Iran war could spark Cheney candidacy for 2008

[Michael Z]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1594976,00.html

"For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere. Mr Cheney would doubtless point out that US military spending, while huge compared to other nations, is at a far lower percentage of gross domestic product than during the Reagan years."

Interesting. Far-fetched, but interesting nevertheless. Many people (including Cheney himself) regard a Cheney candidacy for 2008 as unrealistic, but here is at least one scenario which could change that - even if the possibility of a war in Iran is, at this moment, rather unlikely.

[Democratic Hawk]

Were a war with Iran to happen, they'd be a strong case for continuity among Republicans, which could in effect propel a Cheney candidacy to the fore

I'm hoping there won't be any war with Iran (hawkish, as I am) - but if we are to engage in military strikes they had better be air strikes because a ground war in Iran would make Iraq look like a cub scouts week-end

If Iran is proved to be an international threat, then the UN must break itself free from it'd feckless shackles

Dave

[dazzleman]

War with Iran should only be undertaken if absolutely necessary.

It's interesting that they're looking to build a missile that can hit Europe.  That is obviously intended to have the predictable effect of making the Europeans more weak-kneed than they already are, and provoke the US into a response.

Since we're the furthest away from these people, maybe we should just let the Europeans deal with them.  The problem with that is, the Europeans will appease them fruitlessly and fritter away any chances to rein them in, and then turn the problem over to the US when it becomes a crisis.  Oh, and then they'll criticize whatever course of action we take, in line with their usual behavior.

Politically speaking, I don't think another war is a good way to divert attention from the first one.  It would be better to end the first one in a positive way if it's necessary to have another one, and it may be if Iran does not change course.  The controlled presidential election, which put a hardliner in office, was a sign that the mullah's intend to pursue a path of confrontation with the west.

[Michael Z]

War with Iran should only be undertaken if absolutely necessary.

It's interesting that they're looking to build a missile that can hit Europe.  That is obviously intended to have the predictable effect of making the Europeans more weak-kneed than they already are, and provoke the US into a response.

Since we're the furthest away from these people, maybe we should just let the Europeans deal with them.  The problem with that is, the Europeans will appease them fruitlessly and fritter away any chances to rein them in, and then turn the problem over to the US when it becomes a crisis.  Oh, and then they'll criticize whatever course of action we take, in line with their usual behavior.

Politically speaking, I don't think another war is a good way to divert attention from the first one.  It would be better to end the first one in a positive way if it's necessary to have another one, and it may be if Iran does not change course.  The controlled presidential election, which put a hardliner in office, was a sign that the mullah's intend to pursue a path of confrontation with the west.

I think European leaders (for now ignoring that "Europeans" is a vast generalisation of 40+ countries) seem to realise as much, hence Britain taking on a more hardline stance after Ahmadinezhad's election, while Germany under Merkel and France under (eventually) Sarkozy are bound to follow suit. Prior to that stage, ie. under President Khatami, a German-educated moderate, many European countries felt they could deal with Iran on a more level basis. Now, with that headcase in power, it's no longer the case and thus the tone from Europe will change. Unlike Iraq, Iran is something both the US and the EU will agree is an imminent threat.

It's easy to dismiss the EU as "weak-kneed appeasers" simply because they don't feel that all possible diplomatic avenues have been exhausted, but this does not necessarily correspond to reality. On that note, simply going by comments made in this and other forums, I sometimes wonder who hates us more, the Iranian mullahs or the American right.

[dazzleman]

I think European leaders (for now ignoring that "Europeans" is a vast generalisation of 40+ countries) seem to realise as much, hence Britain taking on a more hardline stance after Ahmadinezhad's election, while Germany under Merkel and France under (eventually) Sarkozy are bound to follow suit. Prior to that stage, ie. under President Khatami, a German-educated moderate, many European countries felt they could deal with Iran on a more level basis. Now, with that headcase in power, it's no longer the case and thus the tone from Europe will change. Unlike Iraq, Iran is something both the US and the EU will agree is an imminent threat.

