|
|
1. Iran is ripe for regime change.
Not true. [...]
2. Iran is irrational and cannot be deterred.
Not true. [...]
3. Iran is inherently anti-American.
Not quite. [...]
4. Enrichment equals a nuclear bomb.
Not necessarily. [...]
5. Iran seeks Israel's destruction.
False. [...]
6. The pressure on Iran is working.
Questionable. [...]
7. Stability in the Middle East can be achieved only through Iran's isolation.
Quite the contrary. [...]
Iran poses a complicated challenge to America, but not an irresolvable one. Despite the tremendous distrust between the two countries, history shows that negotiations can work. In 2001 Tehran and Washington worked closely together to defeat the Taliban and install a new government in Afghanistan. Without Iranian help, the new Constitution of Afghanistan would not have been achieved, according to U.S. diplomats involved in the effort.
[Posted on Clipmarks by Rasmus, who has many excellent clips there. You might also enjoy some of mine there: masbury's clipmarks. It's a great place to stash brief clips, and see those of others. - Monte]
"LONDON, Nov 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. military has stepped up chartering of tankers and requests for extra fuel in the U.S. Central Command area, which includes the Gulf, shipping and oil industry sources say. A Gulf oil industry source said the charters suggested there would be high naval activity, possibly including a demonstration to Iran that the U.S. Navy will protect the Strait of Hormuz oil shipping route during tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme.
The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC) has tendered for four tankers in November to move at least one million barrels of jet and ship fuel between Gulf ports, from Asia to the Gulf and to the Diego Garcia base, tenders seen by Reuters show. It usually tenders for one or two tankers a month to supply Gulf operations, which include missions in Iraq."
A separate requirement is for a tanker to move 147,000 barrels of ship fuel from Singapore to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, close to the Gulf and Arabian Sea.
that is indeed unusual according to a military friend of mine, who in an email this morning wrote: "It has gotten my attention. I don't have an explanation."
The US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to military sources. The improvement of the B1 Spirit jet infrastructure coincides with an “urgent operational need” request for £44m to fit racks to the long-range aircraft. That would allow them to carry experimental 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs designed to smash underground bunkers buried as much as 200ft beneath the surface through reinforced concrete.
Micah Brose, a privately contracted interrogator working for American forces in Iraq, near the Iranian border, told The Observer that information on Iran is 'gold'.
...
Brose, 30, who extracts information from detainees in Iraq, said: 'They push a lot for us to establish a link with Iran. They have pre-categories for us to go through, and by the sheer volume of categories there's clearly a lot more for Iran than there is for other stuff. Of all the recent requests I've had, I'd say 60 to 70 per cent are about Iran.
'It feels a lot like, if you get something and Iran's not involved, it's a let down.' He added: 'I've had people say to me, "They're really pushing the Iran thing. It's like, shit, you know." '
"Or succumb to the whims of a dancing fool?"
We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.
In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the entire Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.
By the way, we have all the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
The report generally says that Iran is cooperating with the IAEA as requested, and that the information Iran has provided is consistent with the IAEA's findings. It is pretty much a positive report, which says that some issues are left to be resolved later in accordance with the agreed-upon timetable, but there's no mention of any nuclear weapons programs or anything like that.
1- IRAN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NPT: The IAEA again states that there's no evidence of any diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful uses...
2- "UNDECLARED ACTITIVIES" AND THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL: The IAEA report states that though it has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, the IAEA cannot say that Iran's nuclear activites are exclusively peaceful since the IAEA cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear acvitities in Iran...First point, that the IAEA does not verify the absence of undeclared nuclear activities for any country unless they have signed and ratified the Additional Protocol...
Second point: you should know that Iran did in fact voluntarily implement the Additional Protocol by allowing the more stringent inspections for the course of 2 years during the course of the Paris Agreement negotiations with the EU3 - even though it was not legally obligated to do so - and still no evidence of nuclear weapons was found in Iran (in fact the IAEA complained publicly that the evidence that the US had given them of "secret" Iranian nuclear facilities had been bogus.) Iran stopped providing that additional level of cooperation and stopped voluntarily implementing the Additional Protocol when the EU tried to cheat Iran in the course of the Paris Agreement negotiations...
3- ISSUES RESOLVED: According to this report, several issues seem to have been resolved.
4- OUSTANDING ISSUES: THE "LAPTOP OF DEATH" There's some outstanding concern about the traces of highly-enriched uranium which were found in Iran, but to date Iran's statements about those traces have been verified by the IAEA to be accurate...The only major oustanding issue is the reported "Green Salt Project" and other nonesense about a secret Iranian nuclear project. And the only evidence of that comes from a highly questionable laptop computer that supposedly was smuggled out of Iran. You can read more about this "Laptop of Death" at the Next Hurrah.
"Partial credit doesn't cut it," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack when asked about a U.N. nuclear watchdog agency report on Iran's nuclear program. The White House and its ambassador at the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, said the United States would continue to work with its allies for a new round of U.N. sanctions against Tehran over its refusal to give up uranium enrichment.
"Unfortunately this report makes clear that Iran seems uninterested in working with the rest of the world and the current Iranian government continues to push the country deeper into isolation," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We believe that Iran should be fully cooperating and not stringing along the IAEA during this process."
Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:
Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.[10]
The term fascismo was first coined by the Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini[8] and Hegelian philosopher Giovanni Gentile. It is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means "bundle" or "union",[9] and from the Latin word fasces. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods tied around an axe, were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrates, and the symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.
His first international crisis as head of Italy made him an Italian hero.{Bush SR. made a similar impact that I believe set the stage for war in Iraq - "Bush's greatest test came when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, then threatened to move into Saudi Arabia. Vowing to free Kuwait, Bush rallied the United Nations, the U. S. people, and Congress and sent 425,000 American troops."}
The crisis was a border dispute between Greece and Albania. Mussolini sent several men to the area representing Italy as part of an International Commission to dispute the issue. On August 23, 1923, all the Italians were murdered and discovered in Greek territory. {Sounds familiar enough to me, 11 years to the day that the father started a war in the Middle East, America was attacked, and although the US was sure of who did the attacking, we..."In a Rage" reacted much like Mussolini did}
In a rage, Mussolini sent the Greek government a list of demands, including a public apology, immediate inquiry into the killings, death sentence to those convicted and payment of 50 million Lira within 5 days. The Greeks refused the demand, since they did not know if it was Greeks who committed the murders.
Mussolini ordered the Italian navy to bombard Corfu (Kerkyra) off the Greek coast. {The US bombed the heck out of Iraq} The shelling was then followed by an amphibious landing of Italian marines. After the League of Nations condemned the act, Mussolini threatened to pull Italy out of the League. {Again, sounds like the conversations between the US and the UN with regards to attacking Iraq}
Mussolini found his country blacklisted by the League of Nations and it forced his relationship closer to Nazi Germany, which was also isolated for their actions. {The US, supporting nations like Pakistan who are enforcing Martial Law - making deals with the Devil}
Mussolini soon realized that the League of Nations did not have the backbone to stop Hitler or himself in gaining new colonies, so he pressed forward. {The US realized that before going into Iraq, and will continue to march on to Iran and any other country we seem to see fit - all met with little support and little success, just like Mussolini}
Italy would find limited success in the war, his conquests in Africa, Greece and Yugoslavia slowly vanished due to poor leadership in the military, and lack of fuel to power their forces. {Did someone say poor leadership, and lack of fuel? How many times has the Attorney General and National Defense Position among others needed to be filled? What is the current price of both oil, and economic and emotional fuel? How much is it costing our country, and how long can it be sustained, and at what price?}
"Defense analyst Tim Ripley of Jane's Defense Weekly, calls a US attack on Iran a "nightmare scenario", a war that could not be finished. Bush should have some experience in that field. He is utterly incapable of either finishing or winning in Iraq.
Intent on war, it is not surprising that Bush tries to cover up dissenting opinions and dangers. Bush is a "man" who has proven himself impervious to logic, common sense and empathy."[continues]
Michael 'Weiner' Savage- Let's bring it on! Bomb Iran, bring our boys home now! Bomb Iran, bring our boys home now! Bomb Iran, bring our boys home now! Let's get it on! Bomb Iran, bring our boys home now! Wipe Hezbollah out of America! Cut the tentacles of Iran off! Cut the tentacles of that octopus off now! Get every hunter in America armed to the teeth! Throwback bastards! I'm so sick of them! I'm so sick of the brainwashing about Islam and Muslims and the Koran! Shove it! Shove it all! I'm sick of it!
