bottom line on IraN

[garybeck]

no matter what they're doing, I still say striking first is wrong.

it is called "Defense" Department, isn't it? Not offense.

[LynnTheDem]

1. Wrong. And illegal.

Not to mention immoral.

We hung a nation's leaders for attacking first.

[magellan]

2. Oh I dunno, I find the whole government pretty offensive anymore.

But I agree with you. The only people in this world who use "pre-emptive strikes" as a defense strategy are thugs and bullies.

[garybeck]

4. you forgot thieves. n/t

[magellan]

6. Kinda implied in 'thugs' but yes, you're right.

I always envision 'thugs' as the Al Capone type -- thief as well as bully. Just my personal connotation of the word. :)

[garybeck]

7. I really think it's about money more than anything.

it's not about spreading democracy
it's not about defending our country
it's not even about just trying to show the world that we are boss

it's about cash.
oil is a big part of it, but that's just cash.
and the war is big money for the defense contractors.

that's all Iraq is about and that's all Iran is. Now that the war machine / defense contractors are in charge, they are addicted to war. They can not and will not stop because their entire purpose is to make money and that's how they do it.

[magellan]

8. Money is indeed the main objective

Some might argue the main objective is power, but that goes hand in hand with money...Money IS power. And there's no doubt BushCo and everyone connected to them are laughing all the way to the bank.

They don't care about anything else. They don't need to. They're rich and powerful, and have every intention of spinning out their war profiteering and oil plundering as long as they can. They'll drag us into a third World War and tank the US economy in order to keep lining their pockets.

What do they care? They have their foreign bank accounts. They'll never have to scratch for food or live in the unholy violent slums they create. They'll just go somewhere warm and sunny.

[autorank]

3. Yes, but Defense subordinates itself to the Ministry of Truth aka

...the dungeon of deception and calumny.

Quite a thought at 3;15 a.m., Mr. beck but I agree. Considering the fact that (a) IraN is far away from a nuclear weapon according to the people who tell the truth more often than not and (b) IraN is ruled by a lunatic who is a perfect foil for *'s paranoia, a "preemptive" attack is just ludicrous and grotesque. That's why we can expect * to push it forward. I'm pretty sure that the sane faction of "management" will have something to say about this since another war would sink us economically.

Amazing times.

Recommended

[garybeck]

5. when I saw the photo of theresolution being drafted in the UN, with Bolton

sitting right there, I just got that feeling. That exact same feeling when I "knew" that Bush was going to IraQ no matter what.

I hope I'm wrong.

[darkmaestro019]

9. Can someone explain to me why

we get to have Hell knows how many nukes but we apparently won't let other countries have so much as a nuclear-powered alarm clock without screaming about how threatened we are? Who died and made us boss?

[shadowknows69]

10. If we really concentrated on our defense

like we do our offensive power. There wouldn't be an enemy anywhere that could ever touch us. Instead of spending billions on the next generation of city killer nukes improve our warning sensor systems, imrprove anti-air defenses, improve port and airline security, spend money on specialty intelligence agents that would put James Bond to shame. This is how we really win the war on terror not by invading random countries with cold war large scale battle tactics.