President Bush speaks at at the National Defense University in Washington, October 23, 2007. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
by Mark Silva, and updated
The missile defense network that the U.S. wants to build in Eastern Europe is designed for such threats as the one which could be posed by Iran and its nuclear ambitions, President Bush said today.
The president previously has spoken of the need to guard against "rogue'' threats, but with the debate over Iran's weaponry heating up, he is getting quite specific now.
In a speech at the National Defense University in Washington today, Bush said that the threat of an attack from Iran makes the missile defenses imperative: "If (Iran) chooses to do so, and the international community does not take steps to prevent it, it is possible Iran could have this capability," Bush said. "And we need to take it seriously — now."
The U.S. wants to build a radar installation in the Czech Republic and place missiles in Poland, all of which is controversial in Eastern Europe and opposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"The need for missile defense in Europe is real, and I believe it's urgent," Bush said today.
Russian Foreign Minster Sergey Lavrov has said that U.S.-led missile defense initiatives in Europe and Asia are based on an erroneous assessment of the threat posed by Iran.
"North Korea poses a fundamental threat, but Iran does not," Lavrov was quoted as telling Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura.
Bush has sought to allay Russia's concerns and draw Moscow in to "cooperative effort" against "an emerging threat that affects us all." Putin has taken that offer with his own counter offer of basing the radar in Azerbaijan and missiles at sea.
Bush calls the inititiave "part of a broader effort to move beyond the Cold War,'' arguing that it "could lead to an unprecedented level of strategic cooperation between" Russia and the United States.
"The danger of ballistic missile attacks is a threat we share and we ought to respond to this threat together," Bush said.
The president complains that Congress has cut money for missile defense in Europe by $139 million. He said that "could delay deployment for a year or more and undermine our allies who are working with us to deploy such a system on their soil."
"The greatest threat facing our nation in the 21st century is the danger of terrorist networks or terrorist states armed with weapons of mass destruction," Bush said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says negotiations with the Czechs and Poles will continue as the U.S. and Russia debate the future of this defense network.
"We have not fully developed this proposal, but the idea was we would go forward with the negotiations, we would complete the negotiations, we would develop the sites, build the sites, but perhaps delay activating them until there was concrete proof of the threat from Iran," he said at a press conference.
.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This is the White House's paper on the situation:
Defending America And Its Allies Against Ballistic Missile Attack
President Bush Explains Need For Missile Defense System In Europe, Discusses Progress Defending America From Attack
Today, President Bush addressed the National Defense University to give an update on the progress of efforts to defend America from ballistic missile attack, including the need for a missile defense system in Europe. The greatest threat facing our Nation in the 21st Century is the danger of terrorist networks or terrorist states armed with weapons of mass destruction. One of the most important defensive measures we have taken is the deployment of new capabilities to defend America from ballistic missile attack.
Ø America faces a growing ballistic missile threat. In 1972, just nine countries had ballistic missiles. Today, that number has grown to 27 and it includes hostile regimes with ties to terrorists.
Ø When the President took office, the United States had no capability to defend the American people against long-range ballistic missile attack, but we have since deployed new capabilities. In 2001, the President announced our intention to move beyond the ABM Treaty and deploy missile defenses to protect the American people, U.S. forces abroad, and our allies around the world against limited attacks. He also pledged that as we built these defenses, America would undertake significant reductions in nuclear weapons and establish a new approach to deterrence that would leave behind the adversarial legacy of the Cold War and allow us to prepare for the threats of the 21st Century.
Ø The next step is to take a missile defense system that has passed demanding tests in the Pacific theater, and deploy elements of it to Europe – so we can defend America and our NATO allies from attacks emanating from the Middle East.
We Must Deploy A Missile Defense System To Defend Europe
Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles of increasing range that could deliver them. Last November, Iran conducted military exercises in which it launched ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel and Turkey, as well as American troops based in the Persian Gulf.
Ø Our intelligence community assesses that, with continued foreign assistance, Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. and all of Europe before 2015. If it chooses to do so, and the international community does not take steps to prevent it, it is possible Iran could have this capability. Iranian officials have declared they are developing missiles with a range of 1,200 miles, which would give them the capability to strike many of our NATO allies, including Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and possibly Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia.
