[Peace-discuss] Iran scare

[Morton K. Brussel]

I worried a bit about using the word, "rational". What I had in mind  
was that this White House neocon cabal would put aside all the  
arguments against an attack, and they are, abundant as they are, in  
their quest for U.S. hegemony , advancing their imperialistic  
interests. They would put aside any anticipated losses, human and  
material, here and abroad, to achieve U.S. dominance by military  
means. An indication of this mindset is that Bush/Cheney maintain  
belief that they did the right thing in attacking Iraq, and considers  
his actions there a success, with only minor hiccups. One might say  
that there is a certain rationality to these actions, but I consider  
them mad. It is the rationality of a psychopath. --mkb


On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:

> Good point about the current admin's rationality -- goal was  
> permanent presence and control of the oil, and that mission is  
> almost accomplished (unless the Iraqi leaders refuse to allow any  
> or all of this). Hey, didn't congress say -- and Bush agree -- that  
> there would be NO permanent bases? Of course that was a couple of  
> years ago, and this is now...
>
>  --Jenifer
>
> --- On Wed, 7/16/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iran scare
> To: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at uiuc.edu>
> Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 12:57 AM
>
> [1] A lame-duck president has limited resources to compel actions,  
> particularly
> military actions, that powerful subordinates oppose.  (Kissinger  
> arranged for
> Nixon's military orders to be ignored in his final days.)  Suppose  
> instead
> of
> carrying out an order to attack Iran, flag officers (and/or a defense
> secretary)
> resign -- and say why.  Even the threat of that might deter an attack.
>
> [2] It's not clear which candidate an Iran attack would help (as  
> they well
> know).  Note the new ABC/WP poll that already puts McCain ahead of  
> Obama as
> CINC. An attack might lower rather than raise that percentage. OTOH  
> Obama has
> always approved of an attack on Iran under certain circumstances.
>
> [3] This administration has throughout its history been quite  
> rational -- in
> the
> sense of fitting means to ends -- in pursuit of its vicious goals.   
> It's
> only
> clear irrationality -- the colossal botch of the occupation -- was  
> the almost
> exclusive responsibility of the DOD troika, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and  
> Feith
> ("the
> stupidest fucking guy in the universe," acc. to Gen Franks), and  
> they were
>
> dismissed for it.
>
> But of course prediction in these matters is nearly impossible.   
> All we can do
> is give as good an account as possible of what the current  
> situation is.  This
> article seems to me to do a better job of that than most.  --CGE
>
>
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> > The only flies in the ointment of this analysis is that 1) Bush  
> is still
> > the Commander in Chief of the armed forces--and they will do his
> > bidding, 2) an election is coming up in which a military  
> adventure could
> > swing the popular vote to McCain, and 3) that rationality is not the
> > main attribute of the Cheney-Bush gang.
> >
> > What may determine what will happen is the assessment by the  
> military
> > and other experts of what Iran can and will do after it is  
> attacked. I
> > don't think this is clear.
> >
> > I believe one should expect the worst, and fight like hell to  
> avert it.
> > In that sense, I don't think this piece is very helpful. --mkb
> >
> >
> > On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:35 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> >
> >> [This seems about right.  One might handicap the horses (or parts
> >> thereof) a bit differently, and it might be worthwhile to advert to
> >> the general US policy (shared by both parties), but as far as  
> they go
> >> both the analysis and the exhortation seem generally sound. --CGE]
> >>
> >>     Attack On Iran On The Way? Uh, Maybe Not...
> >>     Jul 15, 2008
> >>     By Bill Fletcher, Jr., and Dennis O'Neil
> >> ...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080716/e26e7093/attachment.html