Sunday, October 01, 2006

Invading Iran

This seems to be the latest hot item on our increasingly reality-deprived administration's agenda. Iran would be a threat if it had nuclear weapons; and it says it wants peaceful nuclear power, but it must be lying; so we have to plan to invade it. To protect freedom. Or something.

Yeah, right. In the first place, the Iranians are correct that they have as much right as any other idiot to peaceful nuclear power. (Not exactly how they say it.) I might even agree that the fact that they lie like rugs about what they're doing at Natanz and Bushehr (and wherever else) gives even rational people pause about what they're up to. But still:

Invade Iran? With what army? The army we have is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the point that we're pullling people out of South Korea, which must amuse Kim Jong Il no end. No matter what Donald Rumsfeld thinks, if he thinks, you cannot do everything with unmanned drones. We'd have to put boots on the ground.

And there'd be no question of being greeted with flowers by a grateful populace. Weird as it seems, the government of Iran is democratically elected (the last election was at least as free and fair as the 2004 election in Ohio was). We'd be invaders, and every man's hand would be against us, and probably most of the women's. You all know perfectly well that if someone invaded the continental U.S., all those guns that us bleeding-heart liberals worry about would be turned on the enemy. From every rooftop and bush, just like in 1779. What makes the administration think the Iranians are any different from us?

Finally, if we do nuke Iran's nuclear installations (assuming someone in Washington knows where they really are, which I doubt; it's been thirty years since we had "humint," as the spooks call it, in Iran), we would become instant international pariahs. We are already the only people who have ever actually used The Bomb; and then, we were at war. I don't want to see us become the only people who have used The Bomb on a country that wasn't directly threatening them. Let's have NO first strikes.

I'm tired of this. I'm tired of watching a bunch of middle-aged power junkies, who never had the balls to put on a uniform and get shot at for their country's sake when it was their turn, wasting America's resources and ruining America's good name, for the sake of indulging their video-game wet dreams of world conquest. Why are these people not impeachable? Why are we still putting up with them?


  1. Anonymous11:36 AM

    We put up with them because there are not enough people that are tired of them. The rest of us just have to wait. It is no suprise when you think of the number of sources that you have spouting BushCos lies so that they maintain their chance (at least in their minds) of having abortion made illeagel of Gay marriage outlawed. Now, I'm not for either of those things either, we have discussed that, BUT I would much rather have a pro-abortion president who is a good leader then an anti-abortion idiot running the country into the ground.

  2. Anonymous6:54 PM

    Looks to me like there's a raging war behind the scenes between Repubs/generals who haven't yet taken complete leave of their senses and these missile-dick madmen (and one token black female who maybe, just maybe isn't quite as mad, although she's a damned liar and a co-dependent). The nuke-tipped penises substitute for attributes of actual manhood (which in it's most legitimate sense is non-gender). In honor of my New Deal, Quaker-influenced father, who laughed every time I said it: "Fuck them and the horses they rode in on."

    Thanks, hedera, for articulating a rant that has been recurring in my head for some time.

    And Hi, Stephen. I always enjoy reading your comments.

    Anonymous David

  3. Anonymous2:38 PM

    Hi back, David :)

    You know what is so frustrating. Abortion is never going to be outlawed. It just isn't. There are too many cases where you can see how it might be justified. If we spent half the money on education that we spend on anti-abortion ads, we would probably have it taken care of. Similarly, I am sure at some point, some form of legalized co-habitation for gay couples will come about. It is just the way it is. We are wasting time and money with all this crap. I heard today on Radio Times someone saying "think of what we could have done with the $500 BILLION that we have spent in Iraq, SO FAR!!!” As in more money to come, or rather GO.

    Why are these idiots wasting our time?!?!

  4. Anonymous8:43 PM

    Good question, Stephen.

    Anonymous David

  5. Anonymous8:31 PM

    Yeah, and they, the infamous "they", are extending military folks right, left, and center. They are also outsourcing more and more non-artillary/gun toting military jobs, which no doubt frees up someone in uniform to tote a gun. This isn't guess work nor is it CIA leaks.

    I have friends with adult children in the military. These "kids" have all been extended, and 18 months isn't unusual from what I hear. Some of them, think salad days, joined for an education and experience. Well, their safe behind the line jobs are being turned over to private companies, and the soldiers out of a job are being offered retraining. So far, so good, but how long before the only training is for urban warfare?

    Another thing is the military is taking recruits they would have turned down in previous years. They are more than intelligent, but there used to be a height restriction. Silly perhaps, but the army will now take you even if you aren't the magic five foot tall. I don't believe height goes with ability. I'm mentioning this to point out the army has adjusted recruiting requirements, and the army I knew was never really user friendly.

    Now, going just a bit further into the twilight zone, when the military's computer jobs, and mess hall jobs, and who knows what else jobs are being done by civilians...well, think about it. Civilians don't take orders. Civilians quit if they want, even if they do have a contract. Security? Having been a military brat, I remember a closed mouth to some extent atmosphere on the base, but a civilian goes home to chat with other civilians. Yes, I know the song about Lili Marlene.

    The military is stretched thin like the last pat of butter on your morning toast. If the idiots that be can't get us out of this that toast metaphor might go further than the butter. And so ends my rant.

  6. It's even worse than you think, boggart. I don't care if they take short people; as you rightly observe, height doesn't correlate to ability, and the desire to have all the soldiers within a certain height range goes back to a style of combat that hasn't been used since 1918: they have to be the same height so the bullets they fire will be at the same level. (I made this up as a reason but it's no weirder than some of the stuff they actually do; the actual reason was probably that they look prettier on parade...)

    What bothers me and should bother all of us is the fact that they're taking people with criminal records. That's right, to meet their ever-receding recruitment goals, they're taking people with serious rap sheets, and they are training them in urban combat. "We're looking for high school graduates with no more than one felony on their record." If this doesn't make your hair stand on end, it should. You think the urban gangs are bad now? Wait until the first generation of them comes back from Iraq.

  7. Anonymous5:59 PM


    You have hit on the most frightening, most dangerous aspect of the new "standards." And we know only too well how the military maintains its relationship with ex-military.