Beck’s Totally Rational Response to Iran Deal

The multinational agreement to keep Iran from creating nuclear weapons has Glenn Beck frothing at the mouth, once again declaring himself to be a prophet and throwing out ridiculous predictions about a new holocaust. And he shows that he has no idea who is who in the Middle East.

For years I have warned the world against turning a blind eye to those who run Iran. They are beyond radical Islamists. They, like ISIS are psychotic Islamists.

No, actually they aren’t. If that were true, Rouhani sure as hell wouldn’t be president and this deal would never have happened. The more fanatical hardliners are against this agreement, just like Glenn Beck is.

When I predicted the rise of the caliphate, those who had not done their homework on what was really happening in the Middle East spent their time mocking me. Once again, I warn the American people and the people of the world again. This particular strain of Islamists, like ISIS, believe they can “hasten the return of the promised one”, and usher in the literal end times.

Uh, no. The Shiites who run Iran have very different beliefs than the Sunni ISIS. Beck, like most right wingers, just lumps all Muslims together into one big mass and assumes that they all believe whatever the worst of them believes.

What this president has done will be remembered as something far worse than Neville Chamberlain. It will only be a matter of time before millions cry out his name in despair and contempt. A Holocaust, perhaps bigger than the last, where millions of Christians and even Muslims who are not Muslim enough will die at the hands of the Islamic State.

Uh, Glenn…you do realize that ISIS is the enemy of Iran, right? That Iran is actually working with us in Iraq to help defeat ISIS? No, of course you don’t know that. Nor do you care. That might get in the way of your latest melodramatic spook story.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Donnie

    Hey, SLC80 agrees with Glenn Beck. Quelle surprise….

    What this president has done will be remembered as something far worse than Neville Chamberlain. It will only be a matter of time before millions cry out his name in despair and contempt.

    Because American hardliners like SLC80 want to detonate thermonuclear warheads in Iran and wipe millions of Iranians off of the Earth. Pure, sick, genocidal rage without regards to peace.

    #Slavery is Freedom

    #Nuclear War is Peace

  • wreck

    “When I predicted the rise of the caliphate, those who had not done their homework on what was really happening in the Middle East spent their time mocking me.”

    Don’t pout, Glenn, you were also mocked for pretty much everything else you’ve ever said.

  • colnago80

    Re donnie @ #1

    In fairness, we are only supporting Iran via Shiite militias in Iraq, as part of our support of the Kurds. We aren’t supporting the wholly owned Iran subsidiary Hizbollah in Syria, nor in Lebanon. Presumably we are supporting the Government of Egypt as they battle ISIL subsidiaries in the Sinai Desert. Just to complete the circle, our wholly owned subsidiary Israel is tacitly supporting the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusra Front in Syria as they battle Hizbollah there.

    Because American hardliners like SLC80 want to detonate thermonuclear warheads in Iran and wipe millions of Iranians off of the Earth. Pure, sick, genocidal rage without regards to peace.

    Hey, you want to make an omelet, you have to break some egg shells.

  • Jeremy Shaffer

    This particular strain of Islamists, like ISIS, believe they can “hasten the return of the promised one”, and usher in the literal end times.

    The emphasis is mine but, um, couldn’t the part in bold equally be said of the “particular strain” of Christianity that many of Beck’s audience and guests buy into?

  • k_machine

    “Monolithic Islamism” is the new “monolithic Communism”.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    colnago80 “Hey, you want to make an omelet, you have to break some egg shells.”

    Exactly. You can’t win Hearts and Minds without splattering them on the wall behind them.

  • abb3w

    0, Ed Brayton:

    This particular strain of Islamists, like ISIS, believe they can “hasten the return of the promised one”, and usher in the literal end times.

    Uh, no. The Shiites who run Iran have very different beliefs than the Sunni ISIS.

    While they have considerably different beliefs, I think both the whackier Iranian Shiites and the Sunni Daesh subscribe to (two different) apocalyptic eschatologies that involve return/(re)emergence of a great Islamic leader who will do all sorts of awesome stuff – the “Madhi” or “12th Imam”. A quick Google suggests that Ayatollah Khamenei at least gives occasional lip service (EG).

    Contrariwise, the most credible source I can find with evidence to support that President Rohani subscribes to such eschatology is a WND link — which leaves me inclined to dismiss his tentative placement in that camp as bullshit, unless someone fluent in Arabic can use the screenshot they provide to verify the accuracy of the “special kindness of the Imam Zaman” translation and the idiomatic implications.

    Nohow, Glenn Beck seems to remain a bloviating ignorant imbicile… who still hasn’t responded to the rumors about his alleged felonious conduct back in 1990.

  • Holms

    #3

    Hey, you want to make an omelet, you have to break some egg shells.

    War crimes apologetics at its most glib, casually suggesting a few million murders with a quaint homily. Exemplary of the banality of evil.

  • lorn

    He gets a whole lot wrong, but that isn’t what bothers me. His mistakes, in this case, take the usual form and include the usual self-inflating conceits about how he has ‘done his homework’ — I guess he didn’t want to seem to lofty using the word “research”, as is his habit — while implying that his critics are both lazy and uninformed.

    Same shit, different day. Booooring.

    What bothers me about this is his use of the meme that Neville Chamberlain was complicit in the rise of Hitler. On first blush he seems to have appeased the NAZI party regime and potentially held off an attack by the western powers that might have smothered the regime in its cradle.

    It is a nice story. A Just-So story that teaches the dangers of appeasement and the need to strike early. A sweetly packaged lesson laid out in clear and obvious terms. All well and good conventional wisdom. It is also largely wrong.

    Dig deeper and you find a lesson in real world politics and military power with Neville Chamberlain desperately trying to buy time even as he knew that what he did for the good of the world would mean he would be a laughing stock for all time.

    The claim that some power could have intervened just doesn’t wash. Which power or powers could have done it? At the time Russia was barely getting onto its feet after the one-two punch of WWI and a bloody revolution.

    France was not capable of substantial offensive actions because the male population of military age had been decimated. The motivation behind the massive investment in the Maginot Line was to make the much smaller army more effective in holding off German aggression.

    Britain had forces that were largely obsolete by that time but no way to get them to the landlocked area concerned. Yes, they could have invaded Germany. But this gets us to the other point, none of the major powers populations or politicians wanted a war. All of them had nearly drowned in the bloodbath that was WWI. Besides, WWI was “the war to end all wars” and there seemed a good chance that diplomacy and negotiation around trade could avert a war.

    This seemed more reasonable because Hitler had carefully groomed and flattered industrialists by telling them he would look out for them and that his words against them were just rhetoric necessary at the time. The duplicity was not one sided. The industrialists considered Hitler to be useful idiot who would help advance their cause against the unionists and communists. they were willing to overlook his extremist views and broad plans because they though that they could quickly and reliably withdraw their support and shut Hitler and his NASI part down. When the time came the levers of power and control had already been disconnected. The industrialist found that they had helped build a monster that they couldn’t control.

    The assumption that industrialist could reliably control everything was widespread. The captains of industry were the Masters of the Universe of their day. Magnates within Germany had told the Industrialist outside Germany that Hitler was their puppet, would remain on a leash, and his party would be scrapped as soon as this messy job was done.

    The game was much the same on the political side. Hitler was a useful counterweight to Communists and Unionists. As soon as they were beaten back good order would be restored and Hitler would find himself in a cage.

    By the time this was shown to be untrue and Hitler had effectively grabbed power the people who though they had him under control were left flatfooted. There was no Plan-B prepared. Diplomacy wasn’t going to put Hitler back under his rock and the military of the surrounding nations too weak to do much. This made more difficult because the population of those powers had been reassured that the situation was under control and the elites would handle it. By the time this was obviously untrue there were few option remaining.

