Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Thank you Canada | Main | Same sex marriage debate in one week's time? »

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Like we didn't know it

TIME magazine reports that "Iran and Syria Helping Hizballah Rearm".

Didn't we already know this? Iranian regime has Syria and Lebanon as its colonies and uses them to influence the region and spread the disease of Islamic revolution through out the middle east.

There is no way to stop the mullahs of Iran other than a democratic regime change. It's the only way to stop this cycle of violence that is taking place through the mideast region by Islamic groups backed by Islamofascist regime of Iran.

Posted by Winston on November 25, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Like we didn't know it:


"TIME magazine reports that 'Iran and Syria Helping Hizballah Rearm'. Didn't we already know this?"

Yes, we did. But Time is not claiming that this is a scoop - that they are breaking a new story. They are merely continuing to report on an ongoing story.

"There is no way to stop the mullahs of Iran other than a democratic regime change."

True, except for two things:

(1) The words "regime change" are a whole lot easier to say than they are to implement. Everyone now agrees that the transition to a working democracy in Iraq is going a lot less well than was hoped. And with one country in the Middle East already stretching Western resources to help, expanding that effort to yet another country seems the best recipe for failure. Of course we would all like a democratic Iran, but it is unrealistic to expect it to happen anytime soon.

(2) It is not clear that the influence of mullahs would be significantly diminished if Iran were democratic. Just because a country has a government based on elections does not mean that the influence of religious leaders goes away. In North America the power and influence of Christian political organizations has often been felt. In less mature democracies (like Egypt) there is a continuous struggle to keep fundamentalist voices from dominating elected positions. So even with a radical change to a real, working democracy, it might only slightly soften the influence of the mullahs. Also, the desire of Iranians to be a nuclear country might not be any less in a democratic Iran.

Perhaps containing Iran with the regime they have and concentrating on keeping them non-nuclear is the best we can do ... for now.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-25 9:07:58 AM


so what you are saying is that we should simply bomb the shit out of their nuclear facilities every time they reach the point of nuclear reactor start up instead of killing the present administration in Iran.

That would be like killing the patient to get rid of the disease ... Clearly leftist thinking.

I am surprised you haven't suggested going over there and negotiating with the Mullahs.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-25 9:39:10 AM

Mark Logan, Are you really clueless or what?

Posted by: self | 2006-11-25 9:58:39 AM

Nope, he is not clueless. He is just a dumb troll

Posted by: F14 Pilot | 2006-11-25 10:01:02 AM

He also sounds very defeatist as usual.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-25 10:41:01 AM

So would any of you tin-pot generals like to explain how you would go about creating regime change in Iran? If the plan involves an invasion on the scale of Iraq, please also explain where the soldiers will come from. A draft?


Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-25 10:59:29 AM

WHat we really want in Iran is what we used to call a "republican form of government" - free elctions, the rule of law, and respect for private property and person. It's also, I submit, what most people think of when they say "democracy."

ML, contrary to your view, the "fundamentalists" in Iran are actually a radical departure from traditional Shia Islam (which tends to have more respect for separtion of mosque and state - my term). The fact is, the Khomeinists have run Iran into the ground during their 27-year reign. There is a large (albeit unorganized) pro-democracy movement in the country. I would humbly submit we would not need a military force at all.

More to the point, if the Iranian regime were forced to deal with a rebellion at home, they would not be able to so readily aid terrorists in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq.

The same goes with Syria, where the Syrian Reform Party went form practically non-existent in 2003 to 100,000 strong in 2006.

This is what we did not do in Vietnam (and thus lost), and what we DID do in El Salvador (and thus the Communists lost).

Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-11-25 11:10:11 AM


You comments are helpful, but they still don't explain how we make the change happen. You say that because there is "a large (albeit unorganized) pro-democracy movement in the country" that "we would not need a military force at all." Ok, then what WOULD we need to do? Obviously the movement is not able to get things going themselves, or they would have done so. So what sort of assistance do they need from us to make it happen and how feasible is it for us to provide it?

