Letters to the Editor
-
@ LWM -- yes -- we are being played, being played, being played, being played ..
and because we have the "BIG GUNS" we think we're in charge ...
I don't think anyone in the region wants to "have a war" with Iran but they likely do want Iran "put in its place" a bit.
The region is too crowded for any nuke launched against anyone to not contaminate their neighbors ...
=========================================================
About the oil: It's not about owning the oil ... it's about having a say in who gets to buy it at what price ... as has been mentioned recently gasoline is something insane like $14 a gallon in Europe already ... quite simply, they don't have OUR history with the Saudis.
We always got special deals ... now China is certainly eligible for whatever "volume discount" is customary -- and --even worse is likely quite happy to pay closer to international full price (they're rich!!!!!!) and the Russians like them too. (we're screwed)
The Iraqi oil has been largely untapped for the last 18 years (since GWI -- due to sanctions and then GWII) ... it's a lot of oil and we have the potential of a sweetheart arrangement with "the Iraqi government" -- maybe -- too bad we forced democracy on them and got pro-iranian Maliki ... (we're screwed)
PNAC was alway about guarantteeing a stable availability of oil as a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY ... don't ever forget that.... or that ENERGY is a legitimate NATIONAL SECURITY issue ... our bad planning and sordid history should not be used as rationale for "empire building" ...
A few years ago, I asked several people if they thought a refusal of oil producing nations to sell us oil would justify a military response, most said yes.
"What's our oil doing under their sand" isn't just a bumpersticker.
-
@prunes
Listen to yourself, and the points at which I agree and disagree with you.
Agreed:
There are a ton of bad consequences to Iran using a nuke, and one would think that those consequences would weigh heavily in the decisions Iran makes.
Disagreed:
I don't trust the current leadership of Iran, and I don't trust their hold on power. Look at Pakistan, they have nukes, do you trust Musharraf to keep them secure?...do you think there's much chance of a coup there?...then what? It's not as simple as "Iran won't launch because it would kill them."
Listen to yourself: "soooooo frightening that those cave-dwelling Arabs will clamor for their leaders to seek mercy from the omnipotent American demigods" Your sarcastic comment sounds like an argument against your reliance on MAD.
Your candidate: I shouldn't presume who that is. I hope it's Nader. In any case, it is not George Bush (as you suggest), but Hillary Clinton who has spoken about obliterating Iran.
-
dubious claims
Not in habit of posting mulitple times in one GG comments thread but comments about oil not being at or near center of American Occupation of Iraq,Americans kissing up to Saudis or Americans floating lots of expensive naval vessels around Persian Gulf seems quite wishful or some kind of deny reality ploy.
Take oil out of Iraq,out of Saudi Arabia and out of Persian Gulf and what remains there for Americans to be throwing billions upon billiions of $$ and taking lots of dead back home for?
Or are several super military bases Americans have put up in Iraq at great cost there to contain Russia or China?
These persistent "Iraq is not about oil" or "oil is too vital to war or occupy over" or "Americans are the good guys in West Asia and must be there for good hearted reasons" should be checked at the door when topics of Iraq,Iran or Persian Gulf warmongering are being discussed.
As with talk of how Americans won great victory over Iraq in 2003 because Americans were so awesome as warriors. Iraq was a hollowed out shell ripe for a easy push-over. Crowing about having done the pushing over as American military types did/do is dubious claim for/of honor in battle.
-
Baldie, you need to look even earlier than 1967...
Salon did a story almost two years ago, about an event in 1948 that still looms large in Palestinian memory, but is pretty much unknown by Americans.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/07/11/gaza/index.html
Palestinians refer to it as the Great Catastrophe. We learned about it as the birth of Israel.
And we're coming up on a 60-year anniversary in July...
-
NOB
So you believe in some variation of the Bernard Lewis theory that if the Iranians had nuclear weapons, MAD would not affect them because they (unlike every other people and government in the world) simply do not care if they live or die. No, this country, which has not attacked anyone in hundreds of years, would immediately attack Israel and be itself “obliterated” (by the Israelis, if not by the US or Hilary Clinton herself). This is your opinion, right? And you see this opinion as based on some kind of honest “mistrust” of Iran rather than self-serving interests of pro-Zionists who wish to get their perceived enemies in Iran attacked.
OK. So far so good. But you’re bringing this here where the concept of the “chickenhawk” has been thoroughly discussed. Surely, NOB, you believe that as a result of this logic Israel should attack Iran right away. You don’t think that we should do their dirty work for them, do you? Israel has one of the most powerful military establishments in the world. What for? Surely not just to blanket South Lebanon with cluster bombs. So please take this idea where it belongs – back to the Israelis. Or do think they might have a might bit more “realistic” foreign policy than we do?
-
@NotOrbitBoy
Your sarcastic comment sounds like an argument against your reliance on MAD.
My sarcastic comment says that bombing Iran will make them want nukes more. I can't use any smaller words than that.
I don't trust the current leadership of Iran, and I don't trust their hold on power.
This is a content-free assertion. I don't trust Iran with nukes, I don't trust Israel with nukes, I don't trust India with nukes, I don't trust Russia with nukes, I don't trust Pakistan with nukes, and I don't trust America with nukes.
If you do, you are stupid.
Look at Pakistan, they have nukes, do you trust Musharraf to keep them secure?...do you think there's much chance of a coup there?...then what? It's not as simple as "Iran won't launch because it would kill them."
I don't trust America to be all that stable either.
We gonna invade ourselves? Your "trust" issues have nothing to do with nuclear strategy, and everything to do with uninformed generalizations about entire nations.
Why the hell should ANY of us trust e.g. Israel with nukes?
You ready to invade (another word for kill a lot of civilians) to disarm them?
Then why Iran?
Your candidate: I shouldn't presume who that is. I hope it's Nader. In any case, it is not George Bush (as you suggest), but Hillary Clinton who has spoken about obliterating Iran.
I did not suggest Bush. But Bush, McCain and Clinton have all made enthusiastic noises about killing Iranians.
The fact is: invading Iran will not stop them from getting nukes if they want them. It will cost a lot and get a lot of people killed.
Some folks are just fine with Arab deaths, though, if it makes them "feel" more comfortable.