posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:50 PM
As so often on my occasional visits to this bulletin board, I am dismayed by the sloppy and partial thinking prevalent here.
All this fuss about 'pre-emptive strikes': Iraq has no nukes, is not likely to have any for at least ten years (according to CIA estimates) and the
faked laptop evidence is just another more elaborate ruse like the Niger documents. The US, on the other hand, has lots of nukes (and Israel has
around 200, in violation of the selectively-enforced Non-Proliferation Treaty) and has, post-Bush's accession, abandoned its 'no first use' policy.
Therefore the use of nuclear bunker-busters on a wide range of targets throughout Iraq - which is what is being proposed in the face of some
relatively sane opposition from within the Pentagon (why do you think all these generals are going public NOW and coming out against Rumsfeld?) - is
pre-emptive. Whether the words are in Hersh's article or not (oh, that was such a pathetic argument, it makes me want to puke).
And as the UK measured significant fall-out from the DU weaponry used in the blitzkrieg "Shock and Awe" ("Appal and Disgust", more like) I should
expect Europe to be the recipient of more heightened radiation pollution should the madmen in the White House execute their next planned folly. Which
they will, in a matter of weeks or months, I surmise.
Remember that all this was written out in the PNAC documents. You can't say you weren't warned.
For those of you intent on slamming Seymour Hersh, he's been proven right so often it's just ridiculous. He said there would not be any WMD in
Iraq. He broke the story of the torture in Abu Ghraib (which most of the rest of the world, unlike the gung-ho "patriots" here, think is an
abomination). He broke the story of the My Lai massacre. Whether you frothing patriots like it or not, he exposes war crimes. I found it
particularly funny that an article which was cited as being critical of Hersh in an earlier post turned out, when I actually read it, to be an
admiring portrait and included a link to someone who even posted an apology for attacking him for saying there would be no WMDs to discover in Iraq.
I've seen him lecture: he's very serious and intelligent and only goes as far as he can verify from several sources both within and outside the US
government. If anything, he's cautious.
I suspect most of those patriot sheeple fell hook, line and sinker for the US administration's lies about Iraq (and about Afghanistan, too) and are
FALLING FOR IT AGAIN over Iran. What was it your linguistically-challenged president (I note with some amusement that his mispronunciation of the
word 'nuclear' has become quite a fashion amongst those of you who cannot correctly spell your first language) said? "Fool me once... shame on
you... fool me twice... er... fool... ah... you won't get fooled again". Well, he's heard a Who song, how lovely.
But so many of you are utterly willing to believe the sheerest fantasies, which are, in order:
Iran is a threat to the US (it's the other way around)
The US is interested in a diplomatic solution (just as in Iraq, this is not the case) and
The US are the good guys, bringing liberation and democracy to a grateful world (those of us who know our history find that one hilarious and tragic
in equal measure).
It's astonishing, as maintaining these beliefs (particularly the last one) in the face of a torrent of contrary evidence must require a real act of
will. Orwell would be astonished at how blatant thought control and groupthink have become in the US. But those of us who have read the Umberto Eco
essay on Ways To Recognise a Brownshirt can recognise the slide towards fascism when we see it.
It will be interesting to see how they're going to sell intervention in Venezuela - not coincidentally, a country of great oil reserves. They
already tried a coup but that collapsed due to lack of popular support. The demonisation of Chavez has begun in the US media and has even reached the
Some questions the thoughtful among you might like to ponder.
1) Why does the US media always take any assertion made by its government as truthful, even in the face of evidence of deliberate deception?
2) Why do the Iranians hate the US? (A clue: the words "they hate us for our freedoms" are not evidence of thought: a retired CIA analyst was
recently quoted as saying - quite rightly - they hate us for our policies)
3) Why do some people in every country insist that their country is the greatest in the world? Can they all be right? Can ANY of them be right?
As one of the true and great Americans said, "Think! It ain't illegal yet! Think!"
Thanks are as ever due to those American citizens on this board (who do seem to be a minority) who help me keep my faith in human nature. I do think
you know who you are.
[edit on 10-4-2006 by rich23]