So what if Iran has the bomb?

The Decider
GW Bush said that he's "the decider". Mmmm....
>>
>> "I'm the decider" It sounds like
>> something a character in a Dr. Seuss book might say.
>>
>> So with apologies to the late Mr. Geisel, here is
>> some idle speculation as to what else such a
>> character might say:
>>
>> I'm the decider.
>> I pick and I choose.
>> I pick among whats.
>> And choose among whos.
>>
>> And as I decide
>> Each particular day
>> The things I decide on
>> All turn out that way.
>>
>> I decided on Freedom
>> For all of Iraq.
>> And now that we have it,
>> I'm not looking back.
>>
>> I decided on tax cuts
>> That just help the wealthy.
>> And Medicare changes
>> That aren't really healthy.
>>
>> And parklands and wetlands
>> Who needs all that stuff?
>> I decided that none
>> Would be more than enough!
>>
>> I decided that schools
>> All in all are the best
>> The less that they teach
>> And the more that they test.
>>
>> I decided those wages
>> You need to get by
>> Are much better spent
>> On some CEO guy.
>>
>> I decided your Wade
>> Which was versing your Roe
>> Is terribly awful
>> And just has to go.
>>
>> I decided that levees
>> Are not really needed.
>> Now when hurricanes come
>> They can come unimpeded.
>>
>> That old Constitution?
>> Well, I have decided
>> As"just goddam paper"
>> It should be derided.
>>
>> I've decided gay marriage
>> Is icky and weird.
>> Above all other things,
>> It's the one to be feared.
>>
>> And Cheney and Rummy
>> And Condi all know
>> That I'm the Decider -
>> They tell me it's so.
>>
>> I'm the Decider
>> So watch what you say
>> Or I may decide
>> To have you whisked away.
>>
>> Or I'll tap your phones.
>> Your e-mail I'll read.
>> `cause I'm the Decider -
>> Like Jesus decreed.
>>
>> Yes, I'm the Decider
>> The finest alive
>> And I'm nuking Iran.
>> Now watch this drive!

Pachelbel: I am a dick, albeit a poetic dong.

Ok, dick dong. Whatever.

Phallus accepted, Dick expressed.

Again, why shouldn't Iran have the bomb? Israel certainly has them.

With or without a handful of rudimentary nuclear weapons, Iran would not pose a serious security threat to the United States, with its arsenal of 10,000 nuclear bombs and missile warheads and a military establishment with resources greater than all other countries in the world combined. As a nuclear power, Iran would be dwarfed by Israel, which has more than 200 warheads, together with missile and submarine launch capabilities, and even by neighboring Pakistan.


I read that Bush Adm is having to backpaddle with Iran. China and Russia and even the UK (Blair) are not supporting the US in their stupid scheme. Iran is threatening to choke off the oil supply.

Ooooohhhhhh. Yanks'll have to quit driving their SUV's.

only about one thousand times more powerful than what was delivered to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Seems like something that could do a lot of damage…" (lol brilliant) and (my personal favorite) "Get over it," it is easy to see why so many outside of the U.S. think the average U.S. citizen is (to put it mildly) less than critical in the global operations of their government. But I digress.

I must admit my vast ignorance on the state of worldly political, sociological, and economic affairs and the role of the U.S. in this global theater, but I would like to offer my points of view on a couple of your thoughts.

"I still think it's very interesting that the Christians want to protect a country, Israel, in view of the fact that they don't like Jesus. What are they afraid of?"

It seems to me that the U.S. hasn't an absolute allegiance to religion, or for that matter, ideals rooted in Christianity. The West, thankfully, has been, by and large, purged of its simplistic allegiance to superstitious notions that tend to thwart societal advances of a nation. Of course, these beliefs seemed to have been replaced by equally dangerous and equally simplistic blind trust in the merit, efficacy, and goodness of the so-called capitalists and what they term "free-market economies."

Anyway, I think the U.S. support for a nation whose national religion is significantly at odds with Christianity is that so-called Americans have replaced (or arrested) their fear of the intangible and unimaginable hereafter with the very tangible "American lifestyle." I do not doubt that Americans would support "fanatical" Muslims if such a relationship would make plausible the promise of a Hummer in every garage. In other words, it's (as you stated above) all, or least mostly, about the almighty dollar.

"Can't Bush Adm come up with a newer excuse than that?"

I'm sure they could, but they have no compelling need to provide more satisfying rationale to invade Iran. Military might has always trumped any question of moral right in overpowering and stealing the wealth of another nation/people. I heard that President Roosevelt was asked (paraphrasing here) "By what right does the U.S. make claim to the Panama Canal?" He responded, "I took it." TR was not only a bully, he was an honest bully. Many contemporary bullies aren't so frank, but the subterfuge they provide needn't be all that elaborate- just enough to satisfy the collective consciousness of their constituents who are more interested in plasma TVs than in the activities that help make those TVs affordable.

Admittedly, my ideas come with little support; I have little evidence at the ready to support them. However, I am reminded of intuition, or rather what an economic pundit said about intuition, Margaret Thatcher, and her championing of capitalism. He recognized that she wasn't an economist or even an expert on the ins-and-outs of capitalism; even so, her intuition, he said, was to advocate for a more free-market economy for England and for the rest of the world. There was merit, he noted, in her desire to spread capitalism without being an expert in that field. He said, there is nothing wrong with intuition- it's just "reason in a hurry." And it would be for the experts (in her case Friedrich von Hayek) to provide a more detailed explanation of the benefits of capitalism.

Well, I'm not sure that there is nothing wrong with intuition, and perhaps I am way off, but my intuition tells me that the driving force behind U.S. support of a strong Israel and its desire to keep the bomb from Iran is that a change in either will be contrary to the economic interests of a few Americans in particular, and perhaps, to Americans in general.

It's late and I am a bit tired, I hope that made some sense. In any case, I really did enjoy readin' your ideas.