We must deploy a missile defense system to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat. This system will be limited in scope – a system made up of ten ground-based interceptors located in Poland, and an X-Band tracking radar located in the Czech Republic. Such a system would have the capacity to defend countries in Europe that would be at risk from long-range attack from the Middle East. We are also working with NATO on developing defenses against short- and medium-range attacks from the Middle East.
Ø The system is not designed to defend against an attack from Russia. The missile defenses we envision would be easily overwhelmed by Russia's nuclear arsenal – the system is intended to deter countries that would threaten the United States with ballistic missile attack, and the U.S. does not consider Russia such a country.
Ø We are inviting Russia to join us in the cooperative effort to defend Russia, Europe, and the United States against an emerging threat that affects us all. For his part, President Putin has offered the use of radar facilities in Azerbaijan and southern Russia. We believe these sites could be included as part of a wider threat monitoring system that could lead to an unprecedented level of strategic cooperation between our two countries.
To Keep Our Nation Safe, Congress Needs To Fully Fund Missile Defense Programs
We are investing in the next generation of missile defenses, which defend our citizens and strengthen our deterrence. Missile defense strengthens our counter-proliferation efforts by reducing incentives to build ballistic missiles and helping dissuade nations from developing nuclear weapons.
Ø Congress should fully fund these programs, but instead Congress has:
Cut our request for missile defenses in Europe by $139 million, which could delay this deployment for a year or more and undermine our allies who are working with us to deploy such a system on their soil.
Eliminated $51 million from the Airborne Laser program, a critical effort that will allow us to intercept missiles in the boost-stage of flight, when they are still over the country that launched them.
Slashed $50 million from the Multiple Kill Vehicle program that will help us defeat both the incoming warhead and the decoys deployed to overcome our defenses.
Cut $50 million from the Space Tracking and Surveillance System, a constellation of space satellites that can help us more effectively detect and track ballistic missiles headed for our country.
The Effort To Develop Ballistic Missile Defense Is Part Of A Broader Effort To Move Beyond The Cold War And Establish A New Deterrence Framework For The 21st Century
Today, our adversaries are terrorist states and terrorist networks who might not be deterred by our nuclear forces, so we need a new approach. This approach combines deep reductions in offensive nuclear forces with new advanced conventional capabilities, and defenses to protect free people from nuclear blackmail or attack.
Ø In 2001, the President directed the Defense Department to achieve a credible deterrent with the lowest number of nuclear weapons consistent with our national security needs, including with our obligation to our allies. These reductions were eventually codified in the Moscow Treaty, which commits the United States and Russia to reduce operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 within five years from now.
Ø Since the Moscow Treaty took effect, the United States has retired all of our Peacekeeper ICBMs, and reduced our operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads from more than 6,000 when the President took office to fewer than 3,800 today. When the rest of the reductions we have set in motion are completed, the total U.S. nuclear stockpile will be one-quarter its size at the end of the Cold War – the lowest level since the Eisenhower Administration.
As we reduce our nuclear arsenal, we are investing in advanced conventional capabilities. These include new unmanned aerial combat vehicles, and next generation long-range precision weapons that allow us to strike our enemies quickly, at great distances, without using nuclear weapons.
The Administration Is Delivering On Its Pledge To Defend America From The Threat Of Ballistic Missile Attack.
1. The President withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. This 30-year-old agreement was designed for a Soviet Union threat that no longer existed in 2002, and was constraining our efforts to develop and deploy missile defense. While Russia did not agree with our withdrawal, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that the decision "does not pose a threat to Russia," and announced his country would join the U.S. in making historic reductions in our deployed offensive nuclear arsenals.
2. The Administration made missile defense operational, while continuing our research and development efforts. By the end of 2004, the Nation had a rudimentary capability in place to defend against limited missile attacks by rogue states or accidental launch. As new technologies come online, we continue to add to this system, making it increasingly capable, and moving us closer to the day we can intercept ballistic missiles of all ranges, in every stage of flight.
Ø Our military commanders believe we now have a credible system in place that can provide the American people with a measure of protection against the threats emanating from Northeast Asia. Last month, the Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Northern Command conducted its 30th successful "hit to kill" test since 2001.
3. The Administration reached out to involve other nations in missile defense, creating a truly international effort to help protect free nations against the threat of ballistic missile attack. Since 2001, we have worked closely with countries such as Britain, Israel, Italy, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and others on missile defense.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
So, we need to spend hundreds of millions to defend against missles which Iran doesn't have, armed with nuclear weapons Iran doesn't have?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/
Posted by: AJF | October 23, 2007 12:21 PM
What are the odds that Iran is going to launch a missile, armed with a nuclear warhead, at the U.S. in the near future? How about ZERO? Launching a nuclear missile is nothing like flying an airplane into a building, we would certainly know from whence the missile came.Look all we have to do is what we did with the Soviet Union. Aim a couple thousand missiles at Iran and tell them that if they ever do launch a nuclear warhead at us or any of our allies, they will all cease to exist. The odds of them sacrificing their entire nation are very slim. I believe that not one life would be lost with this policy. If, on the other hand, we decide to launch a preemptive war against Iran, many thousands of lives will be lost on both sides. Also, going to war with Iran will certainly earn us more terrorist enemies in the world.
Posted by: San Miguel | October 23, 2007 12:27 PM
Translation: My Defense buddies need more orders. The guy just asked for 46 billion and now this. Screw the American children that need affordable health care. We need more fricking bombs, because of that big bad wolf, Iran. If the American People continue to fall for this crap, God help us all. Go away Mr. Bush, please or better yet, Congress, make him go away and stop this madness!
Posted by: Tim | October 23, 2007 12:32 PM
"Bush calls the inititiave "part of a broader effort to move beyond the Cold War,'' arguing that it "could lead to an unprecedented level of strategic cooperation between" Russia and the United States."
God that's brilliant! Why couldn't we all think of that!
The White Knight is talking backwards?
Then;
""We have not fully developed this proposal, but the idea was we would go forward with the negotiations, we would complete the negotiations, we would develop the sites, build the sites, but perhaps delay activating them until there was concrete proof of the threat from Iran," he said at a press conference."
We are re-militarizing Eastern Europe.
What, they will leave the 'on' button disabled?
Posted by: C.Morris | October 23, 2007 12:40 PM
"Bush: European missiles needed because of Iran"
You have to hand it to this Republican administration, not only do they know how to royaly screw up the middle-east they also know how to restart the cold war.
If people fall for Rudy's BS about being the "9/11 hero" and elect him President we're not only going to get more of this Neonuttiness it's going to be worse because Rudy has hired an "all-star" team of Neoclowns to work for him.
Posted by: John E | October 23, 2007 12:56 PM
If this were not so silly, it would be humorous. This is clearly a step in the wrong direction and to even suggest that the Administration's reasoning relates to our fear of Iran defies all logic. Such obsession/paranoia with the belief that "someone" is out to get us resulted in Viet Nam and other ventures such as the CIA installing the Shah in Iran and supporting Islamic Fundamentalists against the Russians in Afghanistan. These things always come back to bite you.
Posted by: FER | October 23, 2007 1:02 PM
Why all the speculation? Iran isn't building nuclear weapons. Interestingly, we've got the best surveillance in the world, and weapons that are ready and capable. Let's stop the unnecessary bully talk, let em produce nuclear power for energy purposes, and the moment they do otherwise- well, at least then we'd know they have WMDs. Besides, Iran agrees to complete and transparent inspections (look at the AUTHENTIC sources); they haven't attacked anybody since having this gov't in place. And so what if they have a culture different from ours? As long as our women aren't forced to walk around dressed like nuns/ orthodox jews, who cares? Best solution is for every country (including ours) to get rid of nuclear weapons. Other than that, the other solution is to be fair and to let every democratic country produce em. As a devout Christian, I believe God will surely punish those who are unjust. Why are we inviting God's wrath? It's time for fairness.
Posted by: Dr. J.M. Dickenson | October 23, 2007 1:08 PM
San Miguel,
Ever hear of Neville Chamberlain?
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 23, 2007 1:09 PM
How about Israel? they got nukes and they secretly attacked Syria a couple weeks ago for no reason. How is the U.S. okay with a country which still practices apartheid to possess nuclear weapons?
Posted by: Cracker | October 23, 2007 1:10 PM
Can we please get this guy out of office before his term is over? I mean, for his own good. He's obviously deranged and needs help now.
Posted by: Cheryl | October 23, 2007 1:25 PM
The only missile I'd trust Bush to handle is a morning missile.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | October 23, 2007 1:26 PM
So that is why we originally took a shot at Iran (calling it out for sponsoring terrorism in Iraq) then back pedaled saying no plans were being made to strike Iran (it's just that all the those responsible for Iraq in the military have shifted to the Iranian theater) and then backpedaled again and fear mongered - Cheney and looking for WW3Bush.
They want to expand their nuclear arsenals reach strategically to encompass Part of Europe Russia China and the ME. Where the world's resources are concentrated offering a chance that given the right circumstances those areas could develop and rival the US (once again esp Russia) or hold us by our debt (China).
So here we (Bush and Team) are just waiting to pounce on the time(Nov) that the UN nuclear watch dog group has given Iran to clear up outstanding issues so the UN nuclear watch dog group can reconstruct Iran's nuclear history.
It probably won't happen. Bush is already set on calling Iran out for not complying (way to work it out Bush). Next Bush will call to get the UN sec. council to take up more motions against Iran, and we are on our way to pissing off the whole Russian-Asian-ME theater.
They are willing to work with Russia is just feel good talk to hold the public's opinion on this until the right time. If we wanted to work with them we'd also consider Russia's solution and build on it with safe guards for Iran; work on the nuclear energy issue. We all know that that isn't going to happen because visits by Russia to Iran are viewed as negative and Russia does not agree with the US on Iran and nuclear energy. So I don't know why Russia would cooperate. Russia did say only if substantial evidence shows Iran poses a threat for the missile defense system.
Good luck convincing people that a country who has no weapons and wants nuclear energy is a worse threat than any of the countries that do have weapons and have used them already. But hey, the hypocrisy is excusable because after all they are working on the neo-con version of the preemptive strike.
All of it in the name of Israel. Who has also sponsored terrorist groups, strikes its neighbors, has a long list of UN violations, has corrupt leadership, and has nuclear weapons. It is absolutely bs that that whole side of the globe has now become a project for the US.
Posted by: Deterrance doesn't work. Build up doesn't work either. | October 23, 2007 1:29 PM
The idea to install missiles in Europe is NOT a demand of any european government at all .As the bulk of american public opinion already guessed,there is absolutely no need for it ,there is no agression emanating from Iran at all ,as you said probably he is just satisfying a particular lobby and emptying the state coffers in the bank account of Raytheon .
Posted by: tonny from belgium | October 23, 2007 1:40 PM
Bush has almost got this down to the exact 45th anniversary.
10/14/62. The United States finds that Russia is supply missiles to Cuba. The beginning of the infamous Cuban missile crisis.
Now Bush wants to put missiles in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Of course they're there because of Iran, they'd never be used as a threat to Russia.
The neocons must be salivating at this proposition!
God what have the normal people in the US allowed our government to become?
Posted by: dogjudge | October 23, 2007 1:40 PM
Talk about living in a September 10 world, yeesh! I thought our biggest threat was WMD's in the hands of individual terrorists. I don't think many terrorists have ballistic missiles.
There were two defining events for me that showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that 9/11 changed nothing.
First was Bush's reemphasis after the attacks on missile defense, a DOA proposal before 9/11 and one that made even less sense in the Terrorism Age. A fully functioning missile defense system would have done squat to protect NY and Washington DC.
Second was the firing of 53 Arab military linguists under Don't Ask, Don't Tell AFTER 9/11. Seriously, which is more important, translating enemy messages efficiently or ridding the military ranks of homosexuals? Unfortunately, we got our answer and it was the wrong one, at least in my humble opinion.
