Letters to the Editor
-
@Iokannan
As much as I hate to bicker over who killed who, etc, your thumbnail sketch of the 1967 war omitted some facts that are worth knowing. Israel's decision to attack was preceded by the Egyptian dictator's expulsion of the UN peacekeeping force from the Sinai Desert. The Sinai had been de-militarized by the UN in order to prevent further warfare between Israel and Egypt, but Egypt chose unilaterally to expel the UN and re-militarize it. Eqypt also blockaded Israel's ports, an act of war under international law. To portray the 1967 war as Israeli aggression is, to put it mildly, misleading.
Also, Israel did not attack Jordan. The hostilities between Israel and Jordan, resulting in Israel's ill-starred conquest of the West Bank, were initiated by Jordan a couple days into the war.
-
It's that ol' black-and-white thinking
MAD implies trust. You trust your foe to not act in a manner that would harm himself.
Here we go again with that "Iran is insane" story. There's just no middle ground with these killers, is there?
I wonder how Knob stands on nutjobs with SKS rifles.
-
@NotOrbitBoy
That reasoning is nonsense. Despite your token concession that the rulers of the Iranian state are probably, maybe, not quite equivalent to desperate suicide bombers, you imply there is something in their character that makes them "crazy" enough to risk utter annihilation only for spite against Israel.
How does destroying one of the two most powerful and influential Muslim countries help restore the caliphate or anything else that is claimed to be a goal of the Iranian mullahs?
One thing you can count on: Iran does not intend to destroy Israel only to let Saudi Arabia take over the Muslim world.
Only by bizarrely asserting that Iran as a whole has some anti-Jew death-wish can you pretend that MAD doesn't apply.
-
bush on the dock...
for another holocaust? give me a bleedin' break.
did anyone put franklin roosevelt 'on the dock' for turning awawy boatloads of european jews during world war ii? how 'bout for not bombing the train tracks leading to the camps?
no doubt, neocons are itching for a scrape with iran, but i think it a leap of logic that the gov't of israel is actively pandering to u.s. for a preemptive strike.
against iraq back in 1982 and more recently against syria last fall, israel has asserted its own agency on such matters of hostile development of nuclear capabilities.
-
Unless it's not
To portray the 1967 war as Israeli aggression is, to put it mildly, misleading.
Evidence has been put forth in many places that casts doubt on this---that suggests Israel created the whole incident to justify a war it wanted. Maybe so, maybe not.
But where can we find out about such things? Where?
-
Upon glancing into Wikipedia
we find that the 1967 war was not as simple as we thought:
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) attacked the diversion works in Syria in March, May, and August of 1965, perpetuating a prolonged chain of border violence that linked directly to the events leading to war.[15]
I never heard this. I know access to water was a big sticking point between Israel and its neighbors, and I don't justify their actions. But I didn't know Israel started the 1967 war in 1965. That was some prescience!
Kind of wrecks the Israel-is-always-and-perpetually-a-victim narrative, doesn't it? At least as far as direct military action, which is the topic.
And that's just in the second paragraph or so, after the introduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
-
@ Reilly
Unitards don't have drop-bottoms. You're thinking of these:
http://www.snugasabug.com/dropseat.htm
I think you were a bit harsh in your location of the dems. After all, it is Ledeen who writes his blog at Pajamas Media. I'd argue that that makes him a dingleberry on the ass flap.
-
Iran and Iraq are about Oil?
I have a hard time believing this, despite what some notable people (even Greenspan) have explicitly said.
There is a well-established market for oil. We have the largest economy in the world; we can pay for it. We also have the most advanced petroleum technology to get at it.
What is more cost-effective? Buying oil at efficient market prices, or paying the cost to invade, occupy, and "Reconstruct" Iraq to then "get" their oil? Not to mention the further INCREASE in oil prices due to uncertainty caused by the invasion, and further destruction to the existing distribution systems caused by said invasion.
Now, they want a bombing campaign against Iran? No one has said anything about occupying Iran, which would be necessary if it really was "about oil." You can't get oil out of the ground, refine it, and distribute it by bombing the existing petroleum infrastructure into the stone age.
Something doesn't add up...
Anyone else agree?
-
@prunes and mr. eagle
From prunes:
"It's not about "trust", it's about M.A.D."
My comment re. trust was that MAD requires trust. Otherwise it doesn't work. You need to trust your foe to act rationally. Re-read your post, and don't be so quick to call me non-sensical.
Whether or not Iran can be trusted, is, I grant you, a matter of debate. I know of no way to empirically measure their trustworthiness.
If you want to trust Iran with the keys to the worst weapon known to man,...I'd like to hear your candidate say that.
How many other nations should have nukes? All of them? That way everyone is safe because of MAD?
In other words, do you think the nuclear non-proliferation treaty should be stood on its head?
-
@NotOrbitboy
I do, in fact, trust the Iranians. I trust them not to be suicidal. Israel has nukes, and Israel's great big trigger-happy friend in the West has lots & lots of 'em. I see no evidence that the people comprising Iran's leadership want to die horrible deaths while destroying their own country. Mutually Assured Destruction, unpleasant though it is, has been an effective keeper of nuclear peace for a long time, and will continue to do so long after Iran inevitably joins the nuclear fraternity.
In view of American aggression in Iraq and the continuing anti-Iran rhetoric among the neocons, Iran's interest in obtaining nuclear capability is more likely defensive than offensive. If I were the Iranians, I'd look at what happened next store and I'd get me some nukes as fast I possibly could.