A one-time school project gone terribly, terribly wrong.

21 April 2008

Condi Calls Al-Sadr Black

"I know he's sitting in Iran," Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr's latest threat to lift a self-imposed ceasefire with government and U.S. forces. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him. I guess that's the message; his followers can go to their deaths and he's in Iran."

Ms. Rice, heavily guarded for her brief stopover, which was unannounced for security reasons, was speaking on behalf of her boss, George W. Bush, who is fighting the Iraq war from the safety of Washington. Just as he fought in the Vietnam War.

It seems to Metro that if you're going to send others to die for your cause while you "clear brush" on your Texas ranch, you'd better shut up about other people sending people to die for their causes.

Impeach now.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


At 1:20 p.m., Anonymous G Eagle said...

Mais, Monsieur Metro

C'est tres troubling

Will Iran continue to be a Safe Haven, if it continues its Nuclear (?Bomb) Programme


oor Hilareh becomes Mrs President ....

Will your Friend Mr Obama or that kindly Old Man Mr McCain be any safer

At 3:32 p.m., Blogger Metro said...


Obama actually believes in old-fashioned stuff like engagement and diplomacy--tools proven to work with sane and semi-sane countries.

Hilary has fallen so low in her campaigning that she can no longer credibly claim to be either the moral imperetive or the popular alternative.

Among other things, I believe she recently expressed that if Iran attacked Israel, she would "wipe them out" or words to that sabre-rattling effect.

American support for Israel? How novel. One can only wonder why it's never been tried before. Presumably if they'd threaten to blow up more stuff, the Middle East conflict would cease immediately!

John McCain, while old enough to remember diplomacy and the sheaf of tools that don't involve "bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-"-ing anywhere, has apparently slipped so far into senility that he is no longer capable of so much as basic impulse control.

Iran does not yet have the bomb. It is important that she be offered a clear choice. But ideally the alternative should be at least somewhat attractive.

To say "stop developing weapons or we'll bomb you," seems unhelpful at best.

We're not really afraid of Iran having the bomb, though. We can't be: After all, what has been said to either Pakistan or India about their covert and strangely unannounced acquisition of atom bombs?

Nothing, and with US help, India got a free pass on its various treaty violations and international accord-breaking.

We're afraid of the crazed state with nothing to lose, and the possibility that they may supply nuclear technology to non-state groups.

However, I feel that the mullahs running the place may be just a bit more pragmatic than that. Ahmadinejad makes a fine stalking horse because he moves the discussion into such ludicrous territory that any other approach seems sane by contrast.

In any case, without a willingness to pull the trigger first (and I strongly doubt that the Western nations are eager to do so), diplomacy is as good a way to fill the time as any.

I mean, according to Jimmy Carter, he managed to get a comittment to peaceful co-existence from Hamas. And Syria.

Wow--it's a good thing the Bushies are so hard-assed about the Middle East. Their approach (Never engage, never talk. Just threaten) sure seems to have helped a lot.

At 8:32 a.m., Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

Viele Apologien

Silly Ich

I should've used the present subjunctive, since the present-future is (even after Pennsylvania) perhaps premature :

".... If oor Hilaareh become Mrs President ...."

In the Great War, Great-Grandfather Eagle fought in Mesopotamia - it doesn't seem to have been a good place to visit, even then

- he came back with Malaria

Apparently, in the 1920's, Grandfather Eagle (then a Child) was often dressed in his Sunday Best to say goodbye to his father, who appeared to be about to expire because of a recurrent Malaria fever

Alles Gute

Grauer Adler

PS As ever, your views have great cogency - there is a lot to be said for offering the other Guy (or Guyess, in these Enlightened Times) an attractive alternative, even if you're in the position to wave a Gun in his (or her) close proximity

Certainement, "Engagement" ("Jaw-Jaw" per Mr Churchill) has attractions not possessed by Opening Fire ("War-War")

but it is very scary - the stakes are very high

How far have your Computations considered the risks that :

1. Displaying a Wish for a Negotiated Compromise may be construed as a Sign of Weakness and a Green-Light for aggression (as perhaps in Munich 1938)


2. The Iranian Government may include individuals who actually want to have a Nuclear Holocaust, because they may bizarrely think this would usher in the Return of the Mahdi and the World-Triumph of Islam (Suicide Bombers do not seem morally troubled by causing mass-casualties)

If you were the Israeli Government being threatened by Iran's prospective Atom Bomb, at what point would you take pre-emptive action to avoid having to run the risk of Nuclear Attack

Could it be before or after Mr Shrub leaves office

Very vorrying

At 3:25 p.m., Blogger Metro said...

My own G'grand-dad was, I believe, assigned to guard the Kaiser's boys at a POW camp.

As to your, as always, thoughful observations:

1) I believe the world has learned the lessons of Munich. The first Gulf War might be construed as proof.

2) There is nothing we can do for the hard-of-thinking. However, let's remember that nowadays, if India or Pakistan were to elect a radical of the same stripe, the risk would be just as great.

It seems to me that if we're going to argue that Hitler made his move because of the lack of opposition at Munich, one cannot then assume that the shrewd political minds (and there are a few) in charge in Iran cannot be dissuaded.

There must be both carrot and stick. I feel there is no question that Iran is working on a bomb, although recent estimates put them further from having one than I'd have guessed--perhaps two to five years, minimum.

However, it must be noted that in the long history of nuclear-capable nations, no-one has yet used one in anger except the US. And this includes such stable, relaxed nations as India and Pakistan, jovial neighbours that they are.

Israel has a number of nukes of its own. It's possible some in Iran don't consider that a deterrant. In which case there's no hope for it anyway, and so we may as well try and talk it out.


Post a Comment

<< Home