6 Comments so far

1. RichM March 16th, 2007 4:50 pm

   I wouldn’t take Kinzer’s word for it. His position lacks integrity, & in his many years as NYT journalist, he was a real wh*re for US imperialism — like Judy Miller & Michael Gordon today.

   For example, look at this sentence: Today, however, strong states are no longer the real enemy; weak ones are. To start with, the US is the “real enemy,” the real danger, today. Kinzer manages to overlook this. He’s only looking at the negative consequences FOR THE U.S., in advising against a strike. He’s saying we shouldn’t do it, but only because he fears it won’t work out well for us. He’s right that we shouldn’t do it — but he’s right for the wrong reasons.

2. Lobo Gris March 17th, 2007 7:15 am

   “What could be worse for the United States than a snarling anti-American regime in Tehran that seems bent on developing nuclear weapons? No regime at all. Decapitating the Iranian government or throwing the country into turmoil would produce anarchy. Militant groups would operate free of any constraints.”

   To put it in legalese, Mr. Kinzer assumes facts not in evidence.

   There is no evidence either from the covert teams Bush allegaedly has running around in Iran or from the IAEA that Iran is attempting to produce an atomic weapon.

   The estimate by intelligence agencys is that they might be able to produce one in five to ten years if they were attempting to do so.

   The danger here is that continually repeating assumptions as facts and not having them challenged leads to them being considered as facts.

   Further, what if Iran did develope an atomic weapon? Can anyone believe that if they attempted to use it that their whole country wouldn’t be turned into a glassine parking lot by the U.S. and israel?

   What about regime change? This is unbelieveably unrealistic.

   An airstrike which is the only viable military option is extremely unlikely to be able to kill off all of the religious Mullahs, the president, and the parliament in one fell swoop which is what would be required to effect any chance of regime change.

   The much more likely scenario would be to strike Irans nuclear facilities in the hopes of delaying any attempt they might make to develop an atomic weapon for x number of years if they were in fact trying to develop an atomic weapon for which there is no evidence of any such attempt.

   The most likely result?

   Retaliation by Iran which could take many forms. They could make even more trouble than now exists in Iraq for American forces there. They could attempt to block the straits of Hormuz which they sit astride, blocking up to 40% of the words oil supply which travels through there. They could in addition restrict their own oil production and sales. Can anyone say $100 to $200 dollars a barrel for oil or more? Can anyone say rationing and/or long lines at the gas pumps that would make 1973 look like a day at the park.

   They could retaliate by striking against the carriers striking against them? Can anyone say escalation to the point that WWIII begins?

   Lobo Gris

3. Essie March 17th, 2007 2:22 pm

   Truer words were rarely spoken about Iran. I know it because I lived there for more than 30 years. They will never forget a wrong, and they’ll get back at you sooner or later. The US Embassy hostage taking was a direct response to the CIA coup that reinstated the Shah. Naturally, they overran the US Embassy to prevent a repeat. You can’t blame them for being fast learners. Of course, they did not call it the US Embassy; they called it the den of spies. What they did appears appropriate, especially when we now witness the US engaging in the same act by holding Iranian diplomats as hostage, albeit for a much weaker reason.

4. russwollman March 17th, 2007 5:17 pm

   Mr. Kinzer’s analysis is hardly necessary. A handful of words will suffice: “As you sow, so shall you reap”. It is as true for an entire nation as it is for an individual.

   It is a lack of knowledge of life that leads to war and all other kinds of wrong action.

   Leaders of nations simply lack wisdom and become drunk with power. This is why the world has been so sad for so long. Until the consciousness of the people in the world rises to a higher level which will give rise to a higher level of government, we are stuck.

   People getthe government they deserve. People create world consciousness. There is no escape from that. There is only to raise world consciousness.

   http://www.peacegovernment.org

5. Essie March 18th, 2007 11:12 am

   Truer words were rarely spoken about Iran. I know it because I lived there for more than 30 years. They will never forget a wrong, and they’ll get back at you sooner or later. The US Embassy hostage taking was a direct response to the 1953 CIA coup that reinstated the Shah. Naturally, years later they overran the US Embassy to prevent a repeat. You can’t blame them for being fast learners. Of course, they did not call it the US Embassy; they called it the den of spies. What they did appears appropriate, especially when we now witness the US engaging in the same act by holding Iranian diplomats as hostage, albeit for a much weaker reason.

6. ezeflyer March 18th, 2007 11:43 am

   Why organize religion unless you want to form a power block to make others to do what you want? Where’s the good in that huh Jesus, Mohammed, Abraham? Why do you say God gave us free will, then you want to take it away? To kill us in your wars so we can go to your heaven? To rape, pillage, pollute, plunder and murder in the name of your God? To lie, cheat, steal and kill for money?

   Your Bible says Mammon is the God of Money; the Devil. All the actions of your organized religion point to your worship of Satan. That would make you the false prophets your bible talks about.

   “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is to convince the world that he does not exist”.
   from “The Usual Suspects”

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)