View Story | 26 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Please link to my recent comment here. The gist of it: US Navy carrier operations schedule won't permit anything extraordinary in the next few months. No sign the navy is rescheduling the carriers out of normal non-combat operations.
-4.25, -4.87 "If the truth were self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence." -- Cicero
by HeyMikey on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:40:19 PM PDT
thanks!
"we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization" - Al Gore
by racerx on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:46:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
ever been an important consideration for this administration? Iraq. Katrina. The almost completely unfunded Faith-Based Initiative. (One of the few things I'm glad they screwed up.) The unfunded No Child Left Behind Act. Need I go on?
These people do not think about logistics except as it pertains to their plans for making money and acquiring power. If it doesn't directly lead to either, they don't care what happens.
But, let's assume that, miracle of miracles, they actually have figured logistics into the equation. Hallelujah! Right?
WRONG!
They don't need to plan for a preemptive invasion. As occam's hatchet reminded us only yesterday, all they need is another Tonkin Gulf crisis. Then they'll have their pretext, and it's off to war we go.
I will not even begin to rest a little more easily until the Republicans are no longer holding power in both the Legislative and Executive branches. Until then, we're under a constant threat of war.
Sorry HeyMikey. I'm not trying to bash on you or anything. This whole thing's just got my nerves on edge.
-8.62, -8.05 | Feedback
by FOS on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:18:42 PM PDT
. . . but not THAT stupid.
On the other hand, I've thought that on other occasions in the last 6 years, and been wrong.
by HeyMikey on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 07:06:40 AM PDT
They're very smart. Nine times out of ten, they get what they want. It just looks stupid to us because of all the problems they cause for us and the rest of the world while they get what they want. We live in a world where community and helping others actually matters. They do not live in our world. They live in their own little fantasy universe where the only thing that matters is "me," "me," and, oh yeah, "me."
So I have no doubts -- none -- that if they decide it's in their best interest to go to war with Iran, they will not hesitate. Logistics be damned. The rest of the world be damned. They're sociopaths in control of one of the most powerful nations on the planet, if not the most powerful nation on the planet. They're living their wet-dream. They'd be idiots [in their universe] not to take advantage of it.
So the question is not, "why shouldn't they go to war with Iran?" That isn't how they think. Everything they see, touch, hear, etc. is something to be used for their gain. If they're not gaining anything from it, they don't want anything to do with it. The proper question to ask, then, is, "why haven't they gone to war with Iran?" This covers the question of what use do they see in Iran and asks why they haven't taken advantage of it, yet.
Now it could be true that it really is a matter of logistics. But I don't buy it. I don't see how a well thought out invasion of Iran helps these guys right now. What they need is another scare. Something to frighten the peasants into voting for them. We're expecting them to "foil" another terrorist attack, so it won't be that. But maybe an "unprovoked attack" by the Iranians on a US ship would do it. I realize it's speculation, but it would make sense. It fits their MO to a T. And the only reason I can think of to explain why they haven't done this yet is because they're worried that it could cause an even greater backlash at the polls, and that would make it that much harder for them to successfully pull off their election day shenanigans.
And speak of the devil, MSNBC is now saying the US Navy in the Persian Gulf is on heightened alert for an Al-Qaeda attack. How convenient!
by FOS on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:02:21 AM PDT
They are brilliant at getting what they THINK they want, but stupid at failing to see where it will ultimately take them. They wanted to oust Saddam Hussein, but I don't for one second think they wanted, three years later, to be bogged down in a bloody quagmire, Iraq oil production still below pre-war levels, Sunnis and Shias only pausing reciprocal slaughter long enough to agree on condeming the U.S., American forces losing ground militarily, and the American public upset enough about it to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House.
Global warming, the budget, health care -- all are headed for Iraq-style meltdowns which the Bushies still don't see coming.
An example that makes me even sicker: Turns out the purported Saddam-Al Qaeda connection was supported by . . . evidence obtained by torture. The full story here. Torture somebody until he will say whatever you want to hear, and then -- surprise! -- it turns out not to be true. Again, the Bushies got what they THOUGHT they wanted (torture) but were surpised where it took them (quagmire). Who'da thunk?
I would not be surprised AT ALL if the Bushies failed to realize what a stupid, stupid, stupid move it would be to attack Iran. But I would be surprised if they attacked Iran without getting the military ready first. They will work hard for what they THINK they want.
by HeyMikey on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:54:03 AM PDT
The Bushies are short-sighted, at least in terms of those things they don't care about.
However, I don't think they entirely lost what they were after in Iraq. I'll have to find it again (hopefully I marked it), but there's a Diary here that links to a very enlightening speech given in Congress that talks about how oil based on the US Dollar is all that's really keeping this country afloat anymore, and that Iraq was preparing to sell oil based on the Euro (which, incidentally, is also what Iran is threatening to do, now). By invading Iraq, we prevented them from doing that, and thus US power was maintained (and it keeps those other oil-nations in line, which is good for the Big Oil companies).
I'll post again soon as I find that link.
by FOS on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:20:33 AM PDT
Search Jerome a Paris's diary. Pretty convincing -- wasn't gonna happen. Never in the cards. Use "bourse" in your search terms and you'll find it.
by HeyMikey on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:24:28 AM PDT
"Bourse" That's the term I couldn't remember. I'll read Jerome's Diary. Thanks for pointing it out.
by FOS on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:25:55 AM PDT
Jerome a Paris' arguments are persuasive, and being that I have little personal knowledge of how all this works, I'm at the mercy of taking other people's words at face value on this subject. So I'll accept it barring contradictory evidence.
Still, the one thing that bothers me is, if we do attack Iran, we're back to the question of why? Besides oil, that is. I would think even these morons would learn from their mistakes in Iraq and realize they'd have more to lose than gain by attacking Iran. Unless they don't consider them mistakes.
Or what if they don't know what a bourse is (like I didn't until a few minutes ago; thanks again for pointing that out), so they think this is a serious threat? No, that doesn't make sense. Surely Cheney would know.
So that leaves fear-mongering, right? Keeping power in the House and Senate. This has got to be a major risk on their part, though, because I can't imagine this will play well for the independents. But it could get out the Republican base, which may be what they're after, and it might bring some independents back. The question is, will it be enough to counter Democratic momentum (which seems to have slowed a bit overall due to the lack of any new Foley-esque scandals)?
Or is the latest Al-Qaeda nonsense actually a real threat? I won't discount the possibility simply because the announcement was conveniently timed to come near the end of the election season. Assuming it's real, I wouldn't put it past Bushco to take advantage of it like they did with 9/ll.
by FOS on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 11:33:06 AM PDT
NOTE: I deduce #2 from #1, NOT the other way around.
by HeyMikey on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 01:10:32 PM PDT
here's the link.
by FOS on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:24:43 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 26 comments