                  MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL.....
This article is a response to another recent article on this same subject called WHY ATTACKING IRAN WOULD BE A BIG MISTAKE - OUR WORLD by David Anderson.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977139631
My response is as follows:
David, et.al. -
A very interesting article and thread. Whether we should or should not attack Iran it is clear that we are both on an increasingly dangerous and ominous collision course. Our God inspired President is alarmed by what he perceives is a conspiracy by Iran's God inspired president equally alarmed by what he perceives is a conspiracy by our President and so on in a mirror image insane whirl of equally irresponsible so called leaders which all of us are in part responsible for allowing them to have so damn much power.
I would have nothing else to say that would contribute anything of value to this discussion if I had not watched Front Line tonight exploring this topic with chilling facts.
While both countries distrust each other for understandable reasons it hasn't always been this way dating from as recent as 9/11.
For a brief period of time right after 9/11 the leadership [ split between reformers and hardliners] publicly and privately supported us. Both factions gave us no trouble when we invaded Afganistan finding it to their benefit to let us topple the Talaban. But apparently the hardliners allowed Bin Laden's son take refuge in Iran upsetting our government.
President Bush in his typical black white thinking treated all the leadership of Iran as monolithic concluded we couldn't trust them making his famous [infamous?] axis of evil speech identifying Iran as one of the chief evil countries exporting terrorism.
The reformers were undermined by Bush's over generalization and were seriously humiliated by his verbal bomb. This resulted in the reformers understandably distrusting us.
When the US attacked Iraq the reformist leaders of Iran correctly understood that when we get rid of Saddham we would open a Pandoras box unleashing a long smoldering sectarian war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. They once again attempted to approach President Bush offering him a rational way to negotiate everything we were interested in. This offer to negotiate took the form of a complex highly detailed monograph referred to as "The Grand Bargain."
THe time was absolutely right for both sides to talk straight with each other. Apparently because of US arrogance that we had no need for the Iranians due to our superior strength and their 'weakness' we rejected the offer as unnecessary. This failure to negotiate once again humiliated the reformers and greatly strengthened the hands of the hardliners.
The reformers concluded that our God fearing President was little more than a bully and only spoke the language of force. Added to this mess was the sending of a large armada of ours off the coast of Iran as an impressive show of force.
From our vantage point the US got furthere upset with Iran accusing them of stirring up the resurgency in Iraq and providing them with devestating road side bombs.
For a brief moment Secy Rice did make an overture to the Iranian government to negotiate. But the Iranians turned down the offer because they were upset that the US were apparently backing a spointer Iranian terrorist group called MEK. THis group has thousands of adherents and although the US has identified MEK as indeed a terrorist group it also allows it to function in Iraq presumably gathering intleeigence for us. [Something wrong with this picture?]
This brings us to the present wherein both sides have fixed positions that appear to be hardening as we speak.
If we do attack - Anthony Kordman among others indicates that we had better learn our lessons from the Iraq fiasco and get our allies aboard.
Pros for attacking are our superior force, and we do possess nucelar weapons if all else fails. Apparently we also have a new weapons system that allows us to penetrate way down in the earth and can effectively knock out whatever we wish to.
Counter arguments are that all parts of Israel are threatend with massive destruction by an all out missle attack from Iran. Additionally Iran if it chooses to can wreak havoc in Irac effectively cutting our supply lines and doing a great deal of damage to our troops stationed there.
Iran also can insight riot with other jihadist groups threatening wars to weaken or take over governments valuable to us such as in Lebanon etc.
Additionally there is strong evidence that Iran views a war with the West as inevitable as a confrontation between good and evil - a Holy War - that they feel they cannont lose. They are willing to martyr themselves and make it appear that we are the bullies of the world which they will use to ignite the smouldering pent up resentment that appears to be explding all over the world as we speak. Do we in fact have any friends left?
This Front LIne progam ended with a chilling note. Since both sides fervently believe they are doing God's work - it is as if both countries have left the ground - which is dangerous for the whole world. My association is to Montaigne who says: "Supercelestial thougts breed subterranean conduct."
I would have nothing else to say that would contribute anything of value to this discussion if I had not watched Front Line tonight exploring this topic with chilling facts.
While both countries distrust each other for understandable reasons it hasn't always been this way dating from as recent as 9/11.
