavenworth & Meade), I have observed and learned a great deal - considering I've never been on that side of the table.

You won't find me making ad hominum attacks on your site. It cheapens the quality of dialog, it reveals the character of those who lower themselves to that base instinct. Then there are those who wallow in it without self-control. I don't think they deserve respect, but I will refrain from questioning it in the future.

turcopolier

Castellio

Grown ups rise above mere revenge to consider the needs of state craft. How long should we have longed for revenge against the Japanese? they did far worse things to US forces in WW2. pl

Brunswick

"Toophan (Persian: موشک طوفان‎‎, meaning "Typhoon" in Persian) is a series of Iranian anti-tank missiles. Toophan 1 is a reverse-engineered copy of the US military BGM-71 TOW missile. The Toophan-1's payload is a 3.6 kg high-explosive anti-tank warhead that can penetrate up to 550mm of steel armor. The range is 3,850m, the top speed 310 m/s. The manufacturer is the Aerospace Industries Organization of Iran, which has produced the missile since 2000.[1] Several other variants are also built with more penetration power."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toophan

"In the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, the Islamic Republic of Iran Army used TOW missiles purchased before the Iranian Revolution in 1979, as well as those purchased during the Iran–Contra affair.

Of the 202 AH-1J Internationals (export variant of the AH-1J SeaCobra) that Iran purchased from the USA, 62 were TOW-capable. Iranian AH-1Js managed to slow down advances of Iraqi tanks into Iran. During the "dogfights" between Iranian SeaCobras and Iraqi Mil Mi-24s, Iranians achieved several "kills", usually using TOW missiles.[16]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW

"Mersad (Persian: Ambush) is an Iranian advanced low to mid range Air defense system developed in 2010.[2] It fires Shahin (Falcon) missiles which are reverse engineered, domestically upgraded versions of the American MIM-23 Hawk Surface-to-air missiles. It uses a series of domestically produced Radars and Electronic Devices.[3]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersad

"during the Iran–Iraq War. On February 12, 1986, 9 Iraqi aircraft downed by a Hawk site near al-Faw in southern Iraq during Operation Dawn 8. Among the aircraft, are Su-22 and MiG-23s.[9] In addition, Iranian HAWK sites shot down 3 friendly F-14 Tomcats and 1 F-5 Tiger II.[10][11]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-23_Hawk

They seem to have been fully operational and worked quite well.

Babak Makkinejad

Thank you for your comments but I think you are in denial.

It matters not when the first confrontation started and how but we, in my opinion, past the usual game of states - unless you wish to claim that religion was irrelevant to the Thirty-Year War as well.

fanto

Colonel,
this thread made me come back 'out of the shadows', where I have been after a verbal spat with Tyler, some years ago. I was quite sure at that time that I did not want, or did not need to read your blog. I was wrong. I found out that the information here is too valuable to let it go.
Now, after this is off my chest, I would like to ask you if it would be a good idea, for the three US, Russia and China - to have a "Congress" a la Vienna Congress in 1815 - to stop the wars and misery? I think that this is so naïve, that I am sorry for saying it....

Castellio

Why don't you deal with some historical facts? Explain why Shia Islam was not an enemy during the reign of the Shah?

I have not and do not claim that religion is irrelevant – and you actually know better than to accuse me of that – but I do state that many (Abrams in this case) pursue religious arguments to obfuscate historical facts which don't suit their narrative. To wit: America is necessarily at war with Shia Islam.

Castellio

All of what you say may be currently true, but it doesn't change the color of any of the clotted blood on the hands of Mr. Abrams.

I happen to have faith in the growth and intelligence of the Islamic community in the US: the story will out in the generations to come.

Castellio

I have no argument with your principle. In response to Iowa Steve I was venting my frustrations with the on-going influence of the Kagans and Abrams. I should have simply silently agreed with his post.

Imagine

Biden's visits even more interesting timeline, e.g. Odessa massacre.

