Friday, April 27

Sick. Sick sick and more sick.

Here's the point: too sick to do my own research. To any and all available netmonkeys who still bother to show up here:

Who's the guy who wrote that book about his interviews with Osama bin Laden? I seem to recall it's titled something like "Talking to Osama." Along those lines, anyway.

I heard him talking about the book on the radio (late last year, I suspect); the salient point o the book was that in it, bin Laden specifically states that al Qaeda's long-term goal was to draw the United States into a endless guerrilla war in Afghanistan, where the mujahedeen could whip up on our military and break us the way they broke the Soviets.

This is pertinent because Our Glorious Bush cleverly avoided this trap (well, almost), and then -- perhaps out of a sort of professional courtesy, one nutjob fanatic to another -- created an all-new, improved version of Afghanistan out of a previously stable state (this being Iraq). Where we promptly locked outselves into an endless guerrilla war that is breaking our military, and our republic's will to fight.

I bring this up because it suddenly occurred to me that the Bush Administration could actually be correct (gods forbid!) in one thing: that the war in Iraq actually HAS been the reason there have been no further attacks here in the continental US. They haven't attacked us because they don't need to -- we're already doing exactly what they WANT.

This would be the al Qaeda version of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Which means that if we do pull out, there really IS an increased chance of a new attack. It also means that as long as we stay in, we're automatically losing. No matter how many people we kill. Because keeping us in is exactly bin Laden's strategic objective. Which Bush is intent on doing, which (from my limited political perspective) sounds a hell of a lot like giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Does anyone out there know the phrase "monkey trap"?

Well, we're the fucking monkey.


Shane said...

What do you think Bush's motive is here? I mean, I heard the whole oil schpeels before, and the "revenge against Saddam" stuff, but the second one is kind of irrelevant at this point, and strangely enough nobody seems to be talking about the first one anymore, which I know doesn't mean it's gone away -- but I mean, I'm just wondering, what do you think is going through his mind?

He's gotta be seeing that America has practically no will to be there anymore, and it seems like this war is sort of doing really horrible things for his political party, and it seems like you can't walk half a block down a busy street without seeing somebody wearing one of those "Not My President" t-shirts... so what's his motivations for staying there? Purely money? What can't that fucker buy, at this point? Is he getting any more power at this point, by keeping us there? I'll admit I don't know, but it doesn't seem like he could be.

Or is it worse? Does he really feel like the work we're doing there is good? Is any good coming of us being there? Or more specifically, has anything we've done there been worth dragging our troops and our country through this bloodbath, to the point that everybody seems to hate us at this point?

James said...

The reasonabe candidates for "Who's the guy who wrote that book about
his interviews with Osama bin Laden?" seem to be:
Osama bin Laden I Know
by Peter Bergen published by Free Press (January
3, 2006)
No Talking to Osama
article by Jonathan Boggs appearing in Damocles 4/12/2004

MWS said...

Thanks, James. I'll take a look at them -- I think it's the first one.

Shane --

I dunno what Bush's motivations are, but I'm not sure they're relevant as long as he's got Cheney's hand up his ass.

It could very possibly be exactly what I said: giving Osama the payoff he was looking for, so he'll leave us alone.

It's also worth noting that the war has been VERY lucrative for certain sectors of our economy. There's pretty much no arguing that this is part of what's going on in Cheney's mind, anyway. He doesn't come from the Absolute Entitlement background, as far as I recall; he's occasionally had to actually work for a living. Though I admit I don't know for sure.

Tim said...

I dunno how relevant it is, but if Cheney is the big masterminder behind the Iraq thing, would his having been the Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War have anything to do with it, you think? I admit I'm largely ignorant of American affairs from that time, since I was like, 7 and in Canada, so I can't make many guesses on that myself, but how about you Americans?

He does seem to be a pretty shrewd guy, and he and Rumsfeld orchestrated a kind of coup in the White House under Ford, according to Wikipedia.

And as for his having to actually work a living, apparently so. He was a linesman says (again) Wikipedia. I don't entirely trust everything Wiki says, but hey.

What point was I trying to make? None, really. Just saying stuff.

Rob said...

Personally Osama is dead. He loved shoving it in our faces that he has defied the United States by posting videos and submitting them to the news outlets. He has not been heard from in years. The last couple of audio tapes that were reprotedly his have been proven to be his voice but so incoherent that the "FBI" says they are several tapes pieced together. Iraq, is a lose lose situation. We leave we ruined a country forever, we stay we die and our country gets fed up. In my opinion, we have done what we said we would do. We have ousted a dictator, set up a government that held its own elections. It is not our fault that those freaking idiots cannot get along. Personally, pull all our folks out. Nuke the middle east. Every majoy city. Starting with Iran, then Syria and all the others. Wipe em out. If only I had a nuke.

MWS said...

Wow. You REALLY sound like a fan of mine.

One who should maybe sober up, tho' . . .

M Shamah said...

Interesting point of view. i dont know nearly enough to formulate my own, but i like yours. kinda awsome in its backward circular reasoning.

MWS said...

Yeah. Scary, though.

Here's the thing: you can make a story (in this case, the confluence of bin Laden's stated objectives, Bush's intransigence, and the lack of domestic al Qaeda attacks) out of anything.

It's in our natures to draw connections between separate facts, and construct a narrative around them.

Being an interesting story doesn't make it true. It only makes it interesting.

M Shamah said...

True. I can't take any "conspiracy theories" regarding the war seriously anymore. There is just to many of them.

Shane said...

Yeah, I can't really take anything seriously about the war anymore, except that it's happening, it's stupid, and people are dying. Beyond that, it's hard to trust the word of anybody on what's really going on.

Aaron said...

Irony: 32 students in America die. We mourn, have continuous media coverage. We carefully savor each person's name, history and aspirations all abruptly ended by a tragedy.

While this event was unparalleled in America, it shows the disconnect American-media and America as a whole has with the reality of the rest of the world, particularly in the context of the war.

Jake said...

Aaron, I agree completely. Though I suppose that one could argue that all tragedy (and happiness, conversely) is a matter of a point of view. But that's a weird way to live; you'd have to have no moral relativity to function like that. Things have context, yeah, and everything has a place, but I feel as though that it's the reaction as relative to a situation that is the most important.

Virginia Tech was a horrible tragedy. However, it withers in comparison to the overall arch and scope of tragedy within the Iraq war. The difference between the two lies, I think, mostly in their accessibility; the ease of comprehension, of imagination. Virginia Tech echoes more resonantly, it seems, (especially in our media) because it is just an easier alternative to consider against the overwhelming and apparently inevitable result of the Iraq war and its contexts. One is tragedy on a local scale, the other is tragedy on an almost unconceivable level. Bluntly, someone shot a bunch of kids. The impact is immediate, though not self-sustaining (don't look for much continuity far in the future.) In the Middle-East, we have armed nationalities that, to say, dislike us, would be a gross understatement. Outside of the Iraq war, however, their impact is slow, deliberate; more like being bled to death than being run over by a train. It's hard to look into the future and, a hundred years from now, envision a positive, powerful outlook for our country. It's easier to look a few months ahead after we've buried the lives lost in Virginia Tech.

I dunno. Just thoughts bouncing around my head.

M Shamah said...

The difference between the viginia tech shooting and the war is simple. the tradgedies of the war were more or less expected. we knew going in that people would die. we didnt know how many, or how far it would go out of control, but we were prepared for death. the virginia tech shooting took us completely by suprise. we were not prepared for any form of death at all.

Aaron said...

This moral relevance is brought well into context with Matt's novels. To Caine the world is too big, too much of an abstract thought; his wife, his child and occasionally even himself take paramount precedence. I believe the same thing occurs to each and every person, many people just refuse to see that because, "good people" care about others.

So, one more Vietcong dies, one more Iraqi dies, one more soldier dies, so what? They are distant numbers to most of us. The same thing goes for those kids.

Now, I'm not saying we don't all agree that needless death is a tragedy, because it is. Senseless, needless death, is tragic.

The sick thing is, as Matt so concisely alluded to in his first book, the media.

Rob Locke said...

And now for something completely different:

Hi matt the political cynic! How's matt the author doing?

How'd your editor respond to the draft you sent? We haven't heard anything *all year*.

"He wasn't as pleased as my agent. I've spent the last 5 months re-writing."

Harin said...

Sorry I haven't read all the prior comments, but I have just one comment --

Yeah, I think Bush is actually right about this one, that our war in Iraq and Afghanistan has prevented attacks on our own soil, and that pulling out of there precipitously at this point would be a mistake...

