Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ch'i
Typical rightwing response... not reading the whole article
Although those tossed grammy bears sound delicious, your argument is stale (maybe it was left out too long). I don't remember praising needless civilian casualties as being one of the characteristics of a "leftist"; probably Bush's fault for keeping me from my studies.
It's not conspiracy to point out suspicious behavior. Normally the best thing you can do is to question, and suspect; that's how we came up with our new security for airports that makes me feel so much safer at night.
Paranoid, no. Curious, yes.
|
host is trolling, badly I might add
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
1. the dominant myth about the start of the israeli action (a response to an unprovoked attack by hezbollah) is false.
|
Wrong. They may have felt an attack was needed, but it was a response to an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah. It may have been the 'excuse' they were looking for, but so what.
Quote:
|
2. the incursion was planned well in advance and the americans had a significant role in the planning.
|
I didn't get that from the article, but I didn't read it all, its 140 or so AM here. Don't care if its true or not really. Spontanous warfare is stupid, its much better to have it planned.
Quote:
|
3. the strategic interest of the bush administration in this action was as a try-out for an attack on iran.
|
Sounds like sensible policy to me. After all some of us think Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad thing.
Quote:
|
it explains certain features of this fiasco: for example the administration's efforts to impose a geopolitical interpretation on the action that staged hezbollah as a proxy for syria and iran (both false)...
|
Iranian weapons, Iranian training....false my hairy ass.
Quote:
|
if hersh is right, the article is kind of mindboggling in that it appears the bush people are more than dreaming of attacking iran and worse that they dream in terms of primarily air strikes, which have not worked in vietnam, they have not worked in iraq, they have not worked in lebanon--but history--and by extension reality--does not appear to intrude much in neoconland.
|
Mmmm really no one remembers Kosovo, how ironic
But that being said, the goal isn't to take over the country but disarm their nuclear program. That was done once quite successfully in Iraq. Also air strikes work VERY well. They have worked since WWII. What airstrikes don't do is hold land or win a guerilla war. They are very good at removing a power as an offensive threat. If they want to rattle sabers that fine, as long as they are in fact, sabers, and not thermonuclear weapons.
Quote:
but do you think hersh's article is accurate?
i find it interesting, but am not sure (perhaps because the prospect of this being accurate is pretty frightening...)
|
Could be, don't care because I think Iran needs to be delt with now, not later. I'm sure you find it fightening. I find Islamic extremists with nuclear weapons frightening. I'd be equally frightened if we had no plan besides harshly worded UN documents to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Based on what Iran says about Israel, them bombing Iran would be self defense, and if we helped them do it, all the better.