The Head is Flat
Tom Friedman--
I’d prefer that Iran never get a bomb. The world would be much safer without more nukes, especially in the Middle East. But if Iran does go nuclear, it makes a huge difference whether a democratic Iran has its finger on the trigger or this current murderous clerical dictatorship. Anyone working to delay that and to foster real democracy in Iran is on the side of the angels. Anyone who enables this tyrannical regime and gives cover for its nuclear mischief will one day have to answer to the Iranian people.
Friedman, purveyor of the ridiculous loves to promote war, in this case with Iran. Obviously Friedman would love to see a war with Iran. Now I don’t care much for the Iranian government but on the other hand Iran hasn’t attacked another nation in 200 years while here in America that’s about all we have done for the last 200 years. It remains unclear to me why it would make a huge difference whether a democratic Iran or a “murderous clerical dictatorship” has its “finger on the trigger” since to date the only nation to have used atomic bombs on other people is the great democracy of America. Whether a nation is a democracy or not has nothing to do with a nation’s propensity for going to war as Friedman suggests.
Nobody is more ridiculous than the intellectuals whose job is to turn reality on its head and of those Tom Friedman is one of the most ridiculous. This is the same propaganda that got us into Iraq and now Friedeman uses the same garbage to pave the way for war with Iran. The rest of the column is rife with more hypocrisy that is so blatant you would think a child could see through it. Unfortunately all too many “adults” cannot.
posted by Unknown @ 11:39 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Do you think there'll be war with Iran during the first Obama term?
Or does it suit the current Admin. better to pretend a crisis exists, keeping Iran as a reserve issue?
How do recent events in North Korea trump two years of gaming against Iraq?
Jack,
Is this Obama's first term or last?
Nobody can say if there will be a war with Iran or not. People have been predicting it for years yet it hasn't happened. But I do think that it would be more likely done under a Democrat like Obama.
I'm not sure what you're asking in your last question though I don't think the sinking of a South Korean ship by North Korea trumps anything in Iraq.
Rob,
As for whether or not Obama is a two termer, I think that's mostly up to GOP primary voters.
If I were a betting man, I think they toss up a sacrificial victim. Anyone short of Petraeus is a loss, at this point.
I agree with you that Obama is the most likely to attack Iran - but I don't think he'd do it the war way. The Federales cannot put boots on the ground in Iran, and that means no real chance of regime change.
As for the speedbump in Korea - that's the real deal. It's a whole lot worse than a sunk ship, since SK is on the verge of actively provoking NK. There are just shy of 30k Americans sitting between the two Koreas, and they call themselves "the speedbump" for a reason. They know they're dead if NK ever decides to make a point of it.
Non-response by the US state is pretty much inconceivable.
The US can afford to go to bat for SK, if the NKs fall for provocation - and it'll have the added benefit of covering a host of domestic, Afghan and Iraqi sins in the short term.
At least as I see it.
I think Korea percolates to the top of the cycle, over the next week or two.
Because they only way the US goes to hot conflict with Iran is if the Ayatollahs and Revcouncil develop a sudden case of the stupids and lob one at Israel first.
Respect,
Jack
My 2 cents regarding war with Iran is that the military is stretched pretty thin, huge though the budget may be. That practical consideration may be the single most substantial factor preventing war, especially with the Afghanistan misadventure going as badly as it is. Or at least I hope it will work out that way, since the general public's misgivings don't seem to matter to BHO and company.
Jonathan,
That's how I see it, too. Dropping bombs on Tehran, Isfahan and Qom might please the apocalyptics in Colorado Springs, but it makes no military sense without follow through.
They're far, far more likely to black ops the whole thing. Or, to the point, black bag it more.
Jack, Jonathan,
I think that in the next few weeks Hillary Clinton will do her usual pit bull act towards North Korea and Dear Leader Ping Pong will respond in kind, after that it will fizzle and fade into history. South Korea wouldn’t begin anything without our permission and I don’t think that will be forthcoming. Starting a war with NK is tantamount to starting a war with China as we found out in the fifties. In fact, I suggest that North Korea is the country that we can do nothing about while Iran is.
Iran is ripe for the plucking and indeed I believe Iran has been the main goal all along. In fact, looking at an atlas you can see how we have actually surrounded Iran on two sides along the Afghan and Iraq border. Everyone says that beginning a war with Iran won’t happen because the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would be endangered but I see it the opposite way. It’s no accident that we have troops on both sides of Iran. Keep in mind that leaders are quite arrogant, Bush probably really thought Iraq would be a cake walk just as Obama likely thought he could whip Afghanistan into shape in a few months. This is why we haven’t attacked Iran yet, because these other two wars meant to lead to Iran are total failures, that is to say it has proven impossible to subdue the people who live there in a way that was expected. Big time. In a super mondo way.
Also, the U.S. is desperately seeking to get Russia and China to sign onto more sanctions against Iran and that certainly isn’t going to happen if we attack North Korea. I don’t think they’re going to get China to sign on despite Hillary’s claims. And sanctions often lead to war as they did in Iraq.
Nations don’t go to war over ideals, they go to war over goods and what does North Korea have to offer? A couple of yaks maybe. Iran on the other hand is the gateway to the Caspian Basin where vast riches in oil and natural gas await and this is why control of the Middle East is so important to American interests. At any rate these are my opinions for what they are worth, not much probably.
Rob,
I think some wars are about demonstration. Napoleon proved that in Spain. As did Hitler and Mussolini, a hundred or so years later.
The US doesn't have to occupy NK. If NK falls prey to provocation, the US is free to reign hell on the peninsula.
The US does have to occupy Iran, or the stuff in the ground is well nigh useless.
We'll see, though.
Jack,
I think occupying Iran is as you say a necessity and of course that’s why we have Iran surrounded with our troops, a very handy position to be in when the invasion of Iran occurs. I imagine a classic pincher movement. After that WWIII, and won’t that be fun, come bring the kiddies – fun for the whole family!
We’re playing right in China and Russia’s back yard especially when it comes to the Caspian Basin where both those nations have obvious interests. I think this is a very dangerous game to be playing and I’m not at all sure our leaders have thought of the consequences or if they have aren’t terribly troubled by them and that of course is what in part troubles me.
Gonna go ahead and concede the point, given this:
http://werkshop-themessenger.blogspot.com/2010/05/time-is-late.html
I'd have wagered on North Korea, given the ease with which it can be sold to Americans, but it appears Imperial Barack has it in for Iran.
Damn it.
Jack,
I wasn’t saying I thought you were wrong, I was just saying how I see it. You could be correct for all I know. Yes I saw that article about the Israeli subs (made in Germany) armed with nuclear missiles and that’s not a good sign so we’ll have to wait and see what happens. I would have guessed war with Iran was a few years off but at this point who knows?
Post a Comment
<< Home