Did anyone catch NBC's Brian Williams interview of UK's Tony Blair? I've always been impressed with Tony Blair, and it was a good interview! With his imminent stepping-down, I thought it was a very genuine Tony Blair. For all of GW's rantings about the Iraq war, I thought Tony Blair was able to convince me in one interview what GW's rantings tries to do daily: convey a legitimate and valid reason for a western presence for this war in Iraq taking into account how the conditions in Iraq continue to exacerbate.

CPT C said...


Stick with what you do best, writing novels. Do not fall into a monkey trap of your own where you start to believe your celebrity gives your oppinion more merit than anyone else.

If I want a daily dose of politics, I will go to a university for a lecture or watch the professionals on TV.

I don't go to Anderson Cooper when I want to read a Star Wars novel and I sure as hell don't want to come to you for poignant commentary on what we should do in Afghanistan.

If you do want to give your worldly oppinion on politics and the conflicts we are tied up in, I suggest you go visit Iraq or Afganistan. Take the time to sit around with the troops, maybe go talk to a few schools in Afghanistan and see the first generation of female students in years.

Once you go over there and spent some time, I might take your rant on the Govt a bit more serious.

cpt c said...


Here's 8 bucks for your next book!

Aaron said...

Dear CPT C,

There is a big difference between fiction and reality. A blog, generally speaking - reflects the real and public voice of a person. A book, on the other hand, reflects the real and public voice of the author in terms of allegory and metaphor.

In addition - if you have read Matthew's works and believe he's the kind of guy to "tone himself down" on his own personal blog where readership is voluntary, I suggest another read or two.

Tim said...

If you don't like it, follow these easy steps.

1. Don't read offending political blog post.
2. Navigate away from webpage.
3. ????

Shane said...

Plus, Stover doesn't really talk much about his own work unless he's answering direct questions.

CPT C, you're sort of falling into a "monkey trap" of your own where you seem to condemn people of "celebrity" status simply for giving their opinions. Like authors and actors and basically anybody who entertains needs to just shut up and write/act/sing/dance, which is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

And to be honest, I doubt you're getting better, more honest and less biased information from the "professionals" than you are around here, which is less a compliment to Matt as much as it's an insult to most of these psychopaths on TV who throw around the words "conservative" and "liberal" like they actually mean a damn thing.

Nobody gives a shit if you come around here with a solid argument. But nobody's going to stand for you being a moron and telling somebody that his opinions should be kept to himself because it's not what they get paid to do.

CPT C said...

I could care less that he is not paid for his comments, it is the fact that his comments are complete crap that bother me.

How exactly is Matt an expert on anything to do with foreign policy, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Has he every been to the middle-east? Does he even know the name of the current leaders in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Matt wants to rant and get his little "I hate Bush" diatribe out there and that is fine, but I think he should be called out when he wants to wax political theory on us.

Or do you want to tell me that we should listen to any jackass with zero knowledge on foreign policy. If Matt is going to slam away at politicians and policy, I want him to back it up with real world knowledge. I want him to say "I was in Iraq, I saw the shit, it was ridiculous." Until that day comes, his opinion is shit.

Sitting in his pad, playing with a katana, and writing about Jacen getting tortured is not the type of experience I expect from someone so willing to bash away foreign policy.

You are right, I can click away and check out another page, but I think Matt needs to know that a few of his fans think his views on the real world are shit.

I love his books, I think he is one of the better authors around, and I certainly think his Star Wars books are much better than the rest of the Star Wars crew.

I have nothing against Matt, but I don't like to see people spouting off from their mouth about things they have no real knowledge of.

Anonymous said...

Curious to see what the bear will do with this poker...

(though I’m not sure the above even deserves a response from Mr. Stover)

Meanwhile, cpt c, please consider using the opportunity to re-establish some credibility by presenting actual arguments, if you want to dispute anyone's opinion. The fact of merely having stepped on Iraqi/Afghani soil does not make one an expert on foreign policy, nor is it a valid argument in any discussion save for maybe the coherence of Iraqi/Afghani soil in the very location where it had been stepped on. Though I will be very surprised to see you present a logical rebuttal, as your claim of having nothing against someone you've just spent several paragraphs insulting with colorful phrases like "jackass" and "shit" showcases a very poor handle on logic altogether.

On a side note, this is a blog. By definition, a public spot to drop random – or not so random – thoughts, political or otherwise. So, if your fragile little ego can't handle an author whose books you’ve enjoyed having opinions different from yours, you will do much better bookmarking publishers' sites and sticking to checking for release news on this author’s books.

That said, I think sitting on this side of the media and guessing what is a targeted result or a pure side effect (or if something’s even an effect) of U.S. politics in the Middle East is like playing “connect the dots” where the dots aren’t numbered. And I agree with Mr. Stover – it can make for interesting stories, even if interesting doesn’t make them true.

At any rate, always great to see this blog updated!


Shane said...

Also, CPT C, because I think it's worth being pointed out blatantly, you haven't brought out a single solid argument in what has now become three posts from you on this blog. You haven't once shown yourself to have any more of a valid opinion than Matt (or anyone else for that matter) since you've arrived here. All you've done is thrown out a lot of inane blanket statements and random, immature insults and have basically stated that your views on this subject are that unless someone has personally been in Iraq or Afghanistan, their opinions on these subjects are worthless.

Which, I'll state again, is the biggest load of horse shit I've ever heard.

The bottom line is, nobody could care less if you disagree with Matt's point of view, or think that his opinions are shit. Your skewed logic isn't worth a damn here until you back it up with something real. You haven't actually made a single real argument here.

What people here are looking for, is some kind of show of evidence that you actually have half a clue of what you're talking about. Make an actual argument worth reading. Your sarcasm isn't funny when it's piled atop such empty assertions.

Make a real argument. Until then: Shut the fuck up.

R said...

"On a side note, this is a blog. By definition, a public spot to drop random – or not so random – thoughts, political or otherwise. So, if your fragile little ego can't handle an author whose books you’ve enjoyed having opinions different from yours, you will do much better bookmarking publishers' sites and sticking to checking for release news on this author’s books."

Or Cpt. C can post his thoughts right here where MWS wrote his own and can directly respond if so inclined? Or if nothing else, MWS at least knows that one person out there disagrees with his views on Bush? Is that not why comments are enabled on this blog? But that's not ok because Cpt. C's views run counter to the rest of you? That's not ok because Cpt. C can be a fan without being a fanboy?

"The fact of merely having stepped on Iraqi/Afghani soil does not make one an expert on foreign policy, nor is it a valid argument in any discussion save for maybe the coherence of Iraqi/Afghani soil in the very location where it had been stepped on. Though I will be very surprised to see you present a logical rebuttal, as your claim of having nothing against someone you've just spent several paragraphs insulting with colorful phrases like "jackass" and "shit" showcases a very poor handle on logic altogether."

I've pulled 5 combat deployments between Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not an expert on foreign policy, but I promise you that time afforded me more insight into the religous, socio-economic, and political atmosphere of those two countries than what you so callously disregard as knowledge that seemingly doesn't extend beyond the dirt beneath my feet.

If it comes down to the views of a citizen whose opinion is formed from the news media, internet, and conspiracy theorists, and a soldier who has access to all the same with the addition of having been on the ground and seen and done...I wouldn't so quickly dismiss that soldier's viewpoint because it's not a treatise on foreign affairs annotated and cross-referenced to your liking. MWS equally failed to support his opinion and Cpt. C has asked of him what you now ask of Cpt. C.

I guess you'll just have to forgive his anger in using terribly ignorant words like "shit" and "jackass" after seeing his President referred to as a "fanatic nutjob" and "that fucker". I know, Cpt. C should be ashamed of himself for lowering the class and social grace with which this blog is so replete.

"Make a real argument. Until then: Shut the fuck up."

I'll just shake my head at this and move on.

Forgive us if we turned the corner here and found yet another Bush-bashing in progress. I guess I just didn't expect that specific little treat from my favorite Star Wars author.

Now I know.

Does it mean I won't get LS&TSofM? Nope, I look forward to it. Does it mean we can't be friends? Nope, I have lots of friends who don't like Bush or the war.

So there it is. We've all had our say and no one is dead. Not a bad day in my experience.

Shane said...

"But that's not ok because Cpt. C's views run counter to the rest of you?" - R

That's not the issue. And I feel like everybody here has more or less very clearly stated what the issue is. Nobody gives a shit if CPT C disagrees with Matt. We just want him to actually post his views, not just stand back and arbitrarily insult Matt without backing anything he has to say up one iota.

