Reconsider Baby

I’m thinking that we have got our allies all mixed up. Like a bunch of fools we get all worked up over ISIS beheadings while Saudi Arabia, ally of the Bush family and our stupid government, has already lopped off 44 heads for crimes like drug trafficking (Over half of what they did all last year). What is it? Do they think people will smoke hash and realize what a bunch of crooks their government is?

I tried and tried and found no evidence of a recent beheading in Iran. And yet our Israeli government thinks they should be our next target for terror. Oops. did I say Israeli government. Oh well.

I think we should reconsider. Instead of fighting ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Houthi rebels, the Assad regime, and Iran, how about listening to old Lowell Fulson records and having a nice IPA.

Oh shoot. I forgot the war with Russia. Wow, that could generate some real patriotic fervor (and profits). But why? Because Russia invaded Ukraine? Yeah. And North Vietnam attacked the destroyer Maddox. A recent poll found 75% of Crimeans favor an alliance with Russia. Ukraine elected a pro-Russian president and we aided a coup to overthrow him and then claim a Russian invasion.

Oh geez. There just doesn’t seem to be a war worth fighting. We are gonna go broke.

Advertisements

3 responses to “Reconsider Baby

  1. Couldn’t agree more with the poor selection of the U.S. as to who in the Middle East is really an ally.

    The United States definitely has a problem, vis-à-vis its “allies.”
    In the blood-soaked, chaotic Middle East, with few exceptions like the Kurds, our “friends either can’t or won’t fight.”

    The Free Syrian Army folded. The U.S.-armed Hazm force in Syria has just collapsed after being routed by the al-Nusra Front. The Iraqi army we trained and equipped fled Mosul and ran all the way to Baghdad. The Turks could annihilate ISIS in Syria, but they won’t fight. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arabs have sent zero troops to fight ISIS. A handful of ineffective air strikes is all they’ve been willing to muster.

    Now consider what our old “enemies” have done and are doing.
    Hezbollah and Iran have sustained Bashar Assad’s Syrian army for four years and have ISIS and the al-Nusra Front on the defensive around Aleppo. Iran and its allied Shiite militia in Iraq are battling ISIS for Tikrit. Backed by Hezbollah, Houthi rebels have seized Yemen’s capital and are battling al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). AQAP is the No. 1 terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland.

    While Iran and its allies are fighting al-Qaida and ISIS, Turkey and our Arab “allies” are shirkers of responsibility at best and collaborators at worst.

    How explain this? It isn’t difficult: The Shiites, a religious minority in the Muslim world — Hezbollah, Assad’s regime, Baghdad, Tehran — view ISIS as a mortal threat and are willing to fight to kill the monster. But our Sunni “allies” won’t go out and fight ISIS, because that would make them allies of Iran and the Shiites, a minority sect of Islam they fear even more. Our Sunni “friends” want America to crush ISIS and al-Qaida, then to crush Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. But why is it in our interest to send U.S. troops back into any of these wars? Is America more threatened than our Arab allies?

    Many among the establishment Republicans want to give a blank check to Obama and any future president to fight ISIS and al-Qaida everywhere and forever. And they want the United States to treat Iran as we should have treated Nazi Germany had Hitler been about to get the bomb. But if the GOP platform takes the neocon-Netanyahu line that we must not only fight ISIS and al-Qaida, but also Iran and Syria, the party will imperil its improving chances for 2016.
    Because, Americans don’t want another war. And if Iran is such a dire, immediate threat to Israel, why isn’t Netanyahu acting now to protect his country by eliminating selective, alleged bomb-making nuclear enrichment facilities within Iran? The answer is simple: Netanyahu wants America to fight his battles and save Israel from expending its own resources.

    And if John Kerry comes home with a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, Americans are likely to reject a GOP that is seen as trying to torpedo that deal, when the alternative could very well be a war with Iran (much to Netanyahu’s delight).

    We do not know exactly what is in the Kerry deal, but what has been revealed thus far is no cause for panic or hysteria. The fact that Netanyahu isn’t acting with immediacy to disable the “existential” threat to Israel supports this contention.

    Though Israel has 200 atomic bombs, Iran has not produced a single ounce of uranium enriched to a bomb-grade level of 90 percent. Rather, since talks began, Iran has diluted all of its 20-percent enriched uranium and halted production. Tehran is willing to cut her operating centrifuges by one-third.
    Inspectors and cameras are now in all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The heavy-water plant at Arak, which would produce plutonium, has been halted. The reprocessing plant that would be needed to extract bomb-grade material has not even been started. And U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 and 2011 declared, with high confidence, that Iran has no active bomb program.

    While Bibi Netanyahu says the Ayatollah tweeted that Israel must be “annihilated.” This is the same Ayatollah who issued a fatwa against Iran ever producing nuclear weapons. So we are to believe one statement by Iran’s Supreme Ayatollah, but not the other? Who says we have selected the correct statement to believe? Maybe both are accurate.

    We cannot trust Iran, we are told, and that is very much a correct warning. Nor should we, as history has proven, commit to any sort of major trust. But as Meir Dagan, ex-head of Mossad points out, if Iran cheats at any of its facilities, we will know it, and it would take a year before Tehran could produce enough highly enriched uranium even to test a bomb.

    Seems like plenty of time to gas up the B-2s, and shouldn’t we expect that well before that date might occur that Israel might act in its own self-interest?
    Another question, too rarely raised, is this: Why would Iran test and build a nuclear bomb, when this would set off a nuclear arms race across the Middle East and put Iran in mortal peril of being smashed by the United States, or by Israel with a preemptive strike?

    Right now, Hezbollah dominates Lebanon. Assad is gaining ground in Syria. Iraq, thanks to “W,” is Iran’s ally, not the mortal enemy of Saddam’s day. The Houthi Shiites now have Sanaa in Yemen. The Shiite majority in Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is berthed, will one day dominate that Gulf state. And the Shiites in oil-rich northeast Saudi Arabia will one day rise up against the Royal Family in Riyadh.

    Why build a nuclear bomb? Why would Iran want to get into a war with a nuclear-armed superpower, when everything’s going its way?

    (With some of the commentary attributed to Pat Buchanan.)

    • I thought that sounded a little like Pat. Going back to my love for music, often times great musicians are great because of the company they keep. I liked many of Reagan’s quotes but his accomplices outshined him in a lot of ways. The Neo-cons like to call Pat crazy and dismiss or marginalize Paul Craig Roberts because they can’t respond intelligently to their accusations.

      The best conclusion I can arrive at from your comments is that we (meaning the US government) should butt out of the affairs of other countries and deal with them as their governments’ permit, no matter how nutty they might be. Because any action we take has a favorable element and an unfavorable one, we gain an enemy no matter what. If our policies are based purely on defense, the threats might run out of gas in regional squabbles before they affect us. What could imperil that theory is still our meddling beyond a defensive posture which is hard to define.

      The interventionist policies we’ve had up to this point are what have made an isolationist government position seem unwise. For instance; would we be dependent on foreign sources of energy if the cost of acquiring it were reflected in household expenditures?

      I wonder how many people know what you have stated about Iran’s nuclear capability. I also wonder about the total blackout in the popular media of any questioning of an alliance with the Saudis.

      On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:46 AM, alternativebyfritz wrote:

      >

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s