At 09:34 PM 4/9/2006, ravi wrote:
Do people really believe that the USA (in particular BushCo) will launch a war against Iran at this point? I would consider the probability vanishingly small (for non-exotic reasons: stretched out military, low popularity ratings, public dismay over Iraq, etc, etc). Of course generating talk about Iran is probably a good diversionary tactic.
That's what I was hoping for. But, two weeks ago, one of my 'other sons' called to say he wanted the hell out of what he, not a feminist, called "rape culture." This had alreayd been going on, when rumors of a buildup for Iran hit the mill in the military, he kind of went nuts and has been considering killing himself. I would want nothing more than to believe this is information warfare from the gubmint. But, basically, i think these guys have been drinking crack-laced welch's grape juice and sterno cocktails. But, in the interests of hoping this IS the art of the con playing out, what's the advantage of diversionary tactics? I was trying to find an old quote from Weber about the way nations must play this game of chess on the world stage -- intimidating other nations abroad while simultaneously dealing out the information warfare on the homefront. Lucked out on that search. But anyway, you get my drift? If it's diversionary -- to what end? Simply to take the heat of attention to Shrubya's sagging ratings? To take the heat of Libby pointing the finger at Shrubya for outting Plame? Both? more? Other? BL
