1. Giraldi is saying that it might be closer that we think.

   Posted by mudshark | May 9, 2008, 3:55 pm

2. Thanks Mudshark, thats quite worrying, ….. can’t believe they’re actually going to do this, i guess we can only hope the Iranians don’t respond, because that would play right into the Bush administrations hands, they’d love nothing more than to escalate it into an all out war…… it’ll be ‘how dare they fight back when we’re bombing them’

   Posted by Anders | May 9, 2008, 4:10 pm

3. “Strength” = Barbarism, ignorance and a complete antipathy toward the “radical Islamists” (i.e. everyone who happens to live in countries whose governments don’t obey Washington’s edicts jumping to attention and following without resistance.)

   Posted by Troy | May 9, 2008, 4:56 pm

4. yeah, it’s definitely a f00kin’ crock. the damn trogs won’t be satisfied until they’re drowning in it.

   Posted by mudshark | May 9, 2008, 5:27 pm

5. You know, part of me wishes what NF says were so. I mean, we’re not going to leave Iraq. One of the three sociopaths running will be president. All the same American empire, statist, bullshit will remain in place. And so, if we’re going to have a warmonger in office (and count on it, we are), wouldn’t it be nice if he (or she) could pull off a “Nixon in China” without firing a shot or dropping a bomb, and set up a new relationship of trade and friendship with Iran?

   I don’t expect it to happen because it looks as if the bombs will begin to drop soon. I also don’t expect it because I doubt McCain is creative and intelligent enough to pull something like that off. But shit, it sure would be better than the whole Middle East going up in flames which is pretty much what I’m prepared for at this point.

   Posted by Bob | May 9, 2008, 6:47 pm

6. My goodness, if we only had this kind of reporting here. Look at this story from Iran’s state sponsored media.

   “Behind the scene of the Sadr City crackdown” (April 30)
   http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=53764&sectionid=3510302

   At least that article is more accurate, responsible, dignified and balanced than what we get in the West (including Germany).

   I’m not championing socialist media in general though. I’m pretty sure Iranians themselves could be able to tell us about numerous distortions regarding internal govt policy.

   Posted by pupnik | May 9, 2008, 7:40 pm

7. As Ferguson alludes, what he is really saying it just the “madman theory” all over again. It’s quite bizarre really, vote for the biggest warmonger because he might just bring peace. If this is what democracy has come to, then democracy is a joke. The trouble with madman theory is that it all rests on one example, Nixon. But what about all the other war mongering mad men elected to office on hawkish platforms who delivered war not peace? And did Ferguson miss that Nixon, regardless of his subsequent behavior, was actually elected on a peace platform. “Peace with Honor”. None of the Big 3 candidates have dared mentioned the P word this time round.

   Posted by Tim | May 10, 2008, 3:31 am

8. Ferguson has taken it as his task to teach us Americans how to be good imperialists. I think he should go ruin his own stupid country.

   Posted by Scott | May 10, 2008, 3:55 pm

9. he thinks john McCain would be the one to “cut off their nuclear weapons program”, well i suppose that wouldn’t to difficult since they don’t have one.

   Posted by Anders | May 10, 2008, 4:14 pm

10. Oh, the Iranians will respond, as will Chavez with his oil. If Iran is attacked there will be an all out effort to devastate the United States militarily and economically. This will be that small window of oppertunity to hit the U.S. really hard. You see, alot of muslims, whether Sunni or Shia see Iran as Islams’ last hope. It’s the last powerful Islamic country that isn’t under U.S./Israeli domination. Like Pat B. said: If Bush attacks Iran there will be war from eastern Syria to Western Pakistan. But also in the Levant and Egypt as well.

    Posted by Michael | May 10, 2008, 9:33 pm

Leave a reply