Imagine

Senate votes 98% for Israeli interests, due to ~$70M Congressional stipends from AIPAC laundered through PACs. Also ensures US UN rep is firmly in pocket. No hope there.

turcopolier

fanto

It is true that I am a strict constructionist libertarian federalist conservative but what I try to maintain here is a forum in which various sides of an issue are represented within the bounds of civility that I insist on. for that reason there is room here for; mike, raven, fred and tyler. It is difficult to referee this catfight. pl

Babak Makkinejad

The period of the Mohammad Reza Shah is not historical; for historical facts you need to consider the past 500 years both in the Near East as well as among the Western Diocletian states.

In the Near East, the Shia state founded by Safavids (who also had revived the name of "Eranshahr") has endured. This is the most significant departure from previous centuries where Shia dynasties like the Bhuids were extinguished eventually.

Among the Western Diocletians, their religious cohesion, during the same period of time, was shattered and new deities (gods) emerged as a challenge to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. This has had the consequence, in the plane of ideas, of the emergence of multiple visions of what can only be understood as secular doctrines of redemption and the continued internal wars for this or that idea of Justice.

The Vatican has cordial relationships with Shia Iran - they each are religious states and are upholding a specific Message of God and are not interested in fighting each other.

The so-called secular West is the one in conflict with Iran over religious issues - the disposition of Palestine being the chief one and the nub of it at the moment. But, fundamentally, the Western Diocletians cannot accept a religious dispensation; in my opinion - it goes against the pseudo-religions that have infested the minds of men since the Catholic Synthesis in the West disintegrated.

As for the Shah of Iran, his reign was but a brief interlude and an exception - the man though himself to be European and forgot that he was the Shah of the Shia foremost.

Yes, of course NATO states liked him, he was the fool that was carrying their load for them for nothing.


MRW

Any appointment of Abrams to a top post in the Trump Administration . . . would be a disaster. -- Harper

I read Harper’s post with dismay, and could not agree more. Then I took a piss (Superbowl leftover) and got pissed.

I fired off a *short* comment to the President on whitehouse.gov telling him not to do it. They do actually tabulate the pulse of the country with these comments. Or have done in all past admins. I got a presidential response to one of mine. https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact#page

Suggest anyone who agrees with Harper to do the same. Any bit helps.

Would have suggested calling the White House Comment Line as well (202-456-1111), but it was shut down on Jan 23 “temporarily." A message there says use the contact form linked above, or use Facebook.

I can only hope, Colonel, that your comment in your subsequent Couple of Things post is true: "IMO an ego as large as Trump's will not react well to the sound of its master's [Netanyahu's] voice."

Surely, Steve Bannon has his pulse on that Swamp Frog Abrams.

Castellio

I appreciate the time and care you have taken to respond. Thank you.

It won't surprise you that I find your assumptions and argument, in the main, misguided, just as I wasn't surprised that you felt I was, in the main, in denial.

I think it would be an interesting discussion, but this is the wrong forum. If I am allowed one question with which to leave the argument, I would ask this: is the better historian the one who, having studied the past, has accurately mastered sweeping generalizations about it, or the one who, having studied the past, can build the tools with which change is possible?

I am not saying you are the one and I the other; I am saying, rather, that the most important religious figures tend to be of the latter kind, not the former.

Please do accept my genuine thanks for your engagement.

Babak Makkinejad

I am pleased that you found my musing of interest. Indeed the pleasure is all mine.

In regards to changing the present in the light of the knowledge of the past question that you have posed; historians write plausible fiction based on primary sources (one would hope). Therefore, all works of historical writing contain only nuggets of truth and are - by themselves - are not reliable sources of concrete action. Put another way, there is a lot of uncertainty in the reconstruction of the past; e.g. how do we know what people 50 years ago thought and what emotions caused them to make which decisions?

For myself, with Makkinejad Thesis, I had presented an insight - to be distinguished from careful accumulation of particular knowledge from primary sources and trying to tell a coherent story - as a guide for action.

