War with Iran [31 Jan 2007|07:40pm] War with Iran: Posted January 31, 2007. Updated February 5, 2007: I think that we are now 3 to 6 months away from war with Iran. The President's rhetoric is becoming more bellicose; evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq is being presented to select Congressional committees; stateside, troops and equipment are being mobilized; overseas, carrier groups are moving towards the Gulf. Or so I have been told. It is possible that a feint is being made for the purpose of deceiving someone - at home or abroad. But I don't think that I am witnessing a feint. Nothing about the American policy in Iraq makes sense - unless that policy is viewed as a first step in preparation for a larger war with Iran. It had to be the case that American policymakers understood that the immediate beneficiaries of American military involvement in Iraq would be the Shiite Muslims; and that while the Kurds withdrew to the north, a civil war would erupt between the disenfranchised Sunnis and the newly empowered Shiites. Such is the status quo. If it was not known before, it cannot be denied now. It is interesting, too, that while (1) the Saudis continue to provide money, arms and soldiery for the purpose of advancing the - enemy - Wahhabi/Sunni positions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, and that while (2) the pilots involved in the 9/11 incident were said to be Saudis, and that while (3) the Saudis fund the promulgation of anti-Jewish literature/speech in the United States itself, the Executive continues to characterize Saudi Arabia as a "strong moderate ally." But for the need to prevent a second front from opening while undertaking a campaign against Iran and the Shiites, how would one make sense of such a situation? Maybe, Osama Bin Laden wasn't a Saudi; maybe, the copies of the Koran that I've read were faked; and maybe everything in the paragraph above is false - including the story about Saudi hijackers involved in the WTC attack. But whether it's deception, or incompetence, or incompetent deception, it isn't right. There is a question of timing, too: Why has this military intervention dragged on for 4 years? Aside from the billions of dollars spent in a questionable manner, there is the issue of the upcoming election. While Clinton and Obama seem like strong candidates now, wouldn't John McCain be more appealing to the American people - if America was "under attack" again? Strong. Strong on defense. Security. Protecting the Nation. Aren't they catchy words and phrases? Cynical? I am cynical...because...too few people are being asked to give too much. While the number "3000" is floated around the media as "the cost," i.e. number of American lives lost, scant attention is paid to the casualties - numbering over 50,000 now. Think: 1/3 of all American troops deployed have received a physical/mental injury severe enough to cause them to be removed from the battlefield. Think: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Report:_50,000_American_casualties_in_Iraq Look: (The first link contains very difficult imagery of veterans from this war; the second link contains images of their family members.) (1) Purple Hearts (2) Final Salute How long will the war continue? How big will it get? In 1964 something was said to have struck an American vessel. And we went to war in Vietnam. We did not leave until 1973/75. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution Whether something happens here, in the USA, again (Pearl Harbor or 9/11) or something happens to one of our vessels in the Persian/Arabian waters (Gulf of Tonkin) something will happen. ( Read more... ) 4 comments|post comment

navigation [ viewing | January 31st, 2007 ] [ go | previous day|next day ]