Sunday, March 15, 2015

This From The Liberal Washington Post

So, I know that Mark Frost is reading the WashPo now because it's not as lieberal as the lieberal NYTimes. He did say that the WashPo was coming around to those good Conservative values (such as genocide). I'm sure this psychopathic opinion piece, by someone whom I'm sure moonlights as a serial killer, made his day.

What if force is the only way to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? That, in fact, is probably the reality. Ideology is the raison d’etre of Iran’s regime, legitimating its rule and inspiring its leaders and their supporters. In this sense, it is akin to communist, fascist and Nazi regimes that set out to transform the world. Iran aims to carry its Islamic revolution across the Middle East and beyond. A nuclear arsenal, even if it is only brandished, would vastly enhance Iran’s power to achieve that goal.

And sadly yes, it gets more insane from there.

Otherwise, only military actions — by Israel against Iraq and Syria, and through the specter of U.S. force against Libya — have halted nuclear programs. Sanctions have never stopped a nuclear drive anywhere.

Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.

Some might make the case that sanctions stopped a nuclear drive in Iraq. Of course, it didn't do any good because psychopaths like Joshua Muravchik helped to impel us into war there, too. And since we obviously don't have an army capable of taking on a country 3 or 4 times the size of Iraq and aren't going to have any allies, we'll just drop bombs on them. That won't cause any unintended consequences. 

Fuckin' asshole!

And since I'm here, do Democrats equal Republicans in this instance, Matt?

Since Frost recently said he was a fan of The Atlantic as well as the WashPo, I hope he caught this post by James Fallows (bless his heart).

Right, repeated bombing raids "as necessary." What could possibly go wrong with that approach? Yes, "surely the United States could best Iran." Surely we could polish off those backward Viet Cong. Surely invading Iraq would work out great. (I haven't taken the time to see if the author was a fan of invading Iraq, but I have a guess.) Surely the operational details of these engagements are a concern only for the small-minded among us.

How would we think about a "scholar" in some other major-power capital who cavalierly recommended war? How would we think about some other capital-city newspaper that decided to publish it? The Post's owners (like those of the NYTand other majors papers) have traditionally had a free hand in choosing the paper's editorial-page policy and leaders, while maintaining some distance from too-direct involvement in news coverage. Jeff Bezos, behold your newspaper.

Hat tip to Scott Lemieux at LGM for the Fallows link and for "The Answer is always War."

No comments:

Post a Comment