Sunday, April 16, 2006

Iran - Quagmire and crisis

This hit piece on America by Scotland on Sunday, is a prime example of how the media, especially Biritsh media, are a danger to us all.

First off, the entire article paints the entire Iranian nuclear crisis as America's fault, is full of bias and is misleading.

The headling starts it off by calling Iraq a quagmire, in reference to Vietnam. Let's see, in this case the North Vietnamese are defeated, their leaders killed or imprisoned, the Viet Gong are being decimated, the Vietnamese have held 3 elections and adopted a constitution. Not to mention Vietnam's economy is surging. GDP per capita doubled by the end of 2005, and the GDP is expected to grow another 49 percent by 2008. Despite the hopes of these two jurnos, Iraq is not like Vietnam at all.

Here's how these two describe the US Administration.

In any case, can his tired, battered and largely discredited administration be trusted to deal competently with these challenges?

No, this isn't the opinion pages but there you go. What proof do they offer that the administration is "largely discredited"?

If the half dozen generals, speaking on behalf of many currently serving officers, who have called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation are to be believed, the answer is: it can't.

One of those generals is Clark, the faild Deomcratic candidate for President last time around. Another is Anthony Zinni who sang a different tune in 2000.

The hits keep on coming.

Bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq - with a steady stream of military casualties, civilian deaths and mounting chaos - Bush is the last man Americans, and wider western opinion, would trust to intervene militarily in another middle eastern nation.

No doubt that's probably true thanks to the lies and bias in the media.

Does this look like a quagmire? Especially in light of what I said above.

As for the military casualties, except for a spike this month, casualty rates have been falling for months.

The only people talking about military action in Iran is the media. And that talk has been racheted way up lately as these two note: " the furore over the Hersh thesis was building." That would be the "largely descredited" I lie and fudge things Hersh.

Now for a little switch a roo.

Whereas Bush appears to prefer the Iraq model as a solution to his foreign policy crises, others cling to the prospect of recreating the type of painstaking diplomatic activity that eased Libya back into the international fold.

Someone needs to break it to these guys that it was the war in Iraq that convinced Libya that it needed to give up its WMDs. Notice how they leave out the little detail that Libya even had WMDs.

Other than the descredited Hersh, who else do these guys quote to back up their claims?

Yet Cirincione is convinced that the administration is preparing the ground for a campaign to persuade the American public that a war is both inevitable and in the national interest. He argues that "some senior officials have already made up their minds: they want to hit Iran."

Un-named "senior officials".

They go on to make a possible fatal error in their conclusions.

"The former Soviet Union had many bombs but they did not save the system. Iran will not be an exception.

Communists with nukes is one thing, a mad Islamist is something quite different. The former was aware of mutual destruction, the latter doesn't care.

After describing how the West is left wondering what to do...

But as the rhetoric is ratcheted up and secret plans for possible air strikes are made, Washington and the European powers are reduced to hoping that, in the words of Mr Micawber, "something will turn up" to magically defuse the crisis. Unfortunately few people, if any, have a compelling vision as to what that something might be.

They go on to describe the incredible amout of work that is being done from every angle to diffuse the confrontation.

After all the attacks on America and none on Iran, what do these two have to say on what should be done? They describe the diplomacy, sanctions, deadlock and military options that are currently taking place. Each and everyone of these avenues is currently being explored and pressure applied on Iran to stop it from getting nuclear weapons. The EU3, the IAEA and the UN have all had numerous talks with Iran in an attempt to stop them from acquiring nukes. Every time Iran says it will not budge "one iota". These two never point out anything that should be done that is not currently being done to diffuse the situation.

What ever happended to no more nukes and calls for nuclear non-proliferation? Why no calls for Iran to stop its pursuit of nukes in their article? Because that's what Bush and America want and heavens forbid these two should find themselves in agreement with either.

These two would do well to read and head this.


In Vietnam, I don't remember the North Vietnamese turning on the Viet Cong, do you?

But Sheikh Osama Jadaan's dislike of foreign occupation is nothing compared to his contempt for Iraq's other intruders - the foreign jihadists who have indiscriminately killed thousands of his countrymen. Now, in what coalition commanders hope will mark a turning of the tide against al-Qaeda in Iraq, he has become the first of the Sunni tribal leaders to declare war on the terrorists to whom, until now, they have given safe haven.

He is well-placed to do so - his al-Karabla tribe lives around the desert city of Al Qaim, near the Syrian border in Anbar province, the Sunni insurgents' stronghold.

Sheikh Jadaan's armed followers claim to have arrested and killed 300 would-be jihadis entering from Syria, many bound for service as suicide bombers with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

This comes on top of 6 other tribes who have declared war on al Qaeda and Zarqawi's demotion.

Some quagmire, eh?

No comments:

Brain Bliss