Holocaust Deniers
If we have any spare bombs, can we drop a couple on this place and rid the world of 67 fools?
Holocaust Conference
Keep in mind that this was sponsored Iran's President Ahmadinejad. The same guy with whom the UN believes we should enter into talks.
posted by TinyElvis @ 9:50 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
This is indeed ultra-strange, and troubling.
On the one I think that this is much ado about nothing. After all, there's enough Holocaust scholarship, including photographic evidence, to disprove any of these crackpots. There are always folks who will choose to ignore overwhelming evidence of an event's truth and veracity.
On the other hand, what's the end-game here? Surely it's not to change the world's mind about the Holocaust's occurrence [see preceding paragraph]. I can only assume it's to raise his profile in the Islamic world as sort of a new Saddam: defiant, strongman, willing to stand up to the Yanks and Zionists.
It also occurs to me that it may be, in part, a move to embarrass the Bush administration. The ISG Report recommended diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria. Mister A may be thumbing his nose at BushCo., daring them to pursue diplomacy after this stunt.
One thing is clear. The administration is pretty frank about the Iranian role in undermining the new Iraqi govt. It makes us look weak to sit around and point out their role yet not be able to take action on it. This further bolsters A's standing in the anti-Western Islamic world.
And further underscores that Iraq was a bad idea. IMO.
"And further underscores that Iraq was a bad idea. IMO."
.. and then from out of nowhere.
Please explain.
Fair query. Although I'd rather not do a back and forth on the topic, I will explain. It is your forum, after all.
For starters, of the three "Axis of Evil" countries, Iraq seemed [I am deliberately using past tense here, as I'm talking about whether it was a good idea or not during the run-up] to be the least likely threat to do significant harm. N. Korea was on the verge of being able to deliver nukes with medium range missiles, Iran was not burdened by the sanctions that Iraq was.
To my mind the sanctions are the big thing. They were working - at least insofar as they made Saddam essentially toothless. My take was that he was like Castro: full of bluster and intent, but unable to do a damn thing. Every once in awhile they'd shoot at a coalition plane, we'd bomb some radar installations, then the cycle resumed. No harm done.
As for the nukes, I didn't see the harm in letting Blix and Co. finish their inspections. If they WERE enriching or something, so what? They didn't have the capability to deliver a warhead - and that fact was that a warhead would've been well down the road.
I don't quibble with "regime change" being our policy on Iraq. It has been so for some time pre-W. I just think that, like Castro, Saddam could've been left to grow old and weak before all the world rather than made into a martyr.
With respect to foes in foreign policy, unlike in rock n' roll, it is better to fade away than to burn out, so to speak.
I'm setting aside the issue of manipulation of intel, the Downing Street memo, etc. There's no room there for reasonable give and take.
I neglected to address a couple other things.
To my mind the one great advantage of Iraq [I've heard the admninistration say "fight them there so we won't have to here"] is that it draws the hardcore Islamists' attention away from us here in the states. I'm reminded of Sauron turning his ever-peering eye away from Frodo and Co. when the Men of Gondor approached the Black Gate, but I digress. The Iraq-as-diversion gambit is bad for our soldiers, but good for us. I don't know if this was an intentional goal of the administration, or simply a "bonus", so to speak. But I do see value there. Just that I don't think the diversionary aspect alone justifies the decision to invade.
On the other hand, and this WAS apparent during the run-up, the invasion was sure to be a boon for Islamist recruiting, and would no doubt create MORE jihadists and aspiring martyrs, at least in the short run. While I understand the long-term thinking is that a repulican [small "r"], capitalist Iraq would make jihadism less appealing, this seems to me to have been pie in the sky thinking. Noble, but not f'ing likely.
Finally, the notion that a free Iraq would have sort of a viral effect on the region, and that democraxcy would spread, seems to be a return to Vietnam-era's Domino Theory. Communism didn't spread like wildfire then, and I don't know that democracy would spread like wildfire now.
I'll shut up now. Sorry for monopolizing the comments section!
Thank you for your analysis. It is good food for thought and we actually agree on a few points.
Since time is short, I'd like to address one point..
"..I don't know that democracy would spread like wildfire now."
I believe that every man's heart yearns to be free. For those who have been enslaved, it's a learned behavior. However, everything takes time. Of course those who hate freedom and democracy will do everything they can to beat them down but it's a battle for the future and not necessarily the present.
You are correct. It may not spread like wildfire, but as long as the embers are smoldering all hope is not lost.
Alwaysanonymous#2,
I think I am quite possibly in love with your mind.
Will you marry me? *grin*
Thank you for your consideration.
Every Christmas, I think of the COOOUUUUGGGARRRRRSSSS. And that's the bottom line.
Cougars 3:16
Post a Comment
<< Home