me: > But what are the standards of "success"? if this means "conquest," then Iraq is definitely needed as a base. But if it simply means strategic bombing of a limited number of sites, is Iraq really needed? Israel once bombed Iraq without having any near-by bases.<
Shane: > But Saddam had no way to retaliate. Iranian retaliation for "strategic bombing" could and would be devastating, including within Iraq. War is therefore militarily unthinkable, leaving Obama no option but to negotiate a US-Iranian condominium in Iraq on the least unfavorable terms he can manage. The main thing he can get in return is a big role for the US nuclear industry in Iran's (stupid) nuclear program.< That seems true. But the SOFA doesn't have much if anything to do with it; instead, it's a manifestation of a more fundamental problem for the US elite: Dubya failed big time in his war on Iraq, so that he's precluded attaining the war he really wanted, i.e., against Iran. If Obama wants that war, he also would have a very hard time doing it. Do you really think that Iran has a nuclear weapons program? -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
