[identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
Amazing how some things can stay topical over decades. given so much has changed. However, some themes seem to never die. This song was popular when I was a young adult in Dallas, TX played by a local band Vince Vance and The Valiants. It was topical during the summer before the Reagan Regime™ used human hostages as pawns in a game to take back the Ford White House from "that peanut farmer". *insert rant about how CARTER WAS THE WORSE PRESIDENT EVERRRRRRR* 

It was topical when Bush1 and Bush2 were in power. And it is topical today.



hearing about the Iran holy boogie men over the past 40 years 'gonna get us with nukes!' is..well...getting old.



Song Lyrics:
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Let's take a stand
Bomb Iran
Our country's got a feelin'
Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks
Tell the Ayatollah, "Gonna put you in a box!"
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Our country's got a feelin'
Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

Ol' Uncle Sam's gettin' pretty hot
Time to turn Iran into a parking lot
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Our country's got a feelin'
Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

Call the volunteers; call the bombadiers;
Call the financiers; better get their *** in gear
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Our country's got a feelin'
Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
(Let's nuke 'em! Whoo!)

Call on our allies to cut off their supplies
Get our hands untied, and bring em' back alive
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Our country's got a feelin'
Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iran
Let's take a stand
Bomb Iran
Our people you been stealin'
Now it's time for "keelin", bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran


Is Iran an actual real live threat to the US? Is it a threat to Israel? If so, is Iran out of its collective mind? Or is this just more beating war drums; saber rattling - political chum to keep the neocons sated with appearances of official concern?

Anyone been to Iran? Is it as 'repressive' as painted?

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 21:21 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
US butthurt WRT the Iranian totalitarian state has a very simple cause: the Shah's regime was our best regional friend outside of Israel, a regime we imposed by brute force and assassination. They were extremely good customers for our military goods and a major strategic benefit, but in practice when they spent the better part of eight years slapping Iraq silly we found out that they really weren't pushovers, so we started hating them. Nowadays, the USA's wars have been the best thing to happen to Iran, so if it's now a threat to the USA or Israel, it's because the USA made its enemy in the process of its erstwhile successes. Iran is not Iraq and should not be seen as such, if the USA or Israel try to pull an Osirak here, Iran *will* shoot back instead of sitting like a duck hit on the head. Would they win? No, not at all. In any sense of the word. Would such a "victory" rank up there with the military career of Pyrrhus of Epirus? Yes.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 23:43 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com
but in practice when they spent the better part of eight years slapping Iraq silly we found out that they really weren't pushovers, so we started hating them.

The whole pre-war hostage thing had nothing to do with it?

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 00:17 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
There's an argument Carter at least gave some encouragement/aid to Saddam Hussein as a means to browbeat Iran in the crisis when his attempt to relieve it by force failed. And that Saddam's inglorious failure created a problem for the USA on multiple levels. In other words the two crises mutually affected each other, they were not separate.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 04:30 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com
The Mickey Mouse Fuck You Iran t-shirts came out a year before the war started. The fact there's an argument that the Iran-Iraq war may have sort of been started because of the hostage crisis doesn't quite show that after 8 years of war, we started hating them even though we started hating them 9 years earlier. And that million dollar bounty Khomeini put on an author's head for writing a book didn't help.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 21:32 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com
I've struck up some conversations with some Iranians on the subway. I accidentally discovered they were Iranian because the language they were speaking was so unusual but at the same time beguiling and beautiful. When I asked what it was, they said Fârsi, and we had a great conversation. And stunningly handsome too.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 06:23 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] luvdovz.livejournal.com
Curiously, Farsi turns out more similar to most European languages than we suspect, when you listen more closely. Notably, there are some very visible similarities to the way French sounds.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 06:29 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com
Yeah, that's exactly what it reminded me of, at the time I thought it was Greek with French mixed in, and so my hunch was Romanian based on their looks, etc. Not that I knew what Romanian sounded like, I only experienced that a few months ago and was a cool language to hear. What's crazy to me-- Romanian sound more Russian (or Slavic) than it did a Romance language, compared to Farsi.

