Like a desperate gambler putting his life savings on a single number in the hopes of recouping all his loses, President Bush seems poised to put his money on a war with Iran to save his legacy from the brink of disaster. With Iraq all but officially declared a lost cause – Bush seems hell bent on rattling the Iranian cage, poking and irritating the animal that is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, challenging him – almost inviting retaliation – any reason to invade the country.
The latest saber rattling comes with President Bush’s recommendation that a U.S.-led missile defense system should be set up in the Czech Republic and Poland to counter possible threats of attack by Iran. Such a massive undertaking, based on the possibility that this small Middle Eastern country might ever threaten the Free World – is tantamount to suggesting we position a battalion of army tanks before the window to prevent flies from entering the house.
The plan also completely ignores all the lessons the United States should have learned from its invasion of Iraq. Massive military force does not work against religious zealots who routinely ignore traditional rules of combat and ethics; brutal and merciless people who will happily blow themselves up and take hundreds of innocent civilians with them – including their own people – in an effort to intimidate their enemies.
It explains why Israel last year – while they destroyed half of Lebanon with massive firepower – barely made a dent in the political infrastructure of Hezbollah – some would argue they made it stronger. Hezbollah fighters never directly confronted the Israeli army as a group, but individually popped out of hiding places, took a shot, and jumped back into hiding. Hezbollah fighters also had no qualms about using their own people as human shields to prevent Israel from bombing their positions.
Bush defended the plan, explained that building the missile defense system doesn’t mean we have to use it. It would just serve as a show of force, and it would only be activated if the administration receives “definitive proof” that Iran was about to launch nuclear missiles.
Russia doesn’t buy the argument. A wary Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that there are greater, more imminent threats to the free world than Iraq – North Korea, for example. Bush assures him that building the missile system would be a "cooperative effort" against "an emerging threat that affects us all." Then, in a stunning display of “doublespeak” (the practice in which government officials mean the exact opposite of what they say) Bush called the missile defense system a preventive effort “to move beyond the Cold War.”
Either Bush has a spectacular lack of knowledge about U.S. history, or he has enormous gall – or he is simply dangerously clueless. Any history student can tell you that the whole reason behind the legendary Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was the knowledge by both nations that they each had enough nuclear weapons to wipe each other off the face of the earth with a single push of a button. This situation generated such an enormous level of suspicion, mistrust and paranoia on both sides that the world truly came to the brink of annihilation on several occasions.
Another missile defense system in Europe will not rattle rogue nations governed by religious zealots who don’t fight with traditional armies and traditional methods. It will simply raise the level of mistrust and paranoia between Russia and China toward the United States, which they already see as a dangerously clumsy superpower bent on imposing its brand of government upon the world. That is the definition of a Cold War.
But common sense seems to bounce off this American President like water off a duck’s back. Las Vegas bookies are probably already taking bets on Bush invading Iran on one pretext or another before the end of 2008.
-------------------------
Mario’s column, Point of Convergence, published to Gather Essentials: Politics, looks at the American political landscape and the people and events that make the news. Mario is a culture trend expert who frequently speaks on cultural, political and social issues that impact modern life. Keep up with Mario’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click popculture and select the orange “Connect” button on the left side of the page.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 81
Oh wait, they did say that.
Well, it's not like Ahmadinejad threatened to use Nukes on Israel and the US.
Oh wait he did.
Nevermind.
"Well, it's not like Ahmadinejad threatened to use Nukes on Israel and the US.
Oh wait he did. Nevermind"
No, let's mind a bit. Care to cite a source for that bit of news?
Just because they make threats doesn't mean they can carry them out.
The question is not whether Iran threatened to nuke Israel or any other nation they consider their enemy - the question is whether the U.S. setting up missile defenses as "preventive measures" near countries that are already wary of U.S. intentions might in itself trigger a bigger Cold War that could lead, this time around, to WWIII.
