More news from the middle east:
US ready to strike Iran by spring
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Why would Bush want to strike Iran right before he leaves office? Leave a big mess for whoever follows him?
Or, to put it another way, why would he want to further destabilise the Middle East? I really can't see the rationale behind this, it's a(nother) recipe for disaster. The Democrats are against it, most Republicans are against it and even some of the NeoCons are against it. Can anyone clarify his thinking for me here? Is this the proof that the President really is insane?
Shhh...
I think someone aimed him in wrong direction!
I think someone aimed him in wrong direction!
im tired of presidents thinking that they MUST exert american influence on other nations.
how would bush react, if a sovereign nation behaved in this way toward the united states?
this is all just money lost that could be spent providing healthcare for millions of poverty stricken americans, or perhaps even improving schools.
how would bush react, if a sovereign nation behaved in this way toward the united states?
this is all just money lost that could be spent providing healthcare for millions of poverty stricken americans, or perhaps even improving schools.
There is a danger that Bush strategists are like gambling addicts, on a losing streak but compelled to bet it all on an unlikely turnaround.
History is replete with lunatics who hate losing so much that they will destroy all to delay the judgement of history.
But the Bush insiders have already carried things so far, and alienated so many in government and the military establishment, that they could incite a reliving of their command if attemptig to widen their present disaster. The accelerating dissent from within American government and military give me hope that we now have an extremely lame duck in terms of military clout.
History is replete with lunatics who hate losing so much that they will destroy all to delay the judgement of history.
But the Bush insiders have already carried things so far, and alienated so many in government and the military establishment, that they could incite a reliving of their command if attemptig to widen their present disaster. The accelerating dissent from within American government and military give me hope that we now have an extremely lame duck in terms of military clout.
John Dean provides informative background on how Congress can impede the Bush Administration from again initiating a war on false pretenses. There's obvious but incremental movement toward a balance of powers today. Congressional debate (if only debate over debate) and the Libby and Watada trials show that things are shifting far from where we were in 2003. Without a new USS Maine or 9-11 provocation, it seems unlikely to me that Bush's neoconservatives ever again command so unquestioned and unfettered as they once did.
If Bush could get Iran to attack US troops or if Bush faked an Iranian attack on US troops in late September 2008 and then the US went to war against Iran while making sure that the war was in still a hot war in Early November 2008, then Bush could deliver the next presidency to a Republican candidate. The American people will not throw the Republicans out during a "justified" hot war.
Don't the media play some part in this? What role did they play in 2003?
A supporting one. Things have changed, and the major media is no longer in lock-step with neoconservative ideology.
"nirakar: "The American people will not throw the Republicans out during a "justified" hot war."
They already have in Congress, and more recklessness will not save the Presidency for the GOP in 2008. GOP leaders know this- another reason why Bush insiders don't have equivalent leverage to launch hastily-justified war, as they did in 2003. The American nantional discourse is just beginning to come to terms with the falsifications on the road to war in Iraq. This is hardly the political climate for a similar con-job to work again, especially in the upper tiers of government where the strategy goes beyond the next election.
They already have in Congress, and more recklessness will not save the Presidency for the GOP in 2008. GOP leaders know this- another reason why Bush insiders don't have equivalent leverage to launch hastily-justified war, as they did in 2003. The American nantional discourse is just beginning to come to terms with the falsifications on the road to war in Iraq. This is hardly the political climate for a similar con-job to work again, especially in the upper tiers of government where the strategy goes beyond the next election.
Why? Are the journalists different? As the stations different? Are the owners/advertisers different?
First, events did not bear out the assumptions of neoconservative ideology, as telegraphed through major media at the time, that the Iraq invasion would be seen as a liberation- that it would be followed by greater American strategic leverage at a minimal cost in casualties and national assets. Second, the deliberate misuse of intelligence for purposes of propaganda in the run-up to the invasion has come to light. Because these factors are becoming common knowledge, the same cheerleader news reporting won't sell to the American audience as before.
Fox news may shrink in viewership but remain unchanged, but most of the major media is moviing on, because advertising revenue motivates the major media. Large advertising audiences in the news business require some measure of credibillity in real-time. Bush war strategy is no longer credible to the audience, so it won't sell in the same happily-imbedded way anymore. Now, debate is finally attracting viewers and readers because it is becoming accepted fact that the Bush strategists were both deceitful and wrong about foreign policy.
Fox news may shrink in viewership but remain unchanged, but most of the major media is moviing on, because advertising revenue motivates the major media. Large advertising audiences in the news business require some measure of credibillity in real-time. Bush war strategy is no longer credible to the audience, so it won't sell in the same happily-imbedded way anymore. Now, debate is finally attracting viewers and readers because it is becoming accepted fact that the Bush strategists were both deceitful and wrong about foreign policy.
Yes, without some justification you're right. But Bush and the Ahmadinejad both want war. The quote from the OP:
"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly"
George Bush, in an interview with National Public Radio
Makes it clear that President Bush is laying the groundwork for a Causa Belli. I have little doubt that Ahmadinejad will hand that to him on a silver platter.George Bush, in an interview with National Public Radio
"I have little doubt that Ahmadinejad will hand [a Causa Belli] to [President Bush] on a silver platter."
Ahmedinijad is not the Head of State in Iran. The Majlis, and chiefly Khamenei, call the shots- even as Western media focuses on Ahmedinejad for his more incendiary rhetoric.
The Iranian majlis is more calculating, and less reckless than (for comparison) Saddam Hussein before he came to blows with Washington. Rather than provide a casus belli, I anticipate the Majlis will seek to deny the Bush Administration any just provocation.
While they would surely capitalize on unprovoked American aggression, there is no reason for Tehran to rock the boat when things are going so well for them as they are now. Iran has been gaining tremendous influence through the political effects the "War on Terror" is producing: The repressed Shi'a majority on the opposite shores of the Gulf are ready and willing to do the fighting, and absorb the onslaught. I suspect the Majlis sees much more benefit in protracted Gulf-State proxy-war, than in even sporadic direct confrontation with American air power.
Ahmedinijad is not the Head of State in Iran. The Majlis, and chiefly Khamenei, call the shots- even as Western media focuses on Ahmedinejad for his more incendiary rhetoric.
The Iranian majlis is more calculating, and less reckless than (for comparison) Saddam Hussein before he came to blows with Washington. Rather than provide a casus belli, I anticipate the Majlis will seek to deny the Bush Administration any just provocation.
While they would surely capitalize on unprovoked American aggression, there is no reason for Tehran to rock the boat when things are going so well for them as they are now. Iran has been gaining tremendous influence through the political effects the "War on Terror" is producing: The repressed Shi'a majority on the opposite shores of the Gulf are ready and willing to do the fighting, and absorb the onslaught. I suspect the Majlis sees much more benefit in protracted Gulf-State proxy-war, than in even sporadic direct confrontation with American air power.
russians are like americans.
they will not stop until everyone they are fighting is dead.
surrender is the ultimate shame.
"they will not stop until everyone they are fighting is dead. "
Not true. Not in prior wars, and certainly not in this one. Particularly not the case in this one, whereby more enemies of America are being created than are being destroyed.
I agree with you on the shame factor, and what a crying shame it is: In the face of abject failure, more deaths are being ordered for the purpose of putting off an ignonimous but inevitable withdrawal of American forces from the shambles of Iraq.
Not true. Not in prior wars, and certainly not in this one. Particularly not the case in this one, whereby more enemies of America are being created than are being destroyed.
I agree with you on the shame factor, and what a crying shame it is: In the face of abject failure, more deaths are being ordered for the purpose of putting off an ignonimous but inevitable withdrawal of American forces from the shambles of Iraq.
Last edited: