"one of its Iranian agents" = Chalabi, for varying values of "Iranian"?
Yeah. That sounds like a different version of 'Ahmed Chalabi blows everybodies cover' of September 2004.
And nobody seriously thinks we're going to invade Iran, do they? I mean, seriously?
Iraq --> Syria --> Iran == spreading democracy. That's the plan, Stan! And always was.
Knocking off Saddam Hussein and leaving the Iranian army intact would be fairly disasterous (unless you think Iran owning the entire Middle East is a good idea, in which case never mind).
If you are interested in guaranteeing 'stability' in the Middle, and if you are interested in 'spreading democracy' and if you are interested in keeping the oil pumping, knocking off Saddam Hussein practically mandates invading Iran. Otherwise, the United States stays in Iraq for the next 12 years (just like the US stayed in Kuwait and Saudi for 12 years) until we get the next idiot in office who will invade instead of contain.
The logic applies to Her Royal Clintoness just as much as it applies to King George. War has its own logic. And if HRC will not invade, then the usual Weekly Standard crowd will bang their drums until they get their chance again.
i think the kaus angle is incomplete w/o the feiler faster thesis showing that hillary clinton's calculated lack of principles would make this problem even worse, and allow lazy blacks to get your money here in america.
a friend living abroad asked me a couple months before gwb's excellent iraq adventure if it was going to happen, and i told him i couldn't believe we were actually that stupid, and that it had to be some elaborate bluff. i will no longer doubt their ability to engage in any insanity, no matter how insane.
Naw, we invade Syria, and then Turkey and Iran fight over the Kurds (with or without Israeli strikes on the Iranian nuke sites). Somehow Saudi Arabia gets drawn in as well. In 15-20 years we convene Versailles II to redraw all the lines.
Wasn't it from that 1000+ comment thread? Someone said that the thread was getting so long, we could just start referring back to our own earlier comments and say "I think this gets it exactly right". Or something similar to that.
"one of its Iranian agents" = Chalabi, for varying values of "Iranian"?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 10:28 AM
Now that our intelligence mission has been compromised, we cannot hope to undermine the regime from the inside and have no choice but to invade.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 10:48 AM
Perhaps some money was mistakenly deposited in a numbered account in Switzerland after the information was mistakenly passed on.
Posted by JDC | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:03 AM
Wait, that post wasn't funny. I come here to laugh, not cry.
And nobody seriously thinks we're going to invade Iran, do they? I mean, seriously?
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:06 AM
4--Only if you rejigger the values of "we" and "invade."
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:08 AM
Frist floated an anti-Iran trial balloon a few days ago.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:27 AM
Well balloons are relatively harmless, right?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:47 AM
It was a balloon full of smallpox.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:48 AM
Balloons don't kill people, their poisonous contents kills people.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:59 AM
"one of its Iranian agents" = Chalabi, for varying values of "Iranian"?
Yeah. That sounds like a different version of 'Ahmed Chalabi blows everybodies cover' of September 2004.
And nobody seriously thinks we're going to invade Iran, do they? I mean, seriously?
Iraq --> Syria --> Iran == spreading democracy. That's the plan, Stan! And always was.
Knocking off Saddam Hussein and leaving the Iranian army intact would be fairly disasterous (unless you think Iran owning the entire Middle East is a good idea, in which case never mind).
If you are interested in guaranteeing 'stability' in the Middle, and if you are interested in 'spreading democracy' and if you are interested in keeping the oil pumping, knocking off Saddam Hussein practically mandates invading Iran. Otherwise, the United States stays in Iraq for the next 12 years (just like the US stayed in Kuwait and Saudi for 12 years) until we get the next idiot in office who will invade instead of contain.
The logic applies to Her Royal Clintoness just as much as it applies to King George. War has its own logic. And if HRC will not invade, then the usual Weekly Standard crowd will bang their drums until they get their chance again.
ash
['Can't eat just one.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 12:02 PM
i think the kaus angle is incomplete w/o the feiler faster thesis showing that hillary clinton's calculated lack of principles would make this problem even worse, and allow lazy blacks to get your money here in america.
a friend living abroad asked me a couple months before gwb's excellent iraq adventure if it was going to happen, and i told him i couldn't believe we were actually that stupid, and that it had to be some elaborate bluff. i will no longer doubt their ability to engage in any insanity, no matter how insane.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 12:47 PM
Naw, we invade Syria, and then Turkey and Iran fight over the Kurds (with or without Israeli strikes on the Iranian nuke sites). Somehow Saudi Arabia gets drawn in as well. In 15-20 years we convene Versailles II to redraw all the lines.
Posted by Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 1:32 PM
I know this isn't a laughing matter, but all I can think is:
'Uh, please disregard the previous attachment.'
Other than that, I think ash has it exactly right.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 4:39 PM
There is a "_____ has it exactly right" in-joke, isn't there? If so, what is it?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 6:21 PM
That after a thread gets really long, you can say something like "145 gets it exactly right"—145 having been written by you.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 6:57 PM
15 gets it exactly right.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 6:58 PM
Wasn't it from that 1000+ comment thread? Someone said that the thread was getting so long, we could just start referring back to our own earlier comments and say "I think this gets it exactly right". Or something similar to that.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 6:59 PM
See?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 6:59 PM
Er, what he said.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 7:01 PM
Heh.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 7:11 PM
21 gets it exactly right.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 7:25 PM
I think that's cheating.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 7:27 PM
23 is the hero.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 8:00 PM
56 will take the words right out of my mouth.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 8:12 PM
It must have been while 56 was kissing you.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 8:37 PM
Why I never!
Posted by 56 | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 8:53 PM