(no subject)

[marksism.livejournal.com]

Comments

[nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've always liked Idrewthis.org much better than that Tom Tomorrow crap.

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

It's all about Bush. Meanwhile, we have leaders with real delusions of messianic quests and loony end-days fantasies aquiring the means to actually bring them about: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/16/do1609.xml)

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

One can say many bad things about George W Bush, but let's not forget who the real enemy is.

[zombiesmustdie.livejournal.com]

the trouble is that Bush and team have proven themselves incompendent. Iran is going to have to dealt with in the near future, but Bush isn't the man to do it. If he truely intends to win his war on terror he and his staff need to resign so we can elect someone compendent.

Of course he and his team are too pig-headed arrogant for this to ever happen, but it was a nice thought

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

I don't want the Bush team dealing with Iran either, but I also don't want domestic political considerations getting in the way of what needs to be done. I'm reminded of a quote from Lincoln:

"I cannot spare this man. He fights."

Grant wasn't a military genius or a remarkable leader, but he understood the necessity of taking the fight to the enemy and relentlessly pursuing him until he is defeated. Many people thought Grant was reckless, even careless, but ultimately he won the war for the Union.

Bush has also made a lot of blunders, has been accused of being careless, reckless, arrogant, you name it, but he, like Grant, understands the importantance of taking the fight to the enemy. Mistakes will be made; that happens in war. But I fear the political climate is now starting to be such that more risks won't be taken, and Iran is a much larger risk than Iraq was, and the what's strategically at stake is much greater. Iraq was just laying the ground work necessary to go after Iran, which is arguably the bigger threat. Saddam was a longstanding problem that had to be dealt with, and we already had a casus belli to act against him. Acting against Iraq made Iran's hand simultaneously both stronger and weaker. Strategically, we're in a much better position to act against Iran than we were previously. Politically, our situation is worse. To be sure, Bush's poor leadership is partly to blame for that, but not blameless is the left's using every mistake (which are inevitable, regardless of who's in charge) as a political club with which to bash their opponents over the head. Iran is playing a deadly serious game that could threaten our very existence, and overly fixating on Bush and his failings is playing right into their hands.

[zombiesmustdie.livejournal.com]

Taking a fight to an enemy is a much better strategy than waiting for the enemy to take the fight to you, I agree. But, I honesty don't think it's possible to win a war with Iraq and Iran at the same time. We don't have enough soliders as it is, and a draft would be political suicide (so it's not going to happen). And we won't be getting any help from abroad, because among other reasons Bush pissed everyone off with his war in Iraq. It's unfortunate, but i think it comes down to a gamble. Do you trust Bush and team to lead a successful military/diplomatic campaign against Iran (not bloody likely) or do you trust Iran to behave itself (also not bloody likely). Shitty odds all around.

A side note; i'm not convinced a change in leadership plays into the hands of our enemies. Worldwide Bush is a considered a poor and incompendent leader. America is about the only country that has some measure of respect for him. I think our enemies would prefere us to have a poor and incompendent leader rather than a new, might-be-compendent one.

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not arguing that changing leadership is a bad idea. We're going to do it in two years whether we want to or not. I'm arguing that this issue is a lot bigger than any one president, more important than any one election or political party. If the left believes we've taken a wrong turn in this struggle, then they need to outline their own strategy for confronting militant Islam, or just admit that they would rather bury their heads in the sand. The constant sniping at Bush, without really offering any substinative alternative strategy is unproductive and tiring.

[vlion.livejournal.com]

The option of nuking iran out of existance is a way to settle the iran problem once and for all. And Bush would do it, too, if he felt it nessescary.
What? That's not a good option? No way! But it's a very complete option. Indeed, it renders the problem fertig.
Do read up on Mossousai, currently on trial. You need to have the will to win at all costs when dealing with legions of Mossousai types, like Iran. People like him do not live by the beautiful, liberal, and rational principles of the free West. You need someone like Bush, who will ruthlessly win. Is Bush a good team for for the job? Prolly not. But he's got backbone. And that's why I considered him better than his opponents both times he ran.

[studmuff.livejournal.com]

haha, wow. as if bashing bush is going to work for the twenty-fifth million time. problem is, the libs resemeble the straw men in this cartoon way more often than the bird. and the bird is stupid anyway.

[zombiesmustdie.livejournal.com]

if you actaully believe liberals have the same opinions as the strawmen i'm afraid im going to have to try and have you declared insane and commited. anyone with a grip that loose on reality is a danger to himself and others.

[nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com]

Well, most liberals that I've talked to are at least sane, but believe it or not, I have had discussions with a few who believe that we should not have toppled the Taliban, or that Iraq really was all about the oil.

The worst part was that these people were otherwise intelligent.

Scary.

[somefantastic10.livejournal.com]

Seconded. The entire reason for involvement in the Middle East in the first place was, if you know your history, inextricably tied to the need to control the worlds oil remains. Read Kevin Phillips' new book American Theocracy for a scary look at just how much oil played a role in Iraq.