Monday, March 12, 2012

Act Now! No Time to Lose!

Henry Kissinger -- the name could be a metonym for dishonest defense of imperialism and reckless disregard for the consequences of military action, and so it's no surprise to hear him tell us to ignore the consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies that there is no evidence Iran is building or is about to build nuclear weapons.

Yes, of course they could all be wrong and there is always the argument from cliche that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but even in a nation of emotionally disturbed amnesiacs like the US, some might want to remember our useless attack and occupation of Iraq for which we continue to suffer and will continue to suffer for a very long time. In case you don't remember, that country had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or the materials or technology needed to produce huge, heavy nuclear prototypes much less the probably fictional "suitcase" bombs we were told could be smuggled into the US at any moment. Act now!

On CNN's GPS with Fareed Zakaria yesterday, Kissinger told us he was "uneasy" with the intelligence and that we should ignore it as we ignored the lies about Iraq and make the presumption that a bomb was forthcoming.
“I am very uneasy with the so-called intelligence report that say we don’t know whether they are actually working on nuclear weapons. I think we should start from the premise that they are undergoing all this in order to achieve a military capability. I don’t think that is a disputable point.”
I think it is disputable in the extreme, considering that we're listening to a war criminal involved in and culpable for massacres, invasions and genocides in Indochina, East Timor, Chile, Cyprus and Bangladesh talking about fomenting yet another dubious and probably disastrous war.

Kissinger and warmongering toadies like Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu tell us we have no time to lose; that the time to attack is now as Former Secretary of State Rice once told us. Shoot first and pretend there is no question to ask, lest the "smoking gun" of evidence turn out to be a mushroom cloud. Frankly I think we have everything to lose, including our future and any basis upon which to base the proposition and pose of being a force for good in this world.

11 comments:

  1. Why would I or anyone else listen to that old has been? His credibility at this point is nil.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll never forget that the real reason to hurry up and start bombing and shelling Baghdad was the apocalyptic vision of our troops wearing full-body chem suits in the torturous summer of the hellish Iraqi desert.

    I guess what that really was really meant by all that was that we would be in and out of there by June! I never did see one of those chem suits that I recall. Surely there was a prototype. Did they have someone model it on the evening news?

    ReplyDelete
  3. A very timely interview appeared on "60 Minutes" last night with former former chief of Israel's Mossad, Meir Dagan. For the last 30 years Dagan has been specifically charged with counteracting Iran's nuclear weapon development. Dagan stated that Iran is capable of acting rationally and fully understands the consequences of any potential actions they may consider. Dagan emphasized in the strongest terms that military action against Iran ill advised at this time.

    During the interview, though not fully confirmed, the implication was suggested that Dagan "retired" soon after Netanyahu became Prime Minister. You do the math. 60-Minutes story here for those who missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. International drama and politics at play, and the actors are well rehearsed.

    Most Iranians I have known, and it has been quite a few, can be rational as well as passionate about their beliefs.

    As in most cases there is always a few worrisome nut jobs in power. Such it is with Iran and it's nemesis Israel. Depending on your views you might change the order of players in the preceding sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you're quite right, RN and it seems most Iranian young people are to some extend pro-western and fed up with the medieval idiocy. Even the craziest of the foamy-mouth Mullahs have to realize that using a nuclear weapon of any kind would be suicidal and I've noticed that these holy fart bags far prefer to use others to do their suicide missions for them.

    Perhaps your right about the Israeli government being as batshit oriented as the Iranian government, but that's what religion does to a country. Israel has less of an excuse, but having been a constant terrorist target for over 60 years hasn't made them particularly rational, I guess. But as to the flatulent Doctor K, my disgust prevents me from being rational too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Henry is still alive? Gees, when he stopped showing up for our monthly 'Risk' game, I just assumed he had died. Golly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I think we should start from the premise that they are undergoing all this in order to achieve a military capability. I don’t think that is a disputable point.”

    I'd like to ask Henry the K a few pertinent questions.

    1. Exactly how many nations on Iran's borders have been invaded, had their regimes toppled and were occupied by major military powers from outside the region in recent years?

    2. Whose planes, satellites and fleet surveil Iran intensively, as they have for many years?

    3. What countries located or operating in the region have nuclear weapons, and consider Iran a belligerent country?

    So, Henry, tell us, why in hell wouldn't the Iranians want to achieve a military capability? Given their situation, why wouldn't the Iranians want a nuclear deterrent?

    Sometimes it seems as if Kissinger and his neocon-nutty "wisdom," like death and taxes, will always be with us. How perverse of CNN to give this has been who never should've been a platform to bloviate in favor of never putting ourselves in the Iranians' place so we could begin to understand their motives as something besides a deep-seated, suicidal desire to trigger a nuclear holocaust.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The resemblance between Dr. Strangelove and Henry Kissinger is, other than for the physical difference in size, very striking.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good post! It seems to me that Benjamin Net&Yahoo is woven of the same neo-con cloth as that arch-American Darth Vader, Dick Cheney. The dis-consonants N, K, and C have gotten us into pre-emptive wars without forethought, and the results have been ruinous everytime.

    Perhaps I should comment on how arguments over Iran divide even supporters of Israel. On one side is the 'give-Israel-every-it wants" faction; on the other side are those who openly express sympathy for Palestinian self-determination and statehood and suffer the abuse of being called "a closet anti-Semite" for such views ... even from family members. Partisan abuse and character assassination are not delimited to American politics. Nuff said.

    When we argue over the Iranian nuclear program, it is also important to keep in mind this historical footnote about the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, Iran's first democratically elected president removed from office due to a British-American inspired coup that brought the Shah to power. Iranians have a long historical memory concerning our role in this coup, since every Iranian family was savagely brutalized during the Shah's reign. Another war in the Persian Gulf would alienate another generation of Iranians ... perhaps for all time.

    Unfortunately, we don't recycle paper and plastics and historical insight as we should. From one generation to the next, Americans recycle paranoia and stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a very dear friend who escaped from Iran after the Shah fell.

      She tells me of a different and more religious tolerant Iran under the Shah.

      She also tells me the "average" Iranian was very pro western. IE, pro United States.

      Just a different take from one who was there in 1979 and left with her husband and very young son to escape the Theocracy that took over. Perhaps there is something here we in America should consider

      Delete
  10. Sure, the Shah was brutal, but look at the forces he was trying to hold back. Somehow we were convinced at the time that the people I will politely call "extremists" were having their religious freedom stepped on. Maybe that's a bit like the would-be Christianist extremists complaining that their freedom to drag us into the dark ages is being infringed?

    It was the Shah's very tolerance that enraged madmen like the Ayatollah K and his hellish henchmen.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.