Finally, to indulge my skepticism a bit, if it would require little of us to make the revolution happen, why hasn't President Bush already done it? He has shown he is willing to take on the more demanding job (Iraq), so why wouldn't he bedoing the less demanding one too, assuming, of course, that it is less demanding. If it isn't, then we are back to my original question on logistics.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-25 11:16:01 AM

Mark L:

"please also explain where the soldiers will come from"

That is a fair point. However, a lot of the current problems in Iraq right now can be attributed to a too-soft policy in the Middle East as opposed to a too-hawkish policy. Had the Americans decided to engage Iran militarily, they could have destroyed the Iranian military. It would have taken longer than the few months between March 2003 and May 2003 to do the major Iraq military but the outcome would have just as sure and one-sided. A weakened Iran would not have fueled the Iraq civil war to the extent that it has.

I repeat that the question you ask is a fair one and as such the idea of America staying long term in both (or three - Syria) countries at the same time is not practical with the current American military. However, the long term choices of not confronting Iran militarily seem to me to be worse than the current policy of doing little to nothing of any effect.

A valid argument against America simply crushing Iran militarily and then leaving is that we would not know the outcome of the type of regime that would emerge. That is true, but we do know the outcome of nuclear arms with long-range missiles in the hands of the current regime. I do not yet believe Bush will let Iran go nuclear armed even the the change in Congress.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-25 11:31:15 AM

Lebanon is now Iran's forward military base, they will be able to attack Israel more easily now that they're securing control.

Israel will have to take the gloves off in the next battle of this war and destroy the Iranian military base called Lebanon - unless enough of the people that live there decide not to become an Iranian military base. Since the Lebanese want to become an Iranian military base, that's unlikely to happen. So Israel should retaliate against Lebanese headquarters in Tehran as soon as the next battle starts.

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-11-25 11:58:45 AM

Why do you dimwitted twits continuously sidetrack these threads with your stupid troll feeding?
Have you absolutely no self-control?

Yet another potentially good topic hijacked by a troll and those too f*cking stupid to realize they are being manipulated.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-11-25 11:59:54 AM

Perhaps the right wing in Canada is not sufficiently racist as it is. Perhaps we need to replace the crosses in churches with dollar signs. Maybe that would be more appropriate.
Ever ask yourselves why countries in the West suck each other off for having the bomb, but when Iran or NK gets it we crap our pants? We have the money and power, so we decide who is permitted, who is justified and who is not, when it comes to military strength.
All I suggest is that you look critically at the basis for your beliefs. I think you will find the more you question, the more you realize how groundless and destructive a hegemonic market society truly is, ie: CIA assassinations that throw countries into chaos. The right wing emphasizes freedom, then turns around and murders the democratically elected leaders of states that don't want to take part in our economic treaties. Eg: you may not like Chavez, but would you be cool with Bush sending his men to assassinate a Canadian leader of any stripe? We have no right to invade the politics of other countries, just as they have no right to invade ours. Unfortunately, as we can see from Canada's role in the Haiti coup d'etat, we've got our fingers in other people's pies.
Guess I can't expect much agreement here, eh?

Posted by: Richard | 2006-11-25 12:48:07 PM


"We have no right to invade the politics of other countries, just as they have no right to invade ours."

It's funny, but often the same people who say this when the country in question is Iraq or Iran are also the first to complain that we did not do enough in Rwanda and are not doing enough to help the people in Darfur. But you can't do anything for these people without interfering in their politics.

If not interfering means letting genocidal governments slaughter their people when we have the capability of stopping it, then you bet we have a right to invade their politics. And if (however unlikely it is) any Canadian Prime Minister advocated the genocide of any group of Canadians, I would hope the US would forcibly prevent that from happening, too.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-25 1:19:59 PM

heres what recognizing ethnic groups with ANY RESPECT brings you-- Harper pulling a Mulroney distinking ethnic society because those same "soft nationalists FRENCH-QUEBEC RACISTS" infiltrated his party. a society of what? 7 and a half miullion pure laines? not all who are believers in that racist crap? there will be more the 7 and a half mi;llion muslims in canada within 15 years at their grossly obscene birth rate AND lefties controling canada's bureaucracy continuing the flow of muslims to overun us.

