To: Any and All -

one other thought I've had, which I'll raise now before someone else does. The key to controlling Tehran's nuclear ambitions isn't in oversight and coercion. It's in cooperation, in making and keeping Iran a powerful member of the Club. Invite them in, pamper their bruised egos, keep them on side as one of the elite against the rest.

And then give them a free hand in controlling the region to our and their mutual benefit. Has no one here heard of divide and rule? Is that a political concept Americans aren't aware of? Is it so hard to fucking grasp?

Feed your Big Dogs treats now and then and let them chew on the little dogs as and when they want: they'll kiss your hands every time you walk in the room. They'll smother you in an excess of big ol' puppy love.

Here's a cleaned-up version of a joke I heard a little while ago: the bad news is the Martians have landed. The good news is they eat Arabs and Jews and piss gasoline.

Go Martians.

To: Any and All - one other thought I've had, which I'll raise now before someone else does. The key to controlling Tehran's nuclear ambitions isn't in oversight and coercion. It's in cooperation, in making and keeping Iran a powerful member of the Club. Invite them in, pamper their bruised egos, keep them on side as one of the elite against the rest.

In other words piss-off everyone else. Not even feasible.

The USA is making a truly impressive fist of its commitment to bringing peace around the world through superior firepower - busy losing not one, not two, but three wars at once - Afghanistan, Iraq, and the general propaganda front of the 'War on Terror'

for me it's as if i've been condemned to watch a five-year-long version of the super slo-mo atlas rocket explosion from the'ending' sequence of reggio's 'koyaanisqatsi: life out of balance'--only much more painful and terrifying.

gonna be interesting to see what kinda reaction this evokes from those ju villagers who daily take up torches for yet another march on colgene for similar observations.

Once more, as it was in Europe during the 1914-1918 war, it's a case of Lions being led by Donkeys

Politicians of all stamps and breeds, whose egos are rapacious pits into which the bodies of the dead are poured endlessly. I'm astonished that creatures such as Bush and Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, don't leave bloody footprints wherever they walk, so saturated in death are they

one major difference between pre-wwi europe--or any other place and era for that matter--and the us 1975-2003(4?...5?...6?) is plan b and its long-term consequences. if you're not familiar with the term or the policy, approach it with a lotta skepticism. it stands up well. this'll getcha started. Link

Let the Taliban have Afghanistan. America isn't the first nation to come to grief there. They mauled the British. They mauled the Russians. And now they're mauling us. They'll continue to export their Jihadi violence and we'll continue to suffer from it. But that's just a fact of life we'll have to get used to

unlike the russians and brits, we have an obligation to rebuild afghanistan. we walked away from it when the soviets left and again in 2003. unfortunately we're now similarly obligated in iraq. fortunately we don't have to do it all ourselves. unfortunately, we will stupidly continue the way we have for 2 more years.

Do a realistic deal over Tehran's nuclear ambitions; supply them with all the technology they need for a civil nuclear infrastructure

i'd love to believe it's not already too late for that. i'd also love to be sultan of brunei.

This article fails spectacularly in the first paragraph.

Why does the Emperor encourage us to ask about Germany's experience with two-front wars? Because if we ask about America's experience with two-front wars during the same period, we would turn his entire thesis upside-down.

We bolster and support Israel in its war with Hezbullah. I don't care how many Isreli soldiers they took, or how many katyushas Hezbollah send to Haifa and beyond; I don't care how right or legitimate is the Iraeli response, nor how illegitimate the actions of Hezbollah. Let them squabble over their dunghill nations all they want - so long as we have what we need. Let them slaughter each other to their hearts' content, by the million if need be, so long as the oil flows and we can do business there

Exactly my sentiments on the conflict, emp.

To: spindoctor

I see that the Jew haters are out in force again

I only hate stupid Jews - and their stupid sympathizers.

To: O G San

but your basic analysis, that America is losing badly, is spot on. About time more Americans turned off Fox News and realised this.

We aren't facing defeat, because there have been no decisive moments in these conflicts where our losses make continuing unfeasable. We're simply 'not winning' and doing it slowly, laboriously, and very expensively.

As to Fox news and its ilk here - the only way to even attempt to compensate for the bias of every faction of the news media is to watch them all and then read something from a perspective not present here at all.

I continue to read the British press, listen to the World Service and to some of the BBC's direct news and commentary output not because I think the BBC is unbiased but because its biases are radically different to those here, it loks at issues in a way American media doesn't and often cites sources and presents information that would never find its way into a network news show - whether biased to the 'left' or the 'right'.

