It was a tragic error and, for the Obama administration, a public relations disaster, further muddying the moral clarity of the previous strike on his father and fueling skepticism about American assertions of drones' surgical precision.

That self-hatred amongst Jews is fairly common?

If they can't clean up their own mess, then they can't complain when someone else steps in to clean it up for them.

sov·er·eign
Noun
A supreme ruler, esp. a monarch.
Adjective
Possessing supreme or ultimate power: "the people's will is in theory sovereign".
Synonyms
noun. monarch - ruler - king - lord - potentate
adjective. paramount - supreme - independent

I have to say, our drone policy reminds me of the side-door gunner from Full Metal Jacket: "Anyone who runs is a VC, anyone who stands still ... is a well-trained VC!"

Terrorist = Terrorist
Live in the same house as a Terrorist = Terrorist
Neighbor of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Son of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Over the age of 15 and in the vicinity of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Attend the funeral of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Randomly stop on the road to help someone a Terrorist wounded in a drone strike = Terrorist
Young child with the bad luck to stumble into a the killzone of a drone strike on a Terrorist = Terrorist Dog

Sounds like something a terrorist would say!

But Pakistan is a sovereign nation. And technically an ally. I think pretty much every sovereign nation in the history of the world gets to complain when another nation stages unwanted military actions their borders.

Imagine the shrieking if Canada (politely) sent drones into Detroit to get some Quebecois terrorists the locals were hiding. And yes It is not a perfect analogy, it is not meant to be.

Matt, what do you think would have happened if we went to Pakistan and told them that we thought Bin Laden was hiding in that compound and we wanted him arrested and extradited?

What would Reagan or Bush have said if the Phillipine government had demanded that Marcos be arrested and extradited?

The Pakistani government can only remain in power by retaining a state of not-war with various incredibly nasty groups and individuals. This means they are going to defend incredibly nasty people. They shouldn't do that, and it makes them a bad government supporting very bad things, but the logic of power here is intelligible.

I don't know. I think they would have been obliged to turn him over. Mrs. Aquino was popular on both sides of the aisle.

The problem is that the government of Pakistan is run by Islamic extremists. The fact of the matter is we're being extorted into giving them money so they don't continue to behave badly.

So, you understand that Marcos was a humongous shitbag who should have been tried for his crimes, and whom the US would have protected against such prosecution?

Far more dangerous than Iran with nuclear weapons, and it's clear the US isn't going to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, a policy I've come to agree with.

According to John Feffer, co-director of the Foreign Policy in Focus, in 2006

The primary problem is that the current U.S. administration fundamentally doesn’t want an agreement with North Korea. The Bush administration considers the 1994 Agreed Framework to have been a flawed agreement. It doesn’t want be saddled with a similar agreement, for if it did sign one, it would then be open to charges of "appeasing" Pyongyang. The Vice President has summed up the approach as: "We don’t negotiate with evil, we defeat evil."[39]

Diplomatic efforts at resolving the North Korean situation are complicated by the different goals and interests of the nations of the region. While none of the parties desire a North Korea with nuclear weapons,[40] Japan and South Korea are especially concerned about North Korean counter-strikes following possible military action against North Korea. The People's Republic of China and South Korea are also very worried about the economic and social consequences should this situation cause the North Korean government to collapse.

A bombing raid might slow things down some but it isn't going to stop them. Additionally, a raid will just stiffen their spine and cause them to redouble their efforts.

Iran having a bomb actually doesn't worry me that much. North Korea is much more reckless. They're liable to do anything. The Iranians tend to be provocative but realistic.

I don't see Israel going to war with Iran either. Bibi might want to but most Israelis won't want to g along with him.

I'm trying to imagine how a war between Israel and Iran would transpire. There's no shared border and neither country has the ability to project much power onto the other.

Obama pledges to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon

Preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is a national security interest of both Israel and the United States, President Barack Obama said Sunday in calling for continued diplomatic efforts but also pledging that all options -- including a military effort -- remain viable.

"All elements of American power" remain an option to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including "a military effort to be prepared for any contingency," Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobby group.

I'm in the camp of people, however, who take him at his word, in part because he's repeated himself on the subject so many times and in part because he has laid out such an effective argument against containment and for disruption, by force, if necessary. With the help of Armin Rosen, of The Atlantic's International Channel, I've posted below a partial accounting of Obama's statements on the subject. Of course, it is possible that in a second term, should he win his bid for reelection, he will change his mind on the subject, and it is possible, of course, that Iran will somehow manage to defy his demands. But the record is the record: Given the number of times he's told the American public, and the world, that he will stop Iran from going nuclear, it is hard to believe that he will suddenly change his mind and back out of his promise.