For a brief period of time right after 9/11 the leadership [ split between reformers and hardliners] publicly and privately supported us. Both factions gave us no trouble when we invaded Afganistan finding it to their benefit to let us topple the Talaban. But apparently the hardliners allowed Bin Laden's son take refuge in Iran upsetting our government.
President Bush in his typical black white thinking treated all the leadership of Iran as monolithic concluded we couldn't trust them making his famous [infamous?] axis of evil speech identifying Iran as one of the chief evil countries exporting terrorism.
The reformers were undermined by Bush's over generalization and were seriously humiliated by his verbal bomb. This resulted in the reformers understandably distrusting us.
When the US attacked Iraq the reformist leaders of Iran correctly understood that when we get rid of Saddham we would open a Pandoras box unleashing a long smoldering sectarian war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. They once again attempted to approach President Bush offering him a rational way to negotiate everything we were interested in. This offer to negotiate took the form of a complex highly detailed monograph referred to as "The Grand Bargain."
THe time was absolutely right for both sides to talk straight with each other. Apparently because of US arrogance that we had no need for the Iranians due to our superior strength and their 'weakness' we rejected the offer as unnecessary. This failure to negotiate once again humiliated the reformers and greatly strengthened the hands of the hardliners.
The reformers concluded that our God fearing President was little more than a bully and only spoke the language of force. Added to this mess was the sending of a large armada of ours off the coast of Iran as an impressive show of force.
From our vantage point the US got furthere upset with Iran accusing them of stirring up the resurgency in Iraq and providing them with devestating road side bombs.
For a brief moment Secy Rice did make an overture to the Iranian government to negotiate. But the Iranians turned down the offer because they were upset that the US were apparently backing a spointer Iranian terrorist group called MEK. THis group has thousands of adherents and although the US has identified MEK as indeed a terrorist group it also allows it to function in Iraq presumably gathering intleeigence for us. [Something wrong with this picture?]
This brings us to the present wherein both sides have fixed positions that appear to be hardening as we speak.
If we do attack - Anthony Kordman among others indicates that we had better learn our lessons from the Iraq fiasco and get our allies aboard.
Pros for attacking are our superior force, and we do possess nucelar weapons if all else fails. Apparently we also have a new weapons system that allows us to penetrate way down in the earth and can effectively knock out whatever we wish to.
Counter arguments are that all parts of Israel are threatend with massive destruction by an all out missle attack from Iran. Additionally Iran if it chooses to can wreak havoc in Irac effectively cutting our supply lines and doing a great deal of damage to our troops stationed there.
Iran also can insight riot with other jihadist groups threatening wars to weaken or take over governments valuable to us such as in Lebanon etc.
Additionally there is strong evidence that Iran views a war with the West as inevitable as a confrontation between good and evil - a Holy War - that they feel they cannont lose. They are willing to martyr themselves and make it appear that we are the bullies of the world which they will use to ignite the smouldering pent up resentment that appears to be explding all over the world as we speak. Do we in fact have any friends left?
This Front LIne progam ended with a chilling note. Since both sides fervently believe they are doing God's work - it is as if both countries have left the ground - which is dangerous for the whole world. My association is to Montaigne who says: "Supercelestial thougts breed subterranean conduct."
ADDENDUM:
In todays New York Times there is an editorial by Maureen Dowd titled: Madness As Method.
She conjectures that Vice President Cheney might be using a perverse tactic of creating the diliberate impression that one or more of our leaders is 'crazy." The purpose is to alert our enemies to the fact that they better not do anything to intensify an already inflamed psychological brushfire.
Vice President Cheney ..."has even begun referring to his nickname Darth Vader, noting that it "'is one of the nicer things I've been called recently." Dowd continues: "A top Bush 41 national security official told me shortly after Bush 43 got underway that the younger Bush team's foreign policy was dangerous because it was so "black and white," so dependent on "bogymen." Unfortunately the other side appears to do the same thing.
Dowd ends her article quoting Pat Buchanan noted on "hardball," "Cheney and Bush are laying down markers for themselves which they're going to have to meet. Idon't see how ... Bush and Cheney can avoid attacking Iran and retaining their credibility going out of office."
Dowd concludes: "In other words, once our cowboys have talked their crazy talk, they have to walk their crazy walk."
MY CONCLUSION:
Peace may eventually be with us but it sure but from where I sit at the present moment its appearance sure seems dicey.
Peace may eventually be with us but it sure but from where I sit at the present moment its appearance sure seems dicey.
gibbs williams, Oct 24, 2007
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 30
War might be a necessary evil; however, war is called war because it is used to kill one's enemy. War should never be implemented unless we plan to kill that enemy, innocent or guilty. It is just that plain and simple.
Sometimes it is the responsibility of the nation being attacked to keep certain unruly citizens, causing the problem, under control. If they can't, then they must suffer the consequences, along with the guilty.
It appears that terrorist's organizations have voiced that they want to kill any and all Americans; that their religion states that they and they alone, shall once again rule the entire world. That their flag shall fly over the White House and the Parliament Building in Britain.
What is the solution?
Well, my solution is to pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Give fair warning that any attack against the United States, of any kind, no matter how small, will be met with totally destruction of the country where the attack originated, or was planned.
If the attacked originated in Iraq; I would give a one week notice that all citizens should immediately leave Baghdad, that the entire city will be completely destroyed. If the attacks continue, I would move from city to city with total destruction, until those governments get the terrorists, living in their country, under control.
The point here is not to take lives but to save them. Destroying a way of life, or a city, is one way to force the citizens of that country to police their own by reporting such activities to the police and/or military. It then becomes their responsibility to stop terrorists who are destroying their way of life.
Even if we did not bomb their cities, concentrating strictly on bombing their electric, television, radio, newspaper, water facilities, bridges and roadways; that would throw the country into a state of total cachous.
We need not lose one American Soldier to win a war against our enemy. All we have to do is fight the war in a manner in which war was meant to be fought; to kill the enemy as quickly as possible and then end it.
We do the "Hokey Pokey War" because of what our enemy, or their country might be able to do to us financially and/or economically, rather that fighting a war because of what is right or wrong.
I am not saying that we should not talk to solve the problem of war. What I am saying is that we should be willing to talk, if they will talk in good faith. However, talk is a waste of time, if while talking they are going to continue to try and kill me.
Most countries do not fear the United States because they know we are all talk. Even if we do take action we still want to talk for fear of what others might say if we totally destroy our enemy.
We had best get our act together.
Terrorists respect fear and nothing more. When they fear us, they will respect us. It is then, and only then, they will leave us alone. Not until.
One day a bomb will go off in an American city and kill millions of Americans. It is then we will realize that we waited to long to react. That being nice and considerate while filling our pockets with money got millions killed.
Agree, lets impeach Bush.
Mr. Bush is dangerous because he believes everything anyone says unless it is something nice and/or favorable. That's why he went so wrong over there. He lacks even the most basic understanding of the region, it's people, their social customs, and their way of thinking. Now he's beating his chest and marking territory with Iran in the mistaken idea they will suddenly roll over and expose their belly in defeat.
He is already beginning the process of talking himself into a corner, and his little 29-percenters are already nodding their heads like bobble-head dolls agreeing with his every foolish pronouncement. He has not been right yet. Why would anyone think that he would develop sagacity at this late date?
"All I know is that when someone has stated, very clearly, and with very little doubt, they are going to "wipe Israel and the United States off the face of the earth;" one does not wait until it is too late to react."
You care to share a source for that statement? Or are you just repeating BS sessions with the good ole boys?
You saw a man talking, and heard a voice-over telling about what he said. If that voice over sounds authoritative, you may wish to assume it is. And when that voice told you Iraq was unquestionably brimming with terrible weapons of mass destruction aimed at you, and was collaborating with Al-qaeda, they sounded quite authoritative too. But it was a snow job. The same grizzly twisting and fabricating that magically turned a decorated war veteran into a virtual traitor, so Mr. Bush's own stinky military record would not count against him, can certainly "summarize" an outspoken and complex man like the Iranian President into a demon.
And you can then embrace the childish notion that Iranians are sub-human monsters intent on mindless violence. And you do, and cry for blood.
This wacky notion that Mr. Bush is a Christian is not in any sense verifiable. You don't believe him when he tells you he is for peace, why would you believe him when he tells you he is a servant of the Prince of peace?
If you see someone repeatedly do things that are un-Christlike, that would indicate they are not followers of Christ. Honest.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword...who said this do you know, thats right the Prince of Peace, Jesus.
