Letters to the Editor
Fraud Guy
Published Letters: 337
-
rtf100
[Read the article: Joe Lieberman, warmongering centrist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is NO inevitablility of war between the Bushies and Iran in the sense that Greenwood suggests. Bush knows that there is no political will to attack Iran unilaterally unless one of our Navy ships is sunk with the loss of hundreds of lives or something like that.
Which is why, of course, we have 2 or 3 carriers floating in the restricted waters of the Persian Gulf now. If Iran overreacts to our provocative acts, we're only down one or two carriers (only!) and we'll be forced to react. Not that we're doing anything to try to provoke Iran (supporting insurgents, false claims of IED's, holding Iranian officials) at all.
There is HOWEVER a deepening sense that Israel and Iran will come to blows over nuclear weapons (SHORTLY).
Hmm, why did we start the Manhattan Project--so that the Nazis could not threaten us first with nuclear weapons. Iran is currently living under this threat, from the US and Israel. For them this is a deterrent to prevent nuclear attack.
You see, Greenwood envisions a world in which good intentions count for something, but history is replete with examples of where good intentions were largely interpreted as signs of weakness.
Of course, history is also replete with examples where bad intentions resulted in an overextended (proto- or otherwise)empire getting its head handed to it (Carrhae, anyone?). Remember "speak softly and carry a big stick"? Note the quote wasn't "keep whacking things with your stick until it splinters into little pieces."
The US has a role to play in the Persian Gulf to keep Israel and Iran as far apart as possible. In order to do this there are military needs and there must be a willingness to use them.
Of course, had we not removed the power keeping them apart without a plan to reconsitute it, this wouldn't be necessary. Remember, a willingness to use military force doesn't mean creating the necessity to use it.
-
History Lessons
[Read the article: More warnings about a U.S.-Iran war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Paul Dirks:
Shooter in the last thread asserted that history is shaped by the aggressive use of force. He has it exactly backward. History has been shaped by the world uniting in it's effort to counter the aggressive use of force.
Unfortunately, shooter is right (now shooter1.5457,849,653,240), but only partially. Force has shaped history, but not exclusively (e.g. Buddha, Jesus). As you noted, however, the aggressive use of force has usually redounded negatively upon the aggressor (e.g. WWI, WWII). I would say that there are eerie parallels between the current wars and the Franco-Prussian war, in that the "clear" favorite was willingly baited to attack the "victim" who wants to unify a nation.
Jim White:
I've mentioned this a couple of times before, but given the neocons' desire to attack Iran, why didn't we attack when the British sailors were seized? I was convinced the bombs would be dropping within hours of the event.
My guess is that Bushco felt that the British should have first crack at reaction, and were disappointed at the results. Next time, they may not be so willing to let our allies handle the situation.
-
Historic References
[Read the article: More warnings about a U.S.-Iran war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With all the brushfire fighting happening around the middle east, the most likely analogy is WWI (with the US as the Germans and the UK as Austria). We dodged the first Sarajevo moment with the British captives, but with everyone ready to fight, how many more can we dodge?
-
Surreal Name
[Read the article: More warnings about a U.S.-Iran war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And conversely, those who claim that the terrorists/Irananians/islamofascists will be pounding on our doors tonight/tomorrow/next week/next month/3 years from now (in Glenn's update)/10 years from now have been accurate, also?
Additionally, as has been pointed out before, it may be because sites like these keep examining and pointing out the weaknesses in claims like those I spoof above that the neocons have been hesitant to push forward with their war plans. Perhaps the scrutiny keeps those who are trying to stop the war within the maladministration heartened and fighting the good fight.
Remember, it is usually the unheeded prophets who have their predictions come horribly true, because no one listened and try to change what could happen.
-
"Essentially everyone is Manichean"
[Read the article: Preordering week for "A Tragic Legacy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Except for everyone who isn't.
"Awfully shallow don't you think?"
Yes.
"The irony is that the descriptions of the dangers of religious fervor apply even more aptly to [Christian] fundamentalism. Yet they go unremarked upon. If there is a truly Manichean worldview, it is aggressively embraced there."
There, fixed your typo.
Who spoke to his "Heavenly Father" to make the decision to invade Iraq, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and thousands of innocents through direct and indirect means?
-
Wrong Answers?
[Read the article: Preordering week for "A Tragic Legacy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who spoke to his "Heavenly Father" to make the decision to invade Iraq, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and thousands of innocents through direct and indirect means? -- Fraud Guy
Each and every suicide bomber, now and formerly in existence.--Shooter242
You're right, I didn't expect the answer, because the suicide bombers didn't invade Iraq.
-
OT/OT Quote
[Read the article: Preordering week for "A Tragic Legacy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly
We all know, from unending repetitions of Lord Acton's dictum, that power corrupts. We are less aware that it breeds folly; that the power to command frequently causes failure to think; that the responsibility of power often faddes as its exercise augments. The overall responsibility of power is to govern as reasonably as possible in the interest of the state and its citizens. A duty in that process is to keep well-informed, to heed information, to keep mind and judgment open and to resist the insidious spell of wooden-headedness. If the mind is open enough to perceive that a given policy is harming rather than serving self-interest, and self-confident enough to acknowledge it, and wise enough to reverse it, that is a summit in the art of government.
Current administration 0 for 4 on that last sentence.