dimanche 30 septembre 2007

My friends's friends are my friends. Huh... wait a second here...

Remember the fairy tale-like story of Jessica Lynch?
You'll appreciate the story by Tania Head:

What have these two stories to do with each other will you ask?
Well, maybe we can take them as evidence (among million others) of how easy it is to manipulate the masses.

5 years ago, the most hated foreign politician in America was LAS's favourite French head of State. Now the wheel has turned, it's an Iranian about almost nobody had ever heard of in the US when Chirac was in pole position.

His sin? He's at the head of a country which is purportedly trying to built an atom bomb. Like the US? Or like Israel? Is Iran really pursuing this goal? Or isn't that another case of Iraqi WMD? Should we rely on the Media to know? Why shouldn't Iranians be allowed to possess the same weapon the US, the USSR, Israel, Pakistan, north Korea (not sure) etc. have as the ultimate deterrent?

When reading and listening to the American MSM, you feel like they want to persuade the Americans that there's an actual and near immediate danger that Iran would use its bomb to attack the US. Well, didn't the MSM succeed in making most Americans believe Saddam had WMD and was on the verge to use them against America and its allies? Remember T. Blair and his infamous quote?

In the precinct of the UN, Ahmadinedjad had the audience laugh when he said there were no homosexuals in his country. Like in Saudi Arabia, America's closest and most sincere friend in the region?

Not to say Ahmadinedjad is a nice person, sharing western values but is he really the new Attila the American MSM try to portrait? Isn't he a close friend and ally of Iraq's PM, Al Maliki?

And I thought the saying had always held true that my friends' friends were my friends.

Once again I need Greg's expertise here...

13 commentaires:

A.C. McCloud a dit…

Hi there. BTW, LASunsett said to say hello!

Perhaps we are not reading the same MSM. The one I read are constantly writing stories about how the neocons are on the verge of blowing up the planet in their quest for oil. We have seen numerous warnings about impending attacks on Iran since 2004, none of which have occurred. So, I think manipulation is sometimes a two way street.

BTW, your premise that anyone lied about Saddam's WMDs is rather hollow, as are the insinuations that people may be similarly lying about Iran's aspirations towards a nuclear weapon or about their previous dalliances with terrorism.

LASunsett a dit…

Hi Flocon,

//Well, didn't the MSM succeeded in making most Americans believe Saddam had WMD and was on the verge to use them against America and its allies?//

It wasn't just the GWB and the MSM, let's not forget some others that believed it:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

I could list more, but I do not want to be redundant. The point is, the MSM, GWB, and the others that miscalculated about the WMDs, were led to believe this by people that were in a position to know. It's not often I defend the MSM, but they got their information from those that were in power before Bush and had access to sensitive information that indicated that he had them.

If this had not been the case, the case could have been made before hand that he didn't have them. If that would have happened, the entire operation could have been forestalled and most likely would not have had the support of the Congress and the American people.

As for Chirac being the prophet Elijah in this matter, I would ask how did he know for sure, when all of these others seemed to think Saddam had them? Could it have been because he was cozy with Saddam? And if this was the case, why didn't he share this conclusive proof? Did he not want us to know some things about his relationship with Saddam?

I think these are fair questions to ask, don't you?

//Once again I need Greg's expertise here...//

I am sure Greg will be popping in soon, once he knows you are here. He's a Monday-Friday blogger, rarely does he post on the weekend.

LASunsett a dit…


//BTW, LASunsett said to say hello!//

I also to said to tell him, he's full of sh*t, you forgot that part. ;)

Greg a dit…

Pardon my lack of response - I had no idea you were looking for my expertise.

Many in the world (and not just America, btw) are concerned about this leader of Iran for several concrete reasons.

First of all, the reason the debate isn't about whether we should trust Iran with a bomb is b/c Iran says it isn't building one. Which is most likely a lie. Recall that the nuclear program was uncovered and exposed by Iranian dissidents. Why keep a legal, civilian program hidden in military installations and vast underground complexes?

Second, and this is a notion I think most French people can understand, he's a religious fanatic who looks forward to the end of the world, which he thinks is coming soon. In America, people like this loiter on the sidewalks of our cities and beseach passers-by to "repent." In Iran, he runs the whole show and soon will have his finger on THE button. Take a look at his speeches from his recent trip to NY. He is constantly making prayers for the return of the mahdi.

Ahmadinejad actually thinks it's his religious duty to help destroy Israel. And soon he will have the means to do it. There is a genuine question about whether Iran would be deterred from using nukes on Israel.

On top of that, he's actually a holocaust denier. Again, in America, these are the most extreme of social outcasts - people who congregate with other toothless, mindless people on compounds in the middle of nowhere, training (not coincidentally) for the end-of-world battle.

People who want to avoid war with Iran (which I think is just about everybody) need to get behind meaningful sanctions that will alter Iran's behavior. I know it didn't work with Saddam, but maybe this time, we can prevent our friends from helping our enemy....wait a second here....

L'Amerloque a dit…

Hello Flocon !

