Well, at some point, in some places I think it’s okay to just have a conversation.
Errmm . . . Squink, just what makes you think you know better than the CIA about what Iran is doing?
:o Or was that a whoosh? (I can’t always tell . . .)
[the simpsons]
GenX Dude 1: That Homer Simpson is so cool!
GenX Dude 2: Are you being sarcastic, man?
[pause]
GenX Dude 1: I don’t even know any more.
[/ts]
Yes BG, I woke up dizzy this morning, and only found out just now that Michael Ladeen had astrally projected himself into my fingertips. 
Apologies, explanations are in order. Although I doubt I’ll surpass their average lifespan, they have nothing on me when it comes to memory – elephants I mean. I didn’t read “all that” from your post, but rather from some past exchanges between us that didn’t sit too well with me. More than likely fodder for a whole 'nother thread – no need for The Pit methinks – but one that I openly admit didn’t have the energy/time to start. Trust me, coming up on 49, it’s a debate I’ve already had too many times to count.
Bottom line, I let my frustration with said topic get the worst of me and took the easy way out. If, OTOH, you have a genuine interest about what I have to say/feel about my country during that time-period. I’d be more than willing to respond to any direct queries you might have in a thread appropiate to said topic.
Having said that, and giving you much credit for the reversal on your original position on the foundation of the Iraq invasion, I still think you take it way too personal when I - or someone like me – keeps pointing out what a fuckin’ disaster said Administration has been on an international level. And yet I think I understand why you do and can, – somewhat – relate, based on my own feelings about the (shortlived) Age of Spanish Empire.
Bit more extreme than my own position, for I’m still a naive old fool that thinks we ( as in all of us) can do much better – globally.
Cheers.
Well, I’ve read through the two links you provided (I remembered those exchanges too), but I don’t see how either makes me ‘mindless flag-waving jingoist’ (I can see how you would read in that I have some issues with Spain though…I don’t, at least not a major chip on my shoulder, and certainly not with the present Spanish people). I think my reasons for why we should stay in Iraq have to do with my own world view and sense of honor than any mindless jingoism or blind patriotism. And while my thoughts on Iraq may be controversial with you, I’m not sure how that translated into this discussion on Iran…do you disagree with me that we (i.e. the US) should simply let the Iranians have the things if they are hell bent on getting them?
No worries Red…we all get frustrated. Certainly I would enjoy seeing your views on your country during its colonial time period some day…start a thread on it and I would love to at least lurk…or give my own perspective having been born in Mexico with all the cultural baggage with reguards to Spain this entails.
But I agree…I DO think that the Iraqi war is a disaster. The thing I was debating in the threads you listed was whether or not the US should simply leave the Iraqi’s to their fate. At this time, with the constitution and general elections still a possibility in Iraq, I just can’t agree that the best thing for Iraq would be for the US to simply pull out. It might be the best thing for the US (in fact, I think it WOULD be the best thing for the US), but I just don’t think its best for Iraq. This time next year if the hope of a constitution and general elections fades, if the sitation essentially remains the same or is even worse…well, then you will see me shift this position as well (probably well before that actually). I’m already starting to lean that way as things in Iraq continue to get worse and worse and as the deadline for the constitution gets closer and closer with no clear indications that they are going to make the deadline.
-XT
Perhaps the UN can take this as an opportunity to show what they can accomplish without the threat of a US invasion.
Of course we won’t find out if there is anything they can do until it is too late, as with North Korea, but I suppose there is a chance.
Maybe a strongly worded resolution will bring those nasty Iranians to heel.
Regards,
Shodan
While there are all sorts of reasons the comparisons fall short, should we be concerned that Iran may (intentionally or not) be playing a card that could eventually lead the US in the direction of a Soviet Union syle collapse?
US: Hey, Iran, no building nukes.
Iran: Make me.
US: I will!
Iran: You and what army?
US: Grrrrr (runs off to make army bigger, costing lots of money the US doesn’t have, real economic collapse looms).
Hey, it coul’ happen.
Guess that infamous Spanish temper of mine makes me tilt at windmills at times when there are none to be had. Don’t see much daylight between your position and mine at present time. If anything, I don’t hold much hope for improvement in Iraq over the short haul with you, or without you. I just think your continued presence adds fuel to an already raging fire.
We shall see, said the blindman.
PS-Next time I feel full of energy – read: hopefully before I hit the half century mark ;o) – I’ll get started on that thread about our own Imperial misadventures.
Update: Rumsfeld says a shipment of weapons recently intercepted in Iraq is “clearly, unambiguously from Iran.” Which has nothing to do with the nuclear-enrichment dispute, but it won’t help the situation any.
Sounds like horseshit to me but thats just my own knee jerk reaction. Were the crates stamped ‘Made in Tehran’ or something?
-XT
Sorry, forgot the link (which doesn’t reveal many details): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4136856.stm
In the long term, letting Iran “have the damn things” increases the probability that state-sponsored terrorists get the damn things.
A nuclear arsenal gives Iran gravitas. The more nukes, the more Iran’s stature and the stronger their deterrence against US conventional attack–providing, that is, the US buys into their “irrational mullah” shtick and cannot pinpoint the location of every nuke. Distributing a nuclear arsenal in population centers increases their survival against U.S. first strike. Once Iran erects a credible nuclear arsenal, the probability of a US/Israel attack approaches zero and thus frees Iran to pursue its own agenda. Again, by locating their strategic weapons in populations centers, Iran dares the US to commit nuclear genocide against innocents. Iran can deter on another level, by borrowing from North Korea’s bag of tricks and playing the nuke-export card. (Again, the population centers.) Their trump card might be giving a few warheads to a well-regulated extremist group and have them preposition the weapon in the continental U.S. You do know, don’t you, that the USSR had nukes prepositioned in the continental US, during the Cold War?
First I’ve ever heard of it.
-XT
You are not alone in that.
I’d love to see Carnac provide some documentation for his claim.
The USSR may have had small suitcase, nukes, some may be missing, the ussr did have prepositioned arms caches in Europe and may have had some in the USA and so, who knows, they may have had a nuke in.
Homeland Security article on prepositioning strategy fails to even mention it as a possibility.
Conclusion: unsubstantiated bullshit being pedalled as fact by the way out paranoaic right.
I think this has been our plan all along. Iran’s “nuclear aspirations” are no surprise and have been popping up in worried speeches etc. for years now.
Look at a map one day. Look at the countries we have invaded. What is in the middle? Iran.
I think Iran has been on our list since day one. If we take over there, most of the middle east will be in our hands and it will no longer be a trouble spot for us or our oil supply. We started with the weakest regimes (Iraq surpries us this time) in order to get a foothold on the tougher ones. All we have to do is attack one of their “missile silos” in the dead of night, wait for the retaliation against our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, and then we’ll have plenty of public support to invade.
That would be remarkably foolish, and while I don’t have a whole lot of respect for this administration’s military planning, even they wouldn’t be that stupid. Even if Afghanistan and Iraq were peaceful, an invasion of Iran would be difficult in the extreme. Invading and holding Iran while there’s resistance in both Iraq and Afghanistan would be suicide.
Just curious but I remember years ago something about a lot of Western support by the younger Iranians if that was still the case couldn’t a war-by-proxy with some support possibly work?
*not up to speed on Iran