Sliding further down the slippery slope
That blabbering idiot Alan Dershowitz makes the case for a pre-emptive strike against Iran by Israel. Quote: "No democracy can wait until such a threat against its civilian population is imminent." Dershowitz wants international law amended to allow Israel to launch pre-emptive strikes against anyone it perceives as a threat.
The situation in Iran is reaching a critical level with Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warning that Iran may launch its own pre-emptive strike against American forces in Iraq. Quote: "We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength." Many believe this is all part of a Likud-inspired PNAC-AEI-JINSA plan, I don't know about that, but I know this is dangerous stuff.
Consider the recipe: take one commander-in-chief of arguably the most potent military force in history, but a force that is spread too thin. Mix with a group of advisers hellbent on "making the world safe for democracy." Add one aggressive, frightened country surrounded by paranoid, distrustful enemies. Throw in nuclear weapon capabilities all around. The result is at best a bunch of dead people, at worst nuclear holocaust.
Such rumblings bring out the worst of my own paranoia, as I cannot help but wonder if the Bush Administration might encourage Israel to take some type of pre-emptive action against an Iran that is already beating its chest (and may even be amassing troops along the Iran/Iraq border, according to some sources). Of course, such encouragement would be performed very discreetly -- not that it would matter. Most of the anti-American/anti-Israeli world sees both countries as one monster, anyway. If Israel strikes Iran, Iran may be forced to invade Iraq, because an Iranian attack on Israel is more logistically difficult than an Iranian attack on Iraq. The Bush Administration would then likely see its support increase dramatically, because people tend to be afraid to replace an administration during an extremely volatile period in world history. Like I said, maybe I'm just being paranoid, but the whole idea doesn't seem too far fetched.
Meanwhile. we are almost certainly going to see a declining economic situation in the very near future. The continuing skyrocketing price of oil is just the accelerant the powderkeg of decades of inflationary policies by the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury needs to break down and plunge the U.S. into a deep recession or perhaps even a depression. A total economic collapse would not be out of the question, particularly if the rest of the world finds itself engaged in a major military conflict.1
Even if Kerry is elected, there is virtually no chance anything will be different. The possibility of a Kerry victory may even a motivating factor for the current administration to see that its plans are set in motion prior to the election. Kerry would likely see no other choice than to continue down the same path. Of course, this would allow Kerry and his followers to place the blame for the economy and the ongoing escalating conflicts on Bush for setting the U.S. on such a course. The economic decline will come at a good time; as unemployment rises, the commander-in-chief -- Bush or Bush Lite -- will find an ample supply of bullet-stoppers in the unemployment lines.
Am I just being a pessimist? Perhaps. It's high time Americans said ENOUGH to this fecal matter.
1Thanks to the aforementioned inflationary tactics used by the people that control our money, the stability of the U.S. economy rests solely on the "faith" of the rest of the world that we will pay our debts. If they lose that faith, our economy suffers....etc.
The situation in Iran is reaching a critical level with Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warning that Iran may launch its own pre-emptive strike against American forces in Iraq. Quote: "We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength." Many believe this is all part of a Likud-inspired PNAC-AEI-JINSA plan, I don't know about that, but I know this is dangerous stuff.
Consider the recipe: take one commander-in-chief of arguably the most potent military force in history, but a force that is spread too thin. Mix with a group of advisers hellbent on "making the world safe for democracy." Add one aggressive, frightened country surrounded by paranoid, distrustful enemies. Throw in nuclear weapon capabilities all around. The result is at best a bunch of dead people, at worst nuclear holocaust.
Such rumblings bring out the worst of my own paranoia, as I cannot help but wonder if the Bush Administration might encourage Israel to take some type of pre-emptive action against an Iran that is already beating its chest (and may even be amassing troops along the Iran/Iraq border, according to some sources). Of course, such encouragement would be performed very discreetly -- not that it would matter. Most of the anti-American/anti-Israeli world sees both countries as one monster, anyway. If Israel strikes Iran, Iran may be forced to invade Iraq, because an Iranian attack on Israel is more logistically difficult than an Iranian attack on Iraq. The Bush Administration would then likely see its support increase dramatically, because people tend to be afraid to replace an administration during an extremely volatile period in world history. Like I said, maybe I'm just being paranoid, but the whole idea doesn't seem too far fetched.
Meanwhile. we are almost certainly going to see a declining economic situation in the very near future. The continuing skyrocketing price of oil is just the accelerant the powderkeg of decades of inflationary policies by the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury needs to break down and plunge the U.S. into a deep recession or perhaps even a depression. A total economic collapse would not be out of the question, particularly if the rest of the world finds itself engaged in a major military conflict.1
Even if Kerry is elected, there is virtually no chance anything will be different. The possibility of a Kerry victory may even a motivating factor for the current administration to see that its plans are set in motion prior to the election. Kerry would likely see no other choice than to continue down the same path. Of course, this would allow Kerry and his followers to place the blame for the economy and the ongoing escalating conflicts on Bush for setting the U.S. on such a course. The economic decline will come at a good time; as unemployment rises, the commander-in-chief -- Bush or Bush Lite -- will find an ample supply of bullet-stoppers in the unemployment lines.
Am I just being a pessimist? Perhaps. It's high time Americans said ENOUGH to this fecal matter.
1Thanks to the aforementioned inflationary tactics used by the people that control our money, the stability of the U.S. economy rests solely on the "faith" of the rest of the world that we will pay our debts. If they lose that faith, our economy suffers....etc.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home