Display:
This bit is insane, from the BBC link:
What does appear to be in force right now is a new harder-edged diplomacy, one aimed at further isolating Iran, with the ultimate hope perhaps that there will be a change of government.

The harder-edged the diplomacy, the less likely a change of government is. They must know this - the politics of fear is about the only thing they're any good at.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 06:18:16 AM EST
It is "politically" impossible for the US to attack Iran. Unfortunately, this administration has shown no evidence that it is bound by any of the normal rules of engagement. If Bush give the order for an attack, who exactly is going to stand up and say no? The worst he will suffer is after-the-fact consequences. A fat lot of good that will do the dead Iranians.
by det on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 06:29:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How many more Republican senators can they afford to alienate before proceedings against them become a realistic proposition?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 06:32:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If the US attacks Iran the global economy goes into meltdown [* ] and then who cares about senators?

[* ] two failure modes: blockage of the Straits of Hormuz, and China pulling the plug on the US dollar.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 06:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that in Bush's mind proceedings against them will never become a realistic possibility. What really worries me is that he may very well be right. Even if he is not, those proceeding would only occur after he has attempted to bomb Iran to rubble.
by det on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 07:36:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, this is a very frightening possibility. Let's call it the Jack D. Ripper strategy. (from Dr. Strangelove) Let us remember that Ripper was not just a crazy nut who launched the planes under his command to attack the USSR, but he explicitly gambled that when the high command found out about his impending attack they would launch an all out assault in an attempt to cause enough destruction before the USSR would be able to retaliate.
So, when Congress becomes aware of the bombing or Iran they "will have to" back a full force escalation in order for the US not to completely loose power in the world...
I wonder if Bush is concerned about the purity of essence of his precious bodily fluids.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 08:11:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is ironic (or perhaps intended) is that Bush had announced his "axis of evil" with Iran while Iran had a vey moderate president and government, and soon after that Iran elected a hardliner president. Not a surprising scenario, actually. I have more fear now that Bush administration had intentions for military escalations in the Middle East right away. They are just making every "useful" enemy there, regardless of a priori fundamentalism level (compare Saddam's Iraq vs Saudi Arabia) or racial "patriotism" (Iran is Indoeropean, not Arab nation). It is almost beside the point what Iraq (that is, Iran) is doing. Europe is just playing the hapless weasel role again.
by das monde on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 07:49:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hapless Europe? I would say many in Europe totally agree with wars unleashed by Mr Bush (for example politicians and their media retinues) and they bear full moral and legal responsibilities for allowing new Fuhrer to act.
by FarEasterner on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 10:52:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
France and Germany did all they could to stop Bush invading Iraq, short of actually declaring war on the US/UK (which Russia didn't do either) so I don't know what you're talking about.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 10:58:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Short of...declaring war? This was simply not the case and I don't know where did you get such information. About hands in gloves with American British regimes there is no need to talk about really - even Mr Schroeder and Mr Chirac who demagogically opposed the war on Iraq offered all kind of military and logistical help for US-UK war criminals.
by FarEasterner on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 11:10:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What exactly was France's and Germany's involvement in "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 11:12:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Airports, hospitals, refuel, intelligence etc etc.
by FarEasterner on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 11:16:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suppose they could have pulled out of NATO, yes.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 11:17:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't go all purist on us FE.

Actually, it's fun to watch the  outrage.

But you've got to have an appetite and appreciation for heavy helpings of hypocrisy.

And season it up heavily with salt.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 01:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
European hypocrisy - this is the reason why I (and I am not alone) don't like Europe. European states were always hiding carnivorous instincts by liberal propaganda. Just come to Asia - everything is on display and politicians mostly do not deny that they take bribes and have disproportionate assets. Emotionally Asdian politicians have my sympathy - not any European one even from super clean Norway or Sweden - besides they are so boring and incompetent they also lie on regular basis. I do not tolerate any liers and hypocrites.
by FarEasterner on Fri Feb 2nd, 2007 at 08:23:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series