« Ban Interstate Traffic In Nonhuman Primates | Main | Two Heroes »

August 11, 2005

Comments

Happy thoughts.

Good thing we don't have to worry about China invading Taiwan, North Korea invading South Korea and India and Pakistan fighting it out again, oh wait...

I don't think that the Iranians work from the assumption that they will lose in a war with the U.S., especially if we're attacking them over there. I'd say the onus is on the people claiming Iran would lay down and die rather than fight back to give some evidence of this. It's not strictly suicide if you have a decent chance of winning.

The whole point of diplomacy is precisely to use every means at our disposal to avoid finding ourselves in predicaments like this one and the one we're in with North Korea, in which all of our options are bad.

And if you are warmongers like the current Republicans in charge, the whole point is to create an environment in which war is the only option.

Funny how if you are constantly carrying a big stick while waving it and shouting loudly (i.e, Bolton -- the symbol of this administration's idea of diplomacy), everyone else gets warlike also. Too bad there are no more Teddy Roosevelt Republicans around -- just the jingoists.

What the morons in charge don't get is that even though we have the biggest stick, it is profoundly not in our interests to go around using it. Countries like North Korea and Iran have far less to lose from the global chaos that is the natural product of a policy based on violence. And you can't credibly wave the stick constantly without using it -- what's your next trick when waving the magic war wand does not work? (shock and awe! -- shock and awe!)

It is not hyperbole to call Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. warmongers -- that is their clear record as well as the clear import of their actions. Their apologists (i.e., Charles, et al.) can dress them up as fighting for freedom or democracy, but when will those people figure out that spreading influence through the threat of and use of violence never spreads freedom or democracy, no matter what the alleged intentions are.

We'll try and stay serene and calm
when Alabama gets the bomb...

-Tom Lehrer

Y'know, I can see (if I squint hard enough) why some powerful men think starting a war would be a good idea--it's not likely they or their children will have to sacrifice anything, particularly their lives, and the potential exists to get your name in the history books or make a tidy profit. Maybe both!

But our current crop is planning on going nuclear. What the hell are they planning on breathing and eating? This is more hubris, it is delusion.

Arrg!

..more than hubris...

But Iran is evil and HITLEResque and we don't want to be wimpy Chamberlains!

I'm not sure Bush deserves the blame for other countries wanting nukes.

We have seen that better diplomatic relations with North Korea mean Kim Jong-Il builds his nukes discreetly, without his trademark brand of paranoid violent rhetoric. But he still builds them.

And close, friendly diplomatic relations with Iran have been elusive even under Democratic presidents. Like Carter.

And if you are warmongers like the current Republicans in charge, the whole point is to create an environment in which war is the only option.

It really seems more like they are seizing on the weakness that is present in our society.

Funny how if you are constantly carrying a big stick while waving it and shouting loudly (i.e, Bolton -- the symbol of this administration's idea of diplomacy), everyone else gets warlike also.

That's ripe. I guess you never heard of a place called Kuwait. It was invaded by Iraq. For some reason, I feel it is important to point out that invasion happened before the first Persian Gulf War. Maybe, you have heard of a country called Iran. Guess what? Invaded by Iraq. Maybe you are not familiar with Iraq's support of suicide bombers?

Also, an event took place on 9/11/2001 that may have affected the situation. Nothing like waiting to get hit in the face with a big stick before responding against Islamic countries that lash out against others.

Nothing like waiting to get hit in the face with a big stick before responding against Islamic countries that lash out against others.

Except, of course, for the part where Iraq wasn't an "Islamic country".

No, but it has close ties with Islamic terrorist. In my mind that counts for something. It justifies including it with other Islamic countries and taking out its leadership post 9/11.

Wonder,
That's an excellent point. In fact, my research indicates that the Iraqis have been provoking us with their warlike activity for some time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad

One can see from this behavior that we had no choice but to invade.

Wu

And all those close links with terrorists, none of whom posed any threat to us -- why, an invasion was the only course available!

In some alternate history, we acutally took out the Saudi and Pakistani governments (those being the closest to the enemy that attacked us on 9-11). However, in this timeline, we satisfied ourselves with a tangential target. Not a nice guy, but not exactly OBL's best buddy.

Of course, in this timeline Ronald Reagan also had ties with Islamic terrorists...

Wu

Immediately after my last comment, I tried to say: Oops, I'm echoing Carleton ;( -- but it wouldn't let me. It thought I was spam.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad