I s’pose.
Neat-O.
It’s likely the Cold War could have ended in the early Sixties had Kennedy, rather than make a big flap about a couple dozen missiles emplaced in Cuba (which was in reciprication for the US staging two squadrens of Jupiter IRBMs in Turkey, well within range of Moscow) quietly negotiated with Nikita Krushchev for the removal of both emplacements, allowing K to save face among his Party detractors while further reducing tensions. Instead, Kennedy acted precipitously, emplacing a Naval blockade of Cuba and publicly demanding that Krushchev back down or else, leading to the now infamous Cuban Missile Crisis. According to Robert McNamara and backed up by transcripts declassified only a few years ago, Kennedy and his advisors had, at one point, already concluded that an exchange was inevitable and were, in an erie parallel to Dr. Strangelove were discussing to what extent should they strike and how many millions of deaths (or in LeMay paralance, megadeaths) would result, when a minor advisor suggested to Kennedy that he “empathize with his enemy.”
Kennedy offered, under the table, the gradual retirement of the Jupiter (the deployment of which was an stopgap measure that was only intended to be in place until the Atlas and Titan ICBMs were operational) in return for Krushchev agreeing to abort the deployment of missiles in Cuba. By achiving the same result as he otherwise might have with backchannel negotiation but in a public forum allowing Kennedy to be seen as a victor against Communist encroachment, Kennedy effectively nailed the coffin shut on Nikita, contributing significantly to his deposement in 1964, to be replaced by a succession of increasingly arrogant hardliners for whom detante wasn’t even on the table. As a result, 25 more years of posturing, culimating in a contest by two increasingly senile old men each threatening to destory civilization in their own mutual suicide pact.
There is a lesson to be learned here, but I daresay that few politicians can count themselves as dilligent students of history. Rome didn’t burn in a day, either.
Stranger
Well, the first two parts were good bits of insight, but I already acknowledged the wisdom of that idea prior to your posting in that thread. The rest was to write a post, revise it, then take a breather and sit on it for a bit. I have attempted to take this advice, (this post is an example) but it is far too soon to see if it is good advice in my case.
Perhaps the grasroots don’t object to al that one might think that they object to. even if someo f the more reformist groups had their way unopposed, I doubt they would create a country that I would find tolerable.
Odd are that when judged by our standards Iran will always seem backward.
Are you at all familiar with the group whose website you’ve cited? The National Council of Resistance of Iran?
Here’re some notes if you’re interested Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran
First, given Iran’s growing influence in Iraq (pretty much a direct result of removing Hussein from power) and the sympathies many Iraqis have for Iran It seems unlikely that Iraq will be some light house bastion of modern liberal democracy.
Second, people in the ME already desire deomcratic reform. What iraq does or does not become is unlikely to change that. What they desire to with their democratic freedoms just isn’t what we’d do with ours were we them.
Third, Iran as we know it may not exist in 5-10 years.
It’s a two way street, and traffic between 2 nations, one a theocratic state and one a relatively(for the ME) liberal democracy puts pressure on the foundations of the theocratic state.
Yes, the US is going to attack Iran with nuclear weapons. :rolleyes: Why am I talking to you again? You obviously have a very tenuous grasp on reality.
This whole two way street thing requires that Iraq develop into “a relatively(for the ME) liberal democracy.”
But, note also, that there are already “relatively(for the ME) liberal” democracies in the region.
The Iranians played a role in getting us into Iraq in the first place. Subsequently, they have benefitted from the downfall of Hussein.
Agency: Chalabi group was front for Iran (alt link)
BY KNUT ROYCE
WASHINGTON BUREAU
May 21, 2004, 7:29 PM EDT
The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that a U.S.-funded arm of Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress has been used for years by Iranian intelligence to pass disinformation to the United States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets, according to intelligence sources.
“Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program information to provoke the United States into getting rid of Saddam Hussein,” said an intelligence source Friday who was briefed on the Defense Intelligence Agency’s conclusions, which were based on a review of thousands of internal documents.
An administration official confirmed that “highly classified information had been provided [to the Iranians] through that channel.”
Patrick Lang, former director of the intelligence agency’s Middle East branch, said he had been told by colleagues in the intelligence community that Chalabi’s U.S.-funded program to provide information about weapons of mass destruction and insurgents was effectively an Iranian intelligence operation.
Bush’s Islamic Republic
The shortest speech was given by the head of the Iranian intelligence service in Erbil, a man known to the Kurds as Agha Panayi. Staring directly at Ms. Bodine, he said simply, "This is a great day. Throughout Iraq, the people we supported are in power."
…the two leading parties in the Shiite coalition are pursuing an Islamic state in which the rights of women and religious minorities will be sharply curtailed, and that** this kind of regime is already being put into place in parts of Iraq controlled by these parties**
…Ali al-Sistani (himself an Iranian…
Real power in Shiite Iraq rests, however, with two religious parties: Abdel Aziz al-Hakim’s Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa (“Call,” in English) of Iraq’s Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari. Of the two, SCIRI is the more pro-Iranian.
SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state.
Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq’s southern cities.** There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior.
**
Dawa and SCIRI are not just promoting an Iranian-style political system —they are also directly promoting Iranian interests.
Through its spies, infiltrators, and sympathizers, Iran has a presence in Iraq’s security forces and military. It is virtually certain that Iran has access to any intelligence that the Iraqis have.
I suppose that’s the extent of your capacity for comment.
You are quite right. I should have done nothing more than post a bunch of links to the people that do my thinking for me. Thank you for the shining example of how to post, oh exalted one.
Thank you for your praise.
It’s nice of you to have noticed that Iposted alink to the manwho does my thinking for me. What you failed to notice is that I posted a link to my own work.
Sincerely,
Simon W. Moon ksc
Yes, I see that now. Your own work is the piece which concludes that the US will be attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. Given this new information, It becomes plain that your credibility is shrinking faster than an ice cube in the Saudi Arabian desert at high noon. This is entertainment at it’s best, got anymore brain leakings that you want to link to?
Actually, that’s not what it says.
Unless you have something other to offer than the string of mere ad homs you’ve provided so far, I supose we’re done. I can get ad homs from better than you any time.