Whom to Believe About Iran

Steve Laffey:

As the international community faces a decision on Iran, it is up to America and its leaders to lead the effort against the enemies of freedom and peace. While the decisions we will have to make will no doubt be difficult ones, they are decisions that must be made. They are decisions that will require courage and honesty about the nature of the world we live in. Talk of working “more closely� with Iran or Syria is not only naïve; it is a demonstration of weakness.

Or Robert Dreyfuss:

The fact is that the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq knocked off two of Iran’s deadliest regional enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Iran has amassed great power inside Iraq, not by supporting the insurgents, as President Bush claims, but simply by using its Shiite allies to gain power in Baghdad. Iran is building its influence in Lebanon, too, and among the Shiite population in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Bush administration seems incapable of understanding the need to engage with Iran, to seek their help in Iraq, and to search for an accommodation with the ayatollahs. Ironically, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad of the United States in Iraq has been given permission to talk to Iran about calming tensions in Iraq, but according to the latest statements from U.S. embassy he has not yet done so.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Whom to Believe About Iran

  1. The draft will come if the chickenhawks continue to rattle their toy swords to compensate for the absence of common sense.

    Time to scrap poor foreign and oil policies and use a vision that sees our interdependence in the middle east based upon a depleting resource has no favorable long term outcomes.

    The alternative is the rapid demise of our kids’ futures.

  2. Oooh, I love it when the Repubs talk tough. They sound so manly….

    So, let’s ask Mr Laffey if he’s willing to sacrifice his oldest son to the cause? Is that harsh? If he wants to be the big man and trying to impress the Repub bigwigs in Washington as a war hawk, we’re talking about sacrificing people’s kids. And it’s just so interesting how the guys who talk the toughest are the ones who never served. Bush: used family connections to avoid Vietnam. Cheney: 7 deferrments (or was it 9?) because he had “other priorities” in the 1960s. (And let’s not get into the Rathergate memo; that’s a total red herring. The point is that Mr Bush deliberately used elitist family connections to avoid going to Vietnam. Period. Whether he was AWOL from the TANG simply does not alter that fact, and does not matter.)

    Thanks to Mr Bush’s foolish desire to have a splendid little war, we are, at present, wholly incapable of mounting any sort of real military venture against Iran. We can bomb, we can nuke, but we cannot follow up with ground troops. Remember the howls of indignation that the Repubs raised when Clinton ordered bombing missions in the Balkans, but stated we would not send troops? I sure do.

    And the darnedest thing is that study after study of bombing campaigns is that they are of limited effectiveness. Germany was able to maintain its industrial capacity, despite the bombing, righy up intil Feb or March of 1945. Vietnam? There was nothing to bomb. Conventional weapons work against conventional targets, but a war against Iran will probably not offer massed armor formations.

    Or, are we going to nuke ‘em? There’s a concept: nuke ‘em to prevent them from getting nukes. That ought to show them.

    Which brings us to Mr Sheeler’s point. Are we ready for a Draft? The conservatives hate the idea. Grover Norquist said the “Greatest Generation” was “unamerican” because they had acquiesed to a peace-time draft after WWII. So who’s going to go, Mr Laffey? Your oldest son is about military age; is he going to sign up? Heck, you’re not that old. Maybe you could pick up a gun and head over. How about our friends from the Right-wing blogs? Seems like they have “other priorities” too, which means they’re perfectly willing to send Other People’s Kids. But god forbid it should be them.

    Trust me, I’m being deliberately insensitive. I’m doing it because War is Brutal. We didn’t confront this fact in 2003. We were too nice, and we did not confront the harsh, ugly, brutal nature of what we were about to undertake. Remember how the admininstration raised such a stink about showing pix of flag-draped coffins because it was “insensitive”? Showing the coffins isn’t insensitive; sending Other People’s Kids to die was- is- the really insensitive thing.

    So, tell us, Mr Laffey. What happens when we wave our private parts at The ENEMY, and they don’t respond? Who’s going to go? Are we going to pull troops out of S Korea? Because the fact of the matter is that we do not have more troops to send. So what is your REAL answer, Mr Laffey? How are we going to show those snivelling cowards that we’re Manly Men?

    Coincidentally, I just listened to Country Joe and the Fish’s Vietnam-era classic called “The I’m Fixin’ to Die Rag.” There’s a couplet that runs:

    Be the first one on your block
    To have your boy come home in a box.

    Insensitive? Damn Right it is. But that’s the point, isn’t it? If you’re not willing to confront that ugly reality, then what are you talking about?

  3. Sounds like somebody who’s been there done that. Maybe that’s why 1/3 of the September anti-war protestors were vets. Too many folks watching Rambo…..

  4. Funny you should mention Rambo. Sometimes, I have the distinct impression that a lot of the neocons and/or administration lackeys actually think Rambo was a documentary.

  5. A quick reminder to people that, as stated in the notes beneath the comment box, comments will not be published if they are not accompanied by a valid email address.

    Also, as stated in the comment box, we ask that you do not call people names in discussing an issue but stick to the facts and cite your sources for your statements whenever possible.

Comments are closed.