 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| The weird bit about this by jeep 03/08/2005, 10:14pm PST | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| Besides a million people leaking it from the Pentagon months ago like it was a big secret, of course, is that I could've sworn Iran had some elections where the moderates won (as opposed to the America is Great Satan Fundies, of course) just a year ago or so.
Since my job is not to prepare the US military to fight and win a two front war against whoever has the strongest armies in the world, I don't understand the idea of invading people who are fixing shit on their own. Hell if it was my job we'd still be defending cities with phalanxes, they're so cost-effective. I'm with the conservatives that there's right and wrong action (even if it's just the one, and that one's a secret until I finish the book I never started writing), and if they were going to storm Jordan for letting guys kill their own sisters for getting laid, I'd be for it even if I wondered how shooting people would change anything, but I'm with the liberals that there's stuff that isn't universally right and wrong, that there's situationalist stuff, and that given Iran's situation, the fact that they vote themselves back from the ledge is behavior you want to reinforce, not punish. "Good job easing up on the religious oppresion, towelheads, carry on," seems the preferable choice to "well like 25 years ago your country was king of the fuckups so we're coming in shooting." ON THE OTHER HAND, this Syria thing, to me, speaks much more positively about our ethically questionable behavior recently in the Middle East. If you were working purely from consequence, you would look to Syria backing out of Lebanon and say "Bush really did put the fear of ...us... in 'em." Maybe that says more for trying to do something rather than throwing up your hands and saying "it's the Middle East, those sandtards have been killing each other forever." However, there is always a price, and part of it is always unintended and unpredictable. So Creex and Company like the new lie "Spread Democracy" better than the old lie "Fight Terrorism", but I'm thinking there's a hidden cost. What if this invasion routine is so successful it becomes...routine? I'm not so worried about slippery slope as I am about the pretty consistent rule that there's always a price for this stuff, and you never know the extent of it until 20 years later. I'm still pretty sure spending the lives of other people's kids is already too much. I'm glad Koba's out at least. /jeep/ |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
Iran has until June. Then something happens. by 02/26/2005, 5:52am PST  Re: Iran has until June. Then something happens. by 02/26/2005, 7:45am PST Re: Iran has until June. Then something happens. by 02/26/2005, 9:44am PST Hail to the death of an empire! The New American Century Lasted... by 02/26/2005, 10:50am PST Re: Iran has until June. Then something happens. by 02/26/2005, 8:54pm PST Nah, that reactor will likely be bombed by some hot-as-fuck Isreali pilot first. NT by 02/26/2005, 9:24pm PST Get on ICQ, faggot NT by 02/27/2005, 4:47pm PST Re: Iran has until June. Then something happens. by 03/04/2005, 2:36pm PST The weird bit about this by 03/08/2005, 10:14pm PST |
