Comments

Alan D rules on this one - Iran, N Korea et al may need to be nuked - then markets explode in wealth creation.

Posted by Sean at March 9, 2006 1:56 PM

Whatta mess. I wouldn't want 4 years at 1600Penna. Anybody who walks in there with "an ironclad plan" is doomed. But, then, so is Kerry-quality waffling. Dare I say it ... hope my wife doesn't read this ... bring back Kissinger???

Posted by tom peters at March 9, 2006 2:58 PM

Kissinger! ISurely not.

Isn’t it now widely accepted that that Kissinger played leading role in the secret bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, and in the removal and subsequent murder of Chilean president Salvador Allende.

The excellent Christopher Hitchens is well known for his views on Kisinger (he wrote a book about him) and he said this:
“I must say, however, that Henry Kissinger has never let me down, as a person to consult before making up my own mind. Stepping lightly over his one-man rolling war-crime wave, extending from Bangladesh through Indochina to Chile and East Timor, I pause to notice that he was the man who persuaded President Ford not to invite Alexander Solzhenitsyn to the White House. He was the chief defender in the West of the right of the Chinese Communists to massacre their own students in the centre of Beijing. He made himself conspicuous on the American Right by being one of the few to argue that Slobodan Milosevic should be left alone.”

The Kissinger approach has helped (those unintended consequences again) create the conditions for the perilous world situation that now confronts us. It will not help us achieve a safer world in the 21 century.

Posted by Michael from UK at March 10, 2006 6:55 AM

Israeli's perhaps as pro premptive strikers they seem best at stealth.

Posted by Sean at March 10, 2006 9:58 AM

There is a terrific new piece on possible responses to Iran by Chritopher Hitchens on slate.com. Informed, rational, very thought-provoking.
http://www.slate.com/id/2137560/

Posted by Michael from UK at March 10, 2006 11:52 AM

We should not be thinking about the culpability of Henry Kissinger in the coming nuclear showdown with Iran. The roots of the conflict go way back, well before he was on the world stage. I would not be surprised if there were Iranians today who still want revenge against the US for the ousting of Mossadeq, a leftist PM in 1953. In the wake of that, Shah Reza Pahlavi returned to the throne and built a very west leading and secular Iran, enforcing his rule with the likes of the notorious Savak. To me it was the gutting of our CIA by and through the Church Commission that led to unprecedented intelligence failures and surprises in the late 70's, including our failure and Pahlavi's to realize the extent of dissent in Iran. Of course, he (the shah) dealt with the protestors inconsistently: firm, then soft, firm then soft, so much so that they sensed his weakness. He finally was run out of the country, and replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who fed his "revolution" off their rage, and ultimately in the disaster of the the American Embassy takeover and resulting 444 day hostage crisis.

Since then, Iran has surreptiously attempted to build a nucear weapon, while at the same time working to undermine US interests across the Middle East, right to this day. Remember the USMC barracks bombing? They are at work behind the scenes with the insurgency in Iraq, are funding Islamic Jihad and Hamas against Israel, and in general pose a grievous threat to the west in many ways, including interruption of oil deliveries.

Now the new PM of Iran (who many say was one of the revolutionary guards who took over the US embassy in 1979) is publically denying the holocaust, and is saying that Israel has no right to exist and should be destroyed. He also believes in some 12th century legend/prophecy that ultimately a new Caliph would come on the world stage through Iran and restore its power and influence by destroying all its enemies. They, unlike the USSR and the USA during the cold war, do not hold back the trigger because of "mutually assured destruction." These leaders believe that there is a reward awaiting those who die in such an exchange, and that this resurgence of Iranian power is worth the catastrophic losses that would ensue.

Looking back at history, one might of felt that in early 1941, the German Wehrmacht was the most terrifying military machine ever created, to that point. And it was. But, even though it was technologically advanced versus the west and the Soviet Union, we knew that if England could hang on, the ocean between us and Europe would enable us to build to fight another day. In this day of ballistic missiles, dirty bombs, electromagnetic weaponry and the like, we have no such security anymore. We are all vulnerable. In spite of massive countermeasures, something would get through, and it will make 9/11 look like child's play. If Israel executes a pre-emptive strike at weapon building sites in Iran, think about the backlash, and the ensuing retaliation which will take all forms. If Iran has nukes now, and some believe they do, you know what will happen. Israel has over 200, and they will stop at nothing to defend their security.

