Share |

Tuesday, July 13, 2010


Is the Obomber White House preparing to bomb Iran? The reason I ask is that it sure looks like it to me. The media campaign regarding stoning a woman to death for adultery, in Iran, is just the sort of propaganda used to gin up a war. I’m not saying the woman deserved to be stoned or otherwise punished. However, stoning and beheading are a form of punishment across the Middle East. Why this case at this time?

Then there are the TV advertisements calling on Obomber to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The only way to set back Iran’s advances in nuclear technology is to bomb their nuclear facilities.

At the same time as these ads are running, the troops build up in Afghanistan is almost complete. Do we really need 100,000 troops to hunt down the fewer than 100 Al Qaeda (according to CIA director Leon Panetta) in the region? It seems to me the troop increase could have been carried out so that two formidable armies of empire are on two of Iran’s borders, Iraq being the other.  

For sure, Israel will bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own if we don’t. Obomber won’t let Israel go it alone. Iran was a leading subject during two meetings at the White House within days of each other – with Netanyahu of Israel and with the Saudi king Abdullah. The Saudis don’t want Iran to have nukes anymore than Israel.

Obomber has shown his propensity for air strikes with the use of unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan. It’s like a video game to him. Since he became president, hundreds of  Pakistani civilians have died in the drone attacks, many of them women and children. The soldier who became so disgusted that he leaked videos to Wikileaks is now in jail. Obomber is not about to give up his weapon of choice – the sneak attack.

And that’s what the bombing of Iran will be if it takes place – a sneak attack. A few Congressional “leaders” would be consulted shortly before the bombings, to give the operation a veneer of respectability under the US Constitution. The American people will get the word after the attacks.

I don’t think that such bombings would precede the invasion of Iran. The two armies on that country’s borders would serve to contain the Iranians should they try to react with military force. I’m not saying this strategy is right or that it would be successful. Chances are a sneak bombing attack would lead to lots more suicide bomb attacks in Israel and on American troops throughout the Middle East, and probably some attacks here in the USA. Ahmajinedad, Iran’s leader, has been demonized in America for years now. However, the guy may be crazy but his modus operandi seems to be backing terrorists rather than using military force.

Obomber has plenty of motivation to carry out sneak attacks on Iran’s nuke facilities. It would allow him to man up in the eyes of other world leaders. With the “proper timing” it would show the Dems as strong on national security before the November elections. It would also take people’s minds off the oil disaster in the Gulf. (Sending the First Lady to stand on the beach in a dress and high heels to tell people it’s okay to swim in Florida’s Gulf waters doesn’t quite cut it. She should have taken a dip with the First Kids. Unless . . .)

I could be totally wrong of course. Obomber might not be the cynical pol he appears to me to be. And in his favor, I have to say, he did promise change. Bombing Iran would be change, for sure.

If he chooses to bomb Iran, it will probably be a popular move here in the USA, initially. The sheeple need a defined enemy – something that’s now missing in Iraq and Afghanistan.


No comments:

Post a Comment