Letters to the Editor
-
Bush is a talking head
How can anyone imagine that it matters what Bush wants? Cheney sends documents into him and he signs them. He doesn't even read them because he has trouble with reading as everyone knows. People have witnessed Bush doing this. He's a figurehead. The ones calling the shots on the Demonic Iran agenda are Cheney and the Israelo-Americans. If you were in Iran's geographical and political position you'd probably want the bomb too and the more all this war boosting goes on the more likely they are to want it. They'd be silly not to. And remember, Iran has not attacked or occupied another country since 1945. America has had its way in that time with at least 50 countries. Israel's record speaks for itself. These sabre rattling morons should be held to account by the US media but why would that happen when the right owns the media and the stooges who 'report' the news? Frankly, I think the real agenda here is to pay Iran back because Israel was given a bloody nose by Hezbollah in Lebanon last invasion around. The CIA has already put out fake photos of an alleged 'reactor' which tells its own story. You see, the political and military elite in Israel have made a calculation: as long as for every one Israeli who dies, three Palestinians die the Israeli electorate will put up with all this madness. They factor the deaths of their own citizens in, the way a businessman factors wasted food into his budget if he runs a restaurant. As long as the Israeli public is fixated on Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran and rockets are landing on their houses the spies and the generals and the politicians can hold the line - or if you prefer, stay the course. The threat from outside has protected one ramshackle, amoral Israeli government after the other. Where do you think the neo cons got their plan from? Successive Israeli governments can continue to pretend that they don't have to give back the land they took in 1967 and they don't have to make any concessions and they don't have to talk to Hamas. This is a fantasy and a very expensive fantasy for the Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and for the Israelis and the Palestinians who are dying in the streets. The monsters who run Israel's army and secret service are always calling other leaders monsters and screeching about what a danger they are. If they want to see a monster they should look in the mirror.
-
@Gator90
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.
-- Gator90
Not my theories. Basically you have no good answer. Just say, "I don't know." It is far more intelligent and intellectually honest.
-
@quickstrategy, Arne
Hah!
Thanks for the chuckle.
Arne,
Now I remember. It was a decaying orbit. More faling space junk.
-
Dear Glenn
There is more to this story than this blatant lying. These neocons are not stupid but well educated politically driven ideologues. They all know what the real outcomes are for any war operaion in the Middle East. One only needs to review Dick Cheneys 1990's interview on why H. Bush decided not to invade Iraq. He knew very well what the outcome would be if we invaded Iraq. Now that we have, his original predictions were right on the money. The absolute lies and warmongering about Iraq and Iran are troublesome indeed, but the question is what is this really about. Why are these neocons so committed to creating a complete geopolitical catastrophe? What's the endgame that they are seeking? Is it oil? That seems to be a intellecutally lazy answer. Unfortunately the answers don't seem to be forthcoming.
-
to: Small Town Hick
OK, smart guy, if you're so convinced Iraq and Iran are about OIL, how come we didn't invade the Middle East in the 70's when OPEC cut production? The effects then were far more severe and uncertain.
You make a good point about China's and India's increased consumption. But then our response is to invade and occupy Iraq? Bomb Iran's infrastructure? Why not just do what we've done with Saudi Arabia? Or why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? They have more oil there, and it's a more sparsely inhabited place. Saudi Arabia was also home to most of the bastards that attacked us on 9/11, right? You'd think that would've been an easy sell.
The course of action taken only makes sense as an act of desperation when the barrels are totally empty. The occupation of Iraq has cost (follow the money) more money on a day-to-day basis than WWII.
What is the point of hording oil when your economy is ruined in the process? This is not a stable long term solution. Our country's financial ability to maintain such a costly occupation is not endless.
And do you really that if we control Iraq (and somehow therefore "enough" oil) China and India are just going to let us have it? Oil-starved people are not going to go out without a fight.
-
Don't be a jerk today
Those missiles did not "land" they "crashed".. Even if the warheads did not explode that means there was little left of the missile itself for Pakistan to reverse-engineer.
-- Aycharaych
Ask any pilot. Airplanes don't "land". Pilots fly them down and execute a "controlled crash". The aerodynamics of a cruise missile are quite similar to those of an airplane, including the use of wings. It flies like an a airplane following the nape of the earth (NOTE). All of our inventory are long range sub-sonic, (not fast). They are at a very low altitude, meaning they don't fall far when they do come down. If an airplane crashes into the ground it usually leaves plenty of wreckage to pick through.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nap-of-the-earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile
-
What madness has gripped the Village?(and some here as well?)
Let's be clear what we're talking about here: a country that is half-way across the planet, running on a second-world economy and defended by a military that can't project power beyond its borders.
Said country may or may not be pursuing the development of nuclear technology, which may or may not be dual-use and therefore may or may not be used to produce nuclear weapons.
Said country has no modern history of invading its neighbors and, to date, shows no signs it can credibly threaten anyone (despite the scary stuff its powerless figurehead of a President tends to say).
Oh, it might, someday develop its ballistic missile technology and arsenal to where it could - maybe, someday - be able to lob a primitive missile into the general direction of Europe. Maybe.
Yet, this is a country that presents such an immediate and dire threat to our homeland President Bush has a moral imperative to attack and destroy this country?
Is that a fair summation of this insanity, because there's really no other word to describe it?