Letters to the Editor
-
Jarhead Jerkoff
Hey, we're winning the body count ten to one, just like the Israelis are snuffing those rock throwing Palestinian kids. That's working real well, doncha think, Jackhead? The problem is that the fate of nations is determined primarily by ideas, and our "leadership" is fresh out. Don't talk to you your adversaries: now there's a helluva bright policy. Invade and occupy the middle east, making Osama Bin Hidin' look like a freakin' prophet. Go semper fi yourself and salute with the other hand simultaneously. You will then be enacting the Bush foreign policy: militaristic jerkoff.
-
Irritating People
The recent postings on this subject have been irritating to read because there is no depth or insight into the problem at hand, which is supposed to be what happens next in the middle-east. There is nothing of quality here other than the usual leftist rants about Bush is a moron, jerkoff, etc., and evidence of lefty attempts to silence opposing viewpoints that differ from the San Francisco variety.
So, in contrast to the usual nonsense and silliness provided by devotees of Joe Conason and his ilk, I will provide something worth posting.
Bush is in a "box" because he can't meet the pre-conditions for openly discussing Iraq with Iran. Bush has been talking to Syria for years on everything from Lebanon to Iraq. Iran is a different story altogether. For openers, the US would have to concede that Iran will become a nuclear power in the region and the US would have to exit the region militarily. The Saudis are making sure that does not happen anytime soon because they need the US as a military buffer against the Shia and al-Qaeda. In other words, there is more complexity here than that what Move-on.org, Al Franken and Howard Dean can possibly absorb. Therefore, it is possible that the debate in Washington is more about picking sides in the post-Iraq confrontations rather than a timetable for withdrawal.
So guys, the challenge is tell me where I'm wrong while refraining from "Bush is a war criminal" or "I hate Bush".
-
RTF Talking to Syria?
While there is considerable evidence that George Bush is talking to the worm at the bottom of the tequila bottle, there is no evidence that he is actually talking to Syria. What exactly are your sources for the assertion that he has direct on-going communication with Syria?
It seems that everyone that speaks publicly on this topic from within the Administration reacts with hostility to the near-universal pleading that such talks be initiated. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Tony Snow have all consistently denied there is any point in doing so. Is that just a cover for secret negotiations? Are you risking your security clearance by telling the rest of us about these discussions, or are you just making that whole thing up?
Where did you come up with those pre-conditions for talks with Iran?
On the other hand, I think you raise an important and valid point regarding the complexity of the situation in the Persian Gulf and the need to look beyond the borders of Iraq to have meaningfull discussion about the decisions we are facing. Almost all discussion regarding the war seems to be premised on the assumption that Iraq is a remote island drifting about the Indian Ocean, with no neighbors likely to be effected by events in that sorrowful nation. It seems very few individuals, in government or out, on the right or the left, want to engage in serious discussion regarding the geo-political implications of the various policy options. From time to time someone will make vague reference to "chaos" or "destabilize" or "victory" or "get the job done", without specific discussion as to what that means to the rest of the world.
I have given some thought to this set of topics and have come to the conclusion that the possiblities are so complex and so threatening that no domestic political advantage will be gained by anyone having the courage to start a realistic public conversation. It's late and I am not going to even attempt to relate my thoughts on the matter here. In terms of complexity alone, how can you have a meaningful public dialogue about the geo-politics of the Persian Gulf when over 50% of the adult population of the US can't find the state of New York on a map? And when our foreign policy apparatus is populated by ideologues who need to work strenuously to hide the truth from themselves, well, public honesty and insight would be too much to expect.
Beyond that, there seem to be very few individuals interested enough, with enough academic background in geo-politics and military history, to sustain discussion on forums like Salon. Sadly, some of those with the necessary insight and curiosity seem to have a need to insult anyone not sharing their political prejudices.
-
Bush's response reflects the nature of the military aggression.
"What would be gained by talking with Syria and Iran? Perhaps nothing except changing the world's perception of the United States from blundering bully to responsible and realistic superpower."
The mistaken premise in the above statement is the propaganda that the US 'blundered' into Iraq.
No, it was no 'blunder.' This war of choice was a criminal enterprise from the beginning - that is, a war of aggression waged upon false pretenses and for the real purpose of seizing control of vast untapped oil resources in the heart of the Mideast for the benefit of US capital and the establishment of a permanent strategic and military presence in that perceived critical region. (Afghanistan was the same basic thing, except focusing on the central Asian region and Caspian Basin.) However, 911 did change everything, as it allowed an all-purpose justification for any and all acts of this administration and for critical administration support by the entire media and political establishment.
The present course of the Bush administration - that is, preparations for further military attacks on both Syria and Iran - reflects these actual purposes for the 'first wars of the 21st century.'
Without acknowledgment of the fraudulant justifications of the US aggressions in the Mideast from the beginning, any domestic fight against a continuation of the militarist approach in the region is futile. Despite public sentiment for a pull-out as reflected in the outcome of the recent elections, there is still no political mechanism available to oppose the war. That is because the Democrats along with the entire liberal media and political establishment are in on the ruse themselves, as seen in the rhetoric of the war being a 'blunder.'
In reality, this conflict was no 'blunder.' And it still isn't.
Until this fundamental reality of the criminal purposes of this war are faced head-on, no end to the conflict can be anticipated. On the contrary, an escalation to the carnage is the only logical outcome of the failure of political forthrightness to be displayed anywhere within the political and media establishment.