Tuesday, May 24, 2005


The war rhetoric is picking up again! Better get out the bombs because we could get nuked, and we won't know if it's Iran or not!

If this line of thought is going anywhere, then it's not just a slippery slope, but an overhang with a dull thud and the sound of breaking bones at the bottom.

Though it may seem sensible to some, (to keep looking for the next target to bomb back to the stone age, just in case,) keep in mind there's a long list of targets to go for. Can the US keep bombing another nation every two years, just in case some unknown nation might want to nuke us? And if the world believes that's our course, like we seem to be advertising that it is, then doesn't this become a self-fulfilling prophecy? How long before someone does make a premptive strike against the US to prevent their nation being bombed back to the stone age?

And what if it's a currently friendly nation, or the action is supported by someone we believe to be a friend? What then, do we logically take this to it's end conclusion and try to fight the whole world at once?

After Iran, the dubious list continues to grow, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, China... When do we stop taking out nations because they may be a threat someday?

And this notion of taking out Iran and thus shutting off oil exports from the Middle East is a horrible idea. The Middle East supplies most of the nations of the world with oil. If the US takes out the Persian Gulf out of commission, all the nations of the world will have a stake in our actions and will see the need to participate in the Middle East, with or against us. And who's with us, when it comes to starting such a conflagration?

And after that war get's going, how can the US, while busy in the ME, guarantee imports from any other nation. How can the US respond to other emergencies? Does the US just learn to live with 80% less oil? Does China learn happily to live with 50% less oil? How about the rest of the nations of the world? Do they happily watch their economies crumble, their industries dry up, their food supplies run low, and do nothing to secure their own supplies?

Maybe I'm hysterical on this point. Maybe I haven't a clue. But this sure looks like a high risk endeavor to me. The benefits are that, we know Iran won't produce the materials to nuke US soil. The downside is, the list of nations that might do this increases, while the economic and military costs to the US will be staggering.

Sometimes, diplomacy is the best course of action. If you try to persuade everyone with a punch to the head, at some point, your actions will produce very negative feedback.

Engaging in diplomacy does not make one a pacifist. If you think it is, you might reread Sun Tzu, another great pacifist.


At 10:50 PM, Blogger Concerned said...

Well done my friend. The new site is up. Let's make some noise!


I created a blog, thanks to your great example. You are linked there.

Yours in tne RAP Party (Reclaim America Party),


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home