"The question is not whether Iran threatened to nuke Israel or any other nation they consider their enemy"
No, that is the question. There is a direct link to what you speak of regarding those missiles, and what you have said regarding this man, and the country he holds office in. The same mechanisms that can turn a decorated war hero into a virtual traitor in the minds of millions of Americans, can surely turn an outspoken anti-Bush Iranian politician into a demon. The President of our country is now trying to parlay that heavily manipulated imagery, into the strong-arming of a region, which as you have said, is not at all a safe place to "play".
IF, the Iranian government, is not a bunch of drooling madmen, but rather, a reasonably compitent and intelligent group of human beings, the implications of both those missles, and the "de-humanization" of our "enemiy", are hair-raising. The PNAC documents called for virtually everything this Administration has done, and Iran is the big prize it urges us to "control", indefinately.
The fact that millions of Americans do not bat an eye when speaking of bombarding a nation with massive levels of high explosives, possibly including nuclear weapons, except to debate whether we could follow up properly with troops, is shocking. Given the history of trumped up "evidence" for war, it amazes me that people simply assume they are being given the straight dope about Iran, or it's leader's intentions.
Oh, and by the way Mister Knight----
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
SOURCE ??? al jazeera-- will you suggest they are NOT quoting the madman verbatim ???
No, he didn't actually threaten the use of "nukes," but uhmmmmmm....
What better way to "wipe Israel off the map?"
> single number in the hopes of recouping all his loses,
> President Bush ...
Wow, I wonder where this cool calm objective fact-based article is going to go?
Nope.
If there's to be a military conflict with Iran, it won't be Bush who's behind it. And, it won;t be just the U.S. doing it. There's near consensus in Europe about the need to firmly address Iran's aggressive actions -- even the French are talking about it, so that MUST tell us something about the severity.
So, Mario, to return to your analogy, I think I'd best characterize your analysis as a misdeal.
The President wants to take a defensive measure. What is wrong with being proactive? If it doesn't keep these zealots from acting, we at least will be in a position to react.
It would make you pretty nervous knowing this guy has you in his crosshair. In the same way, Russia and China aren't some of our most trusted allies. They aren't exactly convinced the U.S. has altruistic purposes.
David, "If there's a military conflict in Iran, it won't be Bush behind it..." so far, he's the one shouting the loudest about it. He's also just announced more sanctions against them.
Also, don't know where people are getting their information that other European countries support U.S., but what I'm hearing is that the administration "is viewed as threatening to drag the Gulf into another war - this time with Iran, as failing to consult and explain, and as indifferent to the views of its friends and allies.''
jJack, sorry you missed me. I'll check out what kinds words you have for me in your posting.
From a economic point of view, I would prefer to take Iran on and remove the threat installing inspectors and setting that as precedent compared with building a shield that may or may not be defeated ... remember the Maginot line anyone ... and cowering behind it ... these shield mentality is psychically equivalent to defeat in a way if you look at history.
Obviously in the event there is no other solution, and I do not mean some kind of wishful solution, this problem of terrorism and the Middle East needs be resolved or ground aggressively away at permanently until it is.
I remember watching my political hero, Ronald Reagan, make his TV speech about what the democrats loved to call "star wars." He was SO ivisionary/inspired, particularly when he said "we'll share the technology with the Russians too."
Today, we all know just how well that system works, and they all called him a fool at the time.
I won't be at all surprise if a similar chronology of events occurs as a result of the liberation of Iraq. We'll just have to wait and see how the Middle East evolves over the next twenty to twenty five years I suppose.
Mario A., Oct 25, 2007, 5:21pm EDT
The record doesn't support that contention, Mario
France
PARIS: In his first major foreign policy speech as president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday that Iran could be attacked militarily if it did not live up to its international obligations to curb its nuclear program."
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Sunday that European nations "must prepare ourselves for the worst" if sanctions fail to stop Iran's nuclear development. Asked what that meant, Kouchner -- co-founder of the the Nobel Prize-winning relief agency Doctors Without Borders -- replied, "That is war, sir."
"France's change from Chirac to Sarkozy, from Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who actively lobbied Third World countries to oppose America on Iraq) to Kouchner (who supported the U.S. invasion on humanitarian grounds) represents an enormous shift in Old Europe's relationship to the U.S."
