[Peace-discuss] Iran scare

Wed Jul 16 10:52:52 CDT 2008

Off topic, I regret lousy typing, and the resulting lousy grammar.  
Corrections below, for my own benefit. --mkb

On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:

> 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, 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 consider their  
> 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/20080716/288b4355/attachment-0001.html