It's easy to dismiss the EU as "weak-kneed appeasers" simply because they don't feel that all possible diplomatic avenues have been exhausted, but this does not necessarily correspond to reality. On that note, simply going by comments made in this and other forums, I sometimes wonder who hates us more, the Iranian mullahs or the American right.

I don't hate Europeans.  I just wish they didn't hate us so much after we've defended them for 60 years.

My distaste for Europeans is purely derivative.  It would go away if Europeans didn't appear to be so strongly anti-American, and so dismissive and unappreciative of the disproportionate sacrifices Americans have made in our common defense for 60 years.

[Democratic Hawk]

Are European's so anti-American? The majority would seem to be anti-Bush but is that necessarily synonymous with being anti-American?

I'm not exactly enamoured with the incumbent president but I'm not anti-American - far from it and, unlike, most Europeans and a large plurality of Britons, I'm broadly supportive of the Iraq mission

Dave

[dazzleman]

Are European's so anti-American? The majority would seem to be anti-Bush but is that necessarily synonymous with being anti-American?

I'm not exactly enamoured with the incumbent president but I'm not anti-American - far from it and, unlike, most Europeans and a large plurality of Britons, I'm broadly supportive of the Iraq mission

Dave

Anti-Americanism in Europe long predates Bush.  Many Europeans hated Reagan for the same reason they hate Bush -- because he was not an appeaser and took a confrontational approach to an adversary.

On the other hand, Europeans didn't seem to mind presidents like Nixon, Ford, GW Bush, Clinton, who either took a more conciliatory approach toward adversaries, at least on the surface (Nixon/Ford - detente) or were not in office at the time of a major confrontation (GW Bush, Clinton).

The European hatred of America cannot simply be passed off as being anti-Bush; it is something far deeper in my opinion.  Europeans are appeasers who have relied on a foreign power to defend them for 60 years, despite the fact that on paper, there is no reason they cannot defend themselves.  They could; they simply choose not to.  This self-induced dependency creates a feeling of strong resentment toward the people who effectively make that dependency possible.

There is a basic split in values between Americans and Europeans, and a fundamental disagreement about how to deal with threats.  At times, this can lead to a constructive two-pronged approach that can actually produce good results.  But at other times, it is disastrous.

The funny thing is, when the Europeans feel directly threatened, they then demand American action to rescue them from their own impotence.  Kosovo is a perfect example of that.  They couldn't even deal with the whole Yugoslav situation without the US taking the lead and doing probably 80% of the work.  But when America is threatened, the Europeans want no part of the common defense.

So I don't buy for a minute that the Europeans love America, but just hate Bush.  Bush has simply held office at a time when circumstances have laid bare the major fault line between the US and Europe.

BTW, when I say Europe, I mean, generally, what Rumsfeld calls Old Europe.  The Eastern Europeans, for whom we did a lot less than the Western Europeans, seem to appreciate our contribution quite a bit more.  And Britain is not really part of Europe, but lies somewhere in the middle between the US and Europe.

[Democratic Hawk]

You make some interesting comments

And Britain is not really part of Europe, but lies somewhere in the middle between the US and Europe.

I agree with you on that

Dave

[phk]

It would be better politically for the Republicans to declare war on a far easier country than Iran to divert attention away from thier impending failures in  Iraq.

Why not Niger or Mozambique? Victory in less than 3 hours, huge boost of political capital.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The funny thing is, when the Europeans feel directly threatened, they then demand American action to rescue them from their own impotence.  Kosovo is a perfect example of that.  They couldn't even deal with the whole Yugoslav situation without the US taking the lead and doing probably 80% of the work.  But when America is threatened, the Europeans want no part of the common defense.

LMAO.

No outside of the former Yugoslavia was threatened by the situation. Do you think Germans were terrified of Milosevic?

Kosovo was a NATO operation done for humanitarian reasons. The US did most of the work because the US is the largest NATO country. Duh. No NATO country felt threatened by it and none were begging the US to come save them like you claim.