GUARANTEED these slkimeballs will ask for their same nation status within canada as well as their own legal system like quebec ALREADY has.






21 Shiites gunned down in front of families
POSTED: 1844 GMT (0244 HKT), November 25, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Sunni gunmen stormed two Shiite homes in Diyala province overnight and slaughtered 21 men in front of their families, Diyala authorities said Saturday.

The attacks north of Baghdad add to the series of sectarian reprisals that followed Thursday's assault on the Baghdad Shiite enclave of Sadr City, considered the single worst attack in Iraq since the war began.

At least 200 people were killed and 250 more injured in that attack, which Sunni militants are widely believed to have carried out.

In response, officials have imposed a strict curfew and shut down Baghdad's airport, forcing Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to postpone a trip to Iran on Saturday.

He was to meet with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to discuss ways Iran might help stabilize Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney was also seeking consultation on Iraq, arriving in Saudi Arabia on Saturday for talks with King Abdullah.

The political efforts come as a top Sunni leader urged the world community, including Arab nations, to help end the hostilities and rein in what he said was the Shiite-dominated government's backing of militias.

Hareth al-Dhari called the government "biased" and an "excellent sectarian government" and said that "what is going on in Iraq is a political crisis and not a sectarian crisis -- like some politicians like to say." (Watch for the differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslims )

His group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, had swiftly condemned the Sadr City attack and sent "condolences to the martyrs," a reference to those killed. It called the bloodbath a "repeated scene to agitate sectarian sedition."

Al-Dhari's appeal, which was made in Egypt, came a day after anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's bloc threatened to withdraw support for Iraq's prime minister, if a meeting with President Bush goes ahead as planned.

Since the Sadr City attack, enraged Shiites have retaliated by burning people to death and torching Sunni mosques, witnesses told CNN.

The violence threatens to bring Iraq to all-out civil warfare, a run-up toward chaos that has been escalating since February when a Shiite shrine was bombed in Samarra.

That shrine attack prompted Sunni-Shiite vendettas that have continued throughout the year.

On Saturday, mortar rounds landed on two houses in the northwestern Baghdad neighborhood of Hurriya, killing one person and wounding three others.

The Shiite majority neighborhood, which includes Sunnis, was also the scene of violence Friday, when Shiites attacked two Sunni mosques with rocket-propelled grenades and torched two other Sunni mosques.

Shiite militiamen are reported to have doused Sunnis with kerosene and burned them, while shooting at other people. (Full story)

Mortar rounds also hit the Shiite district of Abu Dshir in southeastern Baghdad, wounding four people, and Sadr City on Saturday afternoon, wounding a woman.

Thirteen were injured by mortar rounds in the neighborhood of Adhamiya, a Baghdad police official said Saturday.

The U.S. military has received reports that violence around Baghdad calmed down Friday evening and was not at the same level as that seen earlier that afternoon, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Christopher Garver told CNN. He declined to comment on what was seen overnight and into Saturday morning.

The U.S. military set up additional security checkpoints Saturday around Baghdad bases where Iraqi military operations are being conducted, he said.

Insurgents targeted
The U.S. military said coalition forces killed 22 insurgents and launched three airstrikes on a bomb-making factory during two separate operations north of Iraq's capital Saturday.

In an operation conducted in Taji, 10 insurgents and a teenage boy were killed in a firefight.

In a written statement, the military said a pregnant woman was wounded and taken to a hospital for treatment. She is expected to be released Sunday.

Coalition forces said they found rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns, anti-aircraft weaponry, pipe bombs and more than 3,000 feet of detonation cord in the area.

In another operation, the military said, coalition forces killed 12 insurgents in fighting north of Baghdad.

U.S. forces opened fire on a suspected militant traveling in an entourage of three vehicles when the vehicles would not stop.

The military also said the terrorist suspect makes bombs and channels foreign fighters into the northern Baghdad area. During the operation the coalition approached three vehicles carrying the militant and his associates.

"Twelve armed terrorists ignored warning shots and attempted to maneuver on the ground force," a military statement said.

The coalition forces then opened fire on the vehicles and killed them.

