Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker demonstrates conditions for possible blowback from our intervention in Iran.
RationalLiberty said 06/30, 07:29 AM
Seymour Hersh's article details our support for "Baluchi Sunni fundementalist" groups against Iran in covert ops across the Iran-Iraq border. Given that he states the person behind 9/11 to be a "Baluchi Sunni fundementalist" as well, and that another group we support has ties to Al Queda, this support for resistance groups in Iran has possible blowback repurcussions.
Ron Paul was right to point out "those who are are friends one day become are enemies the next" referring to Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other U.S. supported dictators and terrorist groups we support and then leave to their own devices.
Considering our popularity among the Arab states has declined, our support for Israel still goes unquestioned, and we still fund groups hostile to our security interests, we are setting ourselves up for another disaster on American soil all due to foreign policy.
MorgMcA said 07/01, 01:35 AM
Seymour Hersh and the New Yorker are great sources for people who like Seymour Hersh and the New Yorker. Just like Conspiracy Theorists are great for people who like Conspiracy Theories
Honestly does anyone really expect a war w/ Iran. I'd say it's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans don't believe it'll happen anytime soon (possible exceptions include IamFry and Bush-haters), especially after we've signed agreements to not use Iraq as a staging ground
Hersh also thinks we're conspiring to use Afghanistan as a staging ground. So according to him we'll use two unstable and slightly chaotic areas to launch strikes against another world power. This seems like it's written out of a romantized-war fiction novel about an evil emperor and scrappy rebels (which I'm sure Seymour believes is true)
"those who are our friends one day become our enemies the next". You don't read history much, do you? How is that any different than what has gone on since the dawn of time? Ever hear the phrase war makes strange bedfellows? Examples; WWII US and USSR are allies followed by the cold war. WWI US and Japan are allies/Germany and Italy are enemies followed by WWII
RationalLiberty said 07/01, 04:36 AM
Well, considering our forces surround Iran from the left in Iraq and from the right in Afghanistan and our countless bases in the Gulf States, yes we are in a good position to launch a strike at Iran. Would it be practical? No. But could the President order it? Yes. Considering the scope of his abuses of power, he could do anything now and the Congress would approve it or give immunity to it. Especially since Pelosi has taken impeachment "off the table". He has a blank check to do what he wants without serious repurcussions from the legislative branch.
"Those who are our friends one day become our enemies the next". You must not see the gravity of this statement or how I have implemented it. When we claim to be "allies" with someone, that is important. You trust your leaders to have the judgment necessary to have good "allies" both in character and motive. By supporting dictators and terrorist groups, we make enemies. And once we are done with the people we support with financial aid and military equipment, they use that same money, training, and force against us.
The possibility for blowback from this incident in Iran and the wars in Iraq and Afgh. is high.
MorgMcA said 07/01, 02:43 PM
If you look at a map in solid color-coded simple terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, base here, base there, we're in an excellent position to destroy Iran. But if you look at the other things going on, ie the inability of Afghanis and Iraqis to govern themselves w/o strong US policing support. Bases that, though active and can pack a punch, are way too small to feasibly conduct a war from, you'll see it is very impracticle to invade Iran
"could the President order it? Considering the scope of his abuses of power, he could do anything now and the Congress would approve it or give immunity to it. He has a blank check to do what he wants without serious repurcussions from the legislative branch." I'm not going to debate your fantasies, this assertation is ridiculous in the extreme. since when has Bush had a blank-check for anything lately
Again how is this anything new, it's been that way since time began. just because this time it's one ally as opposed to another doesn't make it new. war makes strange bedfellows, what do you expect? accomplishing one goal together with an ally doesn't mean that you both agree on everything, have you always agreed w/ your friends on everything?
RationalLiberty said 07/01, 05:26 PM
George W. Bush and the executive branch care nothing about the consequences of their actions. They care nothing about the legality of a decision, the "correctness" of a decision; they just do it. If it justifies the twisted ends they want, they will do it. They went into Iraq undermining the Afghan front to overthrow Saddam. They lied about the motives to the Congress and to the international community. They had no consequences, they had no reservations. They have wasted half a trillion dollars, ruined the military and destabilised the region. They have had no consequences, they have had no reservations about their actions. The Congress has been complicit in continuing this war, and they have been reaping the benefits of the war. They have not held the administration accountable for this colossal failure. With those precedents my position about Bush invading Iran is justified.
I have also thought up a difference between your "ally to enemy" examples and mine. The U.S. fully funded these "pet projects" that I have talked about. They should be able to control their futures. However, they cannot help other sovereign nations changing sides because they have no control.
MorgMcA said 07/02, 12:21 AM
So... When did MoveOn.org start writing your script? My word, it amazes me that people can actually rant on about something they know next to nothing about, and call it intelligent
If ole GW cares nothing about the consequences of his actions, why did he decide to stay when it got hard? Or why did he remain committed to winning when the liberal think tank told him that the only two options left were to lose in two different ways? why is he blamed for ruining the military when congress has it so henpecked that the military can't adapt for fear that they'll accidently use money earmarked for a museum in West V.? If they have no consequences, why is it that ole GW is willing to sacrifice his approval rating in order to get something done? If they thought Afghanistan could be abandoned why are they shifting troops from Iraq back to Afghanistan?
So you've reduced our allies to "pet projects" which "projects" which we supplied w/ money, and have thereby bought them and now we own them. And here I thought that all people were able to change their minds and were free of being claimed as anothers property. Just because you share one goal doesn't mean you agree on everything
Comments
Add Your Comment
Iam, if I said "and other Bush-haters" that would be one thing, but I'm actually putting you into two separate categories. besides, despite our differences, I consider you to be too intelligent to be classified as a simple Bush-hater.
MorgMcA | 07/01/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Thinking that Bush is inept is not the same thing as 'hating' him. I wish him all the best, inept as he is, just not as our leader. How has disapproval of someone's job performance been colored as 'hate' when related to Bush?
IamFry | 07/01/08
Report Offensive Comment