media bias - one brazillion

[StevenSeagal]

Yeah. Don't you realize this thing where we lose all control of the country and armed civilians are actively killing one another in daily battles is just a "phase"? It's a difficult phase, but a phase nonetheless.

The next phase, when the government is sacked, genocide erupts, and fighting spills over borders into other countries, that will be a difficult phase also. But it's just a phase, don't call it a war. There isn't really any killing happening either- everyone is just defending themselves from terrorist murderers. We'll defeat those murderers. But it takes time. It's hard. I know that.

[G-spotter]

Win or not win, there is no lose

[Peter_Puget]

And Peter: don't get us started on that "impending" vs. "imminent" b.s. again. Yes, Chalabi and his pals said otherwise, and Saddam was waving whatever he had as loudly as he could, but the vast majority of the intelligence we had, and the on-the-ground inspectors, told us that not only was Saddam weak militarily, but that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism and little prospect for the Iraqis to pose much of a threat and certainly no urgency to any invasion. It wasn't a bold venture - it was a war crime.

 

My quote:

I have argued over and over with both ChucK and Mattp that they have misrepresented Bush Administration’s build up to the war. (90% of my argumentation was directed towards that argument not the decision to invade.) That issue aside...

 

I wasn't bringing it up as a topic for discussion. Your last sentence does merit one comment tho. Bush and Co (along with Australia) argued that there was no imminent dnager in the traditional sense of the term in international law. They were arguing that in the modern age existing international law no longer worked. They proposed a new standard. This was an explicitly stated. So in a sense they would agree with you.

[Peter_Puget]

And if you think $8 billion a month is 'on the cheap', your sense of scale is as poor as your sense of history:

We are repeating Sudetenland obscenity all over.

 

Not really what has been proposed is the US meet with Syria and Iran on ways to bring peace to the region. Iran has long held itself out as the protector of the Shia. (Germany held itself as protector of the Germans stranded in a country that resulted in a breakup of the multi-cultural empire.) Proposals have been made that we speak directly to the Iranians - bypassing the Iraqis themselves. After getting into a mess many seem to more than willing to effectively hand over Iraq to Iran.

 

I guess cheap is relative; however, for perspective youirstated figure of $8billion/month is slightly less that Proctor & Gamble's net income for the year.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Peter_Puget

[tvashtarkatena]

It's definitely not a civil war. It seems pretty uncivil, at this point.

 

At what point to we get to call our occupation a 'peace keeping mission'?

 

Or perhaps we need a new term:

 

Strategic Undertaking Involving Coordinated Indigenous Defense Entities (SUICIDE)

 

Frequent Urban Combat Targeting Unidentified Personnel (FUCTUP)

 

Global Warfare Bringing Unopposed Strategic Hegemony (GWBUSH)

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

And if you think $8 billion a month is 'on the cheap', your sense of scale is as poor as your sense of history:

We are repeating Sudetenland obscenity all over.

 

Not really what has been proposed is the US meet with Syria and Iran on ways to bring peace to the region. Iran has long held itself out as the protector of the Shia. (Germany held itself as protector of the Germans stranded in a country that resulted in a breakup of the multi-cultural empire.) Proposals have been made that we speak directly to the Iranians - bypassing the Iraqis themselves. After getting into a mess many seem to more than willing to effectively hand over Iraq to Iran.

 

Your analogy is all the more ludricrous considering that the US, not Iran or Syria, was the clear aggressor in Iraq. Iraq is not now, nor has it every been, ours to 'hand over' to the Iranians or anyone else.

 

Who, exactly, plays the role of Hitler here?

 

Iran and Syria have a national interest in stabilizing their borders and thus, Iraq. They are also, however, funding the attempted rise to power of their constituents within Iraq through military and other means. Given their heavy involvment and interest in the conflict (as well as Iran's nuclear ambitions), and our complete responsibility for it, it makes perfect sense for the US to open a dialogue with them. We should have done so soon after 911 when these nations were making sympathetic gestures towards us. Our own arrogance brought us to the unfortunate and desperate point where all we have left to negotiate with is a little stick in one hand and a limp carrot in the other.

[W]

I think it's also worth noting that removing Saddam has had the unforeseen (?...it's important to always have an enemy, apparently) consequence of increasing Iran's regional power and influence. Saddam was a major check on Iran and also made Iraq a formidable geographic boundary from bridging Shia Iran to Shia Syria. Iran likely sees today's Iraq as a golden opportunity to create a expansive Shiite sphere of influence- the resulting posturing and perception of "threat" (depending on who you believe) is of course causing the US government's grand plans for the region to backfire completely, not to mention, makes the Sunni/Wahabi Muslim Middle East countries very agitated.

[Peter_Puget]

Your analogy is all the more ludricrous considering that the US, not Iran or Syria, was the clear aggressor in Iraq. Iraq is not now, nor has it every been, ours to 'hand over' to the Iranians or anyone else.

 

No analogy is perfect but this one is not nearly as bad as you are pretending. Your last sentences is fairly ambiguous; however, it should be obvious to anyone after destroying the exiting plotical structure in Iraq, after destroying its armed forces and after watching the country become more and more consumed with internal conflict we have been for sometime able to "hand" Iraq over to Iran. Whether over the long term they can hang onto it is of course another story. Very recent Sunni/Arab statements should indicate make it clear that take the possibility of Iraq becoming a Iranian dominated country very seriously.

[tvashtarkatena]

No analogy is perfect but this one is not nearly as bad as you are pretending. Your last sentences is fairly ambiguous; however, it should be obvious to anyone after destroying the exiting plotical structure in Iraq, after destroying its armed forces and after watching the country become more and more consumed with internal conflict we have been for sometime able to "hand" Iraq over to Iran. Whether over the long term they can hang onto it is of course another story. Very recent Sunni/Arab statements should indicate make it clear that take the possibility of Iraq becoming a Iranian dominated country very seriously.

 

How could we be in a position to 'hand over' Iraq to Iran, whatever that means, if we have not even been able to hand over Iraq to Iraq? The US has, at this point, very little control over what will transpire politically in Iraq. That should be obvious by now to even the most casual observer. Our leadership doesn't even really understand what is happening in Iraq right now, so how could they come up with an effective strategy? What we had to offer Iraq became a failed reconstruction effort. Our military presence is now a purposeless series of quickie patrols through certain parts of Baghdad and a few other areas that remain barely stable enough to allow such operations, raid campaigns that only raise the level of violence, training of Iraqis with questionable loyalties, and weapons giveaways to the insurgency.

 

 

Iraq may or may not partition itself; we will not decide that. Nor will we decide what kind of alliance forms between Iraq and Iran. The continued presence of our troops will, at best, only delay such a political outcome. But continued deployment is becoming a very unpopular philosophy for anyone facing election these days. Given the political pressures within our own country, we will likely pull out of Iraq soon, and Iraq and Iran will do what they are going to do without us, and they both know it.

 

Similarly, we have little to offer Iran and less to threaten them with. They are a rich country that has clearly shown that they don't need anything we have to offer. Our only military option, at this point, would be the kind of limited air strike that has little effect on a strong willed adversary. Such an adventure would certainly be fantastically unpopular here at home. The only interest we share is for a stabilized Iraq. We should work from there, and that will require talking.

 

 

[ZimZam]

Iraq-Contra?

[sexual_chocolate]

Our only military option, at this point, would be the kind of limited air strike that has little effect on a strong willed adversary. Such an adventure would certainly be fantastically unpopular here at home. The only interest we share is for a stabilized Iraq. We should work from there, and that will require talking.

 

 

I think the good doctor misunderestimates the american public's capacity for following (falling for) the arguments presented by our current "leadership". A recent poll I was exposed to rather unwittingly showed a strong support for any and all methods to keep Iran from becoming a nucular power. By god, bombing was one option explicitly mentioned and condoned, by 70% or so.

Also, I believe the point of any air strike would be to defunctionalize Iranian nuclear capacities, which wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the strength of their will, only the strength of their facilities.

 

Furthermore, I am not a'tall certain that "we" (who do you speak of?) "share" the common aim of a "stabilized" Iraq.

[tvashtarkatena]

'We' meaning Iran and the US. I'm not sure much of the American public gives a shit anymore.

 

From everything I've read, Iran's nuclear capabilities are scattered, hidden, and probably well protected from air attack. Our current non-nuclear capabilities limit us to penetrating through several feet of concrete (damn laws of physics!), making such facilities fairly easy to defend. Anything more hardened that that requires 'bunker busting nukes', but even those are ineffective against diligently buried targets.