Germany
"Iran has blatantly crossed the red line," she said. "I say it as a German chancellor. A president who questions Israel's right to exist, a president who denies the Holocaust cannot expect to receive any tolerance from Germany."
"I'm emphatically in favor of solving the problem through negotiations, but we also need to be ready to impose further sanctions if Iran does not give ground," she said. "It is threatening the security of Israel which for me as German Chancellor will never be negotiable. It threatens the region, Europe and the world. We must prevent that."
Britian
Gordon Brown has warned Iran he is prepared to consider more sanctions against Tehran. Speaking at a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert the Prime Minister argued that the world community was at risk from Iran's nuclear ambitions
He said: "We are absolutely clear that we are ready and will push for further sanctions against Iran. "We will work through the United Nations to achieve this."
USA
"I, of course, said all options are on the table, but I made a pledge to the American people we will work diplomatically to solve the problem,'' President Bush said. "And that's why you see us at the United Nations working with the EU countries, and China and Russia, to send that clear message; and that we're going to continue to impose sanctions and make it harder for the Iranian government to operate in the world until they change their mind, until they come to a new way forward."
"I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," said Bush, who was apparently referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel.
On the atomic dispute, Bush said he hoped "to solve this issue diplomatically" with a "united message" to Tehran from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin as well as Russia "hopefully" and China.">
Certainly, Prime Minister Brown is the least aggressive in his comments, but they all are quite firm in their determination that Iran and Ahmadinejad will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. The closer Iran gets to that eventuality, you'll see the reticence to use military force fade away.
Not to mention that our missile defense efforts have been amazingly expensive and we will never really know if they work unless by some miracle they are actually used.
we have had pretty good performance with the patriot system. This can be made to work, and such a system is probably useful when there is nothing else to count on against an enemy like iran, but iran is cagey enough and aggressive enough to use intelligence, technology, and money to counter threats. look what concrete steps they have taken in this doomsday chess game they're playing with the world as far as targeting israel who would not be part of any possible attack on iran. Fake warheads, chaff, distractions, civilian shields there is no way to tell what problems any system migh face.
Any military strategy or tactic is defeatable, it is errors in judgement about what your enemy will or is capable of doing that is the biggest danger in my opinion. so i am not happy with any return to mutually assured destruction because a technological or terrorist sneak attack is still possible ... and let's be clear about the threat here too ... from non-democratic countries. There are no cases of democratic countries solving their problems this war ... which is the biggest reason I see US position as being the best option even if it does have to include war, because that is our long-term goal for the region. The rulers and wanna-be's of the region will accept almost anything but democracy or any system that breaks up their social dominance hierarchy.
Michelle, I think this is correct and your post is a very astute
opinion. Do you believe as I do that Americans insist on taking
their desires and hopes and projecting it onto the situation
in the Middle East, and mostly totally miss the reality.
I have not lived in the Middle East, but I have worked with many
people from all over the area, and they are really great people
for the most part. It is not the people, it is the system and the
people who run that system that are the problem. We can talk
about diplomacy until we are blue in the face, but from what I
have read and heard, when we say "let diplomacy work" Iran's
government says these cowards do not have the stomach for
a confrontation, and the more we say it the more desperate
they think we are, and in fact the less likely they are to bother
to listen or take us seriously.
I think if the US can find a way to target the government they
will at some point take them out. Failing that they will have to
do a massive air strike and then a blockade for 10 years or so
like Saddam to drive the country into the ground. All of this would
be avoidable if Iran would be reasonable. Anyway, that's what I
think, and I think the outcome just gets worse the longer we
wait.
Today, with Bush's new sanctions against Iraq, that's all the media talks about. This is very similar to what happened with Iraq. The Bush administration is very clearly telegraphing its next intended step.
Mr. Bush is rattling sabres?
I can see how that might upset a gentle soul like Mr. Ahmadinejad, and who would want someone like Mr. Ahmadinejad to be upset?
I can also how that might upset a gentle soul like Mr. Putin, and who would want someone like Mr. Putin to be upset?
It is so terribly important not to upset people.