Longue vie à "Shall we talk ? " ! ! ! (wide wide smile)


Mark a dit…

Well, looky here! Hi Flocon! I thought your name was sporting a chic new linked look over at SF point com. Congratulations on your new salon. Will you be at home on Wednesdays?

(Et c'est qui Nénette?)

Anonyme a dit…

Hi a.c mccloud
Thanks for passing by.
About the impending attacks on Iran I've read that the military had located about 2000 places that would be considered like potential targets. Maybe that was only hearsay...
But when John McCain was sort of singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" was it also hearsay or an indication that the idea is in the air?


Anonyme a dit…

Hi LA,

As for Chirac being the prophet Elijah in this matter, I would ask how did he know for sure, when all of these others seemed to think Saddam had them?
Maybe the French secret service did a better job than the others because they had no agenda?

Could it have been because he was cozy with Saddam?
I recognize one the Greg's favourite line here... ;-)

why didn't he share this conclusive proof?
He did but for some reason nobody would listen to him because there was such an urge and a real desire to avenge 9/11

Did he not want us to know some things about his relationship with Saddam?
Like he was on the payroll?

LA, you didn't warned me running a blog was so time consuming...
(No smileys on blogger :-( )


Anonyme a dit…

Hi Greg

Like it or not, Iran will get its nuclear bomb, you'd better get used to it.

As one American general recently said, he's not suicidal, nor are the other Iranian leaders.
That he believes his duty is to hasten the end of the world, this leaves me speechless but it's not the first time we kind of disagree is it?

He's a holocaust denier? Oh well... like there aren't others even in America. So what? Freedom of speech etc. It's not a "casus belli" or is it?

Why don't you want to consider the nuclear bomb for what it is: the ultimate deterrent?
I remember reading on Political Ying Yang that it wasn't the weapons that killed but their owners. According to that logic why not admit that the more nuclear bombs there are in the world the safer the world will be? Isn't it the very existence of nuclear armaments that prevented any direct confrontation between the US and the USSR or India and Pakistan?

By the time Iran will have its bomb Ahmadinedjad will be long forgotten and there may well have been another revolution in the country which then will be as close a friend of the US as Saudi Arabia currently is.
Saudi Arabia, a Sunni country which may well turn against America...
Hmmm... The Middle East is so, so complicated...


Anonyme a dit…

Bonjour L'Amerloque!

What a nice surprise here...
And now je dois essayer de me montrer à la hauteur de la réputation que LAS m'a faite...
J'aurais aimé pouvoir dire avec vous
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas mais j'en suis bien loin: je ne sais pas même incorporer des photos au sein même des textes comme vous le faites et pas seulement en en-tête. C'est vous dire...

We haven't heard of you for a while L'Amerloque, j'espère que tout va bien. Il y a eu semble-t-il quelques problèmes d'email échangés et non reçus ou peut-être même non envoyés... God only knows...

Merci de votre sympathique coup de pouce également sur votre propre blog.


Anonyme a dit…

Hello Mark,

Vois comme le Flocon est malhabile: Il n'est même pas fichu de gérer son malheureux petit blog.
La Nénette que tu vois dans la case identité est le résultat d'une interférence avec un autre blog tout ce qu'il y a de plus familial (et provisoire) et qui refuse de laisser sa place au one and only Flocon.
Du coup je suis obligé de tergiverser...

Quand les instructions informatiques sont en français je n'en comprends déjà pas le quart alors quand c'est en anglais (les pseudo "aides" de Blogger ne sont pas disponibles en français) je n'essaye même pas...
Les identifiants ne sont pas reconnus, les mots de passe ne passent pas etc.

Encore un défaut que je ne peux masquer: mon impatience, particulièrement avec les bêtises de la vie...
And yet, Repetitio est mater studiorum

A bientôt


Greg a dit…

flocon: Why don't you want to consider the nuclear bomb for what it is: the ultimate deterrent?

Then why not give it to everyone? That way there would be no war.

There are many responses to your point here, but the main one's are:

(1). The world has an interest in non-proliferation. The idea is to lessen the number of nukes, not increase. So everyone but Israel, India and Pakistan signed a treaty that said they wouldn't proliferate. Now Iran plans to brazenly violate this important treaty.

(2). Deterrent doesn't necessarily work with fanatics.

(3). Accidents can happen, especially in a country with such an immature and confrontational leadership corps.

(4). Terrorists can hijack the weapons. This is a big worry in Pakistan, and it is in Iran for the same reason: there are a lot of terrorist sympathizers. Iran has a symbiotic relationship with the world's deadliest terrorist organization. What's to stop Hezbollah from getting its hands on a nuke? Would they hesitate to use it?

I also don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Iran will get the bomb. Economic sanctions have a chance at working, so all like-minded countries should be working toward that end. I'm not tickled by the idea of hoping Iran acts rationally with the ultimate weapon. That sounds too much like Russian Roulette.

LASunsett a dit…


//you didn't warned me running a blog was so time consuming...//

There is no rule as to how often you must post. There is no rule you have to answer every comment, instantly. Don't make it work, make it fun. Do it when you can, we'll wait for you. ;)