This is a real, non-rhetorical questions. The Neoconservative movement is generally pro-war and specifically in love with the idea of war in Iran (and of course Iraq, but they got that one done already). The current anger of negotiations and an interim agreement with Iran on uranium enrichment is just the lasted chapter in the "bomb bomb Iran" fever from the hard right. This post from Juan Cole details some of that history http://www.juancole.com/2013/11/agreement-negotiate-enrichment.html.
In 2003, the Neocon chickenhawks, most of whom had never worn a uniform or had a parent who did, joked that “everyone wants to go to Baghdad; real men want to go to Tehran.” When people have to talk about being “real men,” it is a pretty good sign that they are 98-pound weaklings. The “everyone” who wanted to go to Baghdad was actually just the Neocons and their fellow travelers. Most of the latter were hoodwinked by the Neocon/Cheney misinformation campaign blaming Saddam Hussein of Iraq for 9/11.
But I'm not enough of an expert to judge either the current deal or the hawkish position, so I'd love to hear comments and discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment