seattle.politics

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> dangerman < @ > wrote:
>
>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> [..]
>>>>> Since the administration is lying about why it would want to wage war
>>>>> against Iran, then why are we *really* in a conflict with Iran that
>>>>> may escalate to actual military invasion?
>>>> I think it is because Bush said Iran was part of the axis of evil, and
>>>> all the sycophants in the administration and the press and the DoD
>>>> internalized it to the extent that every act performed by anyone in or
>>>> from Iran is interpreted as an act of war by a member of the axis of
>>>> evil. And so actions are automatically taken in line with interpreting
>>>> everything as an act of war.
>>> Iran and North Korea are both part of the 'axis of evil,' and yet we're
>>> not preparing to go to war with North Korea.
>> Our history with North Korea is different from our history with Iran, and,
>> more importantly, Iran is next to Iraq, and the administration believes
>> Iran is the cause of our failure in Iraq.
>
> You just got through saying that Iran was on the 'axis of evil' list
> (with Iraq). It's been administration policy to confront the 'axis of
> evil' since long before we invaded and occupied Iraq.

No it hasn't. The administration doesn't have a policy, or it would have
implemented it.

>> It is simply a compounding of the mistake in Iraq with another mistake in
>> Iran, a continuation of the same mistake. It is like the gambler who
>> begins losing and then keeps betting and losing more, instead of cutting
>> his losses short and walking away.
>
> ...except, as I pointed out, they singled out Iran long before there was
> an invasion of Iraq.

But that isn't important. It is their self-proving, inward-looking
belief system that is important. They simply co-op whatever is happening
to support whatever it is their belief system tells them to do.

>>> Since the administration is lying about Iran, we have to figure out for
>>> ourselves why the administration wants to go to war there. So why?
>> I suppose you mean it is oil,
>
> I'm not asking you to suppose my meaning. I'm asking why *you* think the
> administration wants to war with Iran.

Well, I have answered that question.

>> but we would get the oil on the market anyway, so it's not oil, other than
>> the fact that oil is part of the rubric of excuses.
>