The American Way Of War & how to never learn anything

Remove all ads!

Ragusa, good thinking still... I do wish they would not be so open as to give Bush something to point at and yell See, see!
It is as you said in their interest to do just as they are however laying low and being a bit more discrete for awhile would remove Bushs chance to use their involvement for another bad action. This was my main point. He would have to find something else while public opinion is getting stronger every day. The worst that Iran could do right now is allow something they are involved in to provide a "trigger" before public and opposition pressure changes what is happening now.
This would not be backing down, it would be taking advantage of american events here. I do believe someone in Irans leadership is smart enough to do this. I also think that is why Irans pres has quieted down just a bit. Lets face it, to be around for thousands of years Iran must have at least a few very quick thinkers.

 

Naturally. That was probably always the plan. The "Axis of Evil" was identified by Bush & company 6 years ago. And it was only the stalled situation in Iraq that kept the war with Iran on hold for this long. Whether or not it actually happens still remains to be seen. But some believe that Bush has been listening to Nixon's old crony, Henry Kissinger. The notion of "escalation" - given the right fudamentals - seems tailor made for Henry's brand of "diplomacy."

 

Chandos the Red, Exactly!

Now let us hope Iran is smart enough not to give a free pass open incident that can be used as an excuse.

 

Old One,
as I said, it's beside the point what Iran actually does. Ahmedinejad is a great scarecrow, but that's about it. The Bushies would find something even if he was Ghandi. Then they would accuse him of hypochrisy, because a Ghandi couldn't possibly have a use for nukes! So it's all a fraud anyway!

You see, by accusing Iran of wanting nukes, they also speak the 'guilty' verdict. Tell me Old One, do you still shag your best friend's girlfriend?

In reality, all information from Iran is highly incomplete and contradictory. A lot of it is circumstantial and interpeted in face of the utterances of a shell-shocked veteran like Ahmedinejad. Probably the guy has PTSD after what he went through in the Iraq-Iran war. And besides, he's by far not the only and most powerful decisionmaker in Iran. Basically, he's the mayor of Greater Teheran. Don't take him too serious. He has much much less power than a US prersident, and has basically functions in governance and representation only. And that's it.

Or take these EFP mines, allegedly provided by Iran. Because such mines kill US troops, and Hezbollah, too, used them against Israel, the proponents of this theory imply Iran. I'm sorry to say that but know-how spreads. The German RAF iirc killed a banker using such a device, in 1989. The Iraqis themselves had factories where they build anti-tank missiles, so they understand how to build a hollow charge. They had very well educated technicians and scientists. So the Iraqis, too, have the know how. But again, it can 'only' have been the Iranians. Gimme a break.
Despite all that, you hear the story for two years now, cooked up again and again. Well, then it must be true.

Whenever something like that is brought with gravitas and certainty, without details, or evidence, and without adressing prevalent doubts, it's in my experience probably disinformation. Think of them Iraqi mobile biological weapon labs.

The Iranian mullahs cannot satisfy the US demands short of abolishing their regime and holding elections, where they won't run - that is unconditional surrender. Which is preposterous.

 

Ragusa, I do agree with most of what you say. However if you look close I mentioned Ahmedinejad in passing as something minor and do see how little he can actually do.
Where we differ as I pointed out is that I think Bush is running out of time and I think Iran, the real government, is smart enough to use this. Iran and Iraq both escalated their attacks and activities with perfect timing and I think both peoples know when to pause/slow down for the results they want. I'm just giving them credit for good planing and execution.
To be clear I mean Irans activity all over the region not just involvment in Iraq.

On another subject, I am trying to work out what you meant by your shagging question. Somehow I lost connection with the line of thought on that one.

 

Blackthorne TA, thank you. That went right over my head. I knew from Ragusas post in the past it was to carry a line of thought when he wrote something in but must have been extra thick that day.

 

Not threatening to nuke Israel would be a good start. But hey, the mullahs and Bush agree on many domestic issues already, such as gay marriage and abortion (can women vote for the mullahs too?). So maybe there is hope after all....

 

Thanks BTA.

Chandos,
Iran was added to the axis of evil, the neo-con 'to-do list' of countries to be regime-changed, before Ahmedinejad was even elected. Bush's Axis of Evil speech was on January 29, 2002; the Bush doctrine doctrine was declared on June 1, 2002 in Bush's commencement speech to the graduating class of West Point and formalised on The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published on September 20, 2002 --- Ahmedinejad was elected 6 August 2005. Excerpt from the 'Axis of Evil' speech:

* The guilty verdict: Iran does pursue WMD. And because of that they pose an intolerable danger (and by implication, must be dealt with). Just like former Iraq. Evidence, schmevidence - the Bushies know these regimes true nature - evil - and that is sufficient. Moral clarity.
This is also the reason why evidence conflicting with this view was and will be ignored. Because it undermines the rationale for regime change, it's a threat to presidential policy. That must not be tolerated.
What came to be known as 'misleading the public' was in fact an Administration effort to enforce their policy and their official line against dissent from within the executive branch. The sentiment in neo-con circles that reality-based critics are disloyal, is to be understood in this light. They were not seen as team players, in the sense that they were seen as not subordinating to the Whitehouse view. This also explains the outright savagery with wich the Bush administration and their helping neo-con hands attacked key critics.

They didn't need Ahmedinejad's utterances to formulate their policy. His kooky ramblings are just giving a welcome argument to further justify a policy that was already in place long before he took office. For those who 'know the true nature of the enemy' Ahmedinejad just confirms the evil nature of the Iranian theocracy. For all other purposes he is a welcome scarecrow. Booh.

[ February 04, 2007, 22:19: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa - Thanks for taking the time to read my posts

Nevertheless, I'm not sure what your point is regarding my comments, since we are both saying the same thing, except that you ignored my critical comments that Bush and the mullahs have a very similar agenda on the domestic side. While it is true that Bush would probably not have gays hanged in public, like the mullahs in Iran have in the past - just "evil" enemies like Saddam get that "privilege" from Bush & Company.

Bush's SotUA in Jan. 2002 (sorry I was off a year)

[ February 05, 2007, 01:59: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos,
Critical only insofar as it concerns the US domestically. I didn't find it necessary to stress that we agree on Bush and EDIT: especially his Christian Right allies/EDIT and the Mullahs, being at the root reactionary, having common ground. I thought we knew that I have often stressed that Chrstian Right and conservative Islam share core critiques on the Western civilisation. The US and Teheran cooperate splendidly on the UN social forums, and vote together against 'progressive' ideas, like population control, or fighting AIDS and the like. Part of Bush's election deal was to man the according posts with very conservative functionaries.

Bush and Ahmedinjad probably also have in common the idea that the end of days is near - be it in form of the second coming, or the return of the 12th Imam. Ahmedinejad is to be understood in this context. He believes that when the 12th Imam returns, he will fight alongside him and defeat the evildoers, like Israel and the US. They are doomed. When he talks about Israel being wiped off the map he is talking of the end of days, not of his country attacking. EDIT:His letter to Bush is also been understood in this context. Ahmedinejad felt it was his religious duty to warn Bush and give him a chance to repent./EDIT His country means little in this struggle.

Besides, I find it odd you only make the comparison to the mullahs. I find, the more I read the speeches, and re-read them, stronger resemblances to Breshnev's demented ramblings and the Soviet Union. Breshnev's "degenerated West" and Bush's "oppressed Arab 'street' longing for US style freedom, by force of US arms" share their primarily fictious character. In terms of ideologiocal rigidity they're very much alike, too. EDIT:The Breshnev doctrine formulated that if 'counter-revolutionary forces' threatened the progress that had been made in any socialist state, then it was a concern for all socialist states and not simply an internal matter. Thus the intervention in Czechoslovakia. The Bush doctrine won't accept any country being insufficiently Western (secular, capitalist, holding elections = like America). Because then, it is no longer an internal matter but a concern of the 'free world', the US that is. I find the similarities quite striking. The argumentative reflex is the same, as is the conviction of being 'Right'./EDIT

The much-maligned George Soros with his Open Societies project has done more for spreading 'freedom' and 'democracy' than all neo-con plots and wars put together - through political education in the former Eastern Block for instance. He is today probably America's most effective diplomat in this regard.

I'm longing for Glasnost (emphasis on transparency and accountability) and Perestroika (emphasis on 'fixing' the political system) in Washington D.C.

[ February 05, 2007, 14:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]