On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Alma J Wetzker wrote: > Net Llama! wrote: > > On 04/09/2006 06:32 PM, Alma J Wetzker wrote: > > > >> Net Llama! wrote: > >> > >>> ugh, please pass the antacid. > >>> > >>> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact > >> > >> > >> In for a penny...? > >> > >> King George should completely understand why Kissinger said he was > >> viscerally opposed to invading a Middle East country. The problem is, > >> What do we do? 9/11 showed quite clearly that leaving things alone is > >> not a good option. It looks more and more like there are no good > > > > > > In retrospect, 9/11 showed that both Clinton and Bush ignored all the > > warning signs that trouble was on the horizon. They didn't leave things > > alone as much as pretended that they failed to acknowledge that 'things' > > were there. > > > >> options. What is the least bad thing to do? > > > > > > Iran has nothing to do with 9/11. Neither does Iraq for that matter. > > > > My favorite (if there is such a thing) part of the above article is > > where they pointed out that the Bush administration is currently using > > the same tactics and approaches to building a case for attacking Iran as > > they used to attack Iraq. I can only hope & pray that they don't use > > the same approach for figuring out how to exit Iran. > > > > Bush wants his legacy to be Iran, which is incredibly disturbing. The > > last thing the Bush administration needs is yet another war, seeing as > > how they haven't finished the first two that they're embroiled in. For > > everyone's sake, I'm hoping Bush's legacy is never Iran. I just pity > > whomever follows Bush into the White House. They're going to have one > > hell of a huge mess on their hands. > > I agree with all your points. I started out with the start of the > Franklin quote, "In for a penny, in for a pound", in reference to > already being in Iraq. The 9/11 part of the comment was about the > Middle East in general (and their attitudes toward the USA). > > We already have a hell of a huge mess. What do you do?
Not make it worse with another war, would be an excellent start. It would be one thing if Afghanistan was a shining example of a stable democracy, and Iraq was following the same path. Seeing as how Afghanistan is really not much different than it was 5 years ago, just no longer under the control of the Taliban (which sounds nice on paper, but in reality is meaningless), and Iraq is an unstable trainwreck, going off to war #3 doesn't sound like a sensible decision. Right now, we're a very long away from exhausting all the diplomatic solutions for Iran. Considering how emabrassingly poor the intelligence on Iraq (and 9/11 for that matter) was, I can't see how any one can confidently justify skipping the diplomatic approach in Iran. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