It doesn't make us fanboys to expect him to actually have an argument to make if he's coming around here to argue.

MWS said...

Jesus K. Righst.

I hate Google.

I have finally (after a week or so of trying) managed to convince that piece of shit that my email address is actually my email address. Dunno why they didn't like it. Dunno why they've changed their minds and like it now. File it under Mysteries of the Internet.

Here's what I was trying to post:

C --

Believe it or not, I can not only name the presidents and pertinent ministers, but also the most powerful warlords and militia leaders. Of both countries. So what?

Second: I spend quite a bit of time talking with "the troops," both personally and electronically. And with their families and friends. People write to me. Go figure.

Third: Sure, it's swell that girls in Kabul get to learn to read. If nobody kills them for it. If you think women's rights are on the upswing in Afghanistan, you need to find an information source beyond Fox News. The oppression may no longer be institutionalized by the government, but it's real -- and, as the Taliban tighten their hold in the south and east, it's getting worse. And let's leave the record of Pakistan -- our ally in The Planetary Scrimmage Against Radical Islamofascism or whatever the fuck they're calling it this week -- right the hell out. You might be interested in what international human rights NGOs are saying about the state of women's rights in Iraq, too. Here's a hint: premature deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqis, and the displacement of over 2 million more, has not produced an improvement.

Fourth: I wasn't expressing an opinion, I was telling a story. If you don't like the story, you should tell a different one. Instead of indulging in the classic "Aww, whadda you know anyway?" defense. Which is a tactic of the ignoramus. Since you like my books, you obviously can't be an ignoramus (liking my books is a prima facie case for possessing a Spark of Genius); so why would you want to act like one?

Fifth: I am no celebrity. What I am is a writer. Which means that I observe and think for a living. Nobody asks anyone to give my opinions more weight than their own. Nobody says "It must be true, Matt Stover thinks so." (They better not, anyway: I'll kick their butts). Only people who are severely intellectually insecure work themselves into a froth because someone disagrees with them.

Sound like anyone you know?

Sixth: 8 bucks for my new book? Buy in hardcover, you cheap fuck.

Now, on to today:

Oh, and R?

I know plenty of people disagree with my take on Bush. So what? Everybody has a right to be wrong.

Especially you.

And if you think I have some obligation to re-up the several years' worth of arguments and evidence documented on this blog (as well as other sites around the Web) just because you're new here, well . . .

Everybody has a right to be wrong.

Especially you.

However, the blog is archived. Publically.

Which makes your claim that I have failed to support my opinion is entirely bogus: that is, it is an opinion entirely at variance with the facts. It also makes your claim a prima facie case for your intellectual laziness.

As far as C's opinion goes, he can write whatever he wants, here. So can you (as long as you sign it -- anonymous posts are not allowed on this blog).

However, when you don't use your real name, or a recognizable Web-handle one might use to get a look at your own archived arguments and opinions (or provide those arguments and opinions) you can't blame folks for calling you on being, basically, a troll.

I'm glad you like my books. Read 'em.

I'm also glad you don't like my blog. Don't read it.

Or you might, say, actually READ it . . . as opposed to just ranting. But you don't have to. It's just an idea.

The gods all know there are plenty of things in life a hell of a lot more important and interesting than whatever happens to be going on inside my head.

Why you all get so worked up about it seems to be another of those Mysteries of the Web . . .

M Shamah said...

great to have you back Matt

Anonymous said...

Wow. This is, i think, one of the best debates I've read on here in a while. I just wanted to pop in and say three things:

1)I don't always speak (type) on blogs or message boards, but I always read. I just wait in the shadows and learn.
Matt has said some incredibly nice things about me personally in the past. I believe that the qualities he says I have are best expressed through learning quietly and waiting until the right moment to speak. That being said...

2)I agree with Cpt C to a point: People who are really in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, whatever, do have more of a credible opinion than people who are not there (like me).
But Matt is also right. If a person is not out and about in the world their opinion is not automatically invalid. In fact, their opinion is more of an accurate representation on what the majority in America feel. This is simply because the majority of America is not in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Which brings me back to my point: Don't assert that you are correct or that someone else is wrong unless you know without a doubt that you are an absolute expert on the subject.

3)I want everone to know that the poster 'R' was not me. :)

Aaron said...