We should probably do what the Europeans did in the former Yugoslavia, which is to talk, and talk, and talk, and talk while the side engages in things like ethnic cleansing while they talk and once the other side has accomplished all their objectives, we can say -- "oh well, it would have happened anyway."
The only problem is that we cannot act like Europe, because unlike Europe we lack a greater power that can defend us when "things just happen".
Of course it would be nice to have a greater power to rely on -- because then we could spit at them and blame them for whatever happens.
What I see here is two hormonally imbalanced alpha males (Bush and Ahmadinejad) shouting and taunting each other like two drunks at a bar, and eventually they fall into senseless fighting that solves nothing except leave one side or both bloodied. Yes, Ahmadinejad is a dangerously cunning leader with his own personal agenda, but we've got a lot of brilliant people in the United States, and if Bush would bring them in to work on a strategy to contain him - rather than bringing in his war generals to work on strategy to teach him a lesson using firepower - maybe we can move beyond "my gun is bigger than yours" mentality and achieve some kind of meaningful truce.
Joe, you say "Israel is in no danger of being wiped off the map." Is that a criterion ... and for what. Hamas and Heabollah continues to fly missiles into Israel on an almost daily basis, this is OK with you as long as they do not threaten the existence of Israel. One nuclear strike on Tel Aviv and Israel is over. They may have the weapons to punish Iran, but Iran talks like it is willing to accept that price ... and the suicide bomber mentality of the radical Muslims seems to say it is not sensible to ignore that.
Mario ... Bush is not taunting anyone ... your equating of the behavior of these two leaders is as ridiculous and anything Ahmadinejad says coming out of the mouth of a national leader. I ask you ... what do you think there is to talk about with Iran. When a bully is threatening you, have you ever found it productive to say, please be nice?
> and neutralizing its effectiveness without risking the lives
> of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the process.
OK, part 1 is done, you recognize Ahmadinejad for what he is.
Next phase, recognize the US for what we are ... and risking
the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilivians is not what
we are about, Bush or anyone else.
The enemy we face in this part of the world apparently like
to hide in the middle of civilians precisely to gain the sympathy
of people like you. Hezbollah in Lebanon infiltrates regions
and fires missiles at Israel from civilian homes. Iran does the
same thing with its population.
So, your next step is to realize this tactic at some point
needs to be stood up to. If things wait for years, or
decades they fester and grow into bigger problems that
end up killing more people on both sides, so the problem
becomes how does one stand up to a evil tactic like this
and minimize the damage, not how does one avoid
damage altogether, because that is impossible.
The Republican Party and it's support of and defense of the oil corporations and so-called big business in general has betrayed this country and put us in this place. That is why the Democrats are GOING to take the White House in 2008. And I for one will make it my life's work to never let anyone forget what they have done to this great country.
I'm with you and poor Mario has been encircled by the braying dogs of war who still lurk around the edges of gather and the edges of American society. All they can smell is blood and their tails start to wag and the drool starts to fall from the edges of their fangs as they pull on their leashes and look forward to the first chance to drop some friggen explosives on SOMEBODY!!! ANYBODY will do.
Meanwhile, what about the Saudis???? Those close bush buddy pals who were actually the guys who flew those planes into the towers on 911... those Saudi, rolling in oil, best bush buddies are laughing all the way to the bank. I just heard that they are building a new technology center in the middle of the desert to rival M.I.T...
I assume the talk is about a mobile missile defense system, cause there's no way we are going to build silos in foreign countries within a few months.
How do Poland and Czech Republic get selected logistically? If we are going to use a mobile defense system, wouldn't we want it to be closer; like in Iraq, or Turkey, or some other ally right outside Iran's doorstep?
If we are doing it to protect Israel, shouldn't we be setting up in Israel? They are our allies, aren't they?
Beyond that, does Iran even have high enough missile technology to make ICBMs? Aren't they more likely to sneak a nuke across land and set it off at ground level, or maybe fire it with some type of short range missile?
Setting up a missile defense system in Poland and/or Czech Republic to protect us from Iran just seems weird.
Good article. 10
> And you Bush supporters are being played like a violin
> by this creep and the guy you support, Pres. Bush.
You think it is all about Bush, and all solved by hating Bush.
Well, I have never been a supporter of Bush, and I will be
glad to see him gone, but the problem will remain, and anyone
who gets elected from either side will be following the same
sensible path on this, tightening sanctions, building coaliations
to isolate Iran, and finally if nothing works miltiary action. I
am sure during this time you will be writing your typical anti-
Bush diatribes ... but what will you do when it is a Democrat
that sends the troops in?
nuclear weapons, attack other countries, and actively financing
terrorism against the US. What part of this do you have a problem
with? In the mean time the Saudis have time to contemplate their
actions and think about what side they want to be on. By the way,
the Saudis do not want to see Iran get nukes because it directly
threatens them as well, and will take money to pay for a nuclear
buildup in the Middle East.
Mario A., Oct 26, 2007, 12:13pm EDT
Said like someone who is unarmed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can't reason with a cobra, either, and say "Please be nice."
Mario A., Oct 26, 2007, 4:59pm EDT
Nope! But, you can take your gun and blow his head off. Threat eliminated.
"But there are many other ways of containing that cobra and neutralizing its effectiveness without risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the process."
Mario A., Oct 26, 2007, 4:59pm EDT
Yep! You can take your machete and cut his head off. Threat eliminated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Republican Party and it's support of and defense of the oil corporations and so-called big business in general has betrayed this country and put us in this place."
Devin Barber, Oct 26, 2007, 5:28pm EDT
What is it with the Democrats and their fixation on oil? It is possible for people to want stability in the region for the sake of having stability in the region. One, so we don't have these crises every five or ten years or so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Setting up a missile defense system in Poland and/or Czech Republic to protect us from Iran just seems weird."
bruce k., Oct 26, 2007, 9:29pm EDT
It's called deterrence. Deterring the Bear from helping the Lion
Why can't YOU understand, as long as you engage in such mindless rhetoric THAT COMES INCOMPLETE, WITHOUT ANY PROOF, you will be considered the fool???
As soon as you are able to substantiate your wildly irrational mantras, PERHAPS then, you might find the "convergence" of the mind you ostensibly seek???
The Republican Party and it's support of and defense of the oil corporations and so-called big business in general has betrayed this country and put us in this place.
PROOF sir, PROOF ! ! ! ! ! WHERE IS THE PROOF ??????
Without proof, your wild, irrational conjecture paints the picture of a fool.
> "Setting up a missile defense system in Poland and/or
> Czech Republic to protect us from Iran just seems weird."
> bruce k., Oct 26, 2007, 9:29pm EDT
David B. - Get your quotes right, I did not write this at any time.
We are the mightiest nation on the planet (for now). We could park Patriot missiles in Iraq or Kuwait. We've got subs all over the globe with missile technology. We could park a few in the Persian gulf, maybe a battle cruiser or two with long range guns and a missle or two. We always have planes in the air and satellites monitoring everything. Heck, we've got telescopic infrared ultra-violet eyes in space; and we used to brag that we had lasers there too.
If we once thought we could handle a few thousand of the missiles Russia used to have pointed at us -- and it's doubtful we've scrapped all of our anti-missile capability -- we should be able to handle a missile, or six, IF Iran can / could / ever does build them; and IF they would then ever shoot some at us.
Geez, that was so fine;
"I'm with you and poor Mario has been encircled by the braying dogs of war who still lurk around the edges of gather and the edges of American society. All they can smell is blood and their tails start to wag and the drool starts to fall from the edges of their fangs as they pull on their leashes and look forward to the first chance to drop some friggen explosives on SOMEBODY!!! ANYBODY will do."
It is the heart of the matter. It is the real force behind what Mr. Bush is doing. And here the pack waits, eager for those cool pics of "smart bombs" lighting up the desert skies, bringing that special rush.
"¿Badgez? Badgez? We don't need no steenkeen Badgez ! "
"Setting up a missile defense system in Poland and/or
Czech Republic to protect us from Iran just seems weird."
bruce k., Oct 26, 2007, 9:29pm EDT
David B. - Get your quotes right, I did not write this at any time.
bruce k., Oct 26, 2007, 11:48pm EDT
So sorry, Bruce. You are correct! I was going gor bill's post just above yours. The scroll wheel must have slipped.