Oh and European nations did play a big role in Afghanistan, a case where the US was threatened. They were against Iraq because Iraq was no threat.

What's most hilarious is if Europeans and the American left hated America like you claim, they'd be open about it. Ask opebo what he thinks about religion, and you'll get a pretty clear answer. Ask me what I think of suburbs, it'll be the same. Ask an American leftist or European what they think of the US as a whole, not Bush. Is it going to be anything like what opebo says about religion or I say about suburbs? No. But you claim the American left and all of Europe hate America as much as opebo hates religion and I hate suburbs. So why hide it? If you have a hatred that big, I don't think anything would be held back. Of course you say I hate American because I hate Pinochet and have claimed I admire Fidel Castro despite me saying many times I do not like him.

[Michael Z]

Anti-Americanism in Europe long predates Bush.  Many Europeans hated Reagan for the same reason they hate Bush -- because he was not an appeaser and took a confrontational approach to an adversary.

"Europeans", as you call them, "hated" Reagan not through his confrontational approach per se but because they thought he was going to get them all killed with his confrontational approach. There's a huge difference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, wait - appreciating a more conciliatory approach = hatred of America? That's effectively what you're saying in those two paragraphs.

Besides, you're also contradicting yourself further by stating that Europe's hatred towards America is proven by their dislike of Reagan, yet state that they didn't seem to mind, well, every other President but Bush. If anything, it suggests the typical neocon tactic to claim America entirely for themselves and everybody who disagrees with their political ideology is immediately against their country as a whole.

And I won't even start with the vast sweeping nature of statements like "Europeans are appeasers". But of course, that's just what the world needs - a more aggressive and bellicose Europe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ahem, Afghanistan? German and French soldiers have died in Kabul. What I find funny, personally, is how some anti-Europeans tend to ignore instances where Europe and the US do work together effectively whenever it suits their agenda.

[dazzleman]

MikeZ - a couple of comments.

I think I painted with a very broad brush, so not everything I say is true in every case, but what I wrote does reflect my general feelings about the matter.  In general, Americans are sick of defending Europe and, in our perception, mostly getting kicked in the teeth for it.  Understand that it is very disheartening to have entered two world wars that we had no part in starting (at least directly) and then being the primary defense for western Europe against the Soviet for 45 years, only to have so many people there hate us.  Had we let Europe go down the drain after World War II, as we might have, the lives of the western Europeans would have been very dark and bleak.

It seems that Europeans hate the US during periods of confrontation against imminent threats, and relations are better during more quiescent periods.  That is basically the definition of a fair weather friend.  Many Europeans didn't like Reagan's policy of confrontation with the Soviets, yet that policy did a lot more to rid Europe of the Soviet threat than the policies the Europeans espoused.  And where was there anger at the Soviets for targeting them with nuclear missiles in the first place?  Reagan did not initiate the nuclearization of Europe; he only sought to counter what the Soviets had started.

I am not anti-European per se, just disillusioned with what I perceive to be the European contempt for the US and disregard of the sacrifices we have made on behalf of Europe.

BRTD - I laugh at your characterization of the Kosovo War as a humanitarian mission.  If it was a humanitarian mission, then so is the Iraq War.  We attacked a country and removed a government from power, effectively.  Somalia was a humanitarian mission, but Kosovo was a war.  And it was against a country that was no threat to us.  Why are not as vehemently opposed to it as Iraq?  This war was done at the behest of the Europeans, who convinced a reluctant American administration to carry most of the weight in the war because they didn't want that nasty business going on in the back yard.  I recognize that the US is the largest single country in NATO, yet the European countries combined are at least as big as the US.  So then why is it that the US must make most of the military contribution?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD - I laugh at your characterization of the Kosovo War as a humanitarian mission.  If it was a humanitarian mission, then so is the Iraq War.  We attacked a country and removed a government from power, effectively.  Somalia was a humanitarian mission, but Kosovo was a war.  And it was against a country that was no threat to us.  Why are not as vehemently opposed to it as Iraq?  This war was done at the behest of the Europeans, who convinced a reluctant American administration to carry most of the weight in the war because they didn't want that nasty business going on in the back yard.  I recognize that the US is the largest single country in NATO, yet the European countries combined are at least as big as the US.  So then why is it that the US must make most of the military contribution?