Come!
O ghosts of misery!
Louder than the whole of God,
more wordless than humiliation
breathing hard upon our backs!
Bring forth your most depraved army
over the present carnage of man;
red tongued and in the making!
Come quick under the roaring sky
and lock away hope
in your manifest gulag
of scraggly goddamned vultures!
Thrash all pleasure and goodness
over attentive hearts of dust!
Split the flesh and soul with your shadows!
Program our youth
to cleave all life of what’s left
as hordes of black-shirted assassins!
Keep watch over them
like steely eyed wolves
and stay their dissent with mild anecdote!
In time they’ll be content
to simply live another day
with wet tongue
and fearful consumption...
I detest with all my being that this pillaging horde of scoundrels has twisted the world into a sightless giant of shrieking hell!
(RawStory/AFP) Israel and the United States have agreed to appoint two working committees in order to hone a joint strategy against Iran's nuclear ambitions, public radio reported on Friday... One committee will deal with intelligence on Iran's nuclear drive and the other with international sanctions...While Bush is getting Germany onboard.
Read more ... (ht2 RickB)Here's another theory. Israel's economy isn't booming despite the political chaos that devours the headlines but because of it. This phase of development dates back to the mid-90s, when the country was in the vanguard of the information revolution - the most tech-dependent economy in the world. After the dotcom bubble burst in 2000, Israel's economy was devastated, facing its worst year since 1953. Then came 9/11, and suddenly new profit vistas opened up for any company that claimed it could spot terrorists in crowds, seal borders from attack, and extract confessions from closed-mouthed prisoners.
Within three years, large parts of Israel's tech economy had been radically repurposed. Put in Friedmanesque terms, Israel went from inventing the networking tools of the "flat world" to selling fences to an apartheid planet. Many of the country's most successful entrepreneurs are using Israel's status as a fortressed state, surrounded by furious enemies, as a kind of 24-hour-a-day showroom, a living example of how to enjoy relative safety amid constant war. And the reason Israel is now enjoying supergrowth is that those companies are busily exporting that model to the world.
Discussions of Israel's military trade usually focus on the flow of weapons into the country - US-made Caterpillar bulldozers used to destroy homes in the West Bank, and British companies supplying parts for F-16s. Overlooked is Israel's huge and expanding export business. Israel now sends $1.2bn in "defence" products to the United States - up dramatically from $270m in 1999. In 2006, Israel exported $3.4bn in defence products - well over a billion more than it received in American military aid. That makes Israel the fourth largest arms dealer in the world, overtaking Britain.
Much of this growth has been in the so-called homeland security sector. Before 9/11 homeland security barely existed as an industry. By the end of this year, Israeli exports in the sector will reach $1.2bn, an increase of 20%. The key products and services are hi-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems - precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories.
(IPS) - A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear programme, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.Very much worth reading it all, remember 'fixing the intelligence around the policy'? Highlights if you are short on time... (you know you're in trouble when 'Death Squad' John Negroponte is the voice of reason)-
(Reuters)U.S. President George W. Bush defended in a television interview on Wednesday his recent comments suggesting Iran's nuclear ambitions might trigger World War Three and insisted he wanted a diplomatic solution.
Bush told a news conference last month that preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons would be a means of avoiding a new global conflict.
"The reason I said that is because this is a country that has defied the IAEA -- in other words, didn't disclose all their program -- have said they want to destroy Israel," Bush said in the interview with German broadcaster RTL.
"If you want to see World War Three, you know, a way to do that is to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon," Bush added. "And so I said, now is the time to move. It wasn't a prediction, nor a desire."
Asked whether there was a point when the United States would decide military action was the only possible option for dealing with Iran, Bush said: "I would never say that."
"I would say that we would always try to try diplomacy first," he said.
Vaeidi said Iran replied to all outstanding IAEA questions, and there would be no more technical talks until the IAEA board of governors met on November 22.