 

I'm not sure what poll you're referring to, but there will always be a portion of the public that naively believes that military strikes are the magic bullet in situations like this. After N Korea's little fireworks show, scads of folks were writing into the NYT calling for the US to bitchslap them. It's a simpleton's argument that works only in a world without politics or consequences.

 

The Middle East is embroiled in three major conflicts right now. We're not going to threaten our oil supply further by starting another.

 

The only option that has a prayer of working in the real world is to drop the axis of evil bullshit (which worked so well on N Korea), and figure out how to guarantee Iran's security and buy them off to the point where their nuke program no longer makes sense for them.

 

Personally, I think Iran will have their nukes, and this administration knows it.

Edited December 6, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[sexual_chocolate]

I imagined that is what you meant by "we", although "stability" is not an aim I am completely convinced that this "we" desires if the price is too high.

 

As far as the bombing goes, I was simply responding to your comment below:

 

Our only military option, at this point, would be the kind of limited air strike that has little effect on a strong willed adversary. Such an adventure would certainly be fantastically unpopular here at home.

 

And again, I don't know if this would be the case.

 

 

As far as the following goes:

 

The only option that has a prayer of working in the real world is to drop the axis of evil bullshit (which worked so well on N Korea), and figure out how to guarantee Iran's security and buy them off to the point where their nuke program no longer makes sense for them.

 

How do you think the Israeli/Palestinian situation would be affected by a nuclear Iran?

_________________________

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

 

How do you think the Israeli/Palestinian situation would be affected by a nuclear Iran?

_________________________

 

 

I stopped trying to figure out the Israelis a long time ago.

 

If Iranian nukes were to have any effect on this conflict, I'd guess it would be to make the Israelis even more paranoid and hardline towards all threats, Palestinians included. Since the political cost of Israeli aggression against the Palestinians is lower than, say, against Hezbollah, the former would likely bare the brunt of increased Israeli paranoia.

 

Iranian nukes might lead to mutual security guarantees (backed by credible threats) between Israel and Iran, similar the US/Soviet relations during the cold war.

 

Then again, it might also lead to an increasingly volatile relationship between the two, as exists between India and Pakistan.

 

In the Middle East, anything can happen at this point.

[fear_and_greed]

The only option that has a prayer of working in the real world is to drop the axis of evil bullshit (which worked so well on N Korea), and figure out how to guarantee Iran's security and buy them off to the point where their nuke program no longer makes sense for them.

 

Personally, I think Iran will have their nukes, and this administration knows it.

Iran has to have their nukes to guarantee their own safety and future existence. Without it their country will resemble that smoking burnt out hulk of a country Iraq. More wars in the future will be fought over dwindling oil supplies. How ironic it is to threaten Iran with nuclear bombing just because they want to develop their own. I wouldn't put anything past W though.

[tvashtarkatena]

In terms of being an agent of nuclear proliferation, Bush makes AQ Kahn look like a boy scout.

 

Thanks, buddy. I've been missing all those duck and cover drills we used to have back in the good old days.

[mattp]

Hey guys;

Do you still think any media reports that Gates said we are not winning the warin Iraq were biased?

[Fairweather]

In terms of being an agent of nuclear proliferation, Bush makes AQ Kahn look like a boy scout.

 

 

Huh? Please explain. Putin, certainly. But Bush? WTF?

[tvashtarkatena]

Putin, OK, sure, but when you try to throw your weight around, as in spray, other countries tend to get defensive.

 

BTW, Merry Christmas, FW.

 

WTF...it's the season.

Edited December 15, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Gary_Yngve]

Iran likely sees today's Iraq as a golden opportunity to create a expansive Shiite sphere of influence- the resulting posturing and perception of "threat" (depending on who you believe) is of course causing the US government's grand plans for the region to backfire completely, not to mention, makes the Sunni/Wahabi Muslim Middle East countries very agitated.

 

All we need to do is convert them all to Christianity, and then all will be fine.

[Dechristo]

It's always been just a matter of time and we've known it; Sunni or later the Shia's gonna hit the fan.

 

God provided another burning Bush to get our attention.