Kosovo was an intervention into a single province, with reports of genocide going on. No government was removed. Milosevic was not removed until about 2 years later in a popular uprising by his own people. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Kosovo action, as his popularity actually increased during that time. It is much closer to Somalia than Iraq. It's actually much closer to Clinton's bombing of Iraqi military bases than anything else, since that's about all that happened. If you honestly think Milosevic fell because of the Kosovo War then I believe you are incorrect.

The Serbian government was no threat to other European countries either. You make it sound as if the Europeans were begging the US to come in to save them from Milosevic, when in fact no direction action against Milosevic was even taken as stated above.

As for your comments about the US having to take all the brunt and all that, you make it sound like that was a lot. How many US soldiers were killed in Kosovo?

I also love how you completedly ignored my opebo/religion, me/suburbs analogy. Come on, if all Europeans and American leftists are such rabid America haters, why not be as open about it?

[dazzleman]

I also love how you completedly ignored my opebo/religion, me/suburbs analogy. Come on, if all Europeans and American leftists are such rabid America haters, why not be as open about it?

Because people like you know you can further your agenda better if you hide your true motivations.

Actually, I don't really mean you. Your "points" prove nothing, just as your constant babbling about the fact that your aunt likes to live in Minneapolis doesn't negate the broader point about why middle class people have left the cities and moved to the suburbs in large numbers.

If you think the Kosovo war had absolutely nothing to do with Milosevic's fall, you are wrong.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If you think the Kosovo war had absolutely nothing to do with Milosevic's fall, you're a fool.  But then I already knew that.

So then you just called John Ford a fool.

Milosevic was toppled after he tried to nullify election results in which he lost. What does that have to do with Kosovo?

[Michael Z]

Some interesting points on Europe which I'm not going to argue with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't say the Clinton administration was reluctant to go into Kosovo, in fact Clinton and Albright were extremely supportive of the campaign. Though the war definitely did put into light the sheer gap in military capabilities that exists between the US and most European countries (bar Britain and, possibly, France).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Milosevic was toppled after he tried to nullify election results in which he lost. What does that have to do with Kosovo?

What happend in Kosovo significantly weakend Milosevic's hold over Serbia (and finally dashed his pseudo-fascist dreams of a Greater Serbia) and almost certainly speeded up his fall.

[dazzleman]

Milosevic was toppled after he tried to nullify election results in which he lost. What does that have to do with Kosovo?

What happend in Kosovo significantly weakend Milosevic's hold over Serbia (and finally dashed his pseudo-fascist dreams of a Greater Serbia) and almost certainly speeded up his fall.

Thanks Al.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's still hardly comparable to Iraq, and only would be if Milosevic was directly deposed by NATO. And like I said, you also called John Ford a fool. Then of course there's also the fact that it wasn't the NATO action that mainly caused him to withdraw from Kosovo, but rather pressure from Russia.

[Beet]

D-man, here's the thing with the Kosovo issue. In early 1999, prior to the beginning of the 78-day airstrike operation, there were increasing reports in the media of an ongoing or imminent genocide against the Kosovars in the province, perhaps not genocide in the sense of a systemic mass extermination, but certainly including selective extermination and mass killings. In light of the costs of the West's belated reaction to the recent genodical violence that had taken place in Bosnia in the mid-1990s, policy makers were under tremendous pressure to respond to this burgeoning humanitarian disaster. I believe the most appropriate comparison would be to Sudan in late 2004. Of course, once the operation started the "liberal" media skewered Clinton for trying to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal.

Now there's a very important different between that event and Iraq 2002. While any large plethora of justifications had been given for Bush's choice to invade Iraq in 2002, including enforcing UN resolutions, the nature of Hussein's dictatorship, WMDs, parallels with Munich '38, democratic domino theory, and Hussein's past atrocities, one reason that I never heard as a justification, which was the justification for the Kosovo war (and would be for any potential intervention into Sudan or Rwanda) was an ongoing or imminent humanitarian disaster unique to late 2002. This is a critical distinction.

