liz_marcs | I Welcome Our New Canadian Overlords

Current Mood: morose

I Welcome Our New Canadian Overlords

I, for one, will welcome our new Canadian overlords with open arms when they finally, out of a sense of self-preservation, march across the Derby Line and, by force, instill sanity and civility on our oh-so-bonkeroo nation.

Ahhhhh, yes. This is beginning to look all so very familiar. The drum beats are starting. A new bad guy is on the horizon. There's a new nuclear terror being born.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PEOPLE WE ARE IN DANGER-DANGER-DANGER WILL ROBINSON WE MUST PRO-ACTIVELY ATTACK BEFORE BOMBS GO OFF OVER WASHINGTON DC! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! ONLY BIG DADDY BUSH CAN SAVE US! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Why look! It's our old friend Iran! Say hello, Iran!

I, myself, remember laughing my fool head off that you were included in the whole Axis of Evil speech waaaaay back in 2002.

Iran...Like Rodney Dangerfield in a way. No matter what, you just don't get no respect.

Now, I can see North Korea coming up on the list (although I would title said list as: "Countries that We Gotta Watch Because the Dude in Charge Is Batshit Insane" — A list that, sadly, the U.S. is lobbying hard and fast to join because god knows we gotta be number one at everything.)

Granted, Afghanistan definitely belonged on the list. Hell, other Islamic nations weren't in love with the Taliban, so there were some muted cheers when we went marching in.

I was surprised to see Iraq on the list because Saddam struck me as a tin-pot dictator from the Muammar Gaddafi school of crazy-like-a-fox. Bad for his own country, not so much a threat to anyone else. Let's face it, like ol' Muammar, who only recently has been allowed to use his dust-covered passport and leave his own bloody country, everyone on the planet was watching Saddam just in case he sneezed over his borders.

But Iran? Really? Some of us have actually, you know, read up on Iran and had been following the whole Spring in Tehran movement. Iran was slowly democratizing. The civilian government, with the support of the people, was gaining power over the religious leaders. The political leaders were reaching out and forming trade agreements with the western world. There was a flourishing of art and film of the sort revealed the hardy Persian spirit once more re-asserting itself.

Hell, Iran was the first nations to offer its condolences in the wake of 9/11. They held candlelight vigils for us, for god's sake!

Axis of Evil? I don't think so.

Talking about holding a grudge until Gabriel's trumpet blows! The hostage situation happened more than 25 years ago. Let. It. Go. Already. We've forgiven countries who've done a hell of a lot worse to us much faster than that.

Well, here we are, almost four years later. We've seen these drumbeats before when there was huffing and puffing to lie our way into Iraq. And as everyone knows, that's working out very well for us.

Given the rhetoric aimed at Iran coming out of the Chickenhawks who now own our government, I'm getting this horrible sense of deja vu. I know that history repeats, but this is rediculous. Can we please try to have it repeat in cycles of greater than 4 years? Thanks.

Yes, I suspect the coming war with Iran (I hold out little hope that Congress will do more than weakly protest what is fast becoming an Imperial President) will go even better than the boondoggle in Iraq. My sympathies for the soldiers in our military services was already high. It's crossed the line into outright worry. If this particular bit of mission drift happens, I have the sinking feeling we'll be losing an entire generation of young men and women to the graveyards or a lifetime of intense medical care.

Obviously, I'm not the only one watching this mess with growing horror. While us U.S. progressives are staring at our navels, and muttering to ourselves that we've heard this crap before, enter the Canadians!

Or rather, a Canadian.

Your must read: Speaking as a Canadian who is fond of judicious language, I feel that this situation deserves careful and measured thought. So let me just open with: Is your entire f*cking country on crack???

Best. Fact-Based. Reality-Based. Rant. Ever.

And one hell of a history lesson.

Go and read.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You are aware that the Conservative Party is probably going to win our election on Monday, right?

Led by Stephen "I think America and Prezzi Bush is just keen!" Harper?

Yes. *sigh*

Maybe I'm holding out hope that the Conservative Party will go down. Especially since you folks do seem to be a level-headed lot.

Ummmm, you don't happen to be using Diebold for your voting machines, right?

It's a good thing I lurk around here, since I'll probably be shot for saying this, but as a Canadian, the ideal alternative I see is voting for Layton - Let's face it, the old dude's Canada's political answer to Stone Cold Steve Austin, he's not the wackjob Harper is, and he's a different kind of wackjob than Martin, but he CAN be moderated with common sense, and regular infusions of unruliness.

It's a damn shame his entire party is backed by fairly weak candidates in most of their ridings in everywhere but central Canada.

*sigh*

We would be such awesome Overlords too.

We need sane Overlords, that's for sure.

No, we let humans count our votes in federal and provincial elections. (City elections often use computerized optical readers to count ballots, but I have no idea who manufactures them. No holepunchers, levers, or touchscreens are used, though.)

As for the Conservatives -- being a Canadian political party, and probably having a minority government, they'll move to the centre on a lot of issues anyway once in power (just as the Liberals always move to the right once elected.) I suspect we'll still keep legalized gay marriage, and our available troops will continue to be in Afghanistan so we won't join any new wars. They'll probably do internal damage to the federal system, but hopefully nothing the next government can't patch up.

There was a link posted on Metafilter the other day arguing that the anti-Iran rhetoric is mostly the Republican party trying to scare people into supporting them again, and will be dropped after your 2006 elections.

I wish I could just put it down to electioneering rhetoric, but our administration has shown, repeatedly I might add, that their reality doesn't quite match actual reality.

I have a sneaking suspicion that, yes, they are trying to make a case for invading Iran. But anyone who knows even >this much< about military history knows that it would be a collosally stupid thing to do.

The thing I hate about the Bush administration is that every time I think I'm descending into tinfoil hat territory, something comes out in the news that makes me think I need to add another tinfoil layer to my hat.

I don't know if they're keep the legalized gay marriage as it stands. Probably will, but rename it to 'Civil Union' or something ridiculous like that, making the party look silly for the next 2 years until they give up on it.

Since I'm Fiscally Left Wing while being Socially Right Wing, I'm looking forward to this gov't in some ways. The Conservatives will do quite a bit to clean up our gov'ts finances, which is what I want. Since the Liberals and NDP and Bloq will consider many of the social issues hills to die on, much of their social adgenda will be tempered.

I'm very torn by the options here. Like many Canadians, I do think the Liberal Party needs some time in the Opposition stands, but am very concerned about the possibility of a Conservative majority government. I am somewhat comforted by the knowledge that there are checks and balances in place, namely the Senate, which has a Liberal majority, and the rulings of the Supreme Court on issues like same sex marriage. Canadians as a rule tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
I still haven't decided who to vote for in my riding. I'm pissed at Jack Layton and the NDP: they blew a chance to make some real changes by working with the Liberal minority. I think Martin would have gone down the NDP road more if it meant he would stay in power.
I sympathize with those people in the USA who are feeling powerless and frightened by their government's actions. Not saying we'd do any better, given the opportunity; there are definite pluses to being a small cog in the wheel, the temptation to meddle is less.

I think the US/Iran situation is looking extremely scary. But I think there's a better chance of you guys stopping your crazed leaders going to war than in the case of Iraq. Though it's no done deal.

First, as that excellent rant points out, Iran really has the US over a barrel. (Not just of oil). The tattered vestiges of control that the US has in Iraq is entirely dependant on the quiescence of the Shia majority, over which the Iranians have a great deal of influence. (Though they are by no means their poodles). Shi leader Al Sistani has big Iranian connections. So any attack on Iran will have huge repercussions for America in Iraq, and even Cheney and Rumsfeld know that.

Second, they also know that Iran is a far more formidable proposition militarily than Iraq. Thirdly, not enough troops for an invasion without a draft, which I'm guessing would be highly unpopular.

Fourthly, Bush & Co. would be much less likely to have Britain on board this time round. I fear that Blair would support Bush if he decided to try to invade Russia in winter, but I suspect he would not be able to take his cabinet with him. I bloody well hope. No guarantee and the anti-war movement needs to be getting into gear over it very quick, but I think it's highly unlikely that Blair would be able to get support for it.

The big worry is, I think that when it comes to it, the US leadership (and also Israel) is not going to be willing to tolerate the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. Of course there is no evidence that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but it's entirely possible. And really, who can blame them? With nuclear-armed Russia, Pakistan and Israel in the neighbourhood, and the US in Iraq rattling sabres at them, they'd have to be either stupid or devout pacifists not to want nuclear weapons, and they're neither. I also read recently - aha, here it is, that the CIA, due to a piece of collosal stupidity, gave the Iranians nuclear blueprints and at the same time exposed their entire network in Iran. So the US is blind there, and while they can't know that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons, they can't know that they're not either.

I doubt the Administration could get an outright invasion through Congress right now. My fear is that the way they might play it is to launch airstrikes, or allow Israel to do so (having of course done everything they can, ha ha, to avoid it via the UN etc.), and then when Iran retaliates, eiher directly or through their influence in Iraq, allow things to escalate and hope to drum up a war atmosphere. It'd be crazy, and militarily extremely dangerous, and there's no way they could control Iran, but they might just be crazy enough to calculate that it would be worth the losses involved and the chaos resulting simply to destroy the Iranian regime and knock the country back into the middle ages, thus preventing any development of nuclear weapons, and then pull out and leave the country to its mess.

But I hope it's not too late to stop it.

I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the nightmares I will be having this evening.

I will send you my therapist's bill.

Seriously though...I keep pinging between "They wouldn't" to "Fuck yeah, they would."

It's with things like this US/Iran situation that I seriously begin wondering if maybe it's time for me to pack my bags and find a country that's got saner people in charge because right now...

Let's just say that 50 years from now, I suspect that History Channel is going to be doing a lot of documentaries on this time period in US history. And not the good kind, either.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one wide awake in dreamland.

It's with things like this US/Iran situation that I seriously begin wondering if maybe it's time for me to pack my bags and find a country that's got saner people in charge because right now...

I'm sure other countries would love to take you, but you realize it wouldn't improve anything, right? People in other countries are still afected by what the US Administration does...

Sorry 'bout the nightmares. :-( This was meant to be my optimistic mode. Hmm, guess that says it all. It was the nightmarish paragraph at the end I suppose...

South America looks a reasonable place to go right now if you want sanity. (Apart from Colombia perhaps.) They're all turning left and getting fed up of US leadership. I'd say go to Venezuela, but then you might just get invaded a few years down the line. Maybe Chile, with their new Socialist-agnostic-single-mother President Michelle Bachelet, who was imprisoned and tortured under Pinochet. Also pretty unlikely that Al Qaeda or anyone will bother with them.

Seriously though, I'd rather people like you were staying put and fighting. Though I realise what a horribly frustrating and scary job that is right now. What I find so frustrating is how useless the Dem leadership tends to be in these situations when it comes to the crunch. They all vote for war in Iraq and then say, "OMG, how could we possibly have suspected that a fanatical right-wing fundamentalist-influenced President who stole an election and has been stuffing the wallets of his cronies ever since would lie to us? Gee, we never saw that one coming!"

You're so not the only one, it seem to me there's so much disquiet about the war over there, it's just how to mobilise that when the main opposition party won't oppose?

given the hatred of Iran for Israel, is there any doubt that Iran will use their weapons on Israel? The problem is that if Israel goes down, many countries in that area will be largely uninhabitable for the next several centuries, at least. Not to say that Iran is the biggest threat, but it seems like they are willing to use nuclear weapons against Israel, which Israel wants to prevent.

It seems that the US policy towards Israel is to keep it alive and healthy, so the terrorists can focus on it rather than the US.

I tend to think that Ahmedinejad's talk about wiping Israel off the map is purely for internal consumption and not remotely indicative of actual policy. Sure, Iran doesn't like Israel, but they are not stupid. Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East, and is generally thought to have several hundred warheads. There is no way in hell Iran would choose to get itself nuked to oblivion by launching a nuclear attack on Israel. If they are trying to get nuclear weapons, it would be because they want a deterrent against attack from the US, or Israel, or any of the other nuclear-armed countries in the vicinity. I don't particularly like the idea of Iran (or anyone else for that matter) having nuclear weapons, but, short of a disastrous misunderstanding/computer error etc. (which is possible with existing nuclear powers), it's not really going to make that much difference.

The logic of self desctruction in exchange for 72 virgins in paradise inspires many murders. How is he different?

The logic of self-destruction for paradise works with a handfull of individual fanatics, but not for an entire country. Ahmedinejad may be a fanatic, but he isn't in sole control of Iran by any means. It would take a lot more than one madman to fire a nuclear weapon.

Also bear in mind that, while Iran's rhetoric may be extreme, their actual policies have been quite cautious. They supported the US in Afghanistan. They have not prompted the Shias of Iraq to rise up against the US, in fact they have generally exercised a restraining influence. This has not changed since the new President came to power. They are seeking to maximise their regional power, not go out in a blaze of glory. It is easy to demonise a country by talking about fanatics and 72 virgins and so forth, but the reality is far more complex.

I am not talking about their going against the US. I am talking about their going against Israel. Especially considering the funding they provide for terrorist attacks.

Note: I do not say or think all Palestinians are terrorists. I do think all the individuals who mortar neighborhoods, snipe and cars, and ten month olds ARE terrorists.

In Iranian rhetoric, the US is the 'Great Satan', and Israel is the 'Little Satan'. In either case, it is precisely that, rhetoric. So why would they be willing to destroy themselves to hit Israel when they won't even put themselves at risk to hit the US? Since the initial case of the US Embassy hostages (which Iran quickly realised was a mistake), Iran has not attempted any sort of direct attack on either Israel or the US.

Iran supports Hezbollah, the Lebanese group which has carried out terrorist attacks, but whose main effort was a (successful) military campaign against Israeli forces occupying their country. It has never sought the destruction of Israel or anything like. And really I don't see any difference between Iran supporting their Lebanese allies, and Israel supporting theirs in the Christian Maronites. I'm not saying any of this is nice. International power politics is not nice, whether pursued by Iran, Israel, the US, Russia or whoever. But that is what it is, power politics, not a national death wish.