Tell us when we can buy your fucking next hardback. Damn it.

dash said...

Through Our Enemies' Eyes by Michael Scheuer is good. He's the guy that wrote Imperial Hubris.

Rob Locke said...

I can understand why its frustrating to hear a civilian's side and not be able to properly respond. Its called a security clearence.

Unfortunately, the public must rely on media for information because they aren't "need to know."

Which opens up a new can-- Is it right for the government to hide information from its citizens? Consider, for example, that China is the #1 importer for american recycled paper/shred.

Having insider knowledge broadcasted is *very bad* for our element of surprise.

I get off topic a bit but its something to mull over.

Johnathan said...

When it comes to relying on the media for your information, keep these facts in mind.

1. We're not perfect. Most of us weren't valedictorian of our journalism class. In fact, some of us are incredibly bad copywriters, and will mangle the shit out of any news we report on.

2. We're not perfect. Our bosses will sometimes tell us to take the story we're working on and make it "sexy". Your least favorite news source is a business, after all. FoxNews can just point to it's bottom line whenever you criticize their biased coverage.

3. We're not perfect. Sometimes we get lazy and don't thoroughly research everything because we have HUGE CRUSHING DEADLINES. This ties in with point #2, in that The Scoop leads many to jump to conclusions about, say, the ideantiy of the Virginia Tech gunman, Geraldo Rivera.

Just remember these few facts when you're watching the news tonight, and we'll get along fine.

MWS said...

Hey, Rob.

I'd love to hear even a hypothetical piece of "insider knowledge" that would make the war in Iraq look like it's not a disaster of historic proportion.

As to the supposed superiority of a first-hand military micro-view over a long range civilian overview . . . well, there is no case to be made there. Just the opposite, in fact: the boots-on-the-ground guy's outlook will be inevitably colored by his individual experience (especially the intense emotions produced by the innate stress of the situation), which may or may not reflect the wider reality.

Which is not, you understand, to say that the BotG guy's view is wrong, or even less valid than the long-range view. It's that they're apples and oranges, you follow? They're not comparable, because they don't reflect comparable perceptions. You can compare one BotG's views to another's with some validity, just as you can compare mine with other committed civilian students of the war. Cross-comparison is not valid, except insofar as the BotG's experience might impinge on my perception -- that is, what I hear from the men and women Over There forms an integral part of my view of the conflict.

But only a part.

There's an interesting feature in the NYTimes today -- what they call an Op-Chart, that compares certain statistics for the month of May from 2003 through 2007.

The article that goes with it is here:

Which is also interesting. I recommend it.

Rob Locke said...

Heres an interesting article from the point of view of a kenyan economic "expert" about US aid. Its an international news site, with a german conducting the interview. Entitled ""For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!",1518,363663,00.html

Think you'll like it matt... it can be applied to any country we try to help/reform because we think they need it.

as for soldiers in iraq: if no progress is made, then theres no point. its getting old.

The mission is very abstract. capture/kill operatives and military extremists. When (if) that happens, more will spring up in their place.

Vicious cycle. When you dont have something to look forward to your morale sinks.

Anonymous said...

While I hate to post off topic, I really want to know the latest news on CBK. I hope everything is going well...

Anonymous said...

well, i dunno if anyone be reading this since you debated this matter thoroughly but since i am from middle east i believe my voice is paramount for a more enlightened discussion.
i really dont know about the inner politics of the US or any conspiracy theories but hussein wasnt a very nice man.
despite all the moral ambigueity he was a downright bastard and you did real good to do him in (that little tit threw missiles on my country).
yet most amusingly, he aided the greater good by checking the Iran situation.
with him gone iran has become a great threat to my country and all western way of life and because the US mired in the iraqian swamp, i believe your politicians are shaking in their panties and powerlesss to act on such great a threat.
Ahmadinejad has been ranting for a while that he's gonna fuck israel and i believe he will do his best and his having a nuke wont do us no good.
bush at least have a good sense of good guys\bad guys but in overall strategy...
well, my country might come to depend on action on your side so even though its what bin laden wants, you must take action again to prevent a great atrocity by iran, which my country's politicians cannot prevent(for greed and corruption has taken over the republic! there is no interest in the common good:)
hope you read and respond matt, as i would appreciate your input on the greater situation

SIGNED - freeman