Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

DragonScholar

Published Letters: 101
Editor's Choice: 10

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 08:36 AM
Original article: Why Bush won't attack Iran

Iran may be the gateway out of Iraq?

There's one motivation I've considered - that Bush/Cheney may use a confrontation with Iran as a way out of Iraq. Not by leaving the country, but as an attempt to change public opinion.

A conflict with Iran, even one that isn't a full-blown military exercise, but one that is ratcheted up or bordering on one, is the perfect excuse to do the one thing that might give us enough troops to stabilize Iraq: ask for a draft.

The "Iranian Threat", perhaps with a few staged or accidental confrontations, threats ratcheting up, would be the excuse needed. Bush could go on television to soberly note it's a dangerous world out there, there's been these conflicts and deaths, Iran needs to know we're serious - so he's calling for a draft. Mild at first, but certain to be ramped up in six months.

Then he's got the troops for Iraq. Perhaps he'll even argue we're protecting Iraq FROM Iran. He doesn't even need a full-scale war to get some justifications (though I suspect some want one).

Do I have evidence for this theory? Sadly, no this is just speculation, and noting that Bush keeps looking for distractions and justifications. Iran may just be what he needs.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 08:45 AM

Pretty much what I've seen for years

I'd say the assessment is spot on - these people are living in this bizarre, internal fantasy world that feels like some kind of bad sadomasochistic porn (no wonder so many wingnuts enjoyed "300").

I've found most of the people you talk about are:

A) Highly insecure, often due to past experiences.

B) Unable to deal with said past experiences.

C) Looking to prove themselves and put people in their place.

D) Completely unable to take any personal risks for C.

In the Wingnut world, they prove their masculinity and toughness by having other people fight and die for their fears. Since they don't actually face what they fear, they are unable to deal with it, because they avoid the repercussions of their actions they never have to deal with actual fallout, and they never actually accomplish any of their goals since nothing can whet their fantasy appetites.

Right now, the Wingnuts are in their own kind of virtual reality - self-reflecting blogospheres, think-tanks, and media. The sad part is some will only change when they truly feel the results of their actions - in a draft, in an economic collapse, etc. And even then, they'll just find a new reason to hate.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 09:11 AM

One factor I still don't understand . . .

Every time I see some letter, post, rant etc. from someone who talks about how some liberal will someday face a terrorist and I wonder this - how?

Is there going to be some great Muslim invasion where every terrorist gets himself a pair of water wings and they swim over here? Are there secret terrorist training camps here just waiting to release millions upon millions of well-hidden Islamic maniacs, we just haven't noticed them yet?

Where, in all their fantasies, do they think this invasion that the liberals will regret will come from?

It's amazing to me. The terrorists are not going to take down the US (the US of course is busy wrecking itself, but thats another issue). They don't outnumber us. There's no organized army. Yet somehow there's the fear of the Great Crescent Peril that'll come over here, steal our women, destroy our SUVs, and kill the liberal columnists with the gall to say the War on Terror is a mishandled mess.

It's literally like they can't handle the fact the threat isn't as big as they'd like to make it.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 10:22 AM

@Tim Lukeman

Does anyone doubt that if they did gain total control of the planet & eliminate everyone they regard as enemies, they'd be turning on one another by the next day?

Yes. They literally HAVE to have an enemy, like Rush once noted, he wanted to leave some Liberals around as examples.

No enemy, no one to fight, no fear, no identity. Their entire identities are based on what they hate and want to destroy. They do not build (except to destroy), they do not improve (except to destroy).

I had to finally come to the conclusion some of these people are just pathological, and are insulated enough to not suffer from it enough to realize what they are.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 11:25 AM

@Tim Lukeman

I'd say you're spot on. They're really a kind of addict - addicted to violence, addicted to death, addicted to having someone to hate. They live in an odd kind of personal hell.

The thing is they just make more of what they hate - the more violent they are, the more hated. The more the destroy, the more others want to destroy them.

Samsara in a nutshell.

Most Active Letters Threads

666

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
543

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
438

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
209

Bigotry wins in Switzerland

By voting to ban the construction of minarets, Switzerland apes the most extreme intolerance in the Muslim world
150

Mike Huckabee's fatally bad judgment

Brutality by another Huck-pardoned criminal suggests the 2012 GOP hopeful listened more to pastors than prosecutors

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon