SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (192779)7/23/2006 11:24:46 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
You have been wrong about Bush, you have been wrong about Iraq, you have been and continue to be, well simply, wrong-wrong-wrong.

From someone's who's sky is pink, and who's EVERY mental thought ever verbalized into speech, is impossible to differentiate from the wailing and whimpering of a spoiled child, I guess the rest of us can understand your perspective.

I show you two different articles, of many, that have been reported about the agenda and mental condition of Ahmadinejad, and you STILL REFUSE to accept the man at his own words.

And it doesn't matter to you that Ahmadinejad, in a position of leadership with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), helped to train HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YOUNG IRANIANS to turn themselves into Martyrs, clearing Iraqi minefields with their very bodies (and lives).

These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan--or "mobilization of the oppressed"--was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."

The sacrifice of the Basiji was ghastly. And yet, today, it is a source not of national shame, but of growing pride.
Since the end of hostilities against Iraq in 1988, the Basiji have grown both in numbers and influence. They have been deployed, above all, as a vice squad to enforce religious law in Iran, and their elite "special units" have been used as shock troops against anti-government forces. In both 1999 and 2003, for instance, the Basiji were used to suppress student unrest. And, last year, they formed the potent core of the political base that propelled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--a man who reportedly served as a Basij instructor during the Iran-Iraq War--to the presidency.

Ahmadinejad revels in his alliance with the Basiji. He regularly appears in public wearing a black-and-white Basij scarf, and, in his speeches, he routinely praises "Basij culture" and "Basij power," with which he says "Iran today makes its presence felt on the international and diplomatic stage."
Ahmadinejad's ascendance on the shoulders of the Basiji means that the Iranian Revolution, launched almost three decades ago, has entered a new and disturbing phase. A younger generation of Iranians, whose worldviews were forged in the atrocities of the Iran-Iraq War, have come to power, wielding a more fervently ideological approach to politics than their predecessors. The children of the Revolution are now its leaders.


ocnus.net

globalsecurity.org

Consider how this misery-producing confrontation has played itself out. It went from a couple of soldiers being kidnapped to the destruction of Lebanon...again.

No, it went from the Israelis pulling out of S. Lebanon to Hizbullah, via financial, spiritual, and military support of Iran and Syria, controlling S. Lebanon and acting as if they have the right and priviledge to force Lebanon into a conflict with Israel.

This conflict is not the responsibility of the Israelis. It's the responsibility of the Lebanese government to fail to confront Hizbullah.

It may, or may not, be over-reaction. Hell, people who think like you were claiming that overthrow of the Taliban was an over-reaction against 20 million people, merely because a couple of thousand fanatical Arabs were responsible for orchestrating the 9/11 attack.

And it's because people like you fail to recognize the threats that are presented by fanatics like Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Saddam, (the list goes on) that millions of people must suffer.

Hizbullah, an organization that was ordered by the UNSC to disarm, didn't accumulate 12,000 Katyushas from Iran and Syria merely to let them rust, or to become archaological relics.

And Hizbullah is not spreading leaflets, or sending radio warnings to civilian Israelis to clear out of the range of these missiles..

No.. they ARE TRYING TO KILL CIVILIANS!!! THEY WANT TO KILL CIVILIANS!!

And yet, people of your ilk can't fathom the difference.

And worse, you can't fathom that fact that these problems existed PRIOR to this administration, and it's going to extend beyond the length of this current administration.

Hawk



To: geode00 who wrote (192779)7/23/2006 11:28:44 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
The Price of Fantasy

64.226.238.78

By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Published: July 21, 2006

Today we call them neoconservatives, but when the first George Bush was president, those who believed that America could remake the world to its liking with a series of splendid little wars — people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld — were known within the administration as "the crazies." Grown-ups in both parties rejected their vision as a dangerous fantasy.

But in 2000 the Supreme Court delivered the White House to a man who, although he may be 60, doesn't act like a grown-up. The second President Bush obviously confuses swagger with strength, and prefers tough talkers like the crazies to people who actually think things through. He got the chance to implement the crazies' vision after 9/11, which created a climate in which few people in Congress or the news media dared to ask hard questions. And the result is the bloody mess we're now in.

This isn't a case of 20-20 hindsight. It was clear from the beginning that the United States didn't have remotely enough troops to carry out the crazies' agenda — and Mr. Bush never asked for a bigger army.

As I wrote back in January 2003, this meant that the "Bush doctrine" of preventive war was, in practice, a plan to "talk trash and carry a small stick." It was obvious even then that the administration was preparing to invade Iraq not because it posed a real threat, but because it looked like a soft target.

The message to North Korea, which really did have an active nuclear program, was clear: "The Bush administration," I wrote, putting myself in Kim Jong Il's shoes, "says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak." So "the best self-preservation strategy ... is to be dangerous."

With a few modifications, the same logic applies to Iran. And it's easier than ever for Iran to be dangerous, now that U.S. forces are bogged down in Iraq.

Would the current crisis on the Israel-Lebanon border have happened even if the Bush administration had actually concentrated on fighting terrorism, rather than using 9/11 as an excuse to pursue the crazies' agenda? Nobody knows. But it's clear that the United States would have more options, more ability to influence the situation, if Mr. Bush hadn't squandered both the nation's credibility and its military might on his war of choice.

So what happens next?

Few if any of the crazies have the moral courage to admit that they were wrong. Vice President Cheney continues to insist that his two most famous pronouncements about Iraq — his declaration before the invasion that we would be "greeted as liberators" and his assertion a year ago that the insurgency was in its "last throes" — were "basically accurate."

But if the premise of the Bush doctrine was right, why are things going so badly?

The crazies respond by retreating even further into their fantasies of omnipotence. The only problem, they assert, is a lack of will.

Thus William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, has called for a military strike — an airstrike, since we don't have any spare ground troops — against Iran.

"Yes, there would be repercussions," he wrote in his magazine, "and they would be healthy ones." What would these healthy repercussions be? On Fox News he argued that "the right use of targeted military force" could cause the Iranian people "to reconsider whether they really want to have this regime in power." Oh, boy.

Mr. Kristol is, of course, a pundit rather than a policymaker. But there's every reason to suspect that what Mr. Kristol says in public is what Mr. Cheney says in private.

And what about The Decider himself?

For years the self-proclaimed "war president" basked in the adulation of the crazies. Now they're accusing him of being a wimp. "We have been too weak," writes Mr. Kristol, "and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak."

Does Mr. Bush have the maturity to stand up to this kind of pressure? I report, you decide.



To: geode00 who wrote (192779)7/23/2006 11:42:08 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
seattlepi.nwsource.com