Soob

Politics, Foreign Policy, Current Events and Occasional Outbursts Lacking Couth


(Via Texas Scribbler; and Mr. Stanly will likely have some choice words for me, no doubt.)

Beyond his shallow and self serving guffawing regarding the possible impending cataclysm facing New Orleans in the form of hurricane Gustav, Moore actually managed to emit a sentence of clarity. I'll be charitable and imagine Moore's logic stems from critical thought and not the political, self induced slavery that has marked much of his career. To wit:

He defended Iran’s aggressive tactic with nuclear weapons by suggesting that if Iran invaded Mexico and Canada, as we had with Iraq and Afghanistan, even he and Olbermann would “build whatever we could do defend ourselves.”
The cause of Iran's aggression is manifold, but the heart of it lies at the fact that the US has hammered two of it's bordering neighbor's governments to dust. I'm not defending Iran here but merely pointing to a more logical course of thought regarding their increased aggression and rhetoric. Moore's analogy is sound, whatever scrambled ideology it's based upon. Iran's elevated aggression is likely due more to geo-political strategy and not the "Armageddon" popularly embraced by various talking heads. Iran should be dealt within the realistic accordance of a state reacting in a strategic fashion and not the fantastic and mystical vision some (including John McCain) have afforded.

11 comments:

Fred said...

Iran was aggressive long before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Recall that Iraq and Iran fought an eight year war.

There is no critical thought here. This is lame moral equivalence from the shallow end of the fever swamp.

Steve said...

A bloody eight year war, yes. But that was a war that Iraq started, not Iran.

The Historian said...

Don't forget to add the Israel factor into this mix.

Hatred of Jews in general and Israel specifically has been in place for a very long time and is a major motivator for Iranian actions and words.

And of course there was no love lost for Sunni Saddam by Shia Iran (or vice versa). Thus they were in serious conflict most all of the time.

Ortho said...

I can't believe that I'm reading anti-American, pro-Iran propaganda here. If you like Iran so much, you should go live there! Me and the rest of the put America first crowd, refuse to put Iran first! We might even embark on a letter writing campaign to our fearless leader, Mr. Bill O'Reilly! If our letters are successful he will help launch a nationwide boycott against Soob! In addition, I will grab some snazzy Factor gear!

Jay@Soob said...

"There is no critical thought here. This is lame moral equivalence from the shallow end of the fever swamp."

And this is a lame bit of empty vitriol with a flawed bit of logic (Iran defended itself against an Iraq invasion and that's somehow a measure of aggression) that doesn't even slightly back it up.

Thanks for the comment.

Jay@Soob said...

Steve, indeed.

Historian, yes Israel plays a part and Iran's president has done his country no favors with his blustering and apocalyptic rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map.

Jay@Soob said...

ortho, I can't wait to be boycotted! Just think of the exposure this little blog would get!

"In addition, I will grab some snazzy Factor gear!"

LOL.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I still hope you will reconsider and not ascribe anything to Moore's lucidity, at least no more than could be explained by the broken clock effect. That he happens to burp out a logical sentence occasionally doesn't mean... oh well, I just hate the creep too much.

Anyway, this wasn't the point of his learned discoursed that inflamed me today.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

P.S. I got a feeling you didn't like the Russian Army girls too much ;-)

Mike said...

I'm with what Snoopy said...even a broken clock is right twice a day. Going further down that line of thinking, Moore isn't thinking about this in geostrategic terms. He is, as Fred (albeit bluntly) said, making a crude moral equivalency. To use your words, I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt; I would assume that this thought did come from his "political, self induced slavery." Well, that, and the fact that he's a hot dog munching idiot.

I agree that Iran should largely be treated as a state acting in a strategic fashion; however, there are two issues that complicate the matter. The first is Israel, as Steve pointed out. The second is the fact that they use deniable terrorism as a tool of state. Traditional strategy (deterrence is one example) may not work as effectively, not because they're crazy and all want to die, but because they know they can take action against which we have no recourse because we can't prove it was them in the first place.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

I picked up a copy of "Michael Moore's Voter's Guide" a couple of weeks ago, intending to rip the thing to shreds online.

Unfortunately for my plans, it contained the best analysis of our insane subsidy system I've ever read from a Democrat. There were a few other gems of lucidity in the thing.

Maybe it was Snoop's "Broken Clock" effect at work, but I was surprised that he was on the side of the angels on a few issues.

Then again, who knows how much of it he actually wrote.