Scorching Hell
So Khatami is making grandiose speeches about how America will break upon the unyielding stone that is Persia, er whoops, excuse me, 'Iran'.
Khatami: Iran Would Be Hell for Attackers
Seems to me I hear an echo or something. Like, "Pay no attention to the TV footage, there are NO American soldiers at Baghdad Airport."
Sheesh. Strutting don't make it so, little man. Personally, I hope everything can be resolved without confrontation. But if Iran doesn't give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons, I say take'em down first. We won't be alone. They've got to guard their borders with the 'Stans. They've got to guard the border with Iraq. It's not like the Iraqis or most other Arabs have forgotten or forgiven Persian domination. They've got to guard the airspace with defense in depth as American aircraft cross the borders at will. All from a staging point MUCH closer and more convenient than the U.S. had when we got to where we are now.
We've basically got them surrounded all by ourselves.
Now that could make things harder for us in Iraq with a population that is largely of the same religion (though a different ethnicity, and the Arab and Kurdish Iraqis who share religion don't get along great), with a certain small segment of the population unpacified anyway. It could stretch us a little thin when we already have a hard time controlling the domestic security situation in Iraq.
It could also shift the focus of insurgency from Iraq, a place we want peace and prosperity, to Iran, a Gap nation we have not yet restructured to follow the rules of the Core, in which case little harm is done to what we've accomplished so far. If Iran went too far with the nuclear posturing, it would even give legitimacy to more or less bombing them back to the Stone Age, and provide yet another example of why it is in the DPRK's best interest to step back from the atomic brinksmanship. It would also provide a way of leaving Iraq earlier, without lending legitimacy to counter-democratic insurgents- if we leave Iraq (militarily, at least) then there is no valid excuse for continued car bombing. It would be unfortunately reminiscent of ancient military commanders sweeping vast armies from occupation of one territory to another, but then again, maybe that is what is needed. As long as there is a net gain (in liberty, democracy, economic prosperity and integration with the global civilized rule-set) from the pacified territories left behind, then why not?
Khatami, Iran may well become a scorching hell. Dude, for your sake, better hope not.
Khatami: Iran Would Be Hell for Attackers
Seems to me I hear an echo or something. Like, "Pay no attention to the TV footage, there are NO American soldiers at Baghdad Airport."
Sheesh. Strutting don't make it so, little man. Personally, I hope everything can be resolved without confrontation. But if Iran doesn't give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons, I say take'em down first. We won't be alone. They've got to guard their borders with the 'Stans. They've got to guard the border with Iraq. It's not like the Iraqis or most other Arabs have forgotten or forgiven Persian domination. They've got to guard the airspace with defense in depth as American aircraft cross the borders at will. All from a staging point MUCH closer and more convenient than the U.S. had when we got to where we are now.
We've basically got them surrounded all by ourselves.
Now that could make things harder for us in Iraq with a population that is largely of the same religion (though a different ethnicity, and the Arab and Kurdish Iraqis who share religion don't get along great), with a certain small segment of the population unpacified anyway. It could stretch us a little thin when we already have a hard time controlling the domestic security situation in Iraq.
It could also shift the focus of insurgency from Iraq, a place we want peace and prosperity, to Iran, a Gap nation we have not yet restructured to follow the rules of the Core, in which case little harm is done to what we've accomplished so far. If Iran went too far with the nuclear posturing, it would even give legitimacy to more or less bombing them back to the Stone Age, and provide yet another example of why it is in the DPRK's best interest to step back from the atomic brinksmanship. It would also provide a way of leaving Iraq earlier, without lending legitimacy to counter-democratic insurgents- if we leave Iraq (militarily, at least) then there is no valid excuse for continued car bombing. It would be unfortunately reminiscent of ancient military commanders sweeping vast armies from occupation of one territory to another, but then again, maybe that is what is needed. As long as there is a net gain (in liberty, democracy, economic prosperity and integration with the global civilized rule-set) from the pacified territories left behind, then why not?
Khatami, Iran may well become a scorching hell. Dude, for your sake, better hope not.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home