Letters to the Editor
-
Whew!
whatever you think is silly and wrong is probably a great start.
The last thing I want to do is make sense to the likes of you.
-
@ Omooex and LWM
Omooex:
In assigning responsibility for the 1967 war, how do you factor in Eqypt's unilateral pre-war expulsion of the UN PEACEKEEPING force? You seem to have overlooked that inconvenient little detail. Hard to imagine a clearer expression of warlike intent than kicking out the peacekeepers...
I understand that the heroic myth of Israel's history frustrates you and many others, but creation of an equally erroneous counter-myth does no one any good. In the reality-based world I strive to inhabit, Israel is neither a perpetual victim nor a perpetual aggressor. As to the matter under discussion, portraying the 6 Day War as wanton Israeli aggression is just ahistorical nonsense.
LWM:
I just don't share your interest in the Liberty incident. Don't know what happened; not interested in being enraged about it even assuming your unproven theories are correct. I guess I'd say that if I were piloting a ship, I would try to keep it away from war zones.
-
@quicks: quite literally, I LOLed
"It's great to hear that the great tit is able to keep pace with the rapid rate of climate change, but then it's probably in the best place to do that," observed RSPB spokesman Grahame Madge.
Gawd bless the Mother Country.
-
Electro SpamBot's an eedjit
At the height of the Cold War the 3CP had about twice as many strategic nuclear missiles on alert as the US.
That's because we had the freakin' "triad" of missile ... and bombers and SLBMs. Not to mention we MIRVed long before them.
Do yourself a favour, and read all three of the Richard Rhodes "nuclear weapons" trilogy ("The Making of the Atomic Bomb", "Dark Sun", and "Arsenals of Folly"). That ought to keep you out of trouble for some time, and off this blog spouting inanities like that....
Cheers,
-
@NotOrbitBoy
It's like you're members of a cult or something.
The cult of common sense.
I declare you apostate.
-
Mad Dogs
Of particular interest is the DoD link to this:
"The Defense Department has released thousands of pages of documents related to this outreach effort. Years' worth of internal Pentagon memos, military talking points and interview tapes and transcripts with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are all now posted to the Pentagon's website."
I've spent the last couple days -- many, many hours -- reading through those documents. They're amazing, and I'll write something in the next couple days, though I have to say that David Barstow did a great job piecing it all together, highlighting the key parts and telling the story exactly the right way.
-
Gator90
"Hard to imagine a clearer expression of warlike intent than kicking out the peacekeepers..."
How about actually attacking, like Israel did? Egypt had every right to kick out the UN Peacekeepers. It was Egyptian territory, and, more importantly, the peacekeepers were there to enforce a ceasefire resulting from an unjustified attack by Israel in 1956.
I have no interest in creating a mythical anti-Israel narrative, especially because it isn't necessary. Israel has been the aggressor in many (but not all) of its wars, managing to depict them all--as you do--as pre-emptive attacks. Somehow whatever bellicosity that Israel trumped up to attack becomes the actual first strike. I don't understand the logic, here.
-
Paul Dirks
When I think of people doing follow up on an issue that Glenn has pressed, Politico is not what comes to mind BUT:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10204.html
Indeed. Ben Smith emailed me earlier to alert me to that piece. It's actually not bad, and good for them for following up on it. It's like when Howard Kurtz writes about it -- when you're dying of thirst in the desert, you're not picky about where the water comes from.
-
@ David Larry D
"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."
The "largest economy in the world" a) owes it's shirt, and b) has several competitors to the title now.
Yes, we can pay for it. So can China. So can India. That's the point.
Oil production is currently peaking. The world simply cannot pump it out of the ground fast enough to supply everyone. Someone is going to have to go short. The oil barons know 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?"
The assumption here is that we can "buy" the oil. There is not enough oil for everybody. Can you think of a reason why Iran and Iraq, in 1998, would have refused to sell some or most of their oil to India or China? Transportation costs would be smaller, so both countries could outbid America on the open market.
It's not about cost-effective. It's about making 100% sure - 100% -that Chevron's pumps don't run dry.
"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."
How much did the price of gas go up after the invasion of Iraq? How much has it gone up in the last six months due to production peaking? Compare the two.
How
"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."
They didn't mention "occupying" Iraq way back when, either. The army was going to go in, crush Saddam, be greeted with flowers, and come back home. In six months.
Bombing Iran would cause Iran to retaliate. The troops would have to counter-attack. They would have to go in and destroy the mullahs to win the war.
Then they would have to stay, in order to help the Iranians "rebuild".
"You can't get oil out of the ground, refine it, and distribute it by bombing the existing petroleum infrastructure into the stone age."
No, but you can make it "your" oil. You can use it as collateral, you can keep it out of the hands of developing economies to choke off their development, and you can use it as a political promise/rallying cry.
"Something doesn't add up..."
Not to a rational mind, no. But to a closed mind, to a mind that only sees things their own way, to a mind ignorant of the world and the way it works, in fact deliberately ignorant because it thinks it can reshape reality through its own strength and influence, . . .