So, as a guide to human action, I would say that my reconstruction of history leads me to conclude that the dream of Common European Home; espoused by Gorbachev for example, is unreachable. That the extension of Western Diocletian Civilization in an easterly direction will fail (Alexander Nevsky preferred an alliance with Tatars and fought against the Catholics), that the inclusion of Turkey in EU is a fool's errand, that a Muslim Umma with any sort of even rudimentary political unity has to wait for the Hidden Imam, that India will never ever reach the vitality of the Western Civilization and so on and so forth.

My ideas lead me to negative conclusions - they set limits on what is possible - and for people like Americans who think everything is possible my conclusions are unpalatable.

If you look at the map of railways in Iran, you can see that they are connected now to Russia, Turkey and Europe, Central Asia and China. The railroad to Pakistan is moribund and the one to Basra is not yet complete (on the Iraqi side). There are plans for connecting the Iranian rail ways to those of Syria and to eventually connect Tehran to Beirut. You can take the train in Shanghai and arrived in Beirut - perhaps in a decade.

But there are no plans for connecting to other Arab capitals, or to Cairo or Riyadh or to Islamabad or to Delhi. Those lines will never be built and one should not spend too much effort in trying to alter this persistent reality.

Thomas

Sir,

Sorry for the late reply.

The story I was thinking about was a final shipment of Hawks sent to Iran by Israel which were defective and led to break in covert relations. It was in the book, Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988 by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop.

May apologies if I misconstrued the two incidents.

b

Abram has been nixed by Trump. No job for him in the administration.

I wouldn't trust the reasons given. Trump needs to keep some Zionist friends happy (without falling under their control). He can't say openly why he really did not want him.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/elliott-abrams-trump-state-department-tillerson/index.html
Trump nixes Elliott Abrams for State Department job

/quote/
President Donald Trump met with Abrams and the sources said that the meeting went well but when the President learned that Abrams had criticized him during the campaign, the President nixed Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State, according to the sources.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson tried to convince Trump to offer the job to Abrams despite the criticism because he felt he needed Abrams' experience.

Republican sources also say White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Senior Adviser Jared Kushner also strongly supported Abrams, and tried to convince the President to reconsider.
/endquote/


turcopolier

b

Trump made a good call. Abrams is like poison. IMO he is an Israeli agent of influence and not much more. pl

Croesus

Are there any conditions under which the allegations of Fara Mansoor are credible?
Mansoor claims to have evidence that G H W Bush was deeply involved in bringing Khomeini to power, and that hostage taking at US embassy Tehran involved CIA (or former CIA) elements loyal to Bush; part of Bush's motive for these actions, according to Mansoor, was retaliation against Carter for Carter having fired Bush from CIA.


Another element in Bush's motivation was the need to retain Iran as a bulwark against the Communists, in the likely event of the death of Pahlavi. According to Mansoor, Bush operated on the theory handed down from the Dulles brothers that it would take a fundamentalist religious ideology to resist atheistic Communists, and Khomeini offered that ideology. In addition, in late 1978 when he was contemplating these moves, Bush felt he needed support in a coming war on terror.
Some of these elements make sense:
1. The Dulles brothers were deeply imbued with religious fundamentalist ideas, according to Stephen Kinzer's bio of the brothers: as lads, their grandfather regularly took them boating and indoctrinated them with his biblical beliefs. These notions might well have permeated Dulles's ways of conducting their affairs.
2. re the coming war on terror, in 1979 G H W Bush was not just an audience member but a participant in the Jerusalem Conference convened by Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu, titled, "International Terrorism: Challenge and Response."
3. It's not unreasonable that Bush would seek revenge against Carter.

Conspiracy theory?

If Khomeini (Islamic Iran) was Bush's man, did he go rogue? Or has that particular regime outlived its usefulness a la Mubarak?

Croesus

The Japanese are not now seeking, and as far as I am aware of have never sought to gain positions of power and influence over US policy.

Cicero was exiled then assassinated.

Doesn't it equally serve the needs of statecraft to make an example of those who have done harm to the state?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad