The Bush administration will do whatever they deem necessary in order to protect U.S. oil interests and security, and those of our allies and trading partners. Any collateral benefits in the form of addressing terrorist or nuclear threats is icing on the cake.
Given this, the U.S. is waging war in Iraq. If the U.S. needs to take care of problems or threats in Iran and Syria, then they’ll be next. Count on it. Until the Middle East is transforms into what the U.S. can call “good global neighbors”, they’ll be threats to the U.S., and this, targets.
It’s all about the U.S. flexing its nation-state muscle in the name of world domination, national security, and economic strength. It’s the worst kind of business - grisly, horrific, and horrible. It polarizes people and countries, and rips lives apart. It creates future enemies. Yet, this is what strong countries often do. The prime directive of the U.S. is to (among other things) remain dominant, continue to thrive, and to protect strategic alliances and resources (i.e. oil). Most everything else derives from those. This has happened many times in the past - it’s not new.
Do I like it? No - I wish we could all just get along. This is the worst, most horrible kind of stuff. Yet, I think it’s a predictable and justifiable way for a dominant nation to behave in a world where there are serious threats to continued dominance, progress, and survival.
Once again, I’m not saying I like it, or that it’s the smartest approach. I’m just saying that’s it’s the way things often work.
But don’t you think that if these boneheads stir the pot as vigorously as they seem willing to they stand a good chance of sacrificing our dominance, progress and survival, to use your words Booka.
What concerns me, and from what I’ve read it seems like a fair number of other people here, is that we are creating situations that will require more troops and resources to prevent things from spinning out of control. The American public and the nations we have strategic alliances with don’t seem too keen on sending more troops over there. So what pray tell will happen if Bush & Co. decide to attack a few limited sites in Iran? You must admit the possiblity exists that the ayatollahs might respond in some nasty way, whether with troops or WMD. Then what?
The utility of disabling Iran’s nuclear capability is one thing, but when I read stuff like this:
It just makes me think that the administration has learned nothing from Iraq. I seriously doubt they have any keener insight into the Iranian mind than they had into the Iraqi mind. And if Iranians do rise up against the hard-liners the administration had better be prepared to go in heavy. Otherwise we could have another slaughter on our hands similar to what happened after Bush 41 bailed on the rebellion in Iraq after Gulf War I.
Hmmm. hard line religious types running the government. I agree, that sounds dangerous. Maybe Canada could be persuaded to do a little nation building.
Yeah. The problem is, so do they, and in the opinion of not a few folks without tinfoil hats, some of them are interested in converting the one into the other, gradually.
And when they respond by funding terrorists - or provide financial and military support for the insurgents in Iraq? That’s not too much escalation, right? And we respond by trying to block the border, and get into a firefight with the regular Iranian army? And they hold an area of Iraq, supposedly just as advisors to the insurgents? The whole thing could cascade into a major war very easily. Anyone around in 1964 has seen it happen once already.
Sure, we’d win - maybe - but not until tens of thousands of casualties and a draft and an oil embargo and a major disaster.
And I hope no one feels that the Iranians would be any less patriotic after an attack than we were after 9/11.
Sorta what I was getting at earlier. But, then again they will probably have some sort of response. These people undoubtedly have WMDs. Who really thinks they will sit back and just take it?
And if the Bush administration didn’t seek intelligence in Iran and the Iranians ended up selling a nuke to Al Quaeda would you then bitch about his intelligence failures? Would you rather see Iran with a nuke just to have your bitching grist?
How do we know China or North Korea or India or any other nation with nukes or possible nukes might not somehow land one in the hands of Al Quaeda? Why single out Iran, especially given the very likely (and immediate) consequences? Even if military action in Iran is a viable and plausible choice, given how the situation has been handled in Iraq I don’t think this administration is competent enough to handle it without escalating things to catastrophic proportions.
Iran having a nuke wouldn’t frighten me in the least. I’m much more worried about Pakistan having nukes, seeing as how their intelligence agency has been known to cooperate with al-Qaeda. But they’re our ally, right? :dubious:
We’re not singling out Iran. Hersh maintains that there are missions in up to 10 countries.
Iran’s nuclear capacity is probably close to critical mass (metaphor not intended). We might only have the capacity to stop it if we do something right now.
Iran is potentially more dangerous than any of the other countries you mentioned. Hopefully they would just use a nuke to blackmail us like North Korea, but I wouldn’t put it past them to allow one to be stolen. Kim Jong Il isn’t half the ideologue as the mullahs.
I don’t see how anyone in the US could have a problem with covert operations in Iran unless they were concerned about the ramifications of getting caught or didn’t realize the magnitude of the threat. We now have that fuckwit Hersh to thank for the former. I can understand why you’d want to expose Abu Ghraib (even though I would have told the DD to have it stopped immediately or I would release the photos), but nothing good can come of squawking about secret missions. I mean, isn’t it just possible they are actually trying to protect us from getting nuked?
Hersh would have nothing to squawk about if he didn’t have sources, and I doubt his sources have compromising missions and getting guys killed in mind when they talk to him. They’re probably not saying anything that Iran, etc. doesn’t know already, or what they’re saying isn’t any more ‘actionable’ than saying there are al Qaeda operatives in the US, right now.
Moreso than spilling state secrets, the article is about how the Pentagon, through the White House, is successfully seeking ways to avoid any congressional oversight of covert operations whatsoever. To have Rumsfeld running secret operations throughout the world without any kind of congressional oversight - I think that’s troubling and worth reporting, whether you like him or not.
We’re not singling out Iran in sending out little covert missions, but Iran is being singled out in terms of planning upcoming escalations of those missions.
Quite frankly, I’m not concerned we need to stop it. I’m a lot more comfortable with Iran having nuclear capability than I am Pakistan.
The mullahs are concerned first and foremost with their own lives and power. Allowing a terrorist group to get hold of one of their nuclear weapons and using it would result in all of them dying a fiery death. They know this and they’re not about to let that happen.
Because if their nuclear facilities were destroyed, the Iranians wouldn’t know immediately who did it. :rolleyes:
Frankly, I’m glad “that fuckwit” Hersh is exposing what this administration is doing. If we had more people digging for the truth fifty years ago, we wouldn’t be in this situation with Iran in the first place.
Just shows the typical Bush-supporter mindset. They don’t want to know what’s being done in their name, I guess then later they can claim they didn’t know what was going on and shouldn’t be held accountable for who they supported. So much for personal responsibility, huh?
I can think of something good. The administration knocks it the fuck off before they result in another catastrophe like Iraq. That would be fucking great.
And yeah, it’s possible they think they’re protecting us from getting nuked, but these are the same clowns that didn’t pay any attention to al-Qaeda because they didn’t think they were a threat and who believed that Iraq was so much of a threat that it needed immediate invading.