[lit-ideas] Re: Quds forces

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian
Sent: Jan 30, 2007 3:42 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Quds forces

Irene, I know you desperately want to talk about Fox News with someone but bringing it up in every post doesn't seem to be helping you find a dance partner for that particular song. 

 

 

AA.  Mmm, every post?  Did you read that in the NYT?  Yuk yuk.  I don't "desperately" want to talk about Fox except to the extent that a lot of what passes for information on this list by the right wingers is straight out of Fox.  The whole thing about how great we're doing in Iraq, it being treason for saying anything negative about Iraq during a "time of war", the scare tactics of terrorism, just on and on.  I never put it together until I saw the movie.  Of course, you won't see the movie, so all you can do is disagree.  And of course, you won't say anything about Fox one way or another.  All you'll do is use the old tried and true best defense is an offense and tell me about every post and nobody will dance with me.  But you won't answer the question that was posed.

 

 

 

Brian: I don't know what you mean by the New York Times beating the drum for another, bigger, better war with Iran

 

 

A.A.  I have said I don't read the print version of Fox called the NYT.  They chased the country round and round on a *completely fabricated * White Water thing for five years, count em, five years; Safire the Rabid hammered both of the Clintons, but especially Hillary, mercilessly and pointlessly for years; the NYT did NOTHING to supply facts about WMD, and on and on.  The NYT is SO filled with misinformation that they even peddled the Atkins diet in one of their Sunday magazines front page stories.  Makes me wonder how much they got from Atkins to peddle it.  The NYT is all but a total waste of time when it comes to print news.  So, I go by the educated assumption that anything they have to say will support the hawks, which is to say, the administration.  Who could trust anything that the NYT says, except someone who thinks Fox is selling news?

 

 

 

Brian: but I've posted numerous times on the multiple military scenarios concerning Iran.  They are engagements with limited boots on the ground that emphasize the importance of the Navy.

 

 

A.A. Brian, you're kidding, right?  A limited engagement with Iran?  Who's going to limit it?  If we invade them, we lose, just like our limited engagement in Iraq.  Of course, after we have this "limited engagement" Fox will broadcast nothing but winning propaganda until it becomes it's completely crystal clear that we shot ourselves in the other foot.  Then what?  If hawks had brains, they wouldn't prepare for a limited engagement.  They'd prepare for a long drawn out conflict with all the economic and prestige ramifications, and then be pleasantly surprised if it goes well.  Instead, they're once again underestimating their opponent and overestimating themselves, dancing right into this thing.

 

 

(And now my obligatory question) Have you read any of what I've posted? 

 

 

A.A.  No.  The right wingers destroyed my country.  All that right wing hawk stuff is just scare tactics so they can have more war.  I don't need to read that junk.  Even if Iran is an enemy, even if they are, which is set in stone only by the war mongers, we helped make them that way.  We, Brian, set up the Shah; we, Brian, rebuffed their overtures to capture OBL.  We invaded a country on their border.  What if they invaded Mexico or Cuba?  What would be your reaction?  We invaded a country on their border and then sneered at their 17-page letter asking for peace even as we were losing like crazy in Iraq.  We refuse to talk to them.  We're the ones who do policy, not diplomacy; we're the ones who talk to countries by telling them they know what to do.  We need to talk to Iran, to have diplomatic relations, to work with people, not do everything in our power, more correctly in our powerlessness, to make more war, which is what we will do. 

 

 

 

Brian:  I suspect you haven't because nothing has said anything about being "bigger" than Iraq (which you surely know is a different situation) and last night my postings were about the end times theology of the Iranian president and his allies.  We have and will tread lightly in dealing with apocalypse seeking lunatics.  Now do me a favor and respond just like Bill Maher that Bush wants to bring Jesus back just as bad.

 

 

A.A. We invade them, it's the same situation, different only because it'll be worse.  The same in the sweets the Iranians will bestow on us for liberating them.  As far as the apocalypse, the religious wing nuts in *this* country want apocalypse.  That's why they're so aligned with Israel.  That's old news.  They don't stop to think that God let them down in 2000, he let them down in their war with Iraq, so what's their guarantee now?  It will be something, won't it, when they have their nuclear war and wake up among the rubble along with everybody else.  And forgotten in all this is that we will have invaded Iran.  Iran won't have invaded us.

 

All trademarks and copyrights within the FreeLists archives are owned by their respective owners. Everything else ©2000-2009 Avenir Technologies, LLC. FreeLists is a service of Avenir Technologies, LLC.