Saturday, August 12, 2006

Just some thoughts while reading neocon bullshit

Critics of the Bush administration who complain that the U.S. is too hawkish toward Iran have no better plan of their own to offer.
Of course, respecting another sovereign nation like Iran (that would not be breaking any treaties by obtaining the bomb) is not a plan per se.
Many would continue to do nothing, even as violence escalates, deferring to the U.N. and its agencies to negotiate with Iran.
The main violence escalters are in Washington, DC. and in Tel Aviv.
The U.N. has a poor record of stopping tyrants.
Meanwhile, the US has track record of establishing tyrants.
Member countries of the U.N. have different priorities than the U.S.
Surprise! They even have interests of their own! Isn't that egoistic? Shouldn't every nation be a US proxy?
Other countries aren't on Ahmadinejad's top two enemies list, and as we learned in the past from France, Germany, and Russia's vote against the 2003 Iraq War, are more concerned about access to cheap oil than whether someone is plotting to drop nuclear bombs on Israel or the U.S.
Iraq or Iran? Ahmadinejad is not responsible nor has been involved in the 2003 Iraq war, you know. These are two different countries, try not to mix them up. Yes, I know it is hard the US even supplied weapons to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.

Ahmadinejad very likely detests the U.S. more than any other country except for Israel.
Ahmadinejad does not detest the US (or Israel) any more than Bush detests Iran. I guess (hope) both sides have a problem with the government, not with the people. Heck even I don't like the government of Iran, the US or Israel myself.
Fortunately, because of the U.S.'s strong position, distant proximity, and lack of offensive aggression towards its enemies, it has been able to avoid the prevalent violence Iran engages in with neighboring ethnic minorities in Turkey, Iraq, and Azerbijan.
"lack of offensive aggression"? The CIA has been conduction offensive aggressions in all parts of the world for the last fifty years, for crying out loud! And I'm sure that Turkey's violence against its minorites have been purely accidental, because Turkey is as a NATO member and close ally of the US by definition "on the good side ™".

It is short-sighted to do nothing except issue toothless warnings from the U.N., permitting an unstable and extremist dictator to continue enriching uranium that everyone knows is only meant for one thing, to build nuclear weapons intended for its enemies - which could include possible use against the U.S. and Israel. lack
Now that was a long sentence. We know what nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states can. Just look at China or Pakistan.
Speculation that Iran is enriching uranium for nuclear energy purposes is naïve at best, underhanded at worst.
Speculation that a strike against Iran will improve the security of the US or bring democracy and peace to the Middle East is naïve at best, underhanded at worst.
If that were true, Iran would have properly reported its progress to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Why should they? There is no treaty forcing Iran to do that. Would the US allow international inspections to their atomic sites? Would they do it if they knew that the information gathered would end in the hands of their enemies?

Accusations that the U.S. is planning an aggressive "neocon" strike against Iran are misplaced.
Misplaced? Like the WMDs in Iraq? Sorry, these accusations can not be found (404).
There is a difference between planning a preemptive nuclear strike, and preparing a contingency plan ahead of time in case a nuclear strike becomes necessary.
Is it so? And does a strike become necessary if the US has demands that Iran (as any other souvereign nation) would never accept?
Pacifists and critics of the Bush administration conveniently like to confuse the two in order to mislead the public.
Mislead the public more than the neocons? Oh, that was a ad-hominem attack by me, I would like to apoligize for that.
The Bush administration has already capitulated considerably to world opinion and criticism from the pacifist left by agreeing to negotiate directly with Iran for the first time in over 26 years.
Wow! They agreeded to TALK and not to throw bombs. I'm impressed.
It makes no sense that the Bush administration would agree to these talks if it was planning a strike.
Unless of course it just wants to show how reasonable they were before striking peremtively.
The administration is going to utmost lengths in order to forestall military action.
I'm deeply impressed by the peace wish of the US government
Bush has learned from Iraq that there is no such thing as a guaranteed quick and cheap intervention.
Bush has learned?
The risk of resulting political and economic damage may not be worth the gamble of a military strike.
The US government is gambleing?
Republicans cannot afford another mire requiring additional troops while still engaged in Iraq; it would lower morale even further.
I really wished that Republicans couldn't afford another mire, but I'm afraid that there is a lot more the US public will tolarate.
Gas prices would skyrocket, since Iran has vowed to reduce or cut its oil supply if the U.S. strikes.
High oil prices = high profits for US oil companies.
Although the U.S. does not purchase oil from Iran, the countries that do purchase Iranian oil would be forced to buy oil elsewhere, decreasing the amount of oil available to the U.S., which drives the price up.
Wow, rocket science.
Intelligence sources recently revealed that Iran has been moving its enrichment programs into urban areas, further reducing the possibility of a U.S. strike.
"Itelligence" sources could find their asses, even if you kicked them. BTW, are these the same source that said that Iraq had WMDs?

Instead, the Bush administration is prudently taking the middle ground, preparing for the possibility of a military strike while exhausting all realistic negotiating efforts.
What kind of middle ground is that, what kind of realistic negotiations are that, where the US has unnegotiable demands?
The U.S. should continue its tough stance, avoiding full recognition of Iran while continuing to freeze its assets and level economic sanctions against it.
Girl, you can't have it both ways, either it is realistic middle ground or it is tough stance. BTW, Iran has every right to see any US demands as unreasonable, as the US has meddled with Iran for the last fifty years.
The U.S. should avoid any region-wide weapons freeze that would affect Israel.
Sure, Iran is the aggressor and Israel is only defending itself. Just compare the military actions of the last 25 years of Israel with those by Iran and you will see who is the agressor.
Although some claim the U.S. is being hypocritical since it has thousands of nuclear warheads, terrorists and terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda have never abided by international agreements and treaties, so there is no reason to trust them to abide by a regional weapons freeze.
The US didn't abide by international agreements. Why should I trust them?
The freeze would essentially hand Israel over to terrorists.
Hand Israel over to the US government?
The U.S. and Israel need nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves and deter despots, which is considerably different than obtaining them to commit terrorist attacks.
And just in case that Iran would like to deter an US attack, wouldn't it be quite reasonable to obtain nuclear weapons?
Ceding ground to an aggressor as unpredictable as Ahmadinejad would likely result in him asking for more.
Yes, of course, Ahmadinejad is unpredictable, in contrast to the warmongers in the US government.

In a recent column, George Will accused Condoleeza Rice of harboring the naïve belief that any violent activity in Iran signifies progress. This mischaracterization of Rice's position takes the easy way out of a legitimate debate regarding the extent the U.S. should care about what happens in Iran. Rice would not approve of violent activity by hardliners in the former USSR seeking to communize Iran. Nor would Rice look favorably upon a fascist dictator who sought control over Iran's oil (let's not forget Kuwait).
So Condi does not look favorably upon Bush?

There is only one viable solution.
Thank god, at least one solution is viable!
Iran must agree to a Middle East peace process, and cease its support of violent opposition to such a plan.
So now "Peace" has become an euphemism too, because I can see no peace process.
Unless something radically changes the situation in Iraq, U.S. troops are on schedule to withdraw within the next couple of years.
Really? Wow! Open the French Freedom Champange!
Although cynics claim the U.S. cannot "force" a democracy on an undemocratic country, protesting that the U.S. will be engaged in Iraq for many years to come, history has proven otherwise, most notably in this century with Japan.
The US hasn't even tried to "force" democracy upon Iraq, but then again I guess "democracy" has become an euphemism too.
Absent no other significant active U.S. engagement around the world, the possibility of targeted strikes against Iran may become a reality.
Well, couldn't the US Army try to bring democracy (the real one) to, let's say, Virginia first, and after that, they have done that, they should try with Texas or Florida, maybe Ohia after them. Then there are the British who could use some democracy (the real one). I'm sure Russian would be nice canditate as a democracy receptacle. Ups, they have nukes. Then rather China. Darn, they have Nukes too. Or Pakistan. No, rather not. It doen't matter, in a few years the Saudis will have the bomb and nobody cares about that...
journalismus - nachrichten von heute

1 comment:

Marshall Darts said...

Israel Takes Boy George to School

Thank heaven Israel knows what it is doing in the Middle East. By entering into a ceasefire at this point they are acting in their own best interests, instead of the interest of Bush and his neocon-artists.

The Israeli government knows it lives in a tough neighborhood. Despite repeated attempts by Boy George to enlist them in his "War on Terror," and expand the war in the Middle East, the Israelis refused.

Recognizing that their initial strategy of waging an air war and limited strikes into southern Lebanon was a failure, they used the threat of full-scale invasion to force an end to hostilities.

Unlike what Bush is doing in Iraq they adapted deftly to the surpise of Hezbollah's strength, and have put off a final showdown for a later day. The next time, and there will be a next time, they will have had time to assess this operation and see what changes need to be made.

While Bush flounders by "staying the course" in Iraq, the more experienced Israelis knew when to stop. Withdrawal from southern Lebanon will not be considered "cutting and running" in Israel. It is a tactical manuever.

Certainly, implementation of the ceasefire can go haywire, but Israel has conducted its foreign policy in a much more sophisticated way than Bush has conducted ours.