Something to think about I'm not saying Jesus was all about war but he was not as concerned with peace as he was with alegance. (I've come to pit father against son" Meaning be loyal to me even if it costs you your families loyalty. Christianity does not lay claim to the title of the religion of peace (that's Islam's bogus claim) I mean have you read the Bible, there is a butt load of wars and death in there so get the idea that God would not go to war out of your head. However it's inagrueable that Christianity does a hundred fold more for true peace and not just a cease fire, than Islam has ever done. Some of you may not understand that their is a peace that can only be found on the other side of war, but hey your liberals so I don't expect you to. One last thing if any of you believe that these people are not teaching there children to hate Jews and Americans, you need to open your eyes, there are about a million videos on You Tube of children demonstrating their hatred towards us on the streets, I saw a three year old girl quoting that Jews were pigs, when asked if she knew what a Jew was she shook her head no. That, people, is the enemy were fighting an enemy so cowardly that they don't even come out and face us they just sit in their caves and bread like rabbits, why? because thats how they expect to win bread us out, Muslims produce more children than any other group or nation in the world FACT. So unless you want to see the day when we have to level our guns at an army of preteen brain wash-ees, quit whining about our fighting the evil people and evil religion that's doing it to them
"I think the real issue is between those who are under the sway of black white thinking versus those who view both internal and external reality as complex."
I could not agree more. Look at these folks screaming for blood, on the grounds that they see a cartoon-like image of evil bloodthirsty people.
Christ told us quite plainly how to treat our "enemies". He is my Lord.
"Gigantic difference" . . . to God?
And shall we then make exceptions for family enemies? And tribal? And racial? And political? And economic? And religious? And ?
I'll stick with what Christ said, thanks.
The Terrorists are just foreign right-wing conservatives that see force as an answer to their problems, many very willing to die for their cause ...
Then those of western persuasion of the same right-wing bent become fearful that they will be victims so they want to kill the enemy first ... but they naturally prefer that the children of others do it for them ... and it's OK because 'that' is what they 'volunteered' for ... to do it to protect their leaders the chicken hawks.
And the reformers were, of course, right.
A great article, Gibbs, demonstrating quite clearly that this administration mirrors the trash-talking, agit-prop fuming of the other.
Whenever public confidence in the AWOL in Chief sinks to new levels, there is a bogus terrorist plot (NONE of which have turned out to be what the government hyped) or more sabre-rattling about Iran.
Two anti-intellectual religious fundamentalists with messianic visions who sustain unstable political support with bellicose statements about inevitable war.
The leadership of Iran and the US are parallel images.
What a load of crap, and full of errors.
"The truth is if we were a country like russia or china, this war would have been over in a month.
Like the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, I am guessing.
The world, unfortunately, is more complicated than the black and white in Todd's mind.
Does he believe that Russia will stand by while Iran is bombed or invaded?
Just as Reagan, another lying fool, armed the jihadists so he could take credit for the fall of the "evil empire", any action in Iran will create another front in an endless war that will bankrupt us and diminish our influence.
Bankruptcy and diminished influence were the often-forgotten message of Bin laden's first proclamations.
So far, he has done much better with his agenda than the dim-witted President has done with ours.
" It's only beacuse of our mercy and grace that these arrogant goat herders still draw breath."
No, it's only by Mercy and Grace that the world is preserved to see another day.
Todd's bellicose reading of the New Testament displays his level of learning and understanding.
I don't think the US has itself in hand. I don't think we're in a position to judge anyone else. And, if I WAS looking for a crusader, I would not be looking to the self-serving megalomaniacal bully in the White House.
Not that I'm opinionated. Truth told, we've had better reasons to attack Iran before and cooler heads prevailed because war is a bad thing, a weapon of last resort. People who use it lightly do no one a favor. They are the worst kind of war criminal, killing their own kind and innocent others for their own glory. War is out of date, in my opinion. We must use our minds, by opening them, for us to get along properly for war kills too many innocents to get, if it can, a handful of supposed "bad guys".
Here are some words from Eisenhower, who knew about war first-hand:
"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?"
The most current Bill Moyers progam on channel 13 this week makes it crystal clear that our government has no difficulty in wanting the President to be above the law in the name of protecting us from the "terrorists".
Isn't it ironic that our same leaders extol the so called virtues of those Supreme Court Justice who are "strict constructionists" when these same so called leaders continue to violate the constitution on an almost daily basis. And when flagrantly caught at it will -lie, be deceptive, refuse to show their cards, cheat, waffle, all in the name that it is in the best interests of the American People.
If it is indeed better to live by the ethics of double messages then it will be the first time in recorded history that this is true.
Better, I think, we collectively heed the words of Thomas Jefferson with respect to the vulnerabilities of demoncracy: "Eternal Vigilance."