Wars have steadily become longer, but with fewer casualties. This has been the trend for a long time. WWII, to the Korean War, to Vietnam, to Iraq. We stand up to petty dictators now, so we don’t have to deal with them when they have massive weapons capabilities later. So the fact that the situation in Iraq has lasted, and will continue to last, has nothing to do with defeat, and more to do with resolve in getting stable democratic governments into power now, instead of when it’s too late.

It would be naive to think that nation-states relate in the same way that people do. The Realpolitik of international relations has meant that sometimes “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Weapons have been sold in the past to keep balance of power. It’s a cynical but effective way to keep dictators in check –pit them against each other. But today in Iraq, the U.S. is trying to help the country form a representative government. So it’s odd to me that when the U.S. is trying to do the right thing for once, people are so outraged about it.

I’m afraid isolation won’t work today. Transportation is too good to keep any area safe. And as Clinton said in his last words from office, “The greatest challenge today facing the nations of the world is the increasing affordability and availability of weapons of mass destruction.” It’s very important that we limit who can get their hands on these weapons. Or else some small groups will be using them.

Most of? Right, because the rest probably bear the marks of US military technology. Remember the whole Iran-Contra thing from the 1980′s? The irony is that we’re killing our own sons and daughters in an overseas fight we really have no business being in, with munitions we sold to Iran through Israel.

Seriously, I can’t stop laughing. Karma is, indeed, a bitch.

If our government truly wants to end the loss of US life at the hands of terrorists, get our kids out of the desert. NOW. If our government wants to expend military surplus regardless of the cost in human lives, so that we can continue to sell arms to buyers around the world (as that’s probably one of our country’s only real export), then our occupation will probably continue, possibly indefinitely.

It’s important, but sometimes hard to see how effective Iran is at fighting wars by proxy. They count on low level acts of violence being dismissed as “populist” in nature. But believe me, Iran is and has been supplying these militants who instigate conflict in the region. A good example is Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon who has until recently (due to military response) lobbed missiles into Israel on a regular basis. When the U.S. military states that they are finding conclusive evidence that most of the higher technology roadside-bombs they encounter have identifying hallmarks of Iranian military technology, they are not trying to win votes, or wipe Bush’s ass from the sh*tty mess he’s made in Iraq. They are stating facts.

Iran’s strategy, is to use low level violence to persuade other countries to do what it wants. It is very effective, and very destabilizing. It feigns having no connections to terrorist groups to avoid accountability. They have long relied on people being duped, and non-conclusive about their activities.

If you think CIA plotted coups in South America are a bad thing, than you should have even less love for Ahmadinejad. He’s the head and face of groups in Iran that advocate, and carry out this approach very actively in this day and age. There are even intelligence reports that he participated in these kinds of operations in his younger days.

Dictators can be charming. We’ve known that for a long time. Kim Il Jong is known to be quite bright and humble in person. But Dictatorships, or quasi-democracy theocracies like Iran, are known to be disingenuous, and down-right sneaky.

I find it hard to believe that Spanish television is any less manipulated than any other “news” source.

Again, I invite a native Persian Farsi speaker to cite a source to something Ahmadinejad has actually uttered with their translation of it. “News” sources with their own provided translations aren’t exactly trustworthy. Considering one source vs. another is just getting someone else’s spin on the issue.

They aired some of his “destroy Israel” speeches that he makes in his country.

Maybe you should try looking in foreign news sources.

Again, I say: cite the source. I’ve only heard a lot of accusations from people who apparently have never researched the primary source material. Do you really trust the mainstream media to accurately represent what a Middle Eastern political figure has said?

This is exactly why it’s so critically important that they come here and speak unfiltered, directly to us–without the “interpretation” of the mainstream media, spinning the message to suit their ratings.

I do apologize that I’ve upset you so much that you feel you need to unsubscribe. My blog mainly focuses on technology and this little burst of political blogging is extremely atypical for me. But, I do see my intended audience as those who are interested in reading about things that they may not normally agree with (i.e., AOLserver, Tcl scripting, Open Source Software, etc.) … so, perhaps it is best if you do unsubscribe. It still makes me sad, though.

“I would love to see the sources people keep quoting where he calls for the violent destruction of Israel, where he denies the Holocaust, or any of those things.”

He has said all of these things. Maybe not at Columbia or at the UN but he has said them. The man is a hater. If he truly wants nuclear technology for peaceful means then let him work with us on obtaining it. Why should we trust him when he has stated that he wants to wipe out another country and millions of people?!?! Maybe you would feel differently if he called for BUTLER NEW JERSEY to be wiped off the map.

Seriously, go get educated!