My post should've said:
"Setting up a missile defense system in Poland and/or Czech Republic to protect us from Iran just seems weird."
Bill's Spirit, Oct 26, 2007, 6:27pm EDT
It's called deterrence. Deterring the Bear from helping the Lion
David B., Oct 26, 2007, 9:38pm EDT
Sorry again.
> Czech Republic to protect us from Iran just seems weird.
Unless "us" means the West.
We been trying to negotiate since the 70's, and I think you mean stronger sanctions.
You can read all about US sanctions and Iran here:
http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/iran/iran.shtml
There are brilliant ways to "checkmate" hostile nations through smart diplomacy.
Just because Bush's crude and clueless sense of "diplomacy" doesn't work doesn't mean diplomacy can't work. Just like there are smart ways and dumb ways to wage war, so are there smart ways and dumb ways to wage "diplomacy."
> I'd rather that we spend a thousand years giving diplomacy
> a chance and letting people get on with their lives than
> spend five years in a bloody and costly war
Mario, nice sounding noble words, but those are not the choices.
As has been mentioned before, you cannot negotiate with
dishonest insincere agents. You cannot negotiate with someone
who has does not want to negotiate.
Again, you are looking at negotiations as a weak or naive person's attempt to reason with killers and psychopaths who cannot be reasoned with. As psychotic or cunning as Ahmadinejad or any terrorist might be, they do not operate in a vacuum. There are a lot of other factors at work that determine their actions.
You don't have to reason with them, you just have to figure out how to contain and neutralize them.
Why can't Bush bring into his cabinet brilliant analysts of every kind – not just war generals – to discuss the situation and figure out a better alternative than taunting our enemies to cross the line in the sand? Seems to me that psychotic people like Ahmadinejad would probably cross that line simply because they ARE psychotic.
Bush's current strategy is leading in just one direction, and that is war, but only because he is not willing (or able) to really think this through.
Bush can put the missiles right at the border of Iran and it won't make a bit of difference in how Ahmadinejad behaves. He laughs at Bush's posturing and enjoy watching him froth at the mouth.
America needs the help of allies to figure a way out of the Iraq mess.
I am not arguing against diplomacy but it seems, as you say, Ahmadinejad is laughing at US, not just the President. Does that leave any room for diplomacy?
We have to go out to the rest of the European community and get their input. Again, every nation has its own selfish agenda, so it's not that we naively approach other nations and naively expect them to help us out without giving them something in return.
America has a lot of smart minds beyond the Pentagon that could be brought in to work out that angle. The problem is that Bush, historically, has not gone to these other smart minds to help him work out global political conflicts, and we've suffered for it - and hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died for it.
Make that points
The input of people or countries is just as selfish or more so than people want to claim Bush's is. The point is the only way the world is going to get better is when democracies stand together and confront the rogue nations ... and it better start happening soon because size will not matter soon with nuclear weapons.
Why do the conservatives have the authority to determine when diplomacy can no longer work?
Does anyone else see the irony here as it relates to the Berlin Wall and these missille defense systems positioned in Poland?
"Why do the conservatives have the authority to determine when diplomacy can no longer work?"
While not myself truly a conservative, I do feel some obligation to keep that once meaningful and rather honorable title from being further sullied by these neo-sheep. Clearly, 'conservative' they ain't.
I do not believe Bush is making any genuine effort to exhaust all alternatives to war. In world politics, he is eager to go for the gun against rogue nations that do not bow to U.S. tough talk.
> I do not believe Bush is making any genuine effort to
> exhaust all alternatives to war. In world politics, he is
> eager to go for the gun against rogue nations that
> do not bow to U.S. tough talk.
I wonder why you think this? You seem to base it on the
popular perception that the invastion of Iraq was a shoot
from the hip thing. There are a lot of articles lately that
attack everything from the aspect of ... we know that Bush
is evil, so therefore ....
I am just asking you to build an argument from the base up
so I can understand the logic of it, not that you hate Bush,
which I really do not care about one way or the other.