To: kingbee

one major difference between pre-wwi europe--or any other place and era for that matter--and the us 1975-2003(4?...5?...6?) is plan b and its long-term consequences. if you're not familiar with the term or the policy, approach it with a lotta skepticism. it stands up well. this'll getcha started.

I found the linked article interesting, especially in its depiction of the unreliability of force assessments - but I'm not sure as to what 'difference' you're pointing to. 'Team B' were involved in fallacious assessments of the Soviet threat and its future development - which they wildly overestimated. It's not at all clear to me how this relates to pre-WW1 Europe; or America's present either, other than in the fact the the level of threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein was supposed to be far higher than it actually was while the the threat posed by Al-Qaeda was supposed to be far less than it was.

unlike the russians and brits, we have an obligation to rebuild afghanistan. we walked away from it when the soviets left and again in 2003. unfortunately we're now similarly obligated in iraq. fortunately we don't have to do it all ourselves. unfortunately, we will stupidly continue the way we have for 2 more years.

I couldn't disagree more; it seems to me a great peculiarity of American military action, and of its foreign policy, that you should invade, conquer, and crush - as you did in Germany and Japan - and then not pillage, sack, loot and properly exploit conquered resources, but rebuild what you spent blood and treasure to take in the first place.

What's up with that?

No other nation on Earth (so far as I know) has ever felt itself to be under such an obligation. It puts a serious crimp in your style as world superpower since no one is going to take your threats seriously. It's worth getting your society trashed by America because the idiots will rebuild it for you and pay for it themselves.

On the subject of a realistic deal with Tehran...

i'd love to believe it's not already too late for that. i'd also love to be sultan of brunei.

Iranians are Persian; traders and hagglers par excellence and first and foremost businessmen. You can always do a deal if you make your offer tempting enough - and who wouldn't to be top dog in the 'hood while enjoying the patranoge of the USA? The Israelis have made a national occupation out of being our 'best buddy' and have profited enormously from so doing. A deal could be done, if there were enough political savvy on the American side, and enough will, to strike one. And why not? We crawled into bed with the Shah, with Osama, with Saddam, when it suited our purpose. Why shouldn't the Iranians get a turn?

Personally, I'd prefer to work with Persians than with the rabid desert zealots of either Israel or Hamas/Hezbollah. The Persians have always been civilized, sophisticated and politicaly adept. Better to deal with the people who created Babylon the Great than with the pygmy nation of Israel, whose only political creation is the wretched misery of Gaza and the West Bank.

However, once you sit down and treat with people over bargains and deals you can't portray them as being fundamentally unlike yourself. And no American wants to see in what ways they might resemble the people who are opposed to their Jewish pets and their criminal ways, and go so far as to fight back.

So I think you're probably right - there will be no dialog, no real political discussion, and the simplest, most direct means by which we could advance our interests in the region will be lost.

You know what I think the real problem is? Americans are too squeamish for realpolitik and to be able to do as Princes (in Machiavelli's sense of the word) ought to do.

You so badly want to be nice about all of this: to do the right thing and be seen to be doing the right thing.

Newsflash... there is no 'right' thing in these matters. There's expediency, interest, ambition, power, and profit. You're far more likely to get what you want and need if you stop pretending it's necessary to wear a White Hat all the time, and get down to the serious business of protecting the futures of your children and grand-children.

Where do you want America to be, fifty years from now? Still the baddest motherf*cker around - or a client of China and India? And perhaps of Russia too: it has energy resources that already mean it has an 'energy-lock' on the neck of the rest of Europe. Why not? The world of fifty years away will belong heart and soul to those who control energy resources and know how to use them, diplomatically, politically, and economically.

If America doesn't become the ruthless bitch and predator she is already portrayed as being, then the lives of your grand-children are going to far harder and less prosperous than your own.

What's needed is not a 'new American century'; it's a new vision of America in the minds and spirits of Americans - one which includes a healthy disrespect for White Hats and unselfish hearts.

I found the linked article interesting, especially in its depiction of the unreliability of force assessments - but I'm not sure as to what 'difference' you're pointing to. 'Team B' were involved in fallacious assessments of the Soviet threat and its future development - which they wildly overestimated. It's not at all clear to me how this relates to pre-WW1 Europe; or America's present either, other than in the fact the the level of threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein was supposed to be far higher than it actually was while the the threat posed by Al-Qaeda was supposed to be far less than it was.

perhaps i took this too literally?:

Once more, as it was in Europe during the 1914-1918 war, it's a case of Lions being led by Donkeys.

while rampant national chauvinism significantly interfered with pre-wwi european governments ability to properly view their own strengths and weaknesses as well as those of their perceived allies/ potential adversaries, to the best of my knowledge not even the most delusional intentionally established an autonomous internal unit authorized to arbitrarily reject, distort, re-evaluate and otherwise manipulate real world intelligence--acquired and vetted by agents of their own government--whenever it failed to correspond with the unit's preferred version of reality.

for 22 of the past 30 years, team b's been openly running amok while running the show. i dunno how the lions feel about it, but i'd prefer donkeys to the hyenas that have taken their places.

To: kingbee

we're obligated to afghanistan not as a consequence of our invasion but because the place was so badly damaged in the proxy war we conducted there during the 80s.

I always thought the purpose of invasion was conquest, followed by subsequent expoitation and control - not to establish an obligation to the conquered on the part of the conquerors. But even if it were so, we haven't conquered the Afghanis (neither did the Russians or the British) and so, even on the basis of your own (rather confused) theory, owe them no obligation at all.

It must be part of White Hat Syndrome - this compulsion to be nice to people by saying 'Sorry we invaded you. Let's put this shit back together for you. And once you get to know us you'll really, really, like us. After all, we are the men in White Hats'.

always thought the purpose of invasion was conquest, followed by subsequent expoitation and control - not to establish an obligation to the conquered on the part of the conquerors. But even if it were so, we haven't conquered the Afghanis (neither did the Russians or the British) and so, even on the basis of your own (rather confused) theory, owe them no obligation at al

if you read my previous response #23 and are still under the misapprension i'm even vaguely hinting that obligation i first mentioned in reply #6 has anything to do with conquest, i'm certainly confused because i thought your native language was english.

here's what i've said so far:

(reply #6) we have an obligation to rebuild afghanistan. we walked away from it when the soviets left and again in 2003

(reply #23) we're obligated to afghanistan not as a consequence of our invasion but because the place was so badly damaged in the proxy war we conducted there during the 80s

i've never claimed we conquered afghanistan.

had we done the right thing--not because it was the right thing but the smart thing to have helped afghanistan rebuild and stabilize itself after the soviets withdrew--we might still have been attacked by al quaeda. walking away guaranteed it.

who's responsible for that decision?

without an immediate and substantial leap in life-prolonging technology, we'll never know. once in office, our current president wasted no time issuing an executive order defining records of all former presidents private property (for the first time in us history) while requiring a waiver of executive privilege by both the former and seated president.

the same team b idiots responsible for lying to themselves and the country about iraq were at the wheel then as now.

To: kingbee

if you read my previous response #23 and are still under the misapprension i'm even vaguely hinting that obligation i first mentioned in reply #6 has anything to do with conquest, i'm certainly confused because i thought your native language was english

Pay attention - what I said was "even if it were so", meaning that some condition applies even if a given condition were actually so, even though it's not. I wouldn't mind the criticism of my level of comprehesion of English - if it didn't apply even more directly to you.

had we done the right thing--not because it was the right thing but the smart thing to have helped afghanistan rebuild and stabilize itself after the soviets withdrew--we might still have been attacked by al quaeda.

'Might have been'? Osama's opposition to the West predates his involvement in Afghanistan - and I doubt that any amount of 'hearts and minds' work there would have won the majority of the population over, because of his role in the defeat of the USSR. You confuse political sentiment with political reality. You feel America owes Afghanistan something - but just because you feel it doesn't make it so. The Marshall Plan exemplifies America's political and commercial peculiarities best: destroy your enemies - then recreate them in a ways that make them as nearly as possible like you, in the interest of a hoped for commercial conquest later on.

I suppose it can even be said that it's worked to a degree - but it's undeniably a peculiar attitude and not one that's likely to be helpful in Iraq.

i'd agree team b has done nothing new, worse or of greater significance if we were discussing any government but ours.it's the kinda thing we've come to expect from monarchies, autocracies, military juntas, totalitarian states, etc.

You've summed up the attitude I'm referring to quite nicely - real politics happens somewhere else, somewhere bad. In America there's only good politics, nice politics. Other people do politics: America does what's right. Wonderful pablum for the masses - when the masses can be stopped from asking questions and using the Freedom of Information Act; not so wonderful in a society of free, and questioning, individuals - which is what we largely still have.

I'm not saying this attitude is a ploy on the part of the government - though I'm certain it's worked to the advantage of government in times past - less easy to maintain now, and in any case indicative of a mind-set appropriate to time when it was easy to seperate out 'us' from 'them'. One of 'them' could be any one of 'us', now. It's a cultural attitude, a sense of righteousness. But righteousness is not necessarily a politically expedient attitude - especially not when confronting an enemy whose own sense of righteousness is rather more flexible than ours - including the freedom to lie to and deceive their enemies at every turn.

America needs to be more ruthless than she is, and more honest with herself.