Boris, darlink, you are starting to sound an awful lot like me. I guess this is my cue to tell you not to let it get to you. pull up a chair, put your feet up, share a spliff?
Stoid, I’ll share one with you!
May as well post this here, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2944298.stm
I reckon the real reason will turn out to be a $10 bet between Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz about the gullibility of the U.S. public.
>> Wolfowitz said another reason for the invasion had been “almost unnoticed but huge” – namely that the ousting of Saddam would allow the United States to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia, where their presence had long been a major al Qaeda grievance.
I have said that in several threads. It is true and it is illegal. Invading a country because you want to quarter your army there is not a valid reason.
While I am sure the Iranians are pursuing a nuclear program, at the same time the example of Iraq (lack of NBC evidence to match strong US claims) suggests to folks in the Iranian position that even if innocent, if the droolers and shriekers in the Pentagon decide you are in the cross-hairs, actual factual analysis of threat and risk do not enter into the picture.
Their position vis-a-vis Israel is not a valid reason for the US to engage in preemptive strikes. If Israel has the capacity - and they do have nuclear deterence one should recall - that is their call to make. Israel is not a US state, it is an ally, allies are nice, but they are not part of your own national interest, per se. Just as Israel has undertaken maneouvres in its interest (e.g. sales and coop in military matters w/ Apartheid South Africa), the US has its own policy interests to look after.
Pre emptive strikes on a maybe beyond the bounds nuclear facility is not in good present policy for a variety of risk and benefit reasons. It also looks rather stupid in the context of Pakistan and North Korea.
Overheated chicken little rhetoric is not helpful.
I direct, by the way, readers to the following WP article in re Iran:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51233-2003May28.html?nav=hptop_ts
I believe it to be perhaps too negative on the reformers’ prospects, but I am not an Iranian specialist per se.
(Emphasis mine)
[dripping with sarcasm] Right. The Pentagon. I hope Bush knows that a military junta is actually running the country. I mean, it must be plain to see since you can see it all the way over in the Middle East. Good thing Bush is such a good puppet, because we just loooooooove killing things, and the more we make his lips move, the more fighting we get to go. Just like the religious fanatic “droolers and shriekers” over in the Middle East. [/dripping with sarcasm]
Indeed. Good thing you took note of that in the above quote.
For someone who styles himself as a Middle East expert, or expert enough to insult every single person you ever respond to, you sure have a lousy grasp of reality across the pond.
What, so Bush is actively planning all these foreign policy strikes himself? when it comes to the Adminsitration’s foreign policy making, I somehow doubt Dubya is sitting in on the meetings.
That confirms it. That’s two foreigners who think the military is really in charge. Thanks, Twisty. Up until now I wasn’t sure. :rolleyes:
Making and executing a plan is not the same as “drooling and shrieking”.
So Bush doesn’t make foreign policy. Right. Again, I’m sure he’ll be glad to know that.
Knyeshna horosho, Natasha, bubeleh. I try to stay sober and I try to stay sane, but it looks like I have to choose. No contest.
What’s the relationship between the Pentagon, (headed by Rumsfeld right?) and say the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (actual military folk-generals and such?)?
Isn’t it slightly different to say that the Pentagon is doing X and to say that the Joint Chiefs is doing something?
Oh yeah,
Fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck shit
Airman a name to remember: Curtis LeMay.
“The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and vocally as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.” Ari Fleischer (Dec. 5, 2002).
So who has pulled more weight in this whole affair? State or Defense?
My Dear Airman
An interesting straw man, but perhaps my brief commentary was misunderstood:
Did I use the phrase military junta? No, I did not, my dear Airman.
Running the country? Nope, did not say that either.
Now, my comments were aimed at a single specific issue: present foreign policy and its influences, and in particular decision making on percieved threats.
I am sure you are aware, my dear Airman, of the controversy in re Iraq of disputes btw State and Defense re how to handle Iraq? Add to that CIA. I am sure you are at least dimly aware of who won the arguments – a hint might be to reflect on the events of Jan-April 2003.
Now, I am further sure you may be aware --or not-- of the unusual freedom a Sec of Defense has at present to make policy level comments regarding issues outside of Defense policy – Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al certainly have displayed rather unusual influence in the FP arena vis-a-vis general past practice in the US.
Military junta, harldy at all. But it is rather clear that Pentagon is extremly infuential nowadays in re FP construction, to the detriment of other actors.
You should save your sarcasm for when you actually understand the commentary, my dear Airman, for I did not say puppet nor did I accuse anyone of bloodthirstiness per se (although I might very well accuse a certain Pentagon faction.)
I am an American my dear fellow. 100% blue blood American, and I have an excellent grasp of the policy reality, thank you very much. Many of my best buddies are in the game.
Save your outrage for when it is deserved and when you know what you are talking about.
I believe that I should add that I believe Airman has mistaken my comment for an implication that the Military is bloodthirsty and seeking wars.
I would like to take this moment to disabuse him of that reading: I know qiute well the military attaches round here – that means the US ones – all regular military brass, albeit unusual for having a collection of regional expertise and I know first hand of their unenthusiasm for the recent events. As well as the op. widespread among their circles of Rumself et al.
Bit of housekeeping. The link I posted above:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2944298.stm
is of course the wrong one. The correct link is:
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2840293
ER Rumsfeld was meant although the typo has unintentional amusement value.
This whole thing really makes me sad 
I honestly thought we had reason enough to go into Iraq. I believed the premise WAS shaky, but all they needed to do was find WMD and that would get the naysayers off our backs. However, its becoming more and more obvious to me that Bush acted somewhat impulsively; it seemed that the Bush administration was fed up with what was going on with Iraq (as was I) and was looking for/waiting for an opportunity to go in and deal with it once and for all. I believe the United States acted hastily in Iraq, and now the nation is caught in this self-righteous avalanche.
I feel the same degree of letdown/disappointment that I would feel if one of my parents lied to me. People used to view the United States as a bastion of freedom and security but it almost seems as though it has gotten so wrapped up in self-intrest that it alienated itself from the rest of the world.
I’m all for the use of military force sanctioned by international law, but to fly in the face of those laws is almost inviting a WWIII situation that comes down to USA vs the World, something I do not want to be around to see.
Is there any recognition here of Rumsfeld’s brutal incompetence? I mean, he had our soldiers begging food off of Iraqi refugees.