Tit for Tat?
Don Quixote on Jul 20 2012 at 8:46 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight. Israel kills Iranian nuclear scientists in an effort to slow Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons, weapons they’ve promised to use to destroy Israel. Iran responds by killing Israeli TOURISTS. An American official describes this as “Tit for tat.” Of course the Obama Administration quickly condemns the targeting of innocent civilians in the strongest terms, right? Well, the American ambassador to Bulgaria did express our “outrage and horror” But the report contains no comment by Obama or Clinton. And, of course, the New York Times does not offer the slightest criticism itself, though it does duly report the Iranian government’s hypocritical condemnation of its own actions. What should the American government do in response to such terrorist acts? And, while we are at it, what should the American government do about the Iranian development of nuclear weapons? Does Romney have a plan? Does anyone?
Email This Post To A Friend
7 Responses to “Tit for Tat?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I remember way back when the U.S. Navy bombarded Kharg Island, the Iranian oil depot on the Persian Gulf. The U.S. warships made quick work of the island’s facilities.
Obama could easily say (not to worry, he won’t—our Prez is a nancy boy) to the Iranians, “You’re not going to finish making an atomic bomb. Because you have been waging a low-level war against us since 1979, we reserve the right to enter your territory at our convenience to dismantle your work. To make sure that you do not resist us, we are first going to dismantle your military.”
As the incident at Kharg Island showed, the Iranian “navy” could be dispatched easily in a few hours, as well as its air force further inland. You don’t have to touch Iran’s nuke facilities right away, just defang its pitiful military so that we can avoid a Persian Gulf blockade or heavy resistance on the ground when we finally do decide to go in and destroy Iran’s nuke facilities.
Our action would give the Perfidious Joooooos in Israel a welcome break from international calumny since the U.N.’s peace-loving child rapists and kleptomaniacs would swiftly swivel to vent their anger on us.
I suspect that something is building up in time for the election. There are three carriers in the Gulf, with another one on the way.
Danny, so this raises some questions:
Will Americans support Obama as a war-time president?
Would a US attack on Iran force Romney to support “My president, right or wrong?”
Or would Romney attack Obama for betraying the left and drumming up a conflict to get votes?
Romney will probably attack Obama, but such an attack doesn’t mean anything unless he presents a compelling alternative to what Obama is doing. It’s not enough just to say Obama betrayed his base or drummed up a conflict.
Danny–I agree–these elections will have bigger issues than the ones being batted around today. Obama has got to get everyone’s minds and eyes off his record and the economy. I hope Romney has a game plan for this scenario.
DQ makes a good point, and I suspect that Obama’s master stroke, as Beth also points out, will be to make war on Iran and dare Romney to fault him for finally doing something about that wretched place.
Given Obama’s open sympathy for dictators and Muslims, I was at first hoping that, true to form, his lack of balls would keep him taking on a country for which I suspect he harbors great admiration for–its leaders being fellow Jew haters, and all.
Then I remember that he is a narcissist, and the deaths of a few thousands Iranians and the expenditure of billions of dollars worth of American military assets will be worth it if they get him reelected.
Charles Martel says
Then I remember that he is a narcissist, and the deaths of a few thousands Iranians and the expenditure of billions of dollars worth of American military assets will be worth it if they get him reelected.
Exactly right, Charles. Obama *is* far-left and, as you said, has open sympathy and preference for dictators and Muslims, reserving no empathy or understanding for freedom-loving Americans nor for deeply religious non-Muslims.
But when the rubber hits the road – when he has to draw a line in the sand and cross it – Obama is primarily about POWER. He will sacrifice his ideals to maintain his power. In the next few months, it will be all about being re-elected, and that makes him very dangerous, because he will in fact do almost ANYTHING to be re-elected.
Fortunately, he’s a miserable and utterly incompetent leader. I see every sign that half the country is utterly fed up with him and will not vote for him. If Romney can survive the hundreds of millions of dollars of assault ads that will be directed at him, the election is already over. IF he can survive the political assault. On the issues of the economy and competency, the election is already decided: Obama could not gain 50% of the vote. But he can muddy the waters enough such that he can still win.
Deliberately starting a war with Iran solely to muddy the election waters is entirely within Obama’s bag of tricks for succeeding with his reelection and maintaining his POWER. It’s not that he’d even think deeply about it, for he is not a deep thinker and he’s a fundamentally unserious man. It’s just something that he would do, the instant he thought it would work. He’s amoral to the core.