[lit-ideas] Re: Bullying Iran - New York Times
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:43:56 -0600
AA:
For Mike, thanks. The Iranian reaction in 2003 is little known and
certainly not promulgated by the NYT.<<
I don't know whether it was reported by the NYT or not. I don't know if any
of it is true or if true, why the overtures were ignored. I have my
speculations.
Iran is shaping up to be the scapegoat for our horrific mismanagement in
Iraq.
There seems to be some intimation of this, but I personally believe we're so
strained militarily and politically and economically that it's all just
bluffosity.
We're at war for no reason than because we are very dangerous people.<<
Hmm, you sound just like George Bush.
Mike Geary
wishing life were so simple
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 6:19 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Bullying Iran - New York Times
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Feb 3, 2007 6:57 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Bullying Iran - New York Times
Let me repeat yet again: As far as hard evidence, I'm going on
their miserable reputation for factual reporting and for their
nonfact driven pro-war bias. I asked you to supply evidence that
they are offering reasons to tone down the administration's rhetoric
regarding war with Iran.
Let's see. You made a claim that you can't back up.
A.A. I have backed it up. See the articles from FAIR. Did you read them?
The entire one on Tonkin as well as what's going on now dated yesterday?
I made no claim
about anything. I owe you no explanation. For all you know, I have an
open mind on the question of what the Times is or isn't doing in this
instance.
A.A. Whatever. I'm still curious what you think of the NYT's five year long
wild goose chase on Whitewater. What's there to think, right? They were
never held accountable for it. We expect that from American Spectator but
not from the NYT.
You apparently believe that if someone asks for evidence that what
somebody else says is true (that human activity plays a large part in
global warming) the person who asks must believe that it doesn't.
A.A. In other words, you agree with me. Glad to hear it. Dance over.
For Mike, thanks. The Iranian reaction in 2003 is little known and
certainly not promulgated by the NYT. Iran is shaping up to be the
scapegoat for our horrific mismanagement in Iraq. We can't fix it, so we'll
blame Iran and expand it instead. Literally. All we need now is some
mistake or accident in the Persian Gulf, possibly even manufactured as with
Tonkin, and it's over. We're at war for no reason than because we are very
dangerous people. Here's a blurb on Robert Kagan's book Dangerous Nation:
Dangerous Nation: America's Place in the World from its Earliest Days to the
Dawn of the 20th Century
By Robert Kagan
Publisher: Knopf, October 2006
From the author of the immensely influential and best-selling Of Paradise
and Power—a major reevaluation of America’s place in the world from the
colonial era to the turn of the twentieth century.
Robert Kagan strips away the myth of America’s isolationist tradition and
reveals a more complicated reality: that Americans have been increasing
their global power and influence steadily for the past four centuries. Even
from the time of the Puritans, he reveals, America was no shining “city up
on a hill” but an engine of commercial and territorial expansion that drove
Native Americans, as well as French, Spanish, Russian, and ultimately even
British power, from the North American continent. Even before the birth of
the nation, Americans believed they were destined for global leadership.
Underlying their ambitions, Kagan argues, was a set of ideas and ideals
about the world and human nature. He focuses on the Declaration of
Independence as the document that firmly established the American conviction
that the inalienable rights of all mankind transcended territorial borders
and blood ties. American nationalism, he shows, was always internationalist
at its core. He also makes a startling discovery: that the Civil War and the
abolition of slavery—the fulfillment of the ideals of the Declaration—were
the decisive turning point in the history of American foreign policy as
well. Kagan's brilliant and comprehensive reexamination of early American
foreign policy makes clear why America, from its very beginning, has been
viewed worldwide not only as a wellspring of political, cultural, and social
revolution, but as an ambitious and, at times, dangerous nation.
About the Author
Robert Kagan is senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, and a columnist for
The Washington Post. He is also the author of A Twilight Struggle: American
Power and Nicaragua, 1977–1990, and editor, with William Kristol, of Present
Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy.
Kagan served in the U.S. State Department from 1984 to 1988. He lives in
Brussels with his family.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18745&prog=zgp&proj=zusr
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
