Search This Blog

Saturday, April 15

we need to blow up Iran in order to save it

TurgidsonGet out your DVDs of Dr. Strangelove (Kissinger, McNamara, Rumsfeld, what's the difference?) because you must capture that whole mindset to fully understand the drum beat toward a confrontation in Iran.

We have been looking for an excuse for years.  Since 1979.  The very people who called Jimmy Carter an ineffective wimp for the failed attempt to rescue hostages will site the hostage crisis as one of the more obvious reasons we should have bombed Iran.  Bomb them then, bomb them now. 

When the latest swarthy man, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (learn to spell it and get used to it),
took office in Iran, which, by the way means, Land of the Aryans  (no shit),  former American hostages said he was with the group of students held them.  (Remember the allegations that the Reagan administration struck a deal with the Iranians not to release American hostages so Carter couldn't secure their freedom and his re-election?  Did Reagan/Bush strike a deal with this guy?  Is this another act that has come back to bite us in our collective asses?  Saddam, on our payroll, Osama, on our payroll.  Or is this another adventure Oedipal housecleaning? "Daddy Bush wasn't manly enough to take out Saddam.  I will.  I got two terms, he didn't.") The actual student/terrorists say Ahmadinejad wasn't with them and that they are his opposition. Who knows?  And you can bet you won't know anything that contradicts the new script that Ahmadinejad is Hitler.200pxmahmoud_ahmadinejad_front_viewjpg_1

Yes, Ahmadinejad has said some pretty awful things about Jews and Israel.  That isn't surprising.  And we are going to be pushed to believe that he wants to wipe Israel off the map for the poor Palestinians.  Really?  Israel has about 500 nuclear weapons so Ahmadinejad would need more than the glow-stick's worth of uranium that he has to do the job.  So we have to bomb  them with nuclear weapons of our own because we don't have enough troops to occupy Iraq and Iran.  As if we wouldn't need to occupy it after we bombed it?  What are we going to do with all those refugees?  Do we have enough burn beds to handle the--er--fallout--collateral damage?

When your numbers are in the toilet and everyone thinks you are an idiot, bomb something.  Is that anyway to conduct foreign policy?  Is there an election soon?  Are the Republicans going to use everything they have, including fear, (which is really all they have) to hold on to the House and Senate?  (Don't look to them to stop this nonsense.  President Kennedy said they would follow the guy with the biggest bomb.)

As long as we are talking about military might, might we mention Hillary?  This would be an excellent opportunity to depict her as weak on defense if she opposed the use of nuclear weapons.  The argument will run something like Truman's use of the bomb against Japan--it saved American lives.  In other words, why draft young men when we can use nuclear weapons. Also, Truman's use of nuclear weapons kept the Soviets from invading Japan.  We didn't have to share it with the Russians like we were sharing Europe.  Are we so insecure about our ability to dominate world affairs that we have to use nuclear weapons?  Do we want to show China and India that they will not move into the Middle East oil race because it has become an American military installation while gas hits four dollars a gallon this summer?

Another October Surprise to save the November elections?

No comments: