See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Consequences To Expect If The U.S. Invades Iran
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.alt-market.com/articles/ ... -expect-if-the-us-invades-iran
Published: Feb 20, 2012
Author: Brandon Smith
Post Date: 2012-02-20 19:48:11 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 175
Comments: 4
Let’s be honest, quite a few Americans love a good war, especially those Americans who have never had to bear witness to one first hand. War is the ultimate tribally vicarious experience. Anyone, even pudgy armchair generals with deep-seated feelings of personal inadequacy, can revel in the victories and actions of armies a half a world away as if they themselves stood on the front lines risking possible annihilation at the hands of dastardly cartoon-land “evil doers”. They may have never done a single worthwhile thing in their lives, but at least they can bask in the perceived glory of their country’s military might. This attitude of swollen ego through proxy is not limited to the “Right” side of the political spectrum as some might expect. In fact, if the terrifyingly demented presidency of Barack Obama has proven anything so far, it is that elements of the “Left” are just as bloodthirsty as any NeoCon, and just as ready to blindly support the political supremacy of their “side” regardless of any broken promises, abandoned principles, or openly flaunted hypocrisies. No matter how reasonable or irrefutable the arguments against a particular conflict are, there will ALWAYS be a certain percentage of the populace which ignores all logic and barrels forward to cheerlead violent actions which ultimately only benefit a select and elite few. They do this, though they rarely openly admit it, because of unbalanced and irrational biases which drive their decision making processes. In the case of the wars in the Middle East, the common public argument boils down to one of “self defense”. “They are coming to get us!” At least, that is what we are constantly told. And I’m sure that some Americans out there truly believe this. However, in their heart of hearts, others instead relish the idea of imposing their world views and philosophical systems upon others, even if it means using cluster bombs and predator drones. Some people simply hate Muslims, for one reason or another. Some people believe that war will bring with it economic gain. Some are so afraid of what they do not comprehend that they only feel secure by attacking it. Some believe that the U.S. citizenry is morally obligated to become entangled with governments like Israel’s, and support them without question as if they are infallible, though they are often just as corrupt as the governments we are directed to despise. And yet others (for religious purposes), actually clamor for Middle Eastern destruction in the desperate hopes that their version of biblical prophecy will be vindicated. Ultimately, most Americans who support continued destruction in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, do so out a selfish need for private absolution and elevation, not out of a sincere sense of patriotism, and not because nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Iran present a legitimate danger to their safety. These men and women have invested their very identities into the mechanizations of collective war. They will not be swayed by evidence or honorable arguments. Any criticism of the actions of the collective will immediately be treated as a personal attack on their individual character, causing their minds to shut down completely. As far as Iran is concerned, I am not here to convince the war-drum pounding zombie hoards infesting the mentally impotent sewage soaked wastelands of my country that their rationalizations for raining laser guided death on the third world is a “reprehensible thing”. Given their impenetrable biases, which I listed above, that would be a complete waste of time. I could, indeed, point out how in 1953 the U.S. and Britain overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossaddegh, because he refused to allow global corporate interests to exploit his country’s oil resources. I could outline how the forced CIA installation of the Shah in Iran and the creation of his secret police led to the torture and murder of thousands of innocent people. I could list similar covert activities over the past 100 years or so, in countries all over the world, which have created the now universal disdain the third world has for the U.S. government. I could even show them a PBS special from 1987 which effectively details this history and warns of what is now going on today. The kind of mainstream news coverage that networks currently blacklist honest and daring journalists for: Poster Comment: damn, this is great commentary...
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
The probability is always against an invasion of Iran, compared to a surgical strike simply to destroy its nuclear facilities. Such an surgical strike would itself be an act of war - something more readily available to Israel than to the US because Iran has already declared war on Israel. A less drastic strategy might be to subsidize and encourage an internal revolution in Iran that would produce an entirely new Iranian govt that was willing to be much more cooperative about its nuclear aspirations.
By all means! Let's engineer yet ANOTHER round of regime change in Iran. The last two weren't quite to our liking. (These things never go quite the way they were planned in the long run.) Just remember that if you wager on inserting new puppets in Tehran, you'd better win the game because with every provocation to the regime & the mullahs in charge, you make that government and its people even more intransigent and belligerent.
A less drastic strategy might be to subsidize and encourage an internal revolution in Israel that would produce an entirely new Israeli govt that was willing to be much more cooperative about its nuclear aspirations.
Just so happens I believe that the Iranians do not intend to develop a nuclear weapon. They have developed a nuclear fuel rod which is used to fuel a nuclear power plant. It is a big step to go to nuclear weapons from there, but you would not think so. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#2. To: Shoonra (#1)
A less drastic strategy might be to subsidize and encourage an internal revolution in Iran that would produce an entirely new Iranian govt that was willing to be much more cooperative about its nuclear aspirations.
#3. To: Shoonra (#1)
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
#4. To: Shoonra (#1)
A less drastic strategy might be to subsidize and encourage an internal revolution in Iran that would produce an entirely new Iranian govt that was willing to be much more cooperative about its nuclear aspirations.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest