You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Saw Netanyahu's AIPAC speech on FOX last night, which carried it live. A suitable villain was indeed produced. Near the end. The WW2 US "War Department".
Why doesn't Ms. Sorcher ask "What is the Best Strategy on Israel". After-all, no treaty of alliance exists between our two nations and they continue to act in ways damaging to America's national interest.
Again the MBrenner and PL construct seems sound. Perhaps of more interest given their past roles is the dialectic of Paul Pillar and Michael Scheurer that seems to be in agreement with PL and MBrenner or have I missed some nuance? Or just flat misunderstood?
You know, hysterical bullshit aside, there is now an ever present cold blooded explication available of the flimsy rationale for anything but existential last resort, the slender nature of truly existential interests a tiny country like Israel, or Iran, can ultimately manifest for the U.S., the true costs of we are you you are us but its all on you, etc, etc.
Scheuer god bless him aptly draws the bill for the folly, as well as pointing out the relative strengths of, er, slaves and master. Why I'd almost like to start marching to Washington against those few thousand right now.
You can point this out aloud in polite company, even amongst the information averse, who can be at least be brought to heel, dueling with an iphone.
Professor Brenner does the same again in his second post explicitly reducing the relationship imperative down to size and cost.
Still, I guess its bombs away, but worms are turning, or I hope they are, cause if thay ain't us'm an dogpatch are screwed.
I still have faith that the majority of We the People do not want another illegal war . I also have faith that President Obama will out manuever the Likudniks - that why he appointed General Dempsey JCS ,
The rest is posturing pure and simple .
Hi Pat,
In his last paragraph on this topic Wayne White in part wrote:
"...recent events would seem to be pointing in the direction of eventual Israeli military action against Iran.... Although Tehran surely is aware of this threat, considerable doubt remains as to whether the Iranian leadershp is sufficiently sensitive to the grave danger that could very possibly loom ahead if it fails to respond more positively to the overtures of much of the international community.
Wayne raises a very interesting point - how realistic are Iranian assessments of Israeli (and US) military capabilities and intentions in what would likely be a largely air (including missiles) conflict? If they had a realistic appraisal, I think they would be less confrontational and at least appear to be more willing to make concessions.
Regards,
Russ
The facts are irrefutable, prevention so simple it merely takes no action at all, yet unplanned pregnancies occur every day. . . ditto smoking, unregulated capitalism, pollution, etc, etc, etc.
Saw Netanyahu's AIPAC speech on FOX last night, which carried it live. A suitable villain was indeed produced. Near the end. The WW2 US "War Department".
Full text:
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/03/05/full-text-of-netanyahu-speech-to-aipac-2012/
"Ester" will try to save Israel again, it appears.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 06 March 2012 at 01:15 PM
Why doesn't Ms. Sorcher ask "What is the Best Strategy on Israel". After-all, no treaty of alliance exists between our two nations and they continue to act in ways damaging to America's national interest.
Posted by: Fred | 06 March 2012 at 02:07 PM
Again the MBrenner and PL construct seems sound. Perhaps of more interest given their past roles is the dialectic of Paul Pillar and Michael Scheurer that seems to be in agreement with PL and MBrenner or have I missed some nuance? Or just flat misunderstood?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 06 March 2012 at 02:14 PM
CBC radio just ran that according to the good Sen McCain, it is unilateral U.S. attacks.
Posted by: Charles I | 06 March 2012 at 03:29 PM
You know, hysterical bullshit aside, there is now an ever present cold blooded explication available of the flimsy rationale for anything but existential last resort, the slender nature of truly existential interests a tiny country like Israel, or Iran, can ultimately manifest for the U.S., the true costs of we are you you are us but its all on you, etc, etc.
Scheuer god bless him aptly draws the bill for the folly, as well as pointing out the relative strengths of, er, slaves and master. Why I'd almost like to start marching to Washington against those few thousand right now.
You can point this out aloud in polite company, even amongst the information averse, who can be at least be brought to heel, dueling with an iphone.
Professor Brenner does the same again in his second post explicitly reducing the relationship imperative down to size and cost.
Still, I guess its bombs away, but worms are turning, or I hope they are, cause if thay ain't us'm an dogpatch are screwed.
Posted by: Charles I | 06 March 2012 at 03:53 PM
I still have faith that the majority of We the People do not want another illegal war . I also have faith that President Obama will out manuever the Likudniks - that why he appointed General Dempsey JCS ,
The rest is posturing pure and simple .
Posted by: alinaustex | 06 March 2012 at 06:25 PM
Could Israel already have what it needs to test Iran's air defenses? News on US sales of GBU-28 bombs and advanced refueling aircraft is in the Israeli media.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-asked-panetta-to-approve-sale-of-bunker-busting-bombs-u-s-official-says-1.416900
Posted by: greg0 | 07 March 2012 at 12:43 AM
Hi Pat,
In his last paragraph on this topic Wayne White in part wrote:
"...recent events would seem to be pointing in the direction of eventual Israeli military action against Iran.... Although Tehran surely is aware of this threat, considerable doubt remains as to whether the Iranian leadershp is sufficiently sensitive to the grave danger that could very possibly loom ahead if it fails to respond more positively to the overtures of much of the international community.
Wayne raises a very interesting point - how realistic are Iranian assessments of Israeli (and US) military capabilities and intentions in what would likely be a largely air (including missiles) conflict? If they had a realistic appraisal, I think they would be less confrontational and at least appear to be more willing to make concessions.
Regards,
Russ
Posted by: Russ | 07 March 2012 at 08:28 PM
Re realistic appraisals and human beings.
The facts are irrefutable, prevention so simple it merely takes no action at all, yet unplanned pregnancies occur every day. . . ditto smoking, unregulated capitalism, pollution, etc, etc, etc.
Why should politics or war be any different?
Posted by: Charles I | 09 March 2012 at 10:42 AM