Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] attacking Iran?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jonathan King wrote:

> On 9/2/07, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> > I don't know what to believe, but here's the current #1 on Reddit:
> >
> > http://politics.reddit.com/goto?id=2kxog
>
> I don't think there is any question that one wing of the Executive 
> Branch (the one led by Cheney) wants to do this as soon as possible.

So this might really happen.  Remember that Cheney is not in the Executive 
Branch!  Bush has the power to stop it, so even if it is Cheney's idea, 
Bush should be held responsible.


> The big reason why it is a fantastically bad idea is nicely stated in 
> the article you cite:
>
> # "But if you asked any of the flight officers whether they have a clear idea
> # of what the goal of this strike is, your answer would sound like something
> # out of a think tank policy paper. But it's not like Kosovo or when we
> # relieved the tsunami victims. There everyone could tell you in a sentence
> # what we were here doing."

The flight officers won't be alone in their bewilderment.  The entire 
world will be in shock.  Iran has allies, like Russia, that will not 
appreciate our unprovoked attack.  We are a powerful country and we can 
frighten other nations into doing our bidding.  It would be better to be 
seen as the moral light of the world with nations taking our side because 
we are right and good.  Can we ever get back to that?

I'll try to look on the bright side and hope that Iran really was going to 
become a major danger and that this attack set them back a few years.  It 
might just piss off a lot of people (e.g., would-be terrorists) and 
motivate them to attack our country.  It would provide a nice rationale -- 
we attack without provocation, so why shouldn't they?

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion