I'm still kind of bewildered by what Seymour Hersh is reporting now in his last New Yorker piece. It sounds like such a redux of the run up to Iraq--so pre-determined, even though the plan sounds so nuts. Air strikes just aren't going to do it, and I think these so called bunker busters have about as much hope of working as Star Wars does of knocking out a missle. And think about what will happen to Iraq if we try to mess with Iran. I mean, what little stability there is over there is the result of Shiite dreams of creating a new Islamic state like their neighbors. They would go nuts if we started messing with the mothership.
At the same time, I have to admit that, between the two, Iran strikes me as a little more crazy, unpredictable, and malevolent. Iraq posed no threat to us; I don't think there can be much disagreement on that point, but Iran seems a little more ominous of a threat.
I dunno, I'm just rambling. It's just not a great situation, and I don't have a lot of faith in this administration's devotion to diplomacy.
2 comments:
Yeah i dont blame you. But ya know... Diplomacy doesnt always work, and when handled poorly it can make things worse. So i say we do one of the following: 1) diplomacy, done right
2)If the current government is incapable of Diplomacy, we have to get rid of them. then get someone who is capable.
3)If all else fails, instigate a revolution in iran. We cannot allow them to get nukes. on the other hand, we shouldnt have nukes either. And revolutions can make things worse.
4)Dig a big hole, fill it with supplies, and wait it out!
Actually, all of those things arent gonna work... sooo unless we find a better way, its inevitable.
Oh well, life will go on.
Inevitable? Gosh, I hope not. It sure feels that way these days, though, even though, in all of the US's history of trying to effect regime change through violence, there are no happy endings. It just has never worked.
Post a Comment