On another note, there seems to be a false assumption on the part of the anti-European right that America's entry into World War II was an act of some kind of cosmic charity, that we willingly gave up the blood of 400,000 of our boys for nothing than a sentimental affection for the freedom of the French. They seem to forget planes flying over Pearl Harbor and Germany and Italy's declaration of war on America, on the threat that would have been posed to American security by Axis victory in Europe and the Pacific. The same goes, by the way, for French assistance to the US in the second half of the American revolutionary war. Sweet feelings aside, I've not seen any convincing reasons that the action was taken out of some sense of charity rather than an appreciation of the ancient realities of realpolitik.

[Middle-aged Europe]

*bump*



To summarize it:

-> Europeans are ultra-liberal pacifistic surrender-loving appeaser-pussies and American conservatives hate them for being it.

-> Americans are warmonging "kill 'em all"-style hardline extremists and European leftists hate them for being it.

-> The Americans hate the Europeans for their hatred against America and the Europeans hate the Americans for their hatred against Europe.

-> Foreign policy decisions are derived from selfish motives in 99% of all cases.

-> America defeated Hitler and "defended" Europe for the following 60 years because it was in its own strategic interest (the Western Europeans benefited from it though).

-> When Europe is "begging" for assistance or is helping the United States (like Germany in Afghanistan or Poland in Iraq) this is the result of a selfish motivation too.


Conclusion: We hate each other and are articulating this mutual antipathy. However, most of the time it is in our own national interest to help each other. But this shouldn't be confused with sympathy or sentimentalism, but is the result of pure selfishness.


Is this an accurate depiction now?

[Platypus]

It would be better politically for the Republicans to declare war on a far easier country than Iran to divert attention away from thier impending failures in  Iraq.

Why not Niger or Mozambique? Victory in less than 3 hours, huge boost of political capital.

Canada

[Platypus]

From an Aussie PoV:

Anti-Americanism is steadily growing down here, and a significant amount of it is Bush-related. Aussies had no problem with Reagan, certainly not to the same level as there is with Bush.

Alongside the growth in Anti-Americanism is Anti-European-ism.

At a general level, increasingly the US is seen as domineering, aggressive and rude; Europe as faded, arrogant and useless.

and here we are, finally starting to 'grow up', trying to decide between the UK, the US, Asia and ourselves. The US certainly isn't winning,and the UK and the rest of Europe dropped out of the race a long time ago. We're redefining our image, and whilst 'mum' (the UK) and 'dad' (the US) have a part to play, increasingly Australia is facing the decision not between the UK and the US,  but what course to take in the future-Asia or the west, or maybe NOTA.

Bush doesn't exactly present the west's case well, and the European leaders are so irrelevant, particially I believe by choice, that they might as well be African.

[opebo]

Europeans are appeasers who have relied on a foreign power to defend them for 60 years, despite the fact that on paper, there is no reason they cannot defend themselves.  They could; they simply choose not to.

Wrong.  They have adequate defenses for the real threats out there.  It is the US that has a military several times the size it needs.  Even during the 'Cold War' the Soviet 'threat' was enormously hyped by the US, which was the main aggressor during that conflict.  Lastly, Europeans are not 'appeasers', they just aren't imperialist aggressors to the exent the U.S. is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they resent the US stirring up trouble by attacking anyone who dares to disagree with it - attacking Vietnam, supporting Isreal, enslaving whole peoples under client dictators in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the Europeans are realistic, the Americans are engaging in imperialism by deluding their simple populace into believing anything that doesn't serve the profits of the multinational corporation is a threat to the national security of the US.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, they're smart enough to know that the country itself is a terrible threat and danger, even if some leaders (for example Clinton) are less flagrantly irresponsible and destructive than the current example.

[Inmate Trump]

There is as much reason to go to war with Iran as there was to go to war with Iraq.