I have tried to put forth my reasons for thinking that whatever
we do this is going to end up in a military confrontation. I do
not particularly relish it, who would, but anyone who goes
against this rabid anti-Bush ethic anymore automatically
everyone closes their minds and ears to. I just seek to
challenge that.
I don't believe this is something we will adequately be able to resolve. Only time will tell which of us was right.
On the other hand we have the clueless legions here at home who seem to include the President, who do not understand this cultural behavior nor apparently do they know that Ahmadinijad does not have the authority or the power within his own government to do any of what he says. He does not control the military. They are controlled by the mullahs who are the real power in that country. Ahmadinijad is more or less a figurehead for anything but purely local domestic type of issues. So the fact he's out there shooting his mouth off and poking sticks through the fence to rile up the likes of President Bush is fairly immaterial in the long-term scheme of things. Or at least it would be if Mr. Bush was not taking his mouthing-off as gospel.
I agree with Bruce that Bush is looking for a war and I think he will launch one before the end of his term. I have friends who are convinced that Mr. Bush will then use this as an excuse to declare martial law and suspend the elections. I don't agree with this and have my fingers crossed. However, it's hard not to concede that they might have a point when we know that the government has already build a series of huge interment camps that are to be used in the case of such a declaration, and also that congress granted Mr. Bush the right to use this declaration earlier this year. Given that Mr. Bush interprets legislation to mean anything he chooses to want it to mean, maybe they are not so far off after all. I guess only time will tell.
Bruce: You talk about taking Iran on. Do you seriously believe that an administration who started the war in Iraq with absolutely no plan for securing the country and the occupation (still doesn't as far as anyone I know has been able to discover) can suddenly figure out how to wage a winning effort against a country with an army the size of Iran's? Mr. Bush is currently presiding over two failing or failed war efforts. What has happened in the past few weeks or months to persuade you that he suddenly has an iron-clad plan to successfully pursue yet another one?
All the news being generated about Iran seems to point more and more toward war – as if it is inevitable. I said in my article I expect Bush to launch a strike before the end of 2008. Now I think it could happen before the end of this year, since Bush wants enough time to "win" the war.
You have a lot of faith that Bush has learned his lesson...but I'm afraid I do not share your faith...
Carolyn G., Oct 30, 2007, 3:21pm EDT
Wow! If that isn't irrational paranoia, I'll eat your hat!
IF we take military action against Iran, it won't be strictly on what President Bush says. More than likely, it will be in spite of what he says, given that a majority of our country, and the world for that matter, don't believe anything he says now. While I don't agree with those who feel that way, I certainly don't ascripbe to the President the ability to launch a strike on Iran on his word alone.
Even IF that were to occur. Virtually no one, myself included, would contenance the establishment of martial law.
I'm not advocating it, or arguing against it. I'm simply making an observation which has, over and over again, shown itself to be true. As long as we rebuild what we destroy, feed them, arm them, protest against "atrocities" done by our service members that don't even remotely approach the things that the terrorists brag openly about doing on worldwide television, they will continue to terrorize because IT IS WORKING! Had we met force with force, atrocity with atrocity, and car bombs with smart bombs with no regard for who becomes collateral damage as they have, it would have been a short and cheap war, both in terms of money and American lives. We didn't, we won't, and we have one hell of a mess on our hands and no way to clean it up. I have no doubt that my Marine Corp father, one of the first platoon to hit Iwo Jima, spins in his grave every time we apologize as though we are the ones to blame for this, although in truth we are, by our failure to end this quickly and decisively long ago.
Hey ... whoopeee, I agree with Carolyn on that account, but to paraphrase a famous politician, you have to threaten to go to war with the President you have, not the President you'd want. ;-)
>> brand of chest beating and territory marking is the
>> hallmark of any male-dominated, macho culture.
I missed this comedic relief earlier, thanks Carolyn, I needed a
good laugh while I beat my chest! ;-)
But I say unto you which hear;
Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you
He was not well received then either.
I wouldn't be counting on that last punch if I were you.
"Happy Halloween"
The rest is, unfortunately, too true to be funny. But thanks fo having the guts to put it out there. Well done.