As for the Palestinians (who I didn't mention), and who is or isn't a terrorist, well I could say rather a lot about that, but I'm not going to get into that argument on Liz's journal.

The reason Israel invaded Lebanon was because they were attacking Israel. Iran supports those who want to destroy Israel. Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah , all of whom want to destroy Israel. Iran wants to keep the pressure on Israel, as it allows it to be used as a scapegoat. The fact is that Iran DOES want to destroy Israel, and if they don't, they just seem to want to kill Israelis.

Iran has not attempted any sort of direct attack on either Israel or the US.

Actually, they have the militias who they support so they don't have to engage directly. Plausible deniability.

[quote] I doubt the Administration could get an outright invasion through Congress right now. My fear is that the way they might play it is to launch airstrikes, or allow Israel to do so (having of course done everything they can, ha ha, to avoid it via the UN etc.), and then when Iran retaliates, eiher directly or through their influence in Iraq, allow things to escalate and hope to drum up a war atmosphere. [/quote]

Yikes. That's creepy and possible. If Israel strikes Iran and then gets counter-attacked, suddenly we are 'defending our good friends in Israel' instead of launching another unprovoked war. Assorted hand-fluttering about 'preventing another Holocaust' can be patriotically jingo-ed about and everyone can feel really morally justified as they make yet another assinine mistake.

Ugh. Let's hope the Chimp-in-Chief isn't that clever. Most of his smart people are currently busy fending off indictments, so maybe his big contribution of the next few years will be something harmlessly appalling like putting Reagan's face on the nickel (since that was about what a dollar was worth when Reagan was done devaluing it...).

I appreciate what you're getting at, but I wouldn't label Yglesias as a progressive--he's more of a classic liberal.

But yeah, we're all staring at our navels and muttering. We're part of the reality-based community, and short of the entire Washington community pulling a Senator Paine over their loss of honor (slightly less likely than Satan setting up a sno-cone shop in Hell), we have absolutely no control over Washington's rhetoric. If anyone can get the Bush administration out of office, the next moron will just play into the "America doesn't back down" mentality. They always fucking do.

And the people will buy into it because it's always easier to shriek "EXTERMINATE" rather than deal with things. Or ignore it.

Times like this are why I look into emigration.

Thanks for the link to the rant. It was a thing of beauty.

I'm clinging to the hope that the rest of the world have learned something from the Iraq mess, and will put their foot down about Iran.

My country (Norway) isn't likely to be any help though, as our(new this fall) government have just proved that they are just as much USA's slavering little puppy-dog as the last government was.

This is an awesome post and I love your political firebrandedness and all the informative thoughtful comments.

But it also makes me so depressed I want to hide under the bed with some Toblerone. wtf is happening to this country?

Thanks for those nightmares. And I don't have a clue what concerned citizens can do, especially since I see (and have seen) a complete lack of leadership from the Democratic party.

I'd thought there were suspicions of Bush making a move on Iran since the last elections. Maybe I'm confused. Or more paranoid and pessimistic and cynical.

I used to be a bright-eyed and irritatingly optomistic Pollyanna. Then I started paying attention to American politics.

Sorry for the late comment on this one, but I've been hiding from my flist for a while.

It's very important to understand that the statement "there' no evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons" is completely ludicrous.

In fact, there are two technologies required to develop nuclear weapons:
1. Uranium enrichment, which is what the whole hullabaloo right now is about.
2. Artillery.

Given that Iran is perfectly capable of builing its own artillery, all they need to do to construct nuclear weapons is to develop a uranium fuel cycle. Once you have a few tens of kilograms of highly enriched uranium, it's a trivial matter to build rudimentary nuclear devices - a "gun assembly" weapon, similar to Little Boy, which was dropped on Hiroshima without the design having been tested. So when Iran claims it is interested in a nuclear fuel cycle for "peaceful" purposes, it is lying. There is no need for Iran to do this, because any number of nations would be perfectly willing to sell low-enriched uranium, which is not useful for nuclear weapons, to Iran for power-reactors.

In other words, Iran's statements about not wanting to develop nuclear weapons are directly contradicted by the technology it is trying to develop.

Now, this has little bearing on the rest of the issue, which is how other nations should respond to the situation. It's important to note that the US has been very careful to allow out European allies to take the lead, at least publicly, in determining the course of response to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

PS: the best technical overview of nuclear weapons is here:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html

It goes into sufficent detail that unless you're a bit obsessed or insatiably curious you'll be overwhelmed. It should be sufficient to convince you that the technological barriers to weapons production, once you have the appropriate nuclear materials, are actually rather low.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I Welcome Our New Canadian Overlords

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Problem...

Re: Problem...

I disagree.

Re: I disagree.

Re: I disagree.

Re: I disagree.

Re: I disagree.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject