What gives?
Posted by: wellyspyder on 30 March 2006
Now Iran is being flammed for trying to go nuclear. What is wrong with that? Is it not rich for those countries who have it to now say to Iran, you are not going to get it. Why not? Is Iran less trustworthy than loony bush? Or puppet blair? Or other former soviet states? This is double standard. Looks like big bully attitude.
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by Roy T
It is still unclear if nuclear weapons are required to breach the under ground workings in Iran, those at unclear seem to think not. I wonder if indeed all the "We will Nuke Iran" is a smoke screen for the real target the oil fields of Khuzestan?
Look at it this way, the USA and friends do the world a big favour by not using nukes on the various under ground workings scattered all across Iran and in return walk into the oil fields just across the way from Iraq. Nuclear war averted, various groups take credit for saving the World from the nuclear war that never was and Iran emasculated by loss of oil revenue. Job done, no job well done. But what about Russia, China, India, Japan and others that have contracts reaching far into the future with Iran for the oil they need to power their economic growth? I think they might be upset that the USA now owns them (can't see the oil fields pumping oil in any major amounts for at least the next three year cf Iraq) plus yet another attack on a Muslim country - things don't look good for a large sector of the world.
Long war or more propaganda?
armscontrolwonk.com
Look at it this way, the USA and friends do the world a big favour by not using nukes on the various under ground workings scattered all across Iran and in return walk into the oil fields just across the way from Iraq. Nuclear war averted, various groups take credit for saving the World from the nuclear war that never was and Iran emasculated by loss of oil revenue. Job done, no job well done. But what about Russia, China, India, Japan and others that have contracts reaching far into the future with Iran for the oil they need to power their economic growth? I think they might be upset that the USA now owns them (can't see the oil fields pumping oil in any major amounts for at least the next three year cf Iraq) plus yet another attack on a Muslim country - things don't look good for a large sector of the world.
Long war or more propaganda?
armscontrolwonk.com
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by Roy T:
It is still unclear if nuclear weapons are required to breach the under ground workings in Iran, those at unclear seem to think not. I wonder if indeed all the "We will Nuke Iran" is a smoke screen for the real target the oil fields of Khuzestan?
Look at it this way, the USA and friends do the world a big favour by not using nukes on the various under ground workings scattered all across Iran and in return walk into the oil fields just across the way from Iraq. Nuclear war averted, various groups take credit for saving the World from the nuclear war that never was and Iran emasculated by loss of oil revenue. Job done, no job well done. But what about Russia, China, India, Japan and others that have contracts reaching far into the future with Iran for the oil they need to power their economic growth? I think they might be upset that the USA now owns them (can't see the oil fields pumping oil in any major amounts for at least the next three year cf Iraq) plus yet another attack on a Muslim country - things don't look good for a large sector of the world.
Long war or more propaganda?
Steve,
I have mentioned the so called 'Khuzestan gambit' before in a couple of threads months ago. I know for a fact that British and American special forces have been in the area as I have previously mentioned too.
I have never thought a full scale land invasion of Iran was ever feasable without A/ Freeing up troops currently in Iraq (this is being made steadily less likely given the totally predictable sinking into civil war)and 2/ taking Khuzestan to secure the oil fields there to economically strangle Iran which as you correctly point is all that is needed. The process of steadily upping the propaganda fiction against Iran has been clear to see and the world is falling for it as usual. To invade or nuke Iran on the mere suspicion that they may in the future use a weapon they dont in fact have is lunecy on a grand scale but given the fact they Iraq was invaded with little more justification we can see that this madness is perfectly feasable.
It has been interesting to note the recent efforts to speed up the process of getting an Iraqi self government set up and the Americans claim that the mounting civil war was unexpected and unforseen is a desperate attempt to free up troops and deflect critism. In fact anyone with more than half a brain predicted it three years ago. Colin Powell predicted it and was forced to shut up. The fact is America has some of the best Arabists and analyists in the business as does the UK but the point is they are ignored by the government whose long term plan has been to secure the Khuzestan oil fields. Iraq was just a stepping stone along the way. All this will happen in order to blunt China's seemingly unstoppable economic growth which threatens to topple America. Economists in America who have studied the growth of the chinese economy have said that the US will be an economic third world within 20 years (I have spoken to some who put it at 15 years) - America is actually fighting for it's very economic survival and we can expect some desperate measures not least of which is nuking Iran. Will the Iranians allow the Americans to walk into Khuzestan in return for not being nuked? Yes, maybe but what does that say about America 'we need your oil for our SUVs and if you dont give it we will nuke you'?
It seems the world is going mad again. How can it be that so many people are openly debating the pros and cons of nuking another country over something so small as the mere belief they may use a weapon they dont have in the future when the only country in the world who has proved to be unstable enough and evil enough to use nuclear weapons in the past is the pot calling the kettle black good old United States of Haliburton.
Bush, and whoever follows him, will get away with it too because the fat, ignorent American people are petrified of losing their soft fat ignorent lifestyle, and they are petrified of being taken over by Islam. Even their Churches are preaching it is Gods will to defeat Islam and the stench of this is everywhere in America. If Bush et al wont be stopped by their own people who will stop America? In the short term Russia, Japan, India and China have their own problems and will do deals with America while they complain publically because at the end of the day it is the oil that counts. However, long term China is unstoppable and Bush and his cronies know it. China knows it and is patient. Empires come and go. Everything is impermanent.
Erik
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by Alexander
quote:Originally posted by erik scothron:
I agree Seymour Hersh is one of the few voices of reason in that moral and cultural desert that is the United States of Haliburton.
So you'll let the halliburger with cheese and the giant coke pass by then
I appreciate Seymour Hersh a lot. But the part about the moral and cultural desert, I'm not sure which part of the US you're thinking of, but I tend to disagree, even for the people Bush is linked to.
I think the place is run by a bunch of creeps at the moment, and so do a great many people in the U.S, including many people in the administration.
As Hersh remarked himself, he has become a gateway for the information that a lot of very worried people in all branches of government want to get out.
As for moral desert, no, but there's a good deal of badly designed morality. Some strands of american conservatism can be quite disconcerting.
I learned a lot about how american conservative thought works from a book "moral politics" by George Lakoff,
a cognitive linguist (and a liberal) who became somewhat of a celebrity during the last elections there.
He describes to conservatives and liberals how their morality is structured. Mostly they consider each other as lacking morality There are some articles online.
At moments when I'm sloppy or bad tempered, I might be somewhat more anti-american...
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by Alexander
quote:Originally posted by erik scothron:
...The real problem is the Iranian Oil Bourse as I have previously mentioned.
On the site of Peter Dale Scott I first encountered the theory that if oil payment switched to euros, it would be very damaging for the dollar. After reading
Krugman on the petroeuro theories I stopped paying attention to it. My reasoning went more or less like this: I don't know much about economics and I have a lot of respect for Paul Krugman.
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by AlexanderVH:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by erik scothron:
I agree Seymour Hersh is one of the few voices of reason in that moral and cultural desert that is the United States of Haliburton.
Alexander,
My post was 'sloppy' I admit. The United States of Halliburton is my name for the vision held by the 'creeps' in power and it is the 'creeps' and their vision I refer to not the country as a whole. I am not anti-American per se (that would be irrational)but I am anti Bush and his cronies. I am anti their involvement in Iraq and appalled at their seemingly proposed involvement in Iran, I see no morality in this involvement only a warped excuse and little justification.
Regards,
Erik
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by 7V
quote:Originally posted by erik scothron:
...Bush, and whoever follows him, will get away with it too because the fat, ignorent American people are petrified of losing their soft fat ignorent lifestyle
quote:Originally posted by erik scothron:
I am not anti-American per se...
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by 7V:quote:Originally posted by erik scothron:
...Bush, and whoever follows him, will get away with it too because the fat, ignorent American people are petrified of losing their soft fat ignorent lifestylequote:Originally posted by erik scothron:
I am not anti-American per se...
I was generalising. Obviously. Obesity in America
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by 7V
Obviously.
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by 7V:
Obviously.
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by wellyspyder
Its all spin. Who the hell knows why Iran is now the focus of loony Bush. I'd seem to remember that it was ok for India to develop nukes (dunno if they did eventually go all the way). So how do you think Iran feels when this happens? Its all pure speculation on our part. What I do not want is double standard. Get rid of "your own nukes" then preach, otherwise there is no credibility.
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by wellyspyder
This situation with the US throwing its weight about is because there is no balance. There is no "superpower" other than the US. It alone has more weapons of mass destruction than any other country.
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by wellyspyder:
This situation with the US throwing its weight about is because there is no balance. There is no "superpower" other than the US. It alone has more weapons of mass destruction than any other country.
I agree with you Wellyspyder. With no UN mandate an attack on Iran would be an illegal act and how will they get a mandate on the mere suspicion that Iran would use a nuclear device If it had one in the full knowlege that if they did they would be obliterated in a retaliatory strike? It is pure spin to suggest they would and pure madness to do anything about it.
It really is that simple.
Posted on: 10 April 2006 by wellyspyder
quote:Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
The US used them after having been at total war for five years. Concensus ius that by ending the war in this manner, hundreds of thousands of lives where saved on both sides.
Really, so you were part of the decision back then and hence know that for a fact? You seem to take what you hear in the west as truth. I bet the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will not agree with you.
quote:
Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
The US has not used nukes since 1945. They could have used them in Cuba, Korea, Vietnam ( Ho Chi Minh trail, NVA staging areas for example ) but they have chsen not do so.
I do not agree with you. The soviet block was arround then. If nuclear weapons were used back then, we would not be having this debate, perhaps.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by wellyspyder
Reply to TMP:
Extremely patronising of you to think that you are the only person with an opinion and that yours is definitely more correct or fact derived from your reading. Thus such and such occured because of such and such fact. Assuming that I am not aware of the factual evidence summarily is insulting to say the least.
This is a forum and we are all members with different opinions and these opinions whether we like it are going to stay. They may be coloured by our past experience conciously or subconciously. (I am delibrately being vague about this.)
As to the matter of lives saved, the most obvious thing out of what you are saying is that, the Japs civilians lives are worth less than those of the allies military. Nuke the Japs at home to reduce our military casualties. Of course from the allies point of view this is good. This is war. Better the enemy has more dead than us even if it is undefended and mostly civilians. Is this what you really mean?
From the Japanese point of view they were already going to surrender, so the bombing was possibly needless. I am aware that this point is contested. The debate about these 2 differing views whether to bomb or not carries on today by historians etc (at universities). As far as I know, no side has won the debate or has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be correct. There are still 2 sides to this.
As to using nukes and the stand off in Cuba, both sides knew it was a loose loose situation.
You seem to conclude that the western gathered information is the only point of view and you appear to only read what you want to. Here is where we part. I accept your views even if I do not agree with them but you seem to post patronising replies. You should stop thinking that Google is the Oracle. Hopefully you will not be so insulting and patronising when you return.
I end with this quote (from an encyclopedia):
"The bombings, along with other attacks on civilians, were arguably in violation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which were ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1902 and 1908. The 1907 Hague Convention, Article 25, states: "The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."
America got away with this atrocity would be one opinion out of many.
Extremely patronising of you to think that you are the only person with an opinion and that yours is definitely more correct or fact derived from your reading. Thus such and such occured because of such and such fact. Assuming that I am not aware of the factual evidence summarily is insulting to say the least.
This is a forum and we are all members with different opinions and these opinions whether we like it are going to stay. They may be coloured by our past experience conciously or subconciously. (I am delibrately being vague about this.)
As to the matter of lives saved, the most obvious thing out of what you are saying is that, the Japs civilians lives are worth less than those of the allies military. Nuke the Japs at home to reduce our military casualties. Of course from the allies point of view this is good. This is war. Better the enemy has more dead than us even if it is undefended and mostly civilians. Is this what you really mean?
From the Japanese point of view they were already going to surrender, so the bombing was possibly needless. I am aware that this point is contested. The debate about these 2 differing views whether to bomb or not carries on today by historians etc (at universities). As far as I know, no side has won the debate or has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be correct. There are still 2 sides to this.
As to using nukes and the stand off in Cuba, both sides knew it was a loose loose situation.
You seem to conclude that the western gathered information is the only point of view and you appear to only read what you want to. Here is where we part. I accept your views even if I do not agree with them but you seem to post patronising replies. You should stop thinking that Google is the Oracle. Hopefully you will not be so insulting and patronising when you return.
I end with this quote (from an encyclopedia):
"The bombings, along with other attacks on civilians, were arguably in violation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which were ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1902 and 1908. The 1907 Hague Convention, Article 25, states: "The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."
America got away with this atrocity would be one opinion out of many.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by Roy T
As seen on the editoral pages of the Guardian
IMHO the last couple of lines sum up the nuclear arms question being addressed in this part of the world today.
quote:The underlying problem with nuclear proliferation, as with much else in the Middle East, is that Washington's attitude appears less than even-handed because of its special relationship with Israel. To say that Israelis can be trusted with nuclear weapons but Arabs or Iranians cannot may sound plausible to Americans but in the Middle East it rings hollow. In the longer term, the only equitable solution is to make the whole region nuclear-free, with no exceptions.
IMHO the last couple of lines sum up the nuclear arms question being addressed in this part of the world today.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by 7V
Roy,
Despite the impression given by the Guardian's lead writer, Iranians are not Arabs. Many Arab governments are very concerned at the possibility that Iran would get a nuclear bomb - witness Egypt's Mubarak's outburst yesterday over his concerns that Iran would gain influence over the Shias in Iraq.
More importantly, even if Israel could be persuaded to give up its nuclear deterrent, this would not satisfy the Iranians, although I'm sure it would make the Guardian happy.
Iran would undoubtedly demand that the US, France and the UK (amongst others) give up their nuclear deterrents too. If you were the head of the Western world would you unilaterally disarm and trust Iran's current leaders to do likewise?
Despite the impression given by the Guardian's lead writer, Iranians are not Arabs. Many Arab governments are very concerned at the possibility that Iran would get a nuclear bomb - witness Egypt's Mubarak's outburst yesterday over his concerns that Iran would gain influence over the Shias in Iraq.
More importantly, even if Israel could be persuaded to give up its nuclear deterrent, this would not satisfy the Iranians, although I'm sure it would make the Guardian happy.
Iran would undoubtedly demand that the US, France and the UK (amongst others) give up their nuclear deterrents too. If you were the head of the Western world would you unilaterally disarm and trust Iran's current leaders to do likewise?
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by 7V:
Roy,
Despite the impression given by the Guardian's lead writer, Iranians are not Arabs. Many Arab governments are very concerned at the possibility that Iran would get a nuclear bomb - witness Egypt's Mubarak's outburst yesterday over his concerns that Iran would gain influence over the Shias in Iraq.
More importantly, even if Israel could be persuaded to give up its nuclear deterrent, this would not satisfy the Iranians, although I'm sure it would make the Guardian happy.
Iran would undoubtedly demand that the US, France and the UK (amongst others) give up their nuclear deterrents too. If you were the head of the Western world would you unilaterally disarm and trust Iran's current leaders to do likewise?
Iranians are not arabs, this is true. Iranians speak farsi not arabic, this is true. The gaurdian quote of 'arabs or Iranians' makes plain that the two are considered separate thus it seems you have misread the quote. Mubarak is the most pro-western major Arab leader and is firmly under British and US influence.
As for expecting Iran to give up its nuclear deterrent if we gave up ours.....what Iranian nuclear deterrent are you talking about? They don't have one.
I repeat:
With no UN mandate an attack on Iran would be an illegal act and how will they get a mandate on the mere suspicion that Iran would use a nuclear device If it had one in the full knowlege that if they did they would be obliterated in a retaliatory strike? It is pure spin to suggest they would and pure madness to do anything about it.
It really is that simple.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by 7V
quote:Originally posted by erik scothron:
As for expecting Iran to give up its nuclear deterrent if we gave up ours.....what Iranian nuclear deterrent are you talking about? They don't have one.
...and they're not trying to build one either, are they Eric?
If you go to Brighton town centre, there's a man there giving away Naim CDPs. Better hurry though before the soft, fat, ignorant Americans take them all.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by Roy T
I'll try and answer some of your points
As are many Arab governments concerned that Israel has the bomb, it is the imbalance that I feel is one of the major problems in the area.
This is not about the Guardian being happy if Israel were to give up its nuclear deterrent it is about the USA supporting one side of the equation and not allowing others to attempt redress this imbalance of arms while at the same time professing they and their supporters know what is best for that part of the world. I reckon if Israel did unilaterally give up nuclear arms then Iran would not have a leg to stand on for at a stroke Israel would have removed a reason for Iran to seek nuclear arms in the first place.
Nuclear arms can be be viewed by one side as a deterrent while at the same time the same weapons can be viewed as first strike weapons by all others as was the case in the case in USA, Europe, Russia and China for many years. This genie was controlled by a mixture of arms control & reduction which will still leaving all concerned with more than enough weapons to do the biz, this has worked at least in the case of the USA, Europe, Russia and China since the arms control / reduction talks of the early 70s when all parties moved away from the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.
I do not believe this is the case as Iran is worried more about the other nuclear powers in the region than it is about recreating a caliphate backed by force of arms an stretching far across the globe.
No, they would loose votes and their party would never win another election and besides I feel a push for the same as controls that bind the USA, Europe, Russia and China is the way to go.
quote:Many Arab governments are very concerned at the possibility that Iran would get a nuclear bomb
As are many Arab governments concerned that Israel has the bomb, it is the imbalance that I feel is one of the major problems in the area.
quote:More importantly, even if Israel could be persuaded to give up its nuclear deterrent, this would not satisfy the Iranians, although I'm sure it would make the Guardian happy.
This is not about the Guardian being happy if Israel were to give up its nuclear deterrent it is about the USA supporting one side of the equation and not allowing others to attempt redress this imbalance of arms while at the same time professing they and their supporters know what is best for that part of the world. I reckon if Israel did unilaterally give up nuclear arms then Iran would not have a leg to stand on for at a stroke Israel would have removed a reason for Iran to seek nuclear arms in the first place.
Nuclear arms can be be viewed by one side as a deterrent while at the same time the same weapons can be viewed as first strike weapons by all others as was the case in the case in USA, Europe, Russia and China for many years. This genie was controlled by a mixture of arms control & reduction which will still leaving all concerned with more than enough weapons to do the biz, this has worked at least in the case of the USA, Europe, Russia and China since the arms control / reduction talks of the early 70s when all parties moved away from the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.
quote:Iran would undoubtedly demand that the US, France and the UK (amongst others) give up their nuclear deterrents too.
I do not believe this is the case as Iran is worried more about the other nuclear powers in the region than it is about recreating a caliphate backed by force of arms an stretching far across the globe.
quote:If you were the head of the Western world would you unilaterally disarm and trust Iran's current leaders to do likewise?
No, they would loose votes and their party would never win another election and besides I feel a push for the same as controls that bind the USA, Europe, Russia and China is the way to go.
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by 7V:quote:Originally posted by erik scothron:
As for expecting Iran to give up its nuclear deterrent if we gave up ours.....what Iranian nuclear deterrent are you talking about? They don't have one.
...and they're not trying to build one either, are they Eric?
If you go to Brighton town centre, there's a man there giving away Naim CDPs. Better hurry though before the soft, fat, ignorant Americans take them all.
What? Soft fat, ignorant Americans in my back yard, where will it all end? I'm emigrating.
Thanks for the info. btw is this generous soul in Churchill Square?
Regards,
Erik
Posted on: 11 April 2006 by NaimDropper
I won't defend the use of the A-Bomb (as it was called then) in Japan, but nowhere in the last 79 posts did I read about the nuclear race that was going on between Allied powers and the Germans.
A lot of heavy water was manufactured in Germany in the early '40s. Ever wonder what that was all about?
How about Hitler with an atomic bomb? Don't think he would have wasted a second dropping it on London, do you? Then maybe Paris just for effect.
Glad "we" (that's all of us, now) got it done first.
Still not defending the death, maiming and destruction in Japan. But let’s not get too “revisionist” about what happened then.
The cat's been out of the bag since 1945. Plans and material supposedly available to the highest bidder if you have the cash. And until recently all "we" had to worry about was whether the USSR or the USA would be first to bomb the other to particles, dragging in England, France, Italy, etc.
Any thoughts on that?
My late father-in-law had some interesting points on the use of atomic bombs in Japan. He was on a ship in the South Pacific getting ready for what would be the biggest blood-letting of the entire war. Once that first bomb was exploded they all thought it was the greatest thing that could have happened. He thought that the "demonstrations" probably “saved” a lot of lives by ending the futile last-ditch efforts of Japan to “win” the war.
That is not my experience or opinion, but I weigh that heavily as he was a wise man.
David
A lot of heavy water was manufactured in Germany in the early '40s. Ever wonder what that was all about?
How about Hitler with an atomic bomb? Don't think he would have wasted a second dropping it on London, do you? Then maybe Paris just for effect.
Glad "we" (that's all of us, now) got it done first.
Still not defending the death, maiming and destruction in Japan. But let’s not get too “revisionist” about what happened then.
The cat's been out of the bag since 1945. Plans and material supposedly available to the highest bidder if you have the cash. And until recently all "we" had to worry about was whether the USSR or the USA would be first to bomb the other to particles, dragging in England, France, Italy, etc.
Any thoughts on that?
My late father-in-law had some interesting points on the use of atomic bombs in Japan. He was on a ship in the South Pacific getting ready for what would be the biggest blood-letting of the entire war. Once that first bomb was exploded they all thought it was the greatest thing that could have happened. He thought that the "demonstrations" probably “saved” a lot of lives by ending the futile last-ditch efforts of Japan to “win” the war.
That is not my experience or opinion, but I weigh that heavily as he was a wise man.
David
Posted on: 12 April 2006 by Roy T
Now that Iran has joined the nuclear club by producing enriched uranium at about 3.5% which is just what is required to run a civil reactor for the production of electrical power and way short of the 88% needed to make weapons grade uranium, I think that they should be congratulated for wishing to turn to a power production technology that releases only small amounts of carbon into the atmosphere after all has not our leader commanded civil servants to explore this and other paths path for meeting the UK future energy needs?
If you were to look at reactors situated in Israel or Iran I think you will see that both have more than a few that at best may be considered dual use and at worst plants for the creation of enriched weapons grade material so they look about equal on that count. But is the one of the reasons for the USA painting such a black picture of Iran all down to the global humiliation endured after the capturing and holding of CIA staff within the US embassy in Tehran during 1979 and the failure of operation Eagle Claw to free them the following June?
Revenge is a dish best served cold, so is it now on the menu?
If you were to look at reactors situated in Israel or Iran I think you will see that both have more than a few that at best may be considered dual use and at worst plants for the creation of enriched weapons grade material so they look about equal on that count. But is the one of the reasons for the USA painting such a black picture of Iran all down to the global humiliation endured after the capturing and holding of CIA staff within the US embassy in Tehran during 1979 and the failure of operation Eagle Claw to free them the following June?
Revenge is a dish best served cold, so is it now on the menu?
Posted on: 12 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by Roy T:
Revenge is a dish best served cold, so is it now on the menu?
Maybe revenge is a dish best not seved at all?
Posted on: 12 April 2006 by Roy T
quote:Maybe revenge is a dish best not seved at all?
I agree but then I'm not running the propaganda war and I'm the commander in chief who may well feel that righting wrongs in far off lands is part of his job description.
Posted on: 12 April 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by Roy T:quote:Maybe revenge is a dish best not seved at all?
I agree but then I'm not running the propaganda war and I'm the commander in chief who may well feel that righting wrongs in far off lands is part of his job description.
Point taken