Anyway a friend of mine's most prized record is the complete recording of Mozart's The Magic Flute in Farsi.
Edited Date: 27/3/12 06:33 (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 06:50 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] luvdovz.livejournal.com
Haha! Taht would sound pretty weird. :)

Romanian has a lot of vocabulary loaned from Old Slavic.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 21:34 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com
Is Iran an actual real live threat to the US?

No.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 21:43 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com
Are they a threat to the US and Israel, possibly. In truth every country is a potential threat to the US and Israel. Is the leadership out of its mind, again it is possible, but first we must determine what is actually in head. They saber rattle, we return in kind, their leader talks shit, ours does the same. Will they attack the US, well if we leave them alone, the most likely won't. Will they attack Israel, yeah, they might try it, but lets get real, Israel does not need our support, they can take care of themselves without our backing.

I get tired of the saber rattling and war drums, they give me a major headache. All that rattling and beating is just tiresome. Few people actually want a war, its not good for business, and after the First and Second World War, most of the world learned that lesson.

I have not been to Iran, not really feeling the love for them right now, after some of the stuff their leadership has said about Jews and Israel. I have nothing against the people of that nation, nor should we. As I understand it, and I and getting information third and fourth hand, they are not all that impressed with their political and religious leaders. See common ground, they are like us, not happy with their elected leaders. Given some time, more saber rattling and drum beating, we will all dance around a campfire somewhere singing some cheesy camp fire song.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 21:51 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] oportet.livejournal.com
Think of it as a snake, coiled up on the other side of the yard. Very doubtful it's going to crawl over and try to eat you. It also probably wouldn't be very smart to walk across the yard and kick it. But, this snake may or may not be trying to build a bomb. Also, this snake hates your friend the caterpillar, who's right there next to him. There's more! He just happens to be sitting on a fuckton of oil.

That was a weird analogy, nowhere near as weird as it would be if it wasn't an analogy though.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 23:10 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nahele-101.livejournal.com
Analogy works though.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 23:41 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rimpala.livejournal.com
So Iran is selling snake oil?

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 02:34 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com
funny i think there is a common Farsi word for snake-oil

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 22:28 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sealwhiskers.livejournal.com
God, the US can't even pronounce "Iran". It's pronounced Eeraan.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 23:34 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
I for one am a fan of Western imperialist pronunciation.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 23:40 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sealwhiskers.livejournal.com
Clearly you're not the only one.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 06:26 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com
IKR. The way those Amurkins pronounce Iran reminds me of the yogurt drink, ayran.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 23:10 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nahele-101.livejournal.com
Is Iran a threat to us? No. It never has been.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 23:38 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rimpala.livejournal.com
Anyone else in the room feel like if Iran really wanted to nuke us or Isreal they would've done so already?
Edited Date: 26/3/12 23:39 (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 01:30 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
No. They don't have them yet.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 14:15 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rimpala.livejournal.com
Why not then? If they really, really, really want to nuke someone why does it take this long to somehow get their hands on a nuclear weapon and do it? And besides, they can go total war on Isreal right now, with or without the weapons. Sure, it might be a suicide move for Iran, but then again so is deploying a nuclear bomb.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 20:38 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
Because it's not that simple.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/12 23:46 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com
I spent 2 years on the Shaht Al Arab watching the red dhows shuttle too and fro. I can not confirm ever having set foot in Iranian territory.

In regards to your question, the answer depends on how you define "actual real live threat". In the sense of invasion and occupation no they are not.

That said, the Iranian government has made no secret of their desire for regional hegomony, and as of 2008 limiting the IRGC's ability to support/instigate secretarian violence was the main mission of US troops in southern Iraq.

Now that they are well on their way to being a Nuclear power the entire region is on eggshells. Everyone expects Iran to start lobbing nukes at Israel as soon as they roll off the assembly line but if I were in thier position, I would select a more politically and militarily potent target.

Isreal after all is not the "Great Satan" the US is. and knocking taking out a carrier or two would put a real crimp in any American response to an attack on Israel, while also demonstrating ample Barraka thus increasing the Iranian regime's standing among the other muslim states.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 00:20 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] danalwyn.livejournal.com
Iran is mostly a regional threat, and, strangely, it's a threat to a part of the world that is of very little strategic importance to the United States. Despite the time and effort that the US spends on the Middle East, none of the countries there are particularly essential to US security or our long-term strategic interests. All we care about is that they don't upend the boat we're all sailing in.

The problem with the Middle East is that it seethes with its own internal politics and factions. The US has never been able to really control the Middle East, nor have the Europeans, nor have the Muslim empires that have grown up in the region. Iran will become a major player in the Middle East, but Iran has always been a major player in the Middle East. The idea that Iran will suddenly be able to do what the US, the Europeans, the Turks, the Russians, and the Caliphs were never able to do and become absolutely dominant over the entire Middle East is fairly far-fetched. The idea that they'll be able to conquer or take over a significant part of the Middle East is probably also fallacious - there are simply too many competing powers who will act to trip the Iranians up, even subconsciously. With nuclear weapons Iran will cement its place as a permanent major player on the Middle Eastern stage, but it will no more be able to dominate the political or international scene there then the US's possession of nuclear weapons has allowed them to do so up to now.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 00:25 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Except that when the Ottomans overran most of the Middle East they kept it for centuries, and their rule less was overthrown than they lost a war and got their empire dismembered in the harshest "peace" supposedly civilized societies ever tried to enforce. Admittedly the only power to ever control the entire region was the Achaemenids.......

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 01:37 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] danalwyn.livejournal.com
Well, not so much for the Ottomans either. Even though the Ottomans kept most of what they had under control, they never really controlled the Arabian tribes that well in the desert. And the Egyptians were always sort of a thorn in the Ottoman side. Not to mention the Persians. Or the rest of North Africa. Even when the Ottomans ruled, they never really seemed to rule. Even the Achaemenids never managed to really take the whole thing. The Middle East has just historically been too big for everything to fall under one roof.

The key to "keeping" the Middle East seems to be to accept that most of the pieces are going to wander off in their own direction, and allow yourself to be the nominal leader. The Ottoman empire after Suleiman seems to be something of a trend in this direction, even before they lost a war.

(I would point out that losing a war is a traditional way for Empires to end suddenly and abruptly, and I wouldn't even point to the Ottoman Empire as getting the worst deal. The Incas and the Aztecs can probably compete for that title).

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 12:29 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Why would they bother direct control when they had the Banu Hashema as vassals in the Hijaz? The Treaty of Sevres, which is mostly forgotten now, is what I was referring to. It illustrates the degree of self-serving hypocrisy in German complaints about Versailles quite thoroughly and seemed more a Punic peace than a serious attempt at trying for a New Order.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 00:32 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] muscadinegirl.livejournal.com
OMG, blast from the past. I actually remember this one!

I also remember one from the Hostage Crisis: Khomeni, y'old Meanie.

That said, it's amazing how little changes.

I've heard that there are still people in high places in this country who want to get their own back for the Hostage Crisis.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 02:29 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com
I am yet to make it to Iran to visit....however, I have a number of close-friends/business acquaintences of the Persian community. Most will not go back to Iran, and work their asses off to sponsor any family members that were once left behind there. These communities do not speak kindly of the current socio-political scene there.....it's government seems to be overflowing with religious fanatics from what is said. but then, how many governments on this lil' Earth aren't influenced by the region's dominant religion?

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/12 06:19 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com
[livejournal.com profile] madali could've provided some perspective here but I'm afraid he's no longer active on LJ in general.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"The NATO charter clearly says that any attack on a NATO member shall be treated, by all members, as an attack against all. So that means that, if we attack Greenland, we'll be obligated to go to war against ... ourselves! Gee, that's scary. You really don't want to go to war with the United States. They're insane!"

March 2026

M T W T F S S
       1
2345 678
910 1112 1314 15
1617 1819 202122
2324 2526 272829
3031