In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff." He went on, "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

Should the U.S. actually take Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice and attack Iran, don’t expect a few sorties flown by a couple of fighter jocks. Setting back Iran’s nuclear efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and whole Navy carrier strike groups — plus enough drones, surveillance gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive mission go. And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel another decade of a nuke-free Iran.

There’s been a lot of loose talk and leaked tales about what an attack on Iran might ultimately entail. Anthony Cordesman, one of Washington’s best-connected defense analysts, has put together a remarkably detailed inventory of what it would take to strike Iran (.pdf), cataloging everything from the number of bombers required to the types of bombs they ought to carry. He analyzes both Israeli and American strikes, both nuclear and not. He examines possible Iranian counterattacks, and ways to neutralize them. It leads Cordesman to a two-fold conclusion:

* “Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran’s efforts for a year or two.” Despite the increasingly sharp rhetoric coming out of Jerusalem, the idea of Israel launching a unilateral attack is almost as bad as allowing Tehran to continue its nuclear work unchallenged. It would invite wave after wave of Iranian counterattacks — by missile, terrorist, and boat — jeopardizing countries throughout the region. It would wreak havoc with the world’s oil supply. And that’s if Israel even manages to pull the mission off — something Cordesman very much doubts.

* The U.S. might be able to delay the nuclear program for up to 10 years. But to do so, it’ll be an enormous undertaking. The initial air strike alone will “require a large force allocation [including] the main bomber force, the suppression of enemy air defense system[s], escort aircraft for the protection of the bombers, electronic warfare for detection and jamming purposes, fighter sweep and combat air patrol to counter any air retaliation by Iran.”

I realize it's bullying, but I'm not sure it isn't the best course to simply assert, "We will help you in numerous ways to compensate you for our refusal to allow you to develop nuclear weapons, and we will do everything possible to find an adequate substitute for what nuclear energy programs would otherwise give you, but you can't have weapons, and we will bomb your facilities if you persist".

In that case, logically the only think Iran could do to lift the threat is to develop a bomb.

Oh, and to make the analogy fit better, Canada would have to be paying us a few billion in aid every year. The analogy is terrible.

And yes It is not a perfect analogy, it is not meant to be.

If you were a sovereign nation like Iran it makes total sense to do everything possible to develop the bomb. Look next door at the country that did n't compared to say Pakistan or North Korea which has. Notice any differences in how they are treated by the US?

Logic (or reason) suggests another course, though. IF you knew that your country would be subjected to extremely destructive bombing raids that would continually make your nuclear program the equivalent of towing bargeloads of rials every month into the middle of the Persian Gulf and sinking them, you might decide that an agreement that stabilizes your economy and your own political power even as you maintain the region's most powerful conventional army, is in your best interests.

Oh wait, if only you could read.

However the original statement that Pakistan doesn't get to compalin is asinine.

That's what they are doing (building and stalling) and its been very effective so far.

They can complain all they want. We just don't have to listen to it, as we are paying them the right to not listen. I haven't yet heard one Pakistani leader say he's not interested in the money.

And when they do complain, they have to not forget that what they are complaining about, they are guilty of in spades.

I know everyone - including me - hates hippies, but listening to everyone speak so blithely about the justified need and desire for weapons that vaporize cities and cook countless people from the inside out does make me think they might have had an overall point, at least about peace in general.

* Note: This is not an endorsement of all or even most hippy led foreign policy, rather an endightment of neo con "policy" and the watered down version many dems favor. However I am sure the thrust of this message will be ignored and some idiot will explain to me all the dumb stuff hippies believe and then lecture me about it. Such is the internet.

Breitbart.com ridiculed Paul Krugman for filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in a since-deleted post whose claims originated with a satire website. Just last month, Breitbart.com castigated a news outlet for running with a story from that same website.

Just last month, Breitbart.com castigated a news outlet for running with a story from that same website.

It should be pointed out that Iran has consistently denied that it is attempting to produce nuclear weapons. Yes, yes, I know, they are pathological liars and the fact that they deny it means it's doubly certain, or something.

I mean, finding out who is trying to develop nuclear weapons is like the whole reason for the CIA. They're pretty good at that part of their jobs.

other countries are predisposed to like us

I mean, finding out who is trying to develop nuclear weapons is like the whole reason for the CIA. They're pretty good at that part of their jobs.

This is mostly American self-delusion.

We'll find those WMD's in Iraq any day now.

If you know you're saying something stupid (you did, on both counts), rather than attempt to pre-empt criticism of your stupid statement, how about just not saying it? It's possible to indict the foolishness of neocon foreign policy without replacing it with something that's also really foolish.

It should be pointed out that Iran has consistently denied that it is attempting to produce nuclear weapons. Yes, yes, I know, they are pathological liars and the fact that they deny it means it's doubly certain, or something.

It won't destabilize their political power. It will fortify their political power. An attack on their nuclear facilities will be seen by the rank and file as an attack on Persian sovereignty and national pride. The people will take the economic hit willingly if the alternative is to lose face before the world.

If there is perhaps one thing that would most fortify the Iranian regime's political power, it would be a military attack by the US and/or Israel. And, as has been pointed out, in the long run it's probably impossible to prevent their development of a bomb. Thus I'm far from thrilled about Obama's posture on this one so far, though it likely matters little what the US does.

Anyway, to add something substantive I've long thought that Iran and the U.S. are natural allies. Geopolitically, Iran is much less invested in the Palestinian situation than the Arab world, as a Shiite power is a potential counterweight to the other Sunni states in the region, is a neighbor of Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where we still have interests. I wish we could have a more productive relationship.

In addition to the long list of reasons listed in #772, Iran's vast oil resources make it unlikely that they need to develop nuclear power at all, much less in a way that has every hallmark of a clandestine military program. Anyone buying the Iranian line probably thinks the North Koreans are also misunderstood.

That's due to a lack of refinery capacity. Nuclear power doesn't replace gasoline.

I woke up in my dark bedroom the other day, head pounding and mouth dry. Before I even got out of bed, I knew that Beijing was having one of its hazardous-air-quality days. There was a tickle in my throat. My eyes stung and watered the minute I set foot outside.

On a similar day a few days before, I’d walked only 10 minutes from my apartment to my friend’s place. By the time I got there, my coat, scarf and hair smelled the way they would have smelled after a night in a smoky bar followed by a couple of hours standing behind a car’s exhaust pipe....

This winter has been particularly bad. January alone had 19 days of hazardous air quality, which means that levels of the smallest particulate matter soared to over 301 micrograms per cubic meter. The U.S. Embassy, which monitors Beijing’s air quality, says that hazardous air can lead to “serious aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; serious risk of respiratory effects in general population.”...

On Jan. 12, the measurement reached 886, which one article equated to living in a smokers’ lounge. And Beijing isn’t even the most polluted city in China, according to the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection. That honor goes to Urumqi, in the far west of the country. We’re No. 3.

Foreigners living here talk about how the bad air causes them a plethora of health problems, from days-long headaches to bad coughs to sinus issues that require surgery. One expat told me that after a friend of hers had lived in Beijing for about three years, her doctor said her lungs looked like those of a pack-a-day smoker, even though she had never picked up a cigarette. Many parents refuse to let their children play outside, and one mother said her 2-year-old was starting to look like a vampire because he was so pale....

Years ago, longtime expats say, the cold winter winds often blew away Beijing’s air pollution, but now, with the city having grown and with so many households still burning coal for heat, the winter tends to have as many bad days as the summer....

I don't think the US really has a choice between a nuclear Iran and a non-nuclear Iran. The choice is really between a nuclear Iran and no Iran. I suspect that ultimately the US is a safer place with a nuclear Iran than it would be with the actions required for there to be no Iran.

This winter has been particularly bad. January alone had 19 days of hazardous air quality, which means that levels of the smallest particulate matter soared to over 301 micrograms per cubic meter. The U.S. Embassy, which monitors Beijing’s air quality, says that hazardous air can lead to “serious aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; serious risk of respiratory effects in general population.”...

Breathing Isn't Easy In China

781 - whether or not we use drones, that tech would spread

George Will is under fire for distorting the history of Watergate from an expert source -- Richard Ben-Veniste, chief of the Watergate task force.

Will, in a March 6 column, deceptively portrayed Robert Bork as a hero who protected the Watergate prosecution, but his defense of Bork rests on omitting critical details -- including the fact that Bork actually moved to abolish the task force that was looking into the scandal.

Sure, but we poisoned that pond. Imagine if Iran had overthrown Reagan right after he assumed the Presidency in 1980 and installed, oh, the head of the John Birch Society who then ran the country through 2008, when he was overthrown and Obama was elected. Let's say the Birchers ran a secret police apparatus that through torture and murder ran the country for fun and profit for that quarter century. In a couple hundred years you might consider establishing non-hostile relations.

WaP story:

Iran Oil Revenue Quickly Drying Up, Analysis Says

Here' a quote:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) was jubilant today after his newly unveiled budget plan picked up a key endorsement from the novelist Ayn Rand.

It was a rare public utterance for the late Ms. Rand, who has been damned to eternal torment in Satan’s lake of fire since 1982.
“This is a budget I wish I had written,” said Ms. Rand, pausing to scream as white-hot flames licked her face. “Paul Ryan is a great man and I look forward to meeting him someday.”

Sleepless nights? Not so much.

Of course you and I would say that the US had no stomach for more invasions- but who knows what was going on inside their minds? We'd labeled them a one third of an Axis of Evil- and considering where are forces were physically stationed- if we were going to tackle number 2- they were next in line.