Iran and the IAEA agreed in August on a plan of action that aims to remove all technical ambiguities by the IAEA over Iran’s nuclear projects, and at the same time prepare the ground for political talks between Jalili and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
Campaigning for tougher sanctions on Tehran, Israel went on the offensive on Tuesday against the UN nuclear watchdog, accusing its chief Mohammed ElBaradei of playing into Iran's hands over its atomic drive.
The campaign comes with the International Atomic Energy Agency poised to publish a new report on Iran's nuclear ambitions, to serve as a key part of further discussions at the United Nations on whether to impose a third round of sanctions on Tehran.
"Unfortunately there are foreign officials playing the Iranians' game by contributing to the Iranian strategy of foot-dragging," Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev told AFP.
"From this point of view the International (Atomic Energy) Agency and its leadership are guilty," Regev added.
"One could ask whether the agency agreed to fulfil the role the Iranians want it to play, to allow Tehran to implement its strategy," he said.
Lawrence Wilkerson, an aide to Colin Powell when he was secretary of state says that Iran in 2003 offered to help stabilize Iraq and to cut off aid to Hizbullah in Lebanon and to Hamas. Wilkerson says that the State Department was interested in pursuing the offer, which presumably came from reformist president Mohammad Khatami. He says that when the issue was broached with VP Richard Bruce Cheney, Cheney shot down any notion of "talking to evil." As if Mohammad Khatami is evil and Richard Bruce Cheney is not. (Cheney's lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and connection to 9/11 have gotten hundreds of thousands of people killed).
What this article doesn't mention is that the rightwing Likud cabal in Cheney's office, such as Irv Lewis Libby, with its connections to the Israeli far right, almost certainly played a key role in this rejection. I think John Hannah was already there then, too. David Wurmser came later, after getting up the fraudulent case against Iraq in the Pentagon "Office of Special Plans" (i.e. foreign policy plumbers) set up by Likudnik Douglas Feith, then the number 3 man in the Pentagon.
In the pages of the neocon bible, The Weekly Standard, William Kristol has attacked the incompetence of the administration, even though it has been doing his bidding. In his recent book America at the Crossroads (2006), Francis Fukuyama has declared that he is a neocon no more. All this has led conventional wisdom to declare the death of neoconservatism as a political force and to relegate its adherents to the trash bin of history. But this is much too optimistic.
In the first place, the neocons have not admitted defeat. They believe that the incompetence of the Bush administration is the only reason for the failure of their brilliant plans. They refuse to abandon their devotion to military solutions, continuing to advocate a military attack on Iran. They refuse to admit that the invasion of Iraq was supported by lies, propaganda and the manipulation of public opinion. They concede only that the Bush administration has made errors that were a result of incompetence and limited information. They continue to link the invasion of Iraq with the so called “War on Terror”, which is merely a convenient term that makes their project of world dominance more palatable. But the neocons refuse to countenance any suggestion that the project of world domination is seriously flawed. They refuse to link the mistakes of the Bush administration to the gargantuan and reckless nature of neoconservative policies.
[...]
In truth, the ineptitude of the Bush administration has highlighted the inherent defects of neoconservatism. The neoconservatives were never content with the political realism of a Hobbes or even a Henry Kissinger. They adopted the more strident realism of Leo Strauss, laced as it is with religious self-righteousness – God is on our side and our enemies are allied with the forces of evil. Strauss himself was an atheist, but he thought that religion was the “pious fraud”, indispensable for cultivating deference to authority, undermining hedonism, instilling discipline and making people ready to die for their country. Religion was vital to prepare people for death, tragedy and the horrors of war.
Irving Kristol, in his Autobiography of an Idea, echoed Leo Strauss when he argued that there was no reason to choose between the rational atheism of Freud and the religion of Moses, since the two can be reconciled by adopting, “a double standard of truth. Let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let the handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded esoteric doctrine – for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish.”
Not all the neoconservatives are covert atheists. But the Straussian neocons are deluded into thinking that they are a special breed; they live by a different rule; they are the superior few who can face the abyss of nihilism; they know that God is dead and they have replaced him. For these mortal gods, lying, deceit and the manipulation of public opinion are honourable because the masses are not fit for truth – they need a diet of noble delusions intended to link the political interests of the state with the cosmic forces of justice, goodness and truth.
