Rice talks language of diplomacy - but it has alarming echoes
I mean, seriously, read this:
On Iran: 'The question [of a military strike] is simply not on the agenda at
this point in time. We have diplomatic means to do this' - Yesterday
She refused to utter the words "regime change". She declined to be drawn on future military adventures. But what Condoleezza Rice, the new US Secretary of State, did say yesterday in London was that Iranian "behaviour, internally and
externally, is out of step with the direction and desires of the international
Asked directly whether the US planned an attack on Iran, Ms Rice said: "The question is simply not on the agenda at this point in time. We have diplomatic missions to do this." It was an answer that had a familiar ring.
...don't you wanna laugh out loud, except that you can't because it is too fuckin pathetic? I mean, how stupid do they think the rest of the world is? Funny, just a few days ago, after Bush's inauguration speech where he blabbed on about spreading freedom throughout the world (and we all know what that means in Bush-speak) I wondered out loud who is next on the list to get bombed.
Hell, they zoomed in and found the target.
And when they say that Iranian behaviour is "out of step with the direction and desires of the international community", it makes me wonder what constitutes 'international community' to them - seems more like out of step with the desires of the US administration. I mean, the only ones I can think of who didn't give jackshit about what the international community thought about the Iraq war was bloody Bush and consorts.
And surprise: "Blair has already announced he is going" along.
"With the US military bogged down in Iraq and no exit strategy in sight,So are we hunting ghosts again, eh? And when it comes to human right violations, they should be the last ones to point the finger.
Washington faces an acute dilemma: how to bring about regime change in Tehran
without repeating the mistakes of Iraq. The Rice solution, for now, is to seek
an old-fashioned coalition with Old Europe.
The focus for her and her hosts was Iran and its race to acquire the nuclear bomb that Saddam Hussein infamously never possessed. Ms Rice criticised the "unelected mullahs" who hold power in Iran and described Tehran's human rights behaviour as loathsome."
I really wonder what will happen now.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Except that we haven't really been fooled the first time around.
How the fuck is it possible that they can do this?
There was a moment, though, where I felt a twinge of schadenfreude.
A secular democracy is not about to be formed in Iraq. Even Iyad Allawi, the
interim Prime Minister, who Washington hoped would hold the balance of power,
saw his coalition trounced. The theocrats of Iran, not the neo-conservatives of
Washington, now appear to hold the keys to Iraq's future.
Hah. Did they think they could just wander in, wipe out an ancient culture and replace it with their belief system? I thought the hypodermic syringe idea has been discounted a long time ago.
The stupidity anmd arrogance of this is really doing my head in. But even more so, it's the predictability.