I may be going out on a skinny limb here, but I do not believe that Iran is going to go over the line with its flexing and verbal attacks at this point. I think something will work to hold it back from the brink. But; the day is coming when all hell is going to break loose over there, and Iran aligned with many other allies will attack and invade Israel in a once and for all settling of the Israeli - Palestinian question on their terms. You can be sure that the United States and Europe will not escape the destruction. One wonders what would be left at all.

Posted by Rich Chiero at March 10, 2006 6:24 PM

Rich - take a deep breath - the jihad takes all retaliation forms now - it is at its height because too many fascists are free to roam - kill it where it breeds continually and use tech to "sniff out" nuclear presence to stop that from sneaking in.

Posted by Sean at March 11, 2006 3:24 PM

Why is it so difficult to see that this plan for preemtive attacks is wrong. It is not for the USA to decide what gov't should be in Canada, or Iraq or North Korea. Nor is it right for the USA to believe that their democracy is the right solution for all involved. They have gone into Iraq with a preemtive plan to take out a leader, having no idea of the problems in the country, let alone a solution for them.

Different countries, different people, different religions do not mean everyone is the same as America. Nor does it mean they are mature enough, or educated enough to handle an American democracy.

It is 100% wrong for the USA to continue to try and impose their imprint of the world on other countries.

The Iran nuclear issue is Bush's fault. Of course they want to arm themselves now. He said he was going to change their gov't as part of the axis of evil. What normal population wouldn't arm themselves after this kind of threat. Do you think Canada would develop nuclear arms if Bush said they were under threat of American attack and openly flaunt the UN. Of course.

Posted by Roger at March 15, 2006 3:48 AM

Gee Rog, I'm glad you don't let your political biases effect your "thinking".

Why should America decide? It’s quite startling in its simplicity. That is why you missed it. It is called leadership. If we don't lead, someone else will. I would rather not comtemplate that thank you very much.

You see, we are the good guys. They are the bad guys. They are arming themselves in an attempt to destroy us. Therefore we must take action. Need I remind you that they started this war? You remember that little event known as 9-11 don't you?

As for the rest of your tripe about, ahem, Canada (snicker) and the UN (hurl) among other things, I can only say, "Plllllllease".

Pal, you need to wake up and start living in the real world.

Posted by Chris at March 19, 2006 9:19 PM

Well Chris, i am not American so i don't have a political bias. In fact, i think that is one of the largest problems with the usa at the moment is that people are so forced to be republican or democrat that it makes the democracy less effective. (anyway this is another issue).

The reason i am against preemptive strikes is that i feel the logic is not there. You can always create a threat in order to justify a strike. Every country can do this.

I have no issues with the USA wanted to defend their way of life. I have lived in the USA and i know that most Americans feel their way of life is the most evovled, the most precious, and that if other countries had the chance they would surely choose it.

However, having lived in 3 other countries, and now currently in China (no i am not a communist), it is clear to me that the American way of life and form of democracy (although very great), is not right for every country, people or territory.

I am really unclear on how you say "they started this war." Wasn't it started when GWB and Tony Blair illegally attacked Iraq against UN and many other countries desires. Weren't the reasons for this attack:

1. Saddam links to Osama and terrorism
2. Saddams weapons of mass destruction
3. Removal of a dictator

So these were the reasons for a premptive strike on a soveign nation? Weren't they all wrong? Completely wrong! And illegal. Well, one could quite simply attack the USA for the same reasons, could they not?

1. Bush and Rumsfeld links to Saudi bin Laden family and support of terrorist operations in Afganistan during their war with Russia. As well as the terrorist operations of Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war.

2. USA has the largest arsenal of WofMD in the world.

3. Removal of a dictorial gov't who imposes it way of life on other nations like Iraq.

You see, it is easy to make a case for preemptive strikes. This is exactly what Osama did to the USA.

Of course, saying they started the war is ridiculous and if you think the war started with 9/11 you are quite clearly clueless.

Now i have no issue with America wanted to protect itself. I have a big issue with America thinking it can police the world. Quite clearly, it can't and shouldnt and that is why preemptive strikes are a bad idea.

Posted by Roger at March 21, 2006 10:03 PM