Tuesday, April 11, 2006


Response to Tainted

Tainted: Mother Foooooooooooocking terrorist.

Tainted blogged about the report by Seymour Hersh's report in the New Yorker that President Bush is planning to nuke Iran. Really, everyone needs to take a deep breath and think about this before flying off the handle.

First, Seymour Hersh has a history of "breaking" these kinds of stories and then having them come to nothing. The only big story that he has every broken correctly was about Mi Lai, more than thirty years ago. Just because a reporter says something, does not make it true.

Second, this is nothing compared to President Chirac openly threatening to use nuclear weapons just a couple of months ago.

Third, everyone has been saying for more than a year now, "Israel is going to bomb Iran", or "the US is going to", or "the US and UK are going to" or "No, it will be Syria that is attacked next".

Hey, I'm not a habitual defender of President Bush (I voted for others in both elections). But it would be nice if those who disagree with him try to have the intellectual honesty to admit that they don't have all the right answers either. What to do about Iran is a difficult question. (The same is true about what we should have done about Iraq, but you very rarely see any honesty there either.)

Do you let them develop nukes and hope for the best? Do you attack them militarily? Do you impose sanctions? Do you make threatening comments in public and at the same time negotiate secretly? The right thing to do may never be known. And please remember, just because you disagree with someone doesn't make that person stupid or evil.

It’s a pleasure to meet you. Second, thank you for pointing this response out to me. I think this is the first time I’ve been in your blog?!

Though I agree, it may very well be hype and no more; I personally won’t be surprised if the US does wage war on Iran. I found something else you said rather interesting:

“What to do about Iran is a difficult question. (The same is true about what we should have done about Iraq, but you very rarely see any honesty there either.) “

My question back is, why is it America’s right to ‘do’ anything about Iran?

If you’re reminder about people disagreeing with me not being stupid, is towards some sort of image you have about the way I interpret the world, I’m afraid it’s a little off.

Tainted: America learned long ago that it is far worse to allow a region of the world to slip into instability and uncertainty than it is to "take care of business". A nuclear-weapon-possessing Iran is only one notch less scary than Saddam Hussein having nukes. Iran would lob a nuclear weapon into Israel in a heartbeat.

Even if you blokes can handle the economic roller coaster ride that would go with such uncertainty in the region, we most definitely can not.

In other words: We don't always ask for permission. That is, if diplomacy fails. In Iraq, diplomacy did fail. Hence we acted. Doesn't mean I believe we should still be in there, but I feel better having Saddam sitting in jail.
Regarding Sy Hersh.

He was right about one other story. The story about the CIA operation to pull up that Russian sub from the bottom of the ocean.


Actually I think he is being used by the CIA. They send some guy over with a story and tell him to "leak" it to ole Sy. Sy believing the validity and that the telling of the story may upset US Govt. plans is all too willing to publish it.
More likely that Hersch is being used more by the U.S. State Department. "Getting through" to Iran is probably best accomplished by scaring the living shit out of them. If they think the USA is seriously planning attack sceanrios, they are more likely to negotiate.

They may speak as such, but they do not wish to be a nation of "martyrs" by any stretch.

But the more likely situation is that Hersch caught a glimpse of rather routine planning that the military routinely does in regards to potential enemies. They plan and plan and plan, just in case the President (or congress) DOES eventually call upon them to go to war.

Other active "planning" that probably is going on right now: The invasions of: Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Russia, China. You name it. If we're on unfriendly terms with them, you can bet that SOMEONE n the military is doing advance planning on long-term attack plans. 99% of them are never used.

It would be irresponsible to have a military and NOT do this kind of planning exercise.
Ohhh, it seems I’m a bit late on this thread.

I’m sorry, I don’t know who Hersch is to make a comment there at all…

But leads, isn’t Korea and their WMD’s and the fact that they’ve not been invaded, in contrast to Iraq and the lack of WMD’s and the fact that they have been invaded a significant enough reason for other countries to attain such power?

Kind of starting to feel as though the US is the big-bully of the world on this end, and should have no right to make such decisions despite what the US gov believes it has learned in the past.
hahahahahaa! nuke iran! why did the americans have already established their Colonies on the Moon????

did i miss something!

Thanks for the Joke.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?