U.S. soldier dies
A U.S. Marine died Friday after being wounded in fighting in Anbar province, the U.S. military said Saturday.

The Marine was assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5, and the death brings the number of U.S. troop deaths in the Iraq war to 2,867.

Seven military contractors have also died in the war.

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-11-25 1:46:47 PM

Excuse my typing

poures gas on lve people yesterday in iraq then they burned them alive

just like muslims in nigeria did to christians after first putting car tires over them so they couldnt escape the flames



Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-11-25 1:57:40 PM

nuclear war now before THE BEARDS AND TOWELS OF PERSIA get it is the only way to end this - THE ONLY WAY

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-11-25 2:09:11 PM

I respect your position as it is very logical on paper, so to speak. But the fact is that we did not intervene in Rwanda and we have not intervened in Darfur in any significant way. While it may be naive to hope that we would invade a country strictly on humanitarian grounds, I think that is the kind of war that is justified, that we can support. And indeed, I agree that we should be acting in Sudan, should have acted in Rwanda and should be acting in the Congo.
The fact is that there are justifiable and unjustifiable wars, and clearly the wars the U.S. has devoted its greatest energies to have been the most trivial in terms of humanitarian crisis. Hussein killed in the thousands. But millions have died in Congo since 1996, and no one cares because the war serves economic interests (ie, the mining of coltan, a lucrative business) nothing is being done there. In fact some might suspect that the West sustains the war, while our corporations reap the benefits.
This story has been censored, but can be easily found with a little research online...(liberal media? I think not.)
The key question to ask is, why are we going to war? The true answer is almost never humanitarian or national security reasons, but always for the interests of the richest and most powerful. I am for intervention under the exceptional circumstance that millions are dying needlessly. Not under the circumstance that it will serve some corporation.
Keep in mind that Iraq was much better off under a dictator than it was under imposed "democratic" (and I use the term loosely) rule. That says something about the injustice we have done by allowing the US to do this horrible thing.
Let's not repeat the same mistakes.

Posted by: Richard | 2006-11-25 2:17:04 PM

Oh, P.S. is it just me or does Woodbridge need to get laid?

Posted by: Richard | 2006-11-25 2:26:26 PM

I am okay with the rich on the planet calling the shots. The alternative is big government and we all know what big government is always up to. Nothing in it for the people.

The really wealthy capitalists of Earth know the value of free human capital. Big government does not nor does the stone aged Muslim world.

The big problem on this planet is that the inhabitants cannot accept their nature and work with it. Something about guilt I suppose.

If we could learn to accept the innate attributes of humanity we could cut through a lot of shit and have a more sane planet.

That said (as everyone says these days)

The murderers in Darfur are Arab Muslims who don't like black people whether or not they are Christian, Muslim or Secular Humanist. Why aren't black people protesting this?

Otherwise, it is prudent to only participate in the conflict that either threaten us or are in our best interest. There is nothing wrong with self-preservation and prosperity.

That is how we got as far up the food as we have to this point.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-25 3:41:13 PM


That would be the "food chain"

Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-25 3:42:51 PM


What would it take to liberate Iran or Syria? In my view, somewhere between the support we gave Solidarity back in the 1980s and the aid we gave the Nicaraguan contras during the same period.

Why hasn't it been done? Mainly because the State Department and the CIA is full of, well, Richard-type folks who control the info that comes to the President. The Pentagon can usually win the "turf wars" against State by itself (as it did during the Reagan Admin), but it's much tougher when State and CIA are in cahoots.

The biggest mistake Bush ever made was keeping George Tenet at CIA. Tenet had a vested interest in making sure no one asked too many questions about al Qaeda and Iraq and why his agency didn't notice the ties between them. Now, the CIA is in outright bureaucratic warfare against the Bush Administration, and thank to the November elections, the CIA/State axis of appeasement is on the rise.

It could be a very bumpy couple of years.

Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-11-25 3:50:39 PM

Try another pair of glasses, I mean another worldview.

We are in WWIII. The monster is out there trying to eat us. Iran is moving its pawns, just like Hitler was in 1937 or 1938.

If we don't kill it it will eat us.

You may say I am misjudging the situation. OK.

But even if I'm wrong and you are right, I rather kill the monster anyway. This way I make sure it does not eat me!

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-11-25 4:26:55 PM

What some comments are really saying is we rather keep our own glasses and see Islamofacism as a little mosquito.

But they are also saying we rather submit to Islamofacism and loose our freedom (if not our heads) than agree the monster is out there.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-11-25 4:35:17 PM

There is no breaking through this inhuman logic by which the right-wing operates, but I would like to submit one final comment before I bow out. What you are suggesting, Duke/Houle is not survival of the fittest. It is survival of the most advantaged: white, upper-class 1% of the population. That's not democracy. That's facism of the expansionist variety by which Stalin and Hitler operated, among others. Now, to brush off the millions of dead Congolese as insignificant is a perfect example of the unity that exists between Nazism and the opinions being put forth here. Now the logic of your rightist positions means that you are unsatisfied with Canadian society and values. If that is the case, I suggest you move south of the border and join the KKK or the Bush admin. You are divorcing yourselves from our values, and are basically asking to leave our country, so please, GO. Until you realize that your position is not one you've earned as rich, white elites living in a safe country, but one you were born to, you cannot possibly understand the topics about which you speak so violently and so flippantly. Three million dead Congolese for the sake of a couple of stock points that will have no bearing on your lives is something I think you should contemplate. Imagine the deaths of your friends, family, everyone you know.
Let that sink in.

Posted by: Richard | 2006-11-25 5:05:07 PM

Survival of the fittest was the philosophy of Hitler and the nazis. They killed blacks, jews, handicapped, etc..

Survival of the fittest is evolution theory. This comes in direct line from the devil.

We were created in the image of God. Before the fall, there was no death. We live now in a fallen world. That explains why there are monsters out there. The biggest is Islamofacism.

Christianity takes care of everyone. But Islamofacism kills everyone who don't agree, just like the nazis. As a matter of fact, I think that nazis did not invent nazism. Islamofacism existed a long time before nazism.

If we did so much fighting to defeat nazis, we have to do much more to defeat the 2006 nazis who are called Islamofacists.

Let's get into action and take the offensive folks. Appeasement is over.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-11-25 6:57:14 PM


The values I have are the values most Canadians had in the 50s when I grew up. Values are relative.

The ones you hold look insane to me. The mamby pamby leftist, appeasing, permissive, whiny baby, no fault, horse shit attitude is an abomination of the prosperous free society I helped to build in my lifetime. The idea was to be free to pursue prosperity and happiness in a like minded culture. That's gonzo.

You have fucked it all up and now we have unsolvable problems a divided country with no definable culture because you have made everything from a terrorist to a gay sodomizer to a fucking cannibal acceptable in this great Canadian mosaic.

We have no unity and divided we fall!

Wise up ... what you want will lead to anarchy and things never go well for the weak and poor in the state of anarchy.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-11-25 8:47:35 PM

Logan wants concrete strategies for regime change. Here are a few (devoid of details).

Straightforward war I (Iraq-style): This is the most manpower-intensive although not as bad as Logan makes it sound. The work in Iraq will get a lot easier once Iran in declawed.

War II (more rubble less trouble): Bomb the military, airports, infrastructure and a few other places for good measure. Don't bother cleaning up. Let the Iranians sort it out. As one wag put it re: Iraq, "Set up any government you wish; choose one way, we send trade delegations; choose another, we send back the bombers."

Threats of war: This might be the best option, except that American pacifists have made these threats unconvincing. Threats are not exactly regime change but they ARE destabilizing. They would dramatically improve Iran's behavior. (Once again, pacifists hinder diplomacy an ultimately cause war.)

"Accidental" border incursions: Think French embassy in Tripoli. a variant of "threats"

Enforcing a fuzzy border: That is, allow American border patrols to go 10 miles or so into Iran.

Sponsoring Iran's insurgencies: My favorite. I'm not sure if the US has laws that hinder this or if DJ's CIA theories are the problem. Oliver North, where are you when we need you?

Posted by: Pete E | 2006-11-26 1:08:54 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.