This double standard is integral to Strauss’s trust in the salutary effects of the covert tyranny of the wise. In his work he returned to classical sources to frame this justification of deception. In City and Man (1964) Strauss revisits the case of Alcibiades, the treasonous Athenian general who was suspected of plotting to destroy Athenian democracy. Strauss defends him by arguing that this would have been the best thing for Athens, adding, “It is impossible for a wise man to benefit his city except by deceiving it.” This glorification of lying and tyranny has had disastrous consequences.
Abram Shulsky, the Director of the Office of Special Plans, which was created by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to find intelligence that would justify the invasion of Iraq, has stated bluntly that he learned from Strauss that “deception is the norm in political life.” We know now that the intelligence used to justify the war was misleading, exaggerated or false. The facts were made to fit the policy and not the other way around.
It is no surprise that one of the Straussians in high office, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, has been convicted of lying to the FBI, obstruction of justice and other criminal offences. Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney’s Straussian-educated chief of staff. He was a student of Paul Wolfowitz, who was a student of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom. Wolfowitz was Deputy Minister of Defense and a key architect of the war on Iraq. Now he is presiding over the World Bank, where he is mired in scandal for fraud, deception and nepotism.
These Straussians will no doubt compare their predicament to the persecution of Socrates by the Athenian mob: wise men vilified by the ignorant masses. But the comparison is disingenuous. Socrates preferred the death penalty to breaking the law. In contrast, Strauss has cultivated arrogant and unprincipled crooks, liars, cynics and snobs.
But despite the fall from grace of so many of their clan, and the demise of neoconservatism as a brand, this does not mean that the neoconservative culture of war will disappear. The militancy of the neocons is not an aberration in American politics. It is intimately linked to the narcissism at the heart of America’s psyche.
There has always been a tendency for Americans to believe that they are an exceptional nation with a divine calling. It is quite normal for Americans of every political stripe to believe that their manifest destiny is to be servants of truth and justice, an inspiration to all humanity and a beacon of freedom and progress – a nation under God, and a Zion that will light up the world: “The last, best hope for the world”.
This is why something akin to neoconservatism is a perennial American temptation. Long after the defeat of the Bush administration, an aggressive foreign policy similar to that of the neoconservatives will continue to beckon American leaders.
As Clemenceau said, war is too important to be left to the generals. [A]ll great wartime leaders — Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill, Ben Gurion — never left the military to make its own policy, but constantly prodded, challenged, and gave it direction. In this spirit, Bush should (within reason) refuse to take "no" for an answer from the Joint Chiefs. If they can't come up with a plausible plan for invading Iraq, they should think harder. If they can't contemplate the risks involved in invading without Saudi bases, they should get over it.Strike the Roots:
What is wrong with this picture, other than the fact that Mr. Lowry is happy to send others to their deaths while he remains safely seated behind his computer console? For starters, the list of four men who "prodded" their militaries into alleged greatness leaves out the best example of a leader who "knew better": Adolph Hitler. He always "rode herd" over his generals on how best to waste, I mean spend, Germany's military resources. The results, according to many historians, cost Germany the war.
Make no mistake: Hitler's generals were no shrinking violets. They were well equipped professional soldiers who loved their country and were dedicated to advancing its goals. They were not, however, in favor of squandering their nation's resources, human and otherwise, for little gain. Therefore, they did their best to dissuade Hitler from his most disastrous ideas.
Did Hitler listen? He did not. He was the Man with the Plan, and could see in his mind's eye exactly how everything would unfold, if only those damn generals would stop being such naysayers. It would be glorious! He was also, of course, a fool and a madman, whose head was filled with carnage above all else, and who, in the end, visited that carnage back upon his own nation. In other words, Hitler bears, in this respect as well, an uncanny resemblance to men like Rich Lowry, with their visions of glory for the New American Empire. The neocons are not quite stupid enough to adopt the word "Fatherland," but the dream is the same.
November 6, 2007 at 23:17:12
Pakistan and the Collapse of the Bush Administration's Freedom Agenda
The invasion and botched occupation of Iraq will probably go down in history as one of the greatest strategic blunders in all of military history. It remains to be seen of course, whether or not the Bush administration’s misjudgment will end up instigating a regional conflagration, or even WWIII. What is clear, however, is that the U.S. invasion has succeeded in making the most volatile region of the planet even more unstable.Will Turkey invade Iraq? Will the United States strike Iran? Will Pakistan explode? And what happens if Musharaff falls and extremists get their hands on the Bomb? You can be sure that U.S. contingency plans include the possibility Special Forces operations inside Pakistan to try and prevent that nightmare scenario from happening.
All of this falls on the heels of Israel’s apparently successful raid on a Syrian nuclear facility.No doubt, hawks in the administration, especially Dick Cheney, will tout the Israeli operation as proof that preemption still works. The problem, of course, is no one can calculate how a preemptive military strike against Iran (which would be the Bush administration’s second unprovoked attack against a Muslim country) will complicate American interests in Iraq, Pakistan, and the wider Middle East. An attack could set back Iran’s nuclear program months or even years, but at the cost of destabilizing Pakistan to the point where extremists get their hands on nuclear weapons. Read more ...
(Reuters) The United States intends to proceed with a radar and missile shield in central Europe despite Russian objections, a senior U.S. official said on Monday. "We are continuing negotiations with those countries (Poland and the Czech Republic)," Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, told a news conference in Baku.
"We hope to succeed, and if we succeed, we will proceed with the development of a radar system for the Czech Republic and missiles for Poland," he added. The plan for a radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland to avert potential missile strikes from Iran has angered Russia, which says the defense shield would threaten its security.
Missile defense exists in a world of its own. It has a special budget process that exempts it from most congressional oversight, and it is pioneering a new acquisitions process that redefines the very nature of what constitutes a "threat." The system has a separate definition to denote what it means for a weapon to "work" and even what it means to "know" something to be true.
Most of the time, the Patriot missed its mark. And in 2003, at the start of the Iraq War, Patriots killed two British soldiers and an American pilot, Lt. Nathan White. It turns out that even the Patriot -- the only part of missile defense that has actually been battle-tested -- suffers from basic problems, sometimes mistaking our own planes for enemy missiles.
To justify the deployment of untested technologies, officials at the Missile Defense Agency changed the fundamental epistemology of weapons procurement. In bureaucratic-speak, they ceased following a "knowledge-based" system and relied instead upon what they called a "capability-based" standard. In simple terms, it's the difference between knowing that something works because you've tested it, and believing that something works because all the parts, when put together, should be capable of working. It's the difference between test-driving a car before mass-producing it, and building one from a schematic but deciding not to turn the key for the first time until there's an emergency. It's the difference between the old carpenter's advice of "measure twice, cut once," and the new, Rumsfeldian directive: "Cut already."
Responding to Islamophobia: A Pro-Active StrategyPhyllis Bennis | October 24, 2007 Editor: Erik Leaver | ||
| ||
Now, one could certainly challenge the idea of whether Iran will ever develop a nuclear weapon. Likewise, one could challenge the arrogance which assumes the nuclear USA has the right to decide who else joins the club.MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, would you pledge to the American people that Iran would not build a nuclear bomb on your watch?Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards each wiggled his or her way out of the question, essentially pledging to do what they could to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Then Russert turned to Biden, and Biden threw the question back in Russert's face.
SEN. BIDEN: I would pledge to keep us safe. If you told me, Tim -- and this is not -- this is complicated stuff. We talk about this in isolation. The fact of the matter is the Iranians may get 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium; the Pakistanis have hundreds, thousands of kilograms of highly enriched uranium.If by attacking Iran to stop them from getting 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, the government in Pakistan falls, who has missiles already deployed, with nuclear weapons on them ... then that's a bad bargain. ...Biden was taking the mature approach to foreign policy, daring to challenge the false dichotomy: let Iran go nuclear or start a war.What is the greatest threat to the United States of America: 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in Tehran or an out of control Pakistan? It's not close.
The Nation: article | posted November 1, 2007 (November 19, 2007 issue) |
The Iranian Challenge |
Bomb, Bomb Iran New York times
