They are just lazy and they certainly aren’t capable.

Heh. Estes rockets with a firecracker in the nose.

Maybe when Israel quits bulldozing peace activists to death, quits bulldozing other people’s homes so they can illegally plant new homes for people who have never ever lived their EVER before, and quits using illegal collective punishment against the Palestinians and actually embraces pluralism like a real free nation, then we can cut them slack. Until they quit violating international laws (including the NPT) then they pretty much reap what they sow.

Where are the French people on this? Surely they aren’t suddenly into wanton violations of the Nuremberg Principles too? Surely they haven’t become nutbag idiot neocon warmongers? WTF?!

Comment by Crunch Rock

You REALLY feel as though you “bested” someone? That your “opinions” are somehow better? You are a moron.

You are so full of your own shit!
Comment by A Patriot Acting — September 17, 2007 @ 2:15 pm

I am overjoyed to report that the shit I am full of is indeed my own, and frankly, I would not have it any other way! :)

You raise many good points on war profiteering, Patriot (Nice work on the San Diego Chargers last night, BTW) I suspect you are a Howard Zinn fan.

I suggest to you all wars in history have had multiple causes, and almost all of them have had an economic aspect. To say Iraq is JUST about oil and Haliburton stock is, IMHO, as simplistic as to deny there is any connection at all. According to Alan Greenspan, he was more concerned about the oil angle than Bush was, and he thought removing Saddam a good and needful thing from an economic viewpoint. Greenspan is no neocon (whatever that word even means, Rummy and Cheney worked for Nixon, there was nothing “neo” about them, they are Ur-Cons if anything); there were and are realpolitik reasons for us to be in Iraq. Doesn’t mean its not ugly, but it isn’t JUST about war profiteering.

wow… you’d think we’d be hearing about all those alqaeda attacks on saudi arabia… and, losing what in iraq? …

Comment by katy — September 17, 2007 @ 2:02 pm

There have been several major terrorist attacks inside Saudi Arabia by AQ since 9-11. There have also been multiple attacks that were thwarted. Saudi Arabia is a police state, I suspect AQ finds it difficult to operate inside the Kingdom. Once they did so with the blessings of several Royal princes, but I believe those days are gone. Their society is only slightly less opaque than North Korea, it is tough to know anything for certain.

Losing in Iraq means the US being driven out by domestic politics before something resembling a democratic, pluralistic society where people compromise and talk instead of blowing each other up can take root. And yes, the Saudis are probably threatened by the creation of a democracy on their doorstep, but are you suggesting we overthrow the monarchy? While leaving Iran’s theocracy in place? SA is an ally on paper, at least.

Stop the madness? It’d be great. There are no good options. Isolationism as a foreign policy died in WW II. Until we develop a reliable energy alternative to oil, we are stuck in the Middle East.

Comment by Crunch Rock

I don’t have any fear of Iran or Canada.

You should be afraid of the religious nuts running this country!!!!!!

You are so full of your own shit! Saddam may have been a beast, but what clear threat did he pose to Americans? NONE! No yellow cake uranium. No connection to Al Queda and 9/11. No weapons of mass destruction. All of THIS evidence was available to Bush. Apparently he had his own selfish reasons for risking American soldier’s lives and a distictly different set of justifications (re: lies) that were pushed down America and the MSM’s throats so we might, in a brief time of national unity, hope maybe he was doing the right thing (he should know better with that available intel, no?) Don’t you try to use the same lame justifications with Iran. They, like Iraq under Saddam Hussein pose NO THREAT to AMERICA! There was a time in this country when clear and present danger held some water and Congress had to approve of war. Bush with his almighty pre-emptive strike has set a sorry precedence for the future of this country and along with his puppet-master Dick Cheney there exists, sadly, more than enough time for them to truly turn the middle east into much more of a danger to America then they ever could have been without the help of this Administration, it’s lies to the American people and their neocon supporters throughout the world.

