And the loss of rights, respect, access to education, jobs and freedom. If we had intended a crusade against women’s rights and welfare in Iraq, we couldn’t have done a better job. Assuming that the neocons didn’t intend one, that is.
:smack: I bet it’s a conspiracy by Iran to prevent Iraq from adopting low-energy lightbulbs. If the Iraqis use efficient lighting, they use less electricity, which means more oil to sell. Iran wants 'em to use old-fashioned bulbs, thereby basically STEALING oil revenues from the USA.
They really are treacherous buggers, aren’t they!
“The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even - so it was occasionally rumoured - in some hiding-place in Oceania itself.”
Hint to those such as Carol Stream and Duncan Hunter: the United States is…or at least was…a beacon of freedom in the world, and a symbol of the potential for democracy everywhere. It is too great to be destroyed from without, not even by all the enemies you may think you see dancing in the shadows. But it is more than fragile enough to be destroyed from within, by those such as yourself.
Is it possible John Bolton posts on the Dope?
Anyway, getting back to the OP, it’s not exactly surprising that Bolton sounds off with some insane bullshit on events of the day. When he was first up for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., I wish the liberal media I keep hearing about had just kept running that tape of him explaining that the U.S. should pay no attention to international law.
Did anybody catch his appearance on “The Daily Show”? One of the more bizarrely memorable interviews. He explained or implied that a) the President is only responsible to the people who actually voted for him; b) it somehow makes sense to appoint people to government jobs that they’re opposed to on principle; c) a President should surround himself only with people who think the same as he does about everything; and d) Jon Stewart was mistaken in thinking that Lincoln had formed a cabinet of people with significantly diverse opinions.
A great little moment in television came on the next day’s show, when Stewart called up a historian they’d had on the show before, who’d just published a book specifically about Lincoln’s cabinet, to confirm that Bolton was spouting nonsense.
The Iranians have exactly as much right to send troops into Iraq as the U.S. has, and rather more, since the trouble is in their back yard.
Women are much worse off in Saudi Arabia than in Iran, but I don’t hear W or Bolton or anyone calling for war with SA, or even sanctions.
True. Unlike the president, Iran has never arranged to destory (or even invade) another country using egregious lies to rationalize that event.
Yeah, one’s a murdering tyrant whose actions cause untold misery to millions and de-stabilise the middle east.
The other used to be known as Persia.
When thousands of lives are at stake – hell, perhaps hundreds of thousands, or maybe even million of lives – countries should not act like petulant children, declare war, and waste human life because of things that may be insulting, but do not actually cause substantial harm.
Iran’s taking of the British sailors was outrageous and Iran should have apologized. But your suggestion – that Tony Blair should have declared war on Iran – is something that only a 'roid-raged imbecile can think is a decent idea. In your estimation, how many people (British, American, and of course Iranian) need to be killed in order to avenge the wrong of kidnapping 15 sailors? We attack, and there will be consequences, which would probably mean Iran will do what it can to increase the violence in Iraq and perhaps Israel. So, how many Americans need to be sacrificed to regain the honor of the 15 sailors, who were indeed treated despicably before being released?
Do you thing we should have declared war on China in 2001 when our spy plane was forced to land on Hainan Island and our airmen were held for two weeks? How many American soldiers do you think should be sent to be killed in order to right that wrong?
I don’t think you’ve thought seriously about these questions. I am leaning toward the explanation that you are an ultra-nationalist as dangerous as those who start massive wars based on things like a particular archduke being killed.
Has it occured to anyone here that this is ‘hard diplomacy’ in action? This is a tried-and-true method of ratcheting up pressure on a country to get them to take you seriously. Get someone who can speak authoritatively, yet outside the actual chain of command, to make threatening comments in order to make the other side understand you mean business without actually committing yourself to any particular course of action.
In case you haven’t noticed, Sarkozy in France has been making some pretty bellicose statements as well. In fact, he’s pretty much been saying the same thing as Bolton.
Sometimes the best way to avoid war is to make the other side believe that you’re willing to go to war if they won’t correct an intolerable situation.
April Glaspie has taken heat on this board for NOT telling Saddam that the U.S. was willing to go to war against him if he invaded Kuwait.
Of course, I don’t know what’s really going on in his head, so I don’t know if this is part of a coordinated exercise in hard diplomacy. Maybe he’s just ranting. But I doubt it.
That’s how they sold the original authorization for use of force against Iraq. Unfortunately Bush used it as an excuse from diplomacy rather than a diplomatic tool. While I’ve never accused Bush of being smart, I thought even he wasn’t dumb enough to get into a war with Iraq. Now that one of his robots is making noise to that effect, I wouldn’t bet against it anymore.
It helps to strengthen the bluff, of course, to have a military at the ready that isn’t exhausted, stressed out, beginning to have major morale problems, and hasn’t generally been all but run into the ground in the previous five years. Too bad for us about that…
Hey!
My apologies to all of our robotic friends by comparing Bolton to one of you.
Ah, Sam…incoherent as always, I see.
I guess it’s true what they say – the best things in life never change.
Please, tell me more about this “tried and true” diplomatic method, in which a loose cannon with no authority spouts violent right-wing nonsense and expects to be taken seriously.
It seems to me that if this administration wanted to be taken seriously, they’d be making these statements themselves – as if the Iranians (or anyone else, for that matter) don’t take the US, largest military and economic force on the planet, seriously.
I can’t find anything here about the U.S. abandoning the Shah. (You are not, I hope, referring to Carter sending him a polite letter about the importance of human rights.) And the “Background of the Revolution” section makes me wonder exactly what you mean by “worked out very well.”
If you are referring to his widely reported August statement he did not call for airstrikes and in fact described the idea as “catastrophic”. He has said he finds the notion of an Iranian bomb unacceptable and that Iran may end up getting bombed, this is different from him calling for bombing.
While it is totally normal that we find US “patriots” such as yourself, ready to excuse any malfeasance – including an unprovoked invasion and the butchering of tens of thousands of innocents – your country might commit.
Guess that’s what happens when you sit on your brains all day long.
Mork calling Orson… Mork calling Orson… Come in, Orson…
But she’s just about the cutest little bloodthirsty warmonger you ever did see! I mean, put her up next to Norm Podhoretz, and, reallly, its no contest!