Drumbeats category archive

. . .by raining death from the skies in far away places with strange sounding names.

Dick Destiny explains.

No one will say it in formal circles: Use of drones outside the US is all about bombing paupers or — ahem — the impoverished places of the world, if something less blunt sounding is needed. That’s the US strategic plant coupled to the story on budget cuts. It’s a strategic triad with two of legs — drones and special forces — aimed at going after people who largely cannot defend themselves in any serious way, always poorer, weaker, and generally of different color and religion in desperate regions. And the third leg of the triad — the Navy — is aimed at people who definitely can shoot back, the Chinese. But whom we won’t get into a war with for the obvious reason that they make all our pipe and wires and telephones and computers and underwear and everything else except drones and most of the kit that the special forces use.

One wonders when it becomes killing fighting merely for the sake of killing fighting.

Follow the link for the rest.

“You furnish the pictures; I’ll furnish the war.–Willam Randolph Hearst.

I’ll quote noz, who said, in a post on something else:

a related issue is the persistent double standard about how we talk about other nations. american candidates regularly and openly discuss which foreign countries they want to attack. but if a foreign leader or potential leader ever did anything like that, the american press would go completely apeshit.

At the Asia Times, Yong Kwon analyzes the latest drumbeats:

The pervasiveness of the tendency to forward coercive measures is evident in the recent report published by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Senior research associate Michael Mazza argues that the US should pursue the short-term goal of wiping out North Korea’s power projection capacities and the long term goal of demolishing the regime. [1]

This contention has always been popular among Americans who believe that the United States should actively utilize its massive military and economic might to neutralize international threats.

The simple logic behind the coercive approach is attractive, but dangerous if not completely irresponsible.

Atrios summed up the endless war approach to foreign policy quite well.

Steve Chapman discusses the wingnut lust for war with Iran. A nugget:

Hello? A U.S. attack on a Middle Eastern country that has not attacked us and poses no threat to our security, out of panic over alleged weapons of mass destruction? Haven’t we tried that, and didn’t we learn anything about starting wars we don’t know how to end?

The rumble of the drums, having faded, starts to become louder.

Thoreau hears the war mongers mongering war with Iran with other persons’ children once more, because Afghanistan and the Great and Glorious Patriotic War for a Lie in Iraq have worked out so well.

A nugget:

The great thing about being a hawk is that if the people you wish to attack are rational and self-interested you can argue in favor of attacking them because they aren’t crazy enough to, say, fight back. Conversely, if they aren’t rational and self-interested you must attack them because they might attack you.

Of course, the fact that they are rational and self-interested apparently doesn’t mean that we should try anything drastic like, say, negotiating.

In the world of wingnut poliltical theory, the road to media success is intellectual failure. The resolution to what’s happening in Iran lies in Iran, not in the U. S.

Gary Kamiya on the resurgence of the Iran warmongers:

One of the things the neocons would like the rest of us to forget is that they were the most ardent proponents of invading the very country whose people they now piously claim to support. Back in the heady “Mission Accomplished” days, the neocon slogan was “Wimps go to Baghdad — real men go to Tehran.” Leaving aside the fact that the neocons were a bunch of paper-pushing pundits ensconced in comfy right-wing think tanks who never “went” anywhere that didn’t have room service, the point is that they have been burning to attack Iran for years — an attack that would inevitably result in the slaughter of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Yes, some of them claimed that invading Iran would be a cakewalk, that the long-suffering Iranian people would welcome Americans as liberators, and so on. (Some of them even managed to keep a straight face while saying this.) And if you believe them, there’s a bridge in Fallujah I’d like to sell you.

Will Bunch hears the rhythm.

Over there, at the Booman Tribune.

From the comments to a story on Market Watch (follow the link and look for a comment from Stormy):

A friend of mine serving in IRAQ has just been moved to the eastern border with IRAN under orders to assume a defensive position. The only reason I can see for a defensive position is to prevent Irainian (sic) troops from retaliating after an Israel strike. It may get really hairy soon.

Ray tells me that Market Watch has a habit of deleting comments they don’t like, not just for incivility, but for content, so here’s a screenshot. Click the excerpt to see it in context:

H/T Ray for the tip.

Addendum:

The Booman Tribune has more.

War.

More war.

They love war.

War makes them feel like men.

It’s their Viagra:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is expected to use his White House visit today to push President Bush to take a more aggressive approach toward Iran — and there are some signs that he’ll have a receptive audience.

Both Olmert and Bush are badly wounded and looking for salvation. Olmert is facing corruption allegations that could drive him from office. Bush is wildly unpopular, desperate to salvage his legacy and fighting irrelevance as the general election begins in earnest — with even the Republican candidate trying to keep him at a distance.

It’s in this environment that the Jewish Telegraph Agency reports: “Ehud Olmert will urge President Bush to prepare an attack on Iran, an Israeli newspaper reported.

“Citing sources close to the Israeli prime minister, Yediot Achronot reported on its front page Wednesday that Olmert, who is due to hold closed-door talks with Bush in Washington, will say that ‘time is running out’ on diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

The Current Federal Administration claimed that arms found in Iraq came from Iran.

They didn’t. See ASZ for the scoop.

Another example of Bushie wishful thinking a lie. This surprises you how?

Warmongers on parade:

Despite the doctrine of the Republican Party, war should be a last, not a first resort.

Via Josh Marshall.

War tickles Bushie testosterone.

The nation’s top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for “potential military courses of action” as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government’s “increasingly lethal and malign influence” in Iraq.

Via Rubber Hose.

Balloon Juice digs the rif.

The Booman Tribune hears the rhythm.

So the best that can be said about this latest news is that the Bush administration and its allies in the Israeli government continue to play a game of chicken with Iran, to coerce concessions from the Iranian government, or perhaps to bully others into agreeing to a tougher sanctions regime (the “Madman is loose again” ploy). The worst? Cheney was sent to Riyadh, Tel Aviv and other destinations in the Middle East to shore up support to a plan to strike Iran before the end of President Bush’s term in office. . . .

They want another war. Be afraid. History has proven that there is no lie too great for this bunch.

Dan Froomkin distills the lies (emphasis added):

President Bush on Wednesday said something demonstrably false and inflammatory about Iran — asserting that the Iranian government has “declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people.”

The Iranians have never done any such thing — and for Bush to say so at a time of great tension between the two countries is bizarre at best.

So why did he say it? Was he actively trying to misrepresent the situation? Was it just a slip of the tongue? Or does he believe it, despite the abundant evidence to the contrary?

It seems unlikely that Bush would choose this particular venue to launch a disinformation campaign: His comment came midway through a softball interview with an obscure U.S.-funded Farsi-language radio station, on the occasion of Persian new year. And the Iranian audience knows best that what he said is untrue. Such a blatant distortion only strengthens the Iranian government’s position that Bush is a liar.

So did Bush just misspeak? The White House certainly suggested that yesterday, with a spokesman insisting that Bush had simply spoken in “shorthand,” combining Iranian threats against Israel with concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

And yet, as disturbing as the third possibility is — that Bush is operating in an alternate reality — it’s supported by this simple fact: He’s said almost exactly the same thing at least once before.