I wish my conscience would have allowed me to buy stock in Halliburton and other big MIC players once Bush took office.
These men are very very dangerous.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 23, 2007 1:46 PM
Dubnuts making good on his promise to Rapture-Ready-Republicans, that only a born-again- Christian, like himself, is worthy of delivering Armageddon. Reagan had "Star Wars", but Bush brings you "A Boy and his Dog".
P.S. That guy in clown-face, run amok in "post-apocalyptic, fascist, underground pseudo-Kansas", is none other than Crazy Joe Devola, aka The Sultan of Streamwood. "The Horror, the horror".
Posted by: dt | October 23, 2007 1:49 PM
Somebody either dig a very shallow ditch for this dolt or throw him in the looney bin.
Posted by: The Decider | October 23, 2007 1:50 PM
The missile defense sheild is a boondoggle. All he is trying to do is funnel money to campaign contributors.
It doesn't work, it's not even close to working. Bush is just waisting money, like always.
The only people dumber than Bush are the 24% of the people who still support him.
Posted by: nisleib | October 23, 2007 1:52 PM
George W. Bush works for the Military Industrial Complex. His job is to find enemies. Without enemies, they would all be unemployed. Could you imagine the economic recession we would suffer if world peace actually happened? He's good at it. Most likely anyone nominated by either the Republican or Democratic parties will be an employee or representative of the Military Industrial Complex.
Posted by: San Miguel | October 23, 2007 2:04 PM
Other stories that Mark Silva and the liberal press don't report on is the fact that the boogie man is out to get us all!!
Posted by: GK | October 23, 2007 2:25 PM
San Miguel,
Ever hear of Neville Chamberlain?
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 23, 2007 1:09 PM
Paulo, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ever heard of him???
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. Is there no other way the world may live?
A speech given to the American Society of Newspaper Editors (1953-04-16), "The Chance for Peace"
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience…we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Farewell speech as President (1961-01-17)
Posted by: An Inconvenient Truth | October 23, 2007 2:47 PM
Thank you AJF, San Miguel
and C. Morris.
Finally some people with real brain. Folks, The neocons have damaged this countery and the world to the point of no repair. Bush;s scare tactics is what bought him a second run in the white house. An no we acn not count on the congress and specially the democrats, or should I say the republicrats to do anything about it. They have no spine. America you don't need 2/3 of votes to kick this guy out. Whta you need is a mass demonstartion on the strrets and demand him to get out.
Posted by: Nick | October 23, 2007 2:50 PM
Palo;
I'm not talking appeasement here, I'm talking we have the power to blow anybody we want off the surface of the Earth in minutes. We're not leading up to WWII here, we're leading up to WWIII
Posted by: San Miguel | October 23, 2007 3:00 PM
The imposition of both long-range radar tracking stations and defensive ABM's or interceptors is esscential for the safety of EUROPE and the MID-EAST. OF COURSE THE 'DEMHOLE-DIMWITS' AND IDJIT-SOCIALISTS WILL DECRY THIS PRUDENT DEFENSE AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS/EFFORT AND WANT TO 'FEED' THE HOMELESS OR SOME OTHER SUCH DRIVEL!!! Peace occurs when 'BOTH' sides fervently wish the cessation of hostilities - not in this case the 'EVER-EXPANDING MUSLIM TERRORIST CALIPHATE' and the pro-Western powers!!!
Posted by: Zyskandar A Jaimot | October 23, 2007 3:13 PM
Bush is a cretin, we do not want anything of him in Europe. Stay out of here !!!
Castro is right, this man is bringing war wherever he looks.
Posted by: netzen | October 23, 2007 3:38 PM
Folks, the misallocation of resources from the needy is not the only problem in funding a European missile defense system. Nor is the only problem the fact that the money is being channeled into the coffers of the Military Industrial Complex. Both of these ARE problems, but they are not the main problem.
THE main problem arises from the fact that we are risking an entirely unjustified arms race; and I’m not talking about an arms race with Islamists either. What doesn’t seem to make it into the news is that Russia is threatening to disavow its nuclear arms treaties with the U.S. because of the U.S.’s unilateral violations of those same treaties. The placement of more missiles in Europe, even if they are supposedly defensive missiles, is a violation of those treaties. For that matter, so is the deployment of ABM’s anywhere.
The Russians view the idea of a European missile defense system as a direct threat to their own security – inasmuch as there is no guarantee the defensive missiles would be used only in response to an attack from Iran. That being the case, those defensive missiles might leave Russia vulnerable to a first strike without an adequate opportunity to retaliate. In case you haven’t noticed, Russia has resumed patrolling with bombers. This is a likely result of the potential threat of a defensive system.
All of this is, again, another example of the Bush administration singularly failing to consult history and historical trends in the process of developing policy (just like they did with regard to Iraq). Russians have always been highly concerned about their own security. It comes from centuries of being locked in by a frozen northern region and invasions from hostile neighbors from the west, east and south. Even during the Cold War, the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe and developed the Warsaw Pact largely as a buffer against absorbing another western invasion on its own soil.
For the sake of peace, we need to scrap the idea of a defensive missile shield in Europe. If the threat of annihilation in a retaliatory attack isn’t enough to deter a nuclear attack from Iran, a defensive shield in Europe won’t do it either. Furthermore, all this talk about the need for a defensive shield is just a bit premature, given the fact that Iran doesn’t have a viable weapon yet. We should, instead, be spending more energy toward making sure Iran doesn’t get one.
Posted by: John W. | October 23, 2007 4:17 PM
"Other stories that Mark Silva and the liberal press don't report on is the fact that the boogie man is out to get us all!!
Posted by: GK | October 23, 2007 2:25 PM"
Wouldn't that be FOX NEWS!! job?
Posted by: C.Morris | October 23, 2007 5:11 PM
John W,
I agree with your last posting.
MAD will probably work with them.
Probably.
How do we ensure Iran does not obtain one?
Posted by: C.Morris | October 23, 2007 9:05 PM
And if you believe Bush, I have a bridge I'd like to sell.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | October 24, 2007 8:19 AM
John W,
I agree with your last posting.
MAD will probably work with them.
Probably.
How do we ensure Iran does not obtain one?
Posted by: C.Morris | October 23, 2007 9:05 PM
How about making them an offer they can't refuse? Clearly, that is not something the Bush Administration would EVER do. But a more intelligent administration may.
Iran's economy is sputtering despite their oil revenues. They want normal relations. So offer it to them, with a non-aggression pact as well, and end the 30 year old Iranian Cold (Lukewarm?) War.
Clearly, this wouldn't be a tea and crumpets negotiation, a credible threat of force would need to back it up, and there are sticky points such as Hezbollah and Israel's conventional and nuclear capabilities.
But just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it can't work. So far as I know, normalized relations have never been on the table in any administration's discussions with Iran.
The Iranians know that all this American saber-rattling serves to silence the moderates and enhance the extremists (the ruling mullahs). An attack by the U.S. would essentially end any chance of a moderate government taking power there.
This article from Newsweek a couple weeks back is extremely eye-opening; the source being a homosexual Iranian who said essentially that even though he hates the regime, he would fight for it and his country if ever attacked. And this from essentially the most marginalized voice in society. http://www.newsweek.com/id/41886
His comments about the boost that Mahmoud has gotten is also enlightening, bringing to mind the Immortal Technique quote from the song "Bin Laden:" (edited for profanity)
They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bulls&%t, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my ni%$a
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my ni&^a
You ever clock someone who talk s&%t, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms
And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons
We sold him that s%&t, after Ronald Reagan's election... http://www.onlylyrics.com/song.php?id=27010
Let's also not forget that it was our overthrowing of the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED president of Iran in 1953 and installation of the corrupt autocrat Shah that in part inspired the Islamic Revolution in the first place. Americans might have short memories and think everything happens in a bubble, but many of our biggest problems today are directly attributable to non-democratic actions we've taken in the past.
Final note: Iranian society is far more sophisticated than we give it credit for. I think MAD will work, they are not suicidal as Dick Cheney would love you to believe.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 24, 2007 11:00 AM
D and V,
Message acknowledged.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 24, 2007 2:05 PM