Well, I do admit, that when I see something that I percieve to be reflexively ideological, regardless of its charms as prose, it bothers me. But it also interests me. Thereafter I find positing a very strong simplified contention against the position I percieve to be reflexively ideological often leads to the very strongest “real” counter-argument from the other side. This leads very quickly to the heart of the matter and away from ideology. It is simply a tactic to pull particpants off easy argument as quickly as possible. LIke the irritating sand grains that generate the pearls from an oyster (cheesy metaphor, I realize).

I realize this tactic is not necessarily conducive to bonhomie. I regret that. But neither lazy agreement nor ideologically-hollowed arguments in these matters helps us to understand what’s actually going on or the forward possibilities. I think everyone wants to hear the clearest core arguments all around as soon as possible in a thread. If information were provided “straight” on Troppo, I wouldn’t do this. Troppo doesn’t need to do these jabby-snarks either, as the community is clearly enormously intelligent and well informed. It doesn’t need to be patronising or resort to calling George-and-Dick “wacky” as in the link you provided in this thread. It lowers the debate and deserves rebuke. I respond in kind as a form of rebuke.

Your point about the Generals believing the possibility of the attack is interesting. There is the possibility that they are playing the good cop bad cop game (They being the good cop, of course, to the “crazy texans in the white house” bad cop). Or that they are being played without their knowledge and reacting, without realizing it, the exact way the administration would wish. (The identity of the good cop “reactors” doesn’t really matter. Usually its the doves, like Reed or Brezhinski. The point is that somebody must honestly react in fear to the possibility. This is what gives the feint credit.)

This all goes to the idea that the Bush Administrations seriousness in the matter of attacking Iran must be absolutely creditable and inscrutable, for the current tactic to have any gravitas. Although with Iraq in such a state, any notion of attacking Iran is simply incredible. Its a silly notion. But then again, it must be creditable. And there you are.

My listing of possible reasons for Iran to bring weapons into Iran was actually a semi-serious possibility set. There can be many different reasons for those weapons to be in Iran including arming Sunni militias, as suggested by “wacky George-and-Dick”. Chaos in Iraq helps Iran, period. Any way they can sow it, I submit, is within the realm of possilbity.

On the Harry Reed quote, my apologies, but I saw him say the exact same thing in the empty Senate chamber a few days ago. The point about what he thought his purpose was still stands.

I wasn’t claiming you were on the far far left in America, obviously. And the implication meant by “nobody buys that stupid line” is that, once all the facts are appreciated, the line is untenable. One who believes untenable contentions may be described, in indelicate fashion I admit, as “stupid”.

Although, upon reflection, they could be crazy too. Or possessed of ideological convictions. I concede the point. Stupidity isn’t the only excuse for believing untenable contentions. I apologize for the statement. Regardless, the argmuments that Iran needs nuclear energy simply fall apart under scrutiny.

And the US media is quite a bit of garbage. I live here I know. It has become nothing more than a sound bite circus trying to drum up emotions through innacurate simplifications, mostly coming from the left.

Whereas, I assumed by Bush apologist, you were speaking of me, a direct attack. A bit different, all joking aside.

I hope you read the carnegie article. Its arguments are solid and informed (Don’t let my shenanigans dissuade you from the article). Here’s the link again:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18951

Furthermore the simplified rationale I offered, “Why would they need a nuclear reactor for energy when they

Here’s a more informed (than I can offer) rebuttal of the piece to which you refer. I’m assuming you’ve read it, but If not, here is the link…

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18951

And, incidentally, I don’t think calling me an “apologist for the bush administration” is either warranted, necessary or helpful. I am trying to get to the truth just like you are. A free and open debate is the only way. Let’s let all informed voices into the debate.

Why would they need a nuclear reactor for energy when they

Considering how un-credible threats of US action against Iran are, what can they possibly hope to achieve? I disagree that they have any effect on what Iran does with Iraq. There is nothing to compel the Iranians to stop either interfering with Iraq or playing silly buggers with it’s nuclear program. An aggressive act by the US against Iran is a PR victory for Iran and not really anything more.
Could Bush et al be hoping to spark a war with Iran by getting them to invade Iraq?
If the US want a fight with Iran they have to dress it up as just punishment.

Only the far far left hysterics really believes we will attack iran. The right realizes the threat must be on the table, though, for the purposes of the war in iraq. Many people dispise these types of testosterone-type games of diplomatic chicken. But sometimes they are necessary. With any luck (and a little backbone from the international community), it is conceivable that Iran will back off the nukes and iraq. I think I heard something yesterday about them installing cameras in all their nuke facilities and something else about just wanting peaceful nuclear energy.

But nobody buys that stupid line. Why would they need a nuclear reactor for energy when they’re sitting on one of the world’s largest supplies of energy in the form of oil. They must think the world community is pretty dumb.

Brezhinski is a wonderful speaker but his record as a foreign policy advisor is rather dismal. He completely messed up Egypt after the deal was in the bag, he let Iran fall, bizarrely took Yassar arafat and Ceaucescu at their words and worked to legitimize them in america, and his and Carter’s weakness allowed the Soviet Union to get into Afghanistan. He has pretty much no credibility.

Harry Reed is just talking to his base through television when he gets up in the senate and says the things he does. The chamber is more or less empty during the day for these speeches. One of the great strategies that the Dems employ over here is to shout to the television cameras that they are against things that nobody has suggested. That way it seems as if they were suggested, and that they are heroes for standing up to it. It happens every day on US television. Another thing is for them to demand that the administration do things they already did the previous week, that’s another good one. And then this nonsense is broadcast around the world. And the world wonders how such a bunch of stupid rednecked christian fundamentalists could possibly get in power. The US media is quite a bit of garbage, in case you didn’t know it already out there down under.

Here’s the key line in the essay, by the way, that lets us know exactly what we are dealing with: “Assumedly, this was because the latest doctored intelligence, claiming the Iranians are supplying advanced IED technology that is causing American deaths looks as hollow as the administration’s cherry-picked and doctored intelligence on Iraqi WMDs before the 2003 invasion.”

He forgot to mention that its all controlled by an Israeli cabal that has taken over the white house. Sponsored by Haliburton. I guess if you repeat something often enough, people begin to think its true. What’s that old saying, falsehood travels round the world before truth can even get its pants on.

Oh, and on the “No evidence they’re arming the Sunnis”. Well, maybe they’re just arming the Shia. That would be kinda sensible. Or maybe they’re just in there blowing up US troops and then skipping back home. Or maybe they’re just on a site seeing tour. Or maybe they think the Shia is more aligned with the rank and file shia in their own country, which are against the iranian government mullahs and lunatics. So they figure they can strike a deal with the Ba’athist and Sunnis against the rank and file shia. Lots of possibilities not mentioned in the article.

Wonderfully informative article otherwise.