Net Llama! wrote:
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.
I agree wholeheartedly.
But the deal is... I can't imagine there is anyone on the planet that
expects the diplomatic approach to actually work.
So now we have two options on the table. Neither of which will work.
Michael
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
