tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36646589.post3567563239520219903..comments2023-10-30T19:03:59.225+01:00Comments on David Seaton's News Links: The Manchurian candidate and the silicon dis-aliyahDavid Seaton's Newslinkshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00269813419598042699noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36646589.post-90501528637823158032007-02-21T22:07:00.000+01:002007-02-21T22:07:00.000+01:00The emotional side of me would sure like to believ...The emotional side of me would sure like to believe that there are some things so depraved or awful that the human animal will simply shrink from doing them, but the rational side of me (the one that can read) says 'Sorry, but no.'<BR/><BR/>The Bushies have the means and they have the opportunity for war with Iran. If they have motive as well, and political motives abound, then the crime will very likely go forward--what is to stop it? <BR/><BR/>The Democrats? Puh-lease. They're too busy polishing their own anti-Iranian credentials, pushing an 'Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights' or whatever, and debating toothless resolutions to have time for a little thing like stopping Bush from expanding the war. I doubt very much that they want to.<BR/><BR/>The Military? The politicians will simply replace the officers who think it's madness with ones who'll do as they're told--no shortage of them.<BR/><BR/>The People? They haven't had real political power for years now. The sound and fury of American Democracy simply makes it hard for them to see that this institution no longer responds to the controls. Should they ever notice that, as a few have, and reach for the power of the angry mob instead, they'll quickly discover I think that they <I>already</I> live in a police state.<BR/><BR/>The consequences? Well, the crime has to be committed before any of those will be felt, and who will feel them? Not George Bush and his well-to-do friends, that much I think is certain. <BR/><BR/>The only open question to my mind is: nukes, or not?<BR/><BR/>So far, nuclear weapons have only been used the one time, against an already beaten enemy, on defenseless civilians, and in the context of only one country in the world having them. Pretty safe, at least for those with the firecrackers.<BR/><BR/>The big difference they've made since then is that war can no longer indefinitely escalate without serious risks of extinction, and in fact wars have steadily shrunk in scale since then. Myself, I think this is rather a good thing, but there are those among America's strategical thinkers who are disinclined to that view. For a long time, they've been bothered by the paradox of such a potent weapon rendering them <I>less</I> able to use force, and have sought ways around this (to them) unfortunate situation. <BR/><BR/>So the question before us is this: can there be such a thing as a limited nuclear war? <BR/><BR/>I very much want to be wrong, but this hateful voice keeps whispering in my ear that the monkey is about to let his curiousity get the better of him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36646589.post-42946093167054600292007-02-21T21:50:00.000+01:002007-02-21T21:50:00.000+01:00Nice theory, however, its not simple enough. I th...Nice theory, however, its not simple enough. I think that Bush is not one bit concerned about Israel, only in as much as zionists and fanatical former neo-cons are his only friends.<BR/>As for Iran, Bush's position has been to blow much smoke and has taken very few steps to actually do anything. <BR/>Knowing that the minor IAEA safety violations that already got Iran the right amount punishment (the weak sanctions) Bush knows that no nation will vote for worse sanctions.<BR/>The current 'demand' by the IAEA for Iran to shut down its reactors is not a binding resolution (as far as I know), but even if it were, Russia will not vote for a resolution threatening violence.<BR/>And if Bush acts unilaterally, then Iran can too, and they have one ace in the hole, Iraq.<BR/>Iran have done nothing actually wrong, as far as anyone can tell. Thats just the fact.<BR/><BR/>So we have Bush who is devoid of rational friends and badly in need of a reality check, and no doubt like all the other late stage career politicans is inebriated with doctors injections and the like.<BR/><BR/>Bush always wanted to have a 'successful' Presidency, he never got one. Granted 9-11 is the fault of his emergence as a megalomaniac but many of these laws were drafted and waiting long before he decided to ignore the intelligence on the UBL danger.<BR/><BR/>So many attacks on freedoms have come its headspinning just trying to remember them. Bush is responsible for that. The reason is because its just easier to fearmonger and ignore reality; to demand legal changes when a change in policy would be the right choice.<BR/><BR/>But we live in a society where we laugh at those who throw their hands up and say "I'm sorry I got it wrong". Perhaps this should be the first area to change in America before the rest. Lets make easier to backtrack and to change policy; then perhaps so many good people would not be forced into the insanity of eternal polarities of 'right versus wrong'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36646589.post-50329426921073895772007-02-21T21:23:00.000+01:002007-02-21T21:23:00.000+01:00Ole Guillermo of Occam left me a different blade: ...Ole Guillermo of Occam left me a different blade: I vividly remember General Jorge L. Galtieri, who ran an increasingly unpopular military junta with a history of extraordinarily rendering citizens of Argentina into the Atlantic from a few thousand meters' altitude.<BR/><BR/>When the people began to clamor for a return to normalcy, and presumably an accounting of what had gone on while the nation was goose-stepping, he decided to pick a fight with a foreign nation. This <B>despite</B> the fact that on his visit to Washington prior to the invasion, a General, perhaps Vernon Walters, told him that to start a war would be <B>sheer folly</B>, because Margaret Thatcher was not a politician to be trifled with. The more or less exact words were that he'd seen her let Irish prisoners starve themselves to death, and if she was willing to let the Irish do this to themselves, the odds of her being more conciliatory vis a vis the swarthier Argentinians were infinitesimally small.<BR/><BR/>Our vaunted decider already had the last Congress grant him an amnesty for any acts of torture he (may have) ordered, even though the Constitution explicitly bans ex post facto laws. <BR/><BR/>Desperate men resort to desperate deeds, and to arrive at the simplest possible explanation, one need not invoke a people who were good friends with the Persians - think of Queen Esther - centuries before Julius Caesar first spied the cliffs of Dover, and proceeded to subjugate Guillermo's native land.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, the only way out of this imbroglio is to have the Congress insist that the President and Vice-President be examined by a panel of forensic psychiatrists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com