Monday, February 12, 2007

Crank Up the Volume

Buckdog, Blue Lyon and And yes, I DO take it Personally posted about what at first glance appear to be two separate matters. Are they though?

Interesting that our administration is working so hard to build a case against a nation that it has clearly stated "we have no intention of invading". Why would they do it then?

Maybe invading Iran isn't the point. Maybe, just maybe they are running out of ways to make us pee our pants in fear and maintain some support for staying in Iraq. After all, if they can convince us that Iran is the bogeyman a lot of skurred little sissy-cons will insist we stay in Iraq, "so we don't have to fight them here".

This is particularly important when one considers the timing, today the House begins debate on the little matter of sending more troops to Iraq. Can't have them deciding we shouldn't send in more cannon fodder now can we?

Do I doubt that Iran, or at least some elements in Iran, are arming and assisting insurgents in Iraq? Nope. Will sending in more troops put a stop to this? Not a chance in hell.

The point is: they are doing it because we are there. How long do you suppose the Iranians would want to keep sending in supplies to Arabs if there were no US forces in Iraq? I'm guessing not too long. There's some history there.

But, but, but, Iran is developing nookular weapons you say. Could be. Exactly how is our staying in Iraq going to be a deterrent to that plan? I've heard a lot of talk about "tactical strikes" against nuclear facilities in Iran. Explain to me exactly how that would work out with over 100,000 of our military sitting on Iran's doorstep like fat, juicy hens in an unprotected hen house. Is that what they mean when they talk about expected "collateral damage"?

I'm not quite sure why I keep fighting this issue. At this late stage of the game it definitely isn't because I think anyone who doesn't get it is going to suddenly have an epiphany. Maybe it's just habit or to leave a record.

Maybe it's because I resent the hell out of having my country ride the short bus.

5 comments:

sammyray said...

Such a clear and logical statement:

The point is: they are doing it because we are there.

You need to run for President.

NV Mojo said...

The arrogance of the Bush administration is beyond the stupidity the Prez feigns.

Women on the Verge said...

I have to ask the question... are we sure the Iranians are the ones really doing this???... I wouldn't put it past this bunch of thievin' snake-oil salesmen running our government to set the whole damn thing up so that KBR, Halliburton and the whole kit-n-caboodle could make more piles and piles of money.

E

Not Your Mama said...

Sammyray: would make for a hysterically funny interview with Blitzer. I'd make a terrible pres though, don't play well with others.

Nv Mojo: arrogance is our birthright isn't it? ;)

WOTV: I'm sure some elements in Iran are, whether or not formally sanctioned by their government is a whole other issue. Iran is only one source though...what about all the money and weapons filtering in from oh say, Saudi for instance?

Thing is it's not really the relevant issue. Bush & Co. are trying to use the issue to scare us into believing we are being threatened and are in grave peril. We are...IN IRAQ.

It's like saying cars are dangerous if you stand on the freeway. Get off the damn freeway.

La don said...

Good post.