So says a citizen of a country whose citizenship grants such a plethora of freedoms and opportunities.

Mighty brave of you to advocate life under a dictatorship never having had to endure such an existence. You remind me of those college kids and aging hippies who rant about their desire for “REVOLUTION!”, content in the knowledge that it will never really happen but secretly afraid that it might.

Proof he does not have. His proof is because Bush says so. Anyone besides me find it interesting that our government has been unable to provide ANY proof that Iran is sending arms to Iraq or doing anything else nefarious? If there was proof, you can bet that Bush would be showing it to anyone who would look.

People who take Bush’s word for proof are idiots.

Elements within Saudi Arabia are funding Sunni militias – but I have not heard about the Saudis sending EFPs into Iraq as Iran is doing.

imagine that… do you wonder why?

I also do not think official Saudi policy is nearly as belligerant as Irans,

you may be misinformed… try Informed Comment at
http://www.juancole.com/

but even discussing Saudi Arabia in terms of an actual country is perilous. That is basically true of all the Middle East, there is such a patchwork of tribal and sectarian alliances half the time you don’t know who is doing what – geography is at times irrelevant, making for a very confusing millieu.

is that you, exley? or sexion? … but i understand what you say…
too bad dubby was clueless about all that…

I do know this – the Royal Family that rules Saudi Arabia is Al-Qaedas second favorite target after us. You can trust the House of Saud to look after its own interests, and I don’t think us losing in Iraq fits that description.

wow… you’d think we’d be hearing about all those alqaeda attacks on saudi arabia… and, losing what in iraq? …

That said, katy, I totally share your distrust of many elements of Salafism/Wahhabism in the Kingdom in the same way I distrust all religious fanatics, yes, including the radical Christian right in America.
Comment by Keltoi — September 17, 2007 @ 1:05 pm

well, that’s good to know… makes you somewhat logical, at least…

now, go back and apply all that fancy rhetoric to the notion of
diplomacy towards iran – starting with an apology for threatening
the country – and overthrowing their governement – so that the
rest of the world can rest easy, not worrying about another war…
and nukes, for heaven’s sake…

stop this madness…
.

Comment by Keltoi — September 17, 2007 @ 1:54 pm

The priority for Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran, according to countless public statements, is ending the occupation of Palestine, not the extermination of Jews. If Iran really wanted to exterminate Jews, they’d start with the 50,000 who live in Tehran.

And Qassam rockets? Please. A little property damage can hardly compare to the virtual imprisonment and collective punishment of an entire city. Let’s have a sense of scale, please.

Is it ok for Iran to continune its attacks on us in Iraq?

Classic example of what we in the trade call a “loaded question”, class. Right up there with “have you stopped beating your wife?”.

RR, you’re going to have to present some proof of your insinuations before asking that question.

Comment by toasterhead — September 17, 2007 @ 1:34 pm

Are you saying Iran DOESN’T arm, fund and train Hamas and Hezbollah? And are you also saying Hezbollah and Hamas DON’T want to destroy Israel? Your boogeyman comment may be accurate as far as it goes, but I do think the endless Kassams flying out of Gaza into Israel are a pretty compelling argument that dead Jews are a priority for these groups.

Other than a few hundred million bucks here and there, military training, weapons and bomb materials.

You may be correct, they are not supplying weapons, they are simply providing the Sunni militias with the money to purchase weapons elsewhere (including from the US, BTW). I fail to see the difference.

Also, I don’t remember Iran being particularly belligerent until Bush and other countries started going after them about their nuclear program.

How about asking the Iraqi people what they think. My bet is on a vast majority of them would say they would rather have their lives with Saddam as the leader back over what they have now. We have destroyed their country, their ability to make a living, their ability to have the basic necessities of life. If it were me, I would choose a dictator over the United States. We have given them nothing except for death and destruction. And we will not leave until we steal their oil, leaving them with no way to support themselves as a nation. As far as I am concerned, Bush and Company are far more evil than Saddam ever was.