Comments Posted By harrison
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 20 Comments
MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM THE NUT HOUSE
Merry Christmas, Rick!
Comment Posted By harrison On 24.12.2006 @ 20:48
gregdn, with all due respect, when I meant "take care", it meant shaking loose of this frustratingly quiescent intransigence that our leaders have been luxuriating in - even though we don't "run the show", we must recognise that Russia under Putin is going to be strategically obstructionist in a growing number of issues, especially in the Caucasus and the Iranian nuclear crisis.
We have to take measures to make sure Russia doesn't get too comfy with its rising diplomatic power status.
Russia has made it clear to the Americans that it does not take too lightly upon the subject of domestic interference, and that it will use its influence over critical areas of America's interest to prevent any sort of bullying or coercion to pressure its government into reform, or instigating secessionists within Russia to protest against Putin.
Ironically, American intervention in its affairs has set an opportunistic precedent for Putin to re-establish Russia as a modern superpower: with the potential to control oil supplies in the Caspian Sea alongside Iran, as well as the deterrent of a nuclear-armed Middle-East and the fate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in its hands, Russia is watching and matching every single American move on the proverbial board, chesspiece by chesspiece.
Comment Posted By harrison On 23.12.2006 @ 20:04
If only somehow Islamic fundamentalism in Chechnya would stab Russia in the back instead of being a "useful idiot" in the proxy war that you speak of.
Agreed that Russia is something we will have to take care of as soon as possible. Iran can only boast of its invulnerability and violate each and every international law with impunity because Russia and China are too invested in it, pacified by economic interests.
Either
1) we remove the external patrons to the Iranian economy and curb their investments; or
2) we wait and pray that in the future, the Saudis will be convinced to unload oil in great supply and drive the price down, thereby crippling the Iranian economy
I say we take the first option, because firstly, time is not on our side; secondly, the Saudis aren't our friends.
Comment Posted By harrison On 23.12.2006 @ 02:47
OBAMA FAILS RELIGIOUS TEST: SCHLUSSEL
Nice post, Rick, and I agree with jpe.
Comment Posted By harrison On 20.12.2006 @ 10:36
THE REFUGEE PROBLEM IN IRAQ: BAD TO WORSE
Intriguingly enough, the refugee problem might be what it takes to foster nationalistic, secessionist movements by the Azeris, Baluchs, Kurds and ethnic minorities being suppressed in Iran right now.
Think of all the chaos! Persia will not be spared.
Comment Posted By harrison On 16.12.2006 @ 08:39
JONAH GOLDBERG NEEDS A PIE IN THE FACE (METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING OF COURSE)
Great post, and a good way to start the morning with!
I've got to read up more on Pinochet and Castro, but anyone can tell that Goldberg is clearly disillusioned when he attempts to harken back the old days of installing authoritarian strongmen just so that we don't have to deal with them in the short term - only to see them manifest into chronic thorns in our side a few years later.
And he's still trumpeting secularism in Iraq - no wonder he still harbours some modicum of sentimental nostalgia when he wishes Chalabi would follow in Pinochet's bloody, bloody footsteps.
His body count comparison just betrays how lowly he values human lives, and how delusional he is to underestimate the murderous capabilities of al-Sadr (or any other Shiite fundamentalist).
Comment Posted By harrison On 15.12.2006 @ 20:29
IF BUSH GOES "ALL IN," I'M WITH HIM
The most blatant threat may not always be the most potent one, agreed, b.poster.
Yet it is not a coincidence that Ahmadinejad just so happens to be harbouring nuclear ambitions and is in the process of fulfilling them, as well as attempting to reduce our effectiveness to deal with him via Iraq. And now the Sunni bloc is considering a Nuclear Proliferation Treaty in order to counter Iranian hegemony and ensure MAD. All because of what has transpired in Iraq.
Now, I'm not implying that Iraq is "key to the Middle East", as most would have said the same for the Israeli-Palestinian issue a few years back. But Iraq is the vantage point from which we should approach regional problems, because all the fault lines of the Middle East run through Iraq.
Comment Posted By harrison On 15.12.2006 @ 02:18
I share your sentiments - I'm with the president if he chooses to go "all in".
As for the recommendation that there has to be an increase in the number of US troops, we have to ensure that this isn't just a short-term measure that would simply result in more targets for the death squads and insurgents to trip over one another to kill. [More]
Comment Posted By harrison On 14.12.2006 @ 20:37
Thanks for that recollection of events, Rick.
Great post.
Comment Posted By harrison On 13.12.2006 @ 09:00
>andy & rick Interesting commentary! Agreed, it seems to me that the 12th Imam theory has been distributed around till the point where most people tend to believe it's the gospel truth. Though we are at the brink of deciding whether to employ Syria and Iran as forces of "stability" in Iraq (which we shouldn't even be considering at all, we are certainly not at the edge of cataclysm. Not yet.
With the US attempting to figure out how exactly to solve the Iraqi security dilemma while fending off realists like Baker and Gates, the MSM has been having field day after field day obsessing over the "inevitability" of our withdrawal and let the Shiites finish the Sunnis off. Khamenei probably recognises that the spotlight has finally shifted away from the Iranian nuclear crisis - world opinion on that issue has somehow settled into delusional self-comforting intransigence - and thus hopes to keep it that way. Ahmadinejad's blatant rhetoric would perhaps prove too enticing for the MSM to pass up.
Comment Posted By harrison On 6.12.2006 @ 08:01
