This is pretty simple math.
Israel has attacked Lebanon.
Israel seems to be threatening to attack Syria.
Iran's President Ahmadinejad has warned Israel not to attack Syria. This implies that he will send Iran's army to the aid of the Syrian army if Israel attacks it.
President Ahmadinejad is an extremely stupid person sometimes, almost as stupid as Usurper Bush. Usurper Bush's neocon handlers know this. Israel knows this. I'm willing to bet that both entities are taking full advantage of Ahmadinejad's stupidity, just as the final draft of their carefully written script requires. They are baiting the trap.
If -- When -- Iran's army comes to the aid of the Syrian army -- against "poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel (even though its army is larger than the armies of most of its neighbors combined; and even though it has nuclear weapons) -- Usurper Bush will insist to Congress that the United States must defend Israel at all costs. [There will be no explanation as to why we must defend Israel, since Israel has never -- in all of its history -- been of the slightest strategic or economic interest to the the United States, whatsoever. No oil exports, no food exports, no clothing exports, no U.S. military bases, nothing. Zilch.]
AIPAC (the staunchly pro-Israel lobbying group) will finally call in its markers and demand satisfaction from every member of the U.S. Congress, stating that it now expects repayment in full for the millions or billions of "campaign" dollars it has given them over the years. That satisfaction will naturally come in the form of Congress's approval of Usurper Bush's "purely altruistic" plan to invade Iran in order to "defend poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel.
The lapdog republican Congress then approves Usurper Bush's "purely altruistic" plan to invade Iran in order to "defend poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel.
Usurper Bush thus pulls an end run around all of his critics worldwide and finally gets a "legitimate" excuse to invade Iran after all. And Syria will even be thrown in as a bonus "enemy."
I smell a dirty, evil sewer rat -- or two. Is it possible that Israel's recent military overreaction was actually predesigned to ensure that the United States will get to attack Iran and Syria? Is it possible that that military overreaction is actually unrelated to a few dead or kidnapped Israeli soldiers?
It's too bad for the world that the United States is so short of troops these days. One can imagine the excessive slobber, from overactive salivary glands, that is even now dripping down the chins of Usurper Bush and his neocon handlers as visions of invasion and/or nuclear bombs explode in their heads.
[Update: 07-17-06: It appears that my theorizing above (from four days ago) may have been completely correct. Read this (making sure to note that the article continues below the video "screen"): Danny Schechter: The WWIII Meme.]
7 comments:
It all makes perfect sense and it shouldn't surprise any of us if these hideous bastard bring back the draft - after the mid term elections, of course. We are now, I believe, at the threshold of WW III. Our only couse of action at the moment is resistance.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
I was discussing this with Glen last night (Israel attacking Lebanon) and we did NOT understand why we are so staunchly on Israel's side. They always overact to every little slight (see firing guns at children throwing rocks, bombing civilian targets instead of going after the Hezbollah, etc.). I'm afraid that this administration scares the absolute crapola out of me. And the scarier part? The people who still refuse to open their eyes and see them for what they are.
Tom, I'm with you completely on the draft, at least I was until Wednesday night (7-12-6). That evening, Mike Malloy of Air America Radio, who is certainly no neocon (or even a conservative) caused me to doubt his sanity momentarily when he stated that believes there should be compulsory military service for every eligible U.S. citizen. He was speaking with a very progressive, Constitution-loving reserve officer (who had called in as a regular listener). The officer agreed with Malloy on compulsory service. I was still baffled as to why they were taking such a radical position. They soon explained their reasoning:
The present military attracts some of the worst (i.e. "most authoritarian," gung-ho or blindly republican) elements of our society, the sort of military people who would blindly follow a neocon/republican agenda to the end of all life on earth. There are very few liberal, wealthy or average Constitution-loving citizens in our military anymore to act as a counterbalance to those radicals, or, even better, to outnumber them.
I have spent my life believing in our right not to have to serve in the military; however, I really, truly hated to admit it, but they have a point, at least as far as the past 30 years have gone, and as far as the future goes.
Prior to World War II and the 1940 reinstatement of the draft, we didn't have to worry about the integrity of our military, because the United States was not even remotely a global power. The military was a low-rent choice of last resort, as far as most Americans were concerned. In the late 1930s, our army was smaller than that of Rumania. Yes, we had a huge navy that traveled the world, but even it left a lot to be desired. Furthermore, in those days, the U.S. military couldn't wreak havoc on huge portions of the earth at one time, as it can now. In those days, using false-flag operations, it could illegally invade small places, like Cuba and the Philippines, but it wasn't a worldwide threat, as it is now.
Of course, both Malloy and his very articulate guest explained their position much better than I have done so here. In fact, you can click the following link to listen to the entire program from that evening: Mike Malloy on Air America Radio, 7-12-6. There is also a fascinating segment in which Malloy interviews Mike Papantonio, who, along with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is bringing whistle-blower law suits against two of the voting-machine companies. He is very inspiring. You may remember that he is the lawyer who won the largest law suit (or one of the largest law suits) against big tobacco in the history of the country.
Kathleen, for the past several years, I've been asking myself why this country is so insanely attached at the hip to Israel. It's almost as if that country is regarded as our 51st state. There's something very fishy about that; however, radical anti-Semitic kooks in this country have made it practically impossible for rational, sane people to discuss Israel without being labeled as anti-Semitic too. The conservative Israeli government uses and abuses that political correctness for all it is worth. I must say, though, that liberal and independent web sites are finally starting to wake up to the crimes of the Israeli government against the Palestinian people. Of course, CNN, MSNBC and FOX are all still towing the party line, but that's to be expected.
I really think you'd like the Jimmy Carter book.
Re: mandatory military service - It seems to work for Finland and other very peaceful countries.
Re: Israel - one of the few Dems here in my office and I were talking this morning (he saw my Jimmy Carter book on my desk) and said how he's reached the point where he's supporting the Palestinians. Too bad most of us don't speak out because Republicans are so vile when we do.
You're right, Kathleen. The forbidden nature of criticizing the GOVERNMENT of that little country, simply because of what happened to their parents and grandparents during World War II, has gone way too far. No one has the right to commit atrocities and then brandish the atrocities committed against their own parents as an excuse for them to do the same thing.
Post a Comment