    Which is where Neville Chamberlain steps in. He knew that Britain was financially, industrially, and militarily weak. He saw a major war coming. As sad as the “peace in our time” announcement was it was a way of buying time. Time for Britain to mobilize and build. It was the combined power of the air and naval forces build in that delay that made the difference in the Battle of Britain.

    Aside: It wasn’t British air power that saved England from invasion. Air power helped and was critical in crippling German air power, a critical step toward invading Europe, but Germany was prepared to protect the invasion fleet from aircraft and willing to accept the attrition. What it wasn’t willing to do was face the mass carnage that would ensue as British destroyer squadrons sallied forth into the English controlled and monitored channel and wiping out an invasion of largely unarmored barges and landing craft. Conservative estimates from gamed scenarios shows several divisions drowning in the English Channel and a score more being decimated and losing their equipment.

    The improvements made to the British military during the time bought by Neville Chamberlain publicly ruining his career allowed a more mobile British army to reinforce Greece. That may have turned the war as it delayed the German offensive in Russia. Those few week would tell as Germany’s armies fall just short of Moscow. The delay caused by Italian failure in Greece, and the need for Germany to reroute several divisions to handle the problem, gave just enough time for the hastily organized Russian defense and the onset of winter to make the difference.

    War is like that. On the surface it is all simple stories with Neville Chamberlain playing the part of a naive diplomat drunk on power sure he can tie Hitler, and his rapidly growing army, down with a piece of paper. A more accurate and incisive understanding is that Neville Chamberlain bought time by playing the fool. Time that was used to build and organize and prepare the populations for war. Efforts that, along with many other turning points, made the made the critical difference between allied or axis victory.

  • JustaTech

    #3

    “Hey, you want to make an omelet, you have to break some egg shells.”

    So my boss’ father-in-law, the poet, should be incinerated? Because you think you know what goes on in the minds of some of the people in the government of his country?

    So my college roommate’s family (dad, aunts, uncles, little cousins) should die of radiation poisoning and cancer because you never got out of a Cold War mindset?

    colnago80, you sound like Mike Huckabee.

  • Hoosier X

    Thanks so much, lorn.

    Neville Chamberlain took the fall for two decades’s worth of bad European diplomacy.

    When you know the facts, the “Neville Obama” statements get even more silly.

    It won’t stop colnago from Gish Galloping every Iran thread with Schicklegruber, Hister and Nostradamus.

  • Artor

    Wow, Colnago. I didn’t think I could lose any more respect for you, but you still manage to surprise. Surely there is none left now. Kindly fuck off and die, please? What a worthless piece of shit you are.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    @10 Tech:

    So my boss’ father-in-law, the poet, should be incinerated? Because you think you know what goes on in the minds of some of the people in the government of his country?

    YES! Now you get it! we cannot have these loose cannon poets out there. Iran could be developing weaponized stanzas, or iambic pentameter affixed with bayonets!

  • velociraptor

    @3

    So when are you volunteering, SLC? You might even get to shoot a Muslim.

    Funny how like chickenhawks like Bush and Cheney, you aren’t interested in being one of the ‘eggs’, and would rather engage in self-flagellating ‘tough talk’ behind your monitor.

  • caseloweraz

    Beck: It will only be a matter of time before millions cry out his name in despair and contempt.

    And are suddenly silenced when the forces of ISIS use their Death Crescent to blow up the planet. Isn’t that how the scenario goes in your mind, Glenn? There’s an implacable enemy mustering enormous force against everything and everyone you hold dear, and the ultimate disaster will fall upon them unless the enemy is immediately obliterated.

    It works real well on the silver screen. In the real world, not so well.

  • caseloweraz

    theschwa: YES! Now you get it! we cannot have these loose cannon poets out there. Iran could be developing weaponized stanzas, or iambic pentameter affixed with bayonets!

    Or even some brand new canon!

  • colnago80

    Re lorn @ #9

    Ah yes, the excuse of Chamberlain’s defenders that he made the deal with the German Nazi dictator in order to buy time to rearm. This overlooks a number of issues.

    1. Who made better use of the time between the Munich Conference, Britain or

    Germany? The answer to that one is the result of the Battle of France in 1940. The fact is that Germany in 1938 was in no better shape then Britain and France militarily. The Panzer divisions that won the Battle of France

    barely existed at the time of Munich. The German General Staff was well aware of the inadequacies of the Wehrmacht at the time of Munich and were terrified at the German Nazi dictator’s reckless behavior to the extent that some of them began plotting a coup to remove him from power.

    2. It is my contention that Britain and France would have been much better off fighting on the side of Czechoslovakia in 1938 then on the side of Poland in 1939. The Polish army was obsolete, lacking tanks and depending for mobility on horsed cavalry. In addition, the terrain in Poland was mostly flat plains, ideal for the blitzkrieg tactics of the Wehrmacht. On the other hand, the Czechoslovakian armed forces were fully mechanized with the best tanks in any army in the world. In addition, the mountainous terrain of Czechoslovakia was much better suited for defense then the plains of Poland. The Skoda Works was the most modern armament industry in Europe. By selling Czechoslovakia down the river, Chamberlain handed it over to Germany without firing a shot.

    A goodly portion of the tanks that won the Battle of France in 1940 were either captured from Czechoslovakia, manufactured in the Skoda Works, or built in Germany using Czech designs.

    3. By selling out Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain convinced Stalin that the Western Powers weren’t serious about stopping the German Nazi dictator, and, in fact were quite friendly to the idea of allowing him to expand to the East. This was the big reason why the Molotov-von Ribbentrop pact was signed. Had Chamberlain stood up to the German Nazi dictator at Munich, the latter would have been faced with the possibility that if German forces became bogged down in Czechoslovakia, and Britain and France got their act together and invaded Germany launching from the Maginot line, Stalin would be tempted to join the fray on the side of Czechoslovakia, miring Germany in a two front war. This undoubtedly fed into the German General Staff’s conclusion that the German Nazi dictator was a reckless adventurer who must be ousted before he brought Germany to ruin.

    4. The notion that the Wehrmacht was in any condition to invade Great Britain across the Channel is piffle. They lacked proper landing craft for one thing, which could transport tanks and other heavy equipment across the Channel. Any forces that made it to the other side would have been sitting ducks, without tanks or wheeled transport.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    It is my contention that Britain and France would have been much better off fighting on the side of Czechoslovakia in 1938 then on the side of Poland in 1939.

    Even if true, this is something that requires the benefit of hindsight. At the time, Britain and France had very good reasons to avoid or at least delay going to war. The character of Hitler, as someone who would never stop in his aggression, is also something that requires hindsight; at the time it was at least plausible that he’d honor his word and stop expanding.

    At any rate, this is all irrelevant. The people who have been loudly predicting that this dictator or that regime is the next Hitler are about 0-for-50 over the past 70 years. There comes a point at which we stop listening to the boy who cried wolf and understand global politics through the lens of realism.

  • Al Dente

    In 1938 the two main British fighter aircraft were the Hawker Fury and the Gloster Gladiator biplanes. Neither the Hawker Hurricane nor the Supermarine Spitfire entered squadron service until 1939. In 1938 the Messerschmitt Bf 109 was the primary Luftwaffe fighter. Chamberlain was well aware that the Royal Air Force aircraft were obsolete compared to the Luftwaffe’s equipment.

  • colnago80

    Re Al Dente @ #19

    Fair comment on your part. However, consider the following. According to you, the Luftwaffe already had ME 109 squadrons at the time of Munich while the British had nothing comparable. Also according to you, the British didn’t introduce the Spitfires and Hurricanes until 1939. Britain and France declared was against Germany in early September of 1939. In the time between Munich and September 1939, , the Germans would have had some 15 months or so to manufacture ME 109s. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Luftwaffe would have had far more aircraft then did Britain. Thus, assuming that it was the absence of comparable aircraft in the Spring of 1938 that caused Chamberlain to punt, how was Britain, which to a high degree of certainty was heavily outnumbered in fighter planes in September of 1939 in any better shape to oppose Germany then it was 15 months earlier?

  • Electric Shaman

    Shorter General “colnago80” Turgidson:

    I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Al Dente @ 19

    For what it’s worth, there’s an interesting fact about British biplanes near the beginning of the war: The British Fairey Swordfish, a biplane torpedo bomber, was so slow that the Bismarck’s powered AA turrets couldn’t keep their sights on them. It was a Swordfish that launched the torpedo that damaged the Bismarck’s rudder mechanism. This made it impossible for the Bismarck to do anything but go very fast in very small circles. Not exactly the best way to fight one’s battleship.

  • dingojack

    Also let us not forget the pivotal role of the old, slow, single-torpedo PBYs at Midway…

    Dingo

  • Al Dente

    eoraptor @22

    It wasn’t until American Lend-Lease aircraft were delivered to the Royal Navy that the RN got modern aircraft. In 1944, the two most common RN fighters were the F6F Hellcat and the F4U Corsair. The Sea Spitfire was a decent aircraft but its landing gear was too fragile to stand up to repeated carrier landings.

  • Al Dente

    dingojack @23

    The PBYs were completely ineffective as attack aircraft at Midway. However they were good as scout planes.

  • dingojack

    The Zero attack on the PBYs turned into a frenzy of Japanese aircraft attacks all at once, then they all came in to re-fuel and re-arm together.

    A sudden change of plan when the Japanese learnt of the proximity of the American aircraft carrier fleet meant the planned attack 2nd attack on Midway had to be put on hold, and therefore necessitating a ‘re-rearming’ from air-to-ground to air-to-sea weapons.

    All just in time for the America bombers to attack with devastating effectiveness. With such a concentrated number of planes all re-arming and re-fuelling on the hanger decks, the bombs punching through the landing deck and exploding ripped through the Japanese aircraft carriers and created floods of flaming fuel further spreading the damage, dooming them.

    Without the aircraft carriers the Japanese fleet could never successfully neutralise the American air superiority, thus preventing the Japanese from achieving the aim of the planned attack…

    Moral: Old, slow & obsolete can, in the right circumstances, still defeat the modern, fast & heavily armed.

    Dingo

  • StevoR

    @3. colnago80 : “Hey, you want to make an omelet, you have to break some egg shells.”

    And then beaten egg yolks and add butter / oil, cream /milk etc ..depending on the exact recipe you’re using plus whatever fillings / toppings may be desired – see :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omelette

    Mushrooms are a popular topping choice (perhaps some cloudy mushroom variety?) but NOT mushroom clouds or mass human carnage.

    You don’t make omelettes by dropping nuclear bombs because that tends to vapourise them (& the kitchen and more!) or if lucky only have them very badly burnt and overcooked and also add an most unpleasant aftertaste plus most stovetops can do the job quite adequately without involve genocide, radioactive fallout, millions of innocent dead and lingering environmental damage for millennia, et cetera.

    Cooking is NOT mass murder. Nuclear armageddon is not reasonably anaologous to haute cusine.

    Incidentally, the linked omelette wikipage notes several Iranian omelette versions :

    Nargesi or Spinach Omelette, an Iranian dish, is made with fried onions and spinach, and is spiced with salt, garlic, and pepper.[9][10]

    Khagineh, an Iranian omelette is made of egg beaten with sugar. In Iran, beaten eggs are quickly cooked with butter or oil in a frying pan.

    Baghala ghatogh, an Iranian dish made with Baghalas (Rashtian faba beans), dill, Eggs and spices.[11]

    A Chinese omelette can be egg foo yung[12] or an oyster omelette.

    (Italics original, no, I’m not sure why spinach and Chinese are italicised there either.)

    So it seems Iran can make a few different and apparently tasty omelettes too! (I’ve tried some very nice Iranian dishes but not those one that I recall.)

    PS. Colnago80, mate seriously, this shit again now? Really thought you’d learnt, changed your views, moved on and put that behind you.

  • StevoR

    @15. caseloweraz :

    Beck: “It will only be a matter of time before millions cry out his name in despair and contempt.”

    And are suddenly silenced when the forces of ISIS use their Death Crescent to blow up the planet.

    Actually the second Death “star” was a Death Crescent – okay mainly because it was supposedly unfinished. (If really fully operational!) Also yeah, much fuller and closer to spherical, more a waning gibbous equivalent lunar phase rather than the usual thinner crescents usually alluded to by that term but still! See :

    http://www.theforce.net/swtc/holocaust.html

    (Yeah there is an illustration of it there albeit a bit of scrolling down required & the ecological implications as noted there are interesting.)

    Come to think of it, the first Death Star was actually a Death sphere and I don’t recall ever seeing a star-shaped Death battlestation thingamajig in either Jewish Magen David* or pentagonal or other traditionally multi-pointed or asterisk shaped configurations..

    * The iconic Jewish symbol technically the “Shield” of David not star but everyone seems to go with calling it a star anyhow.

  • dingojack

    Actually Stevo – one could make an omelette by dissolving the egg-shell using a weak organic acid (such as vinegar), or one could use a needle to bore a hole in either end, scramble the contents, then blow them out. Neither technique breaks the shell, and yet both allows the yolk and albumen to make the (hypothetical) omelette.

    So the analogy fails at even that basic level… As I have explained previously.

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    You should see SLC’s recipe for Bombe Alaska – it’s a blast! (To die for).

    @@

    Dingo

  • colnago80

    Al Dente @ #25

    You are correct that the US torpedo bombers in 1941 were poor and almost all of them were shot down by the Japanese Zeros in the first attack on the Japanese carriers, landing not a single hit. However, in contesting the torpedo bombers, the Zeros had to fly low and were caught that way when the dive bombers arrived at the tail end of the encounter with the torpedo bombers. Thus, the dive bombers were able to successfully bomb the Japanese carriers, sinking all four of them while the Zeros were unable to protect their ships. It was more of a matter of luck then planning. The Imperial Navy never really recovered from the defeat at Midway.

  • colnago80

    Re eoraptor @ #22

    Another interesting fact was that there were two attacks on the Bismarck launced from the carrier Ark Royal. In the first attack, the pilots mistook the British heavy cruiser Devonshire for the Bismarck and attack it by mistake. Fortunately most of the torpedoes either missed their target or failed to explode. The reason was that they were using magnetic detonators which were defective at that stage of the war. Thus the planes were loaded for the second attack with contact detonators and it was a contact detonator that did the damage.

    It should be pointed out that the fact that the pilots were unable to tell the difference between an 8 thousand ton heavy cruiser and a 40 thousand ton battleship, even though the cruiser had been part of their task force, which demonstrates the difficulty of identifying ships from aircraft, even slow flying planes like the Swordfish. This was repeated at the Battle of Leyte Gulf 3 year later, albeit from aboard a ship when Kurita’s spotters on the Battleship Yamato were unable to distinguish jeeps carriers from fleet carriers

  • freehand

    colnago80, it sounds like you’ve read a lot of history. I have not. But I have some idea of the repercussions of using nukes in an unprovoked(1) attack, while you dismiss those complications(2) as trivial and unimportant when compared to the imperative for killing Iranians. This inability or refusal to even acknowledge those complications makes me thing that your understanding of history will be crippled by whatever is creating those blind spots.

    .

    1. Or provoked, for that matter.

    2. Including, but not limited to: radioactive fallout blanketing Eastern Europe as well as much of the Near East, possibly including Israel; worrying our allies to the point they may decide to unite in drastic action; probably uniting all of our enemies (currently enemies with each other) into drastic action against us; setting us morally on par with Nazi Germany; probably setting off a chain reaction of indirect regional wars; distracting us from the number one existential threat to humanity, global warming(3); costing far more than we can afford; and so on. Again, if you cannot understand this, or you do but believe that they pale in light of the importance of killing Iranians, then I have to assume that your reading of history is incorrigibly crippled.

    3. Also, too, ocean acidification; sea level rise; spread of plague, pestilence, and famine; marine ecosystem collapse; weather disasters; etc.; etc.

  • StevoR

    @^ freehand : Yes – and you forgot to explicitly mention the ethical repecussions that stem form mass murdering millions of innocent people. Plus the precedent set for the future. That could be used against us or our allies.

    Of course, Colnago80’s “suggestion” here simply won’t happen I ‘m 99.999 % sure.

    @29. dingojack : Good point! Hadn’t thought of that & must have missed earlier. Wonder if the vinegar removing the shell would affect the omelettes taste and if so for better or worse?

    @32. Colnago80 : “..which demonstrates the difficulty of identifying ships from aircraft, even slow flying planes like the Swordfish. “

    Of course technology has come along way since even when you just think about GPS and RADAR. You certainly do know your history.

  • busterggi

    Holms @ 8 –

    “#3

    Hey, you want to make an omelet, you have to break some egg shells.

    War crimes apologetics at its most glib, casually suggesting a few million murders with a quaint homily. Exemplary of the banality of evil.

    Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/07/16/becks-totally-rational-response-to-iran-deal/#ixzz3gAWic0qs

    He can’t help it, he’s only following orders.

  • velociraptor

    @23 Dingo, et al

    The PBY Catalina was a twin-engined flying boat that could carry torpedoes and depth charges. The part of the Midway battle you are talking about, where the American torpedo bombers were butchered by the Japanese Zeros, was launched by TBD Devastator single-engined torpedo bombers flying from the American aircraft carriers, not PBYs from Midway.

  • colnago80

    Re freehand @ #33

    I am not particularly in favor of killing Iranians. I am in favor of preventing the ayatollahs that run that place from killing other people, whatever it takes.

  • lorn

    The biggest reason why none of the western powers were going to intervene against Germany were that they had suffered through the losses of WWI and had seen how interventions could go bad. The Brits were still painfully aware of the losses from the Marne, Libya, and Gallipoli. Failures and losses from foreign adventures that failed to profit the nation had left a very bitter taste.

    Had they wanted to they would have faced a formidable challenge. Czechoslovakia is a land-locked nation at considerable distance form Britain. It would have been a huge undertaking to get even a single division of 18,000 men to Czechoslovakia and arrange a logistical tail back to England. North Sea, the Skagerrak, Baltic, and overland through Poland seems most promising but we are talking months of preparations and, at the very least, if nobody interferes, a month to carry out.

    In comparison, Germany was right there. As where the Czechoslovakians. Which raises the simple question of why didn’t the Czechs fight. It wasn’t as if the British and French could stop them if they wanted to resist the German invasion.

    In theory the Czech military could stand up to the German army of the time. The German army was inexperienced, relatively weak and minimally mechanized. Whereas the Czechs had superior armor, were much more mechanized, and they would be fighting largely from very good and modern fortifications and defenses specifically designed to fight invasion from this direction. Had the Czechs fought as a unified nation there is every chance they could have won, saved their nation, given Hitler an ugly loss that would ruin his reputation, and prevented WW2 in the form it took.

    So why didn’t they fight? Simple, Hitler was, in part, correct. Czechoslovakia was ethnically and politically divided and it lacked the will to fight. All the military advantages were useless if they couldn’t unite behind a defense against the German invasion. Germany won by using the politics of ethnicity.

    Which is the final nail in the coffin in any western intervention, and a lesson we, even now, ignore at our peril. If the people on the ground are not politically united enough to fight as a nation, any intervention from outside is doomed to fail if resistance is the goal. Intervention can, sometimes usefully, delay the inevitable outcome but you cannot fight a war for another nation if they cannot unify their population and commit to fighting.