![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Say You Want a Revolution
Feb. 27th, 2007 01:29 pmUS Planning Iran Bombs ... but they have no intention of going to war with Iran. None at all. In fact, to even suggest such a thing is 'mischievous'.
Um. 'Scuse me. The US raided their Embassy in Iraq. They stole a bunch of computers that had to have had sensitive government documents on them. They arrested five people for being in their own fucking Embassy. Now they're talking about plans to 'destroy Iran's nuclear facilities' and something about 'regime change' (remind anyone of anything currently going on next door to the country in question?) - but keep on insisting they have no plans whatsoever to go to war with Iran. No, apparently invading a country's Embassy, planning to bomb the country itself and talking about 'destruction' in terms of getting rid of said country's nuclear facilities constitutes a plan to "work with the allies to address those concerns through diplomatic efforts".
And the really idiotic thing? (Cos lords know this isn't stupid enough.) The US seems surprised that Iran's expecting the worst at this point. I mean, come on. The US invades the Iranian Embassy in Iraq, steals a bunch of documents, and arrests people. Iran would have been well within its rights to retaliate ... but they didn't, probably because they didn't particularly want to get into it with the US at this point, seeing the stellar job they're doing at regime change in Iraq. Given why the US (and, to be fair, the UK) got into Iraq in the first place, it obviously doesn't take much of an excuse to get the Bush/Blair diumvirate to tromp in and start destabilising a country. Iran didn't start spear-rattling in the general direction of the army that fucked with its Embassy for good reason - they didn't really want to start anything. And yet, now the US is talking about bombing Iran anyway. No wonder the Iranians are digging bunkers and moving their political people out of Tehran. This doesn't surprise me; why is this surprising anyone else?
Yes, they're talking about doing it as a way "to halt the flow of Iranian aid to sectarian militants in Iraq". But what does 'destroying Iran's nuclear facilities' (read: POWER PLANTS) and 'regime change' have to do with that? Okay, dumb question on that last one, I admit that. Changing the regime in Iran would certainly help solve a whole lot of niggling issues in terms of support for sectarian militants. However, this strikes me as a really stupid way of going about it. Particularly given that it would appear that Pentagon top brass were reportedly "counting on the White House's not being foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008".
What I'm mainly not getting is the doublethink and actual Newspeak ... coming out of the White House right now. Dick Cheney's comments about "all options being on the table" with regards to Iran was dismissed as 'agitprop'. AGITPROP, I ask you. It sounds like a word right out of 1984, and given the current climate, that disturbs the almighty fuck out of me. I mean, what's next? "We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia"? As for the doublethink, it strikes me that a whole bunch of people saying, "Of course we're not going to start a war with Iran" is somewhat at odds with intelligence officials admitting that "Inside the military, they are planning very seriously, at the President's request, to attack Iran" and that US special ops people and intelligence forces have been crossing into Iran 'for months'. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS! Either tell us, honestly, that we have contingency plans for everywhere but aren't necessarily planning on using them, or tell us that you intend to bomb the shit out of Iran. Do not tell us both.
The article finishes up by talking about how Bush is pushing his position of privilege to its absolute limit. Personally, I think he passed that limit a long, long time ago. And frankly, he can fuck right off. Iraq was bad enough; there was no good reason for it, it's being handled badly and it's still going on despite everything. (Honestly, I know what kind of a bastard Saddam Hussein was as a leader, and I know what he did to his people, and I am no great fan of anything he did in this life, which is why it saddens me beyond my capacity to express that I am forced, in the spirit of honesty, to say that Iraq was better off with him there. Yes, he was a maniac and a horrible, horrible man, but at least the entire fucking country wasn't in complete chaos when he was in charge.) Now Bush wants to add Iran to the horror. He's spending money that Congress hasn't approved for this. I don't know where the hell he's going to get the money for this and still have enough for all the other things he promised without raising taxes sky-high, so I can only assume that he's going to back out of every promise bar the ones about getting military numbers up by another 92k people. Which, of course, is going to involve the draft. I don't see how it can do anything but at this point.
So Iraq is in chaos. Iran is next. And there's no reason for it. In fact, there's so much backtracking and doublethink going on that the countries causing the chaos are not even properly admitting that they have plans in that direction, even though they obviously do. I'm not entirely sure what this kind of press attention is supposed to achieve, but on the whole, it strikes me as insane that most of the US hasn't turned around and said, "Right. Bush is abusing his power too much now. Impeach the fucker".
C'mon, guys, you're a country of revolutionaries! When the people who rule you piss you off, you chuck a bunch of tea in the river, refuse to pay your taxes and then kill the army that tries to beat you down for it! I know that 1776 was a long, long way away, but your nation was founded in the spirit of "Fuck y'all and the ship you sailed in on" and all the English wanted were the taxes your people agreed to pay in the first place. Now that your leader's well and truly fucking you over, I kind of expect you to, I dunno, remember that you are a nation of rebels who stand up for what you think is right and hang the consequences.
Um. 'Scuse me. The US raided their Embassy in Iraq. They stole a bunch of computers that had to have had sensitive government documents on them. They arrested five people for being in their own fucking Embassy. Now they're talking about plans to 'destroy Iran's nuclear facilities' and something about 'regime change' (remind anyone of anything currently going on next door to the country in question?) - but keep on insisting they have no plans whatsoever to go to war with Iran. No, apparently invading a country's Embassy, planning to bomb the country itself and talking about 'destruction' in terms of getting rid of said country's nuclear facilities constitutes a plan to "work with the allies to address those concerns through diplomatic efforts".
And the really idiotic thing? (Cos lords know this isn't stupid enough.) The US seems surprised that Iran's expecting the worst at this point. I mean, come on. The US invades the Iranian Embassy in Iraq, steals a bunch of documents, and arrests people. Iran would have been well within its rights to retaliate ... but they didn't, probably because they didn't particularly want to get into it with the US at this point, seeing the stellar job they're doing at regime change in Iraq. Given why the US (and, to be fair, the UK) got into Iraq in the first place, it obviously doesn't take much of an excuse to get the Bush/Blair diumvirate to tromp in and start destabilising a country. Iran didn't start spear-rattling in the general direction of the army that fucked with its Embassy for good reason - they didn't really want to start anything. And yet, now the US is talking about bombing Iran anyway. No wonder the Iranians are digging bunkers and moving their political people out of Tehran. This doesn't surprise me; why is this surprising anyone else?
Yes, they're talking about doing it as a way "to halt the flow of Iranian aid to sectarian militants in Iraq". But what does 'destroying Iran's nuclear facilities' (read: POWER PLANTS) and 'regime change' have to do with that? Okay, dumb question on that last one, I admit that. Changing the regime in Iran would certainly help solve a whole lot of niggling issues in terms of support for sectarian militants. However, this strikes me as a really stupid way of going about it. Particularly given that it would appear that Pentagon top brass were reportedly "counting on the White House's not being foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008".
What I'm mainly not getting is the doublethink and actual Newspeak ... coming out of the White House right now. Dick Cheney's comments about "all options being on the table" with regards to Iran was dismissed as 'agitprop'. AGITPROP, I ask you. It sounds like a word right out of 1984, and given the current climate, that disturbs the almighty fuck out of me. I mean, what's next? "We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia"? As for the doublethink, it strikes me that a whole bunch of people saying, "Of course we're not going to start a war with Iran" is somewhat at odds with intelligence officials admitting that "Inside the military, they are planning very seriously, at the President's request, to attack Iran" and that US special ops people and intelligence forces have been crossing into Iran 'for months'. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS! Either tell us, honestly, that we have contingency plans for everywhere but aren't necessarily planning on using them, or tell us that you intend to bomb the shit out of Iran. Do not tell us both.
The article finishes up by talking about how Bush is pushing his position of privilege to its absolute limit. Personally, I think he passed that limit a long, long time ago. And frankly, he can fuck right off. Iraq was bad enough; there was no good reason for it, it's being handled badly and it's still going on despite everything. (Honestly, I know what kind of a bastard Saddam Hussein was as a leader, and I know what he did to his people, and I am no great fan of anything he did in this life, which is why it saddens me beyond my capacity to express that I am forced, in the spirit of honesty, to say that Iraq was better off with him there. Yes, he was a maniac and a horrible, horrible man, but at least the entire fucking country wasn't in complete chaos when he was in charge.) Now Bush wants to add Iran to the horror. He's spending money that Congress hasn't approved for this. I don't know where the hell he's going to get the money for this and still have enough for all the other things he promised without raising taxes sky-high, so I can only assume that he's going to back out of every promise bar the ones about getting military numbers up by another 92k people. Which, of course, is going to involve the draft. I don't see how it can do anything but at this point.
So Iraq is in chaos. Iran is next. And there's no reason for it. In fact, there's so much backtracking and doublethink going on that the countries causing the chaos are not even properly admitting that they have plans in that direction, even though they obviously do. I'm not entirely sure what this kind of press attention is supposed to achieve, but on the whole, it strikes me as insane that most of the US hasn't turned around and said, "Right. Bush is abusing his power too much now. Impeach the fucker".
C'mon, guys, you're a country of revolutionaries! When the people who rule you piss you off, you chuck a bunch of tea in the river, refuse to pay your taxes and then kill the army that tries to beat you down for it! I know that 1776 was a long, long way away, but your nation was founded in the spirit of "Fuck y'all and the ship you sailed in on" and all the English wanted were the taxes your people agreed to pay in the first place. Now that your leader's well and truly fucking you over, I kind of expect you to, I dunno, remember that you are a nation of rebels who stand up for what you think is right and hang the consequences.