When it was definitively verified in photos and publicly proven by Adlai E. Stevenson in the U.N. that the Soviet Union had pointed missiles with proven nuclear warheads at the U.S. homeland from Cuba, that 'clear and present danger' required strong action by JFK --- and yet, he still did not launch aggressive war, and his diplomacy saved the world.
But today, when a third rate, non-nuclear Middle East neighbor of Iraq is only suspected of possibly supplying a questionable quantity of questionable roadside bombs, and the only focus of Bush is to use this 'weak and contrived evidence' to justify launching nuclear attacks, then "you're no Jack Kennedy, Mr. Bush."
An earlier OpEdNews column "It's Coming Like Clockwork: New Evidence on Iran" by Gatto, makes the point that the Iraqis were already provided with hundreds of railroad cars full of high explosives, compliments of the Bush invasion plan that focused maximum effort on securing the stolen oil fields and none on securing the ammo.
Several recent articles and columns, including Paul Krugman's ("Scary Movie 2" 2/12/07), have documented that the vast majority (93%) of all US casualties are caused by Sunni insurgents, and not Shiite forces in any way related to Iran. In fact, it has also been extensively documented that financial and weapons support from Saudi Arabia to Sunni insurgents is a far greater factor than any Iranian 'meddling' in the Iraqi civil war.
However, let's suppose that some quantity of weapons have leaked into Iraq from its bordering countries --- which is likely in many wars. Were the possible IED EFPs (and a few mortar rounds) shown in the 'secret briefing' really supplied by Iran? Were any weapons supplied by the "highest level" of the Iranian government? --- which even Joint Chief of Staff, Peter Pace, doubts. Does this constitute 'state terrorism' by Iran?
For comparison purposes let's take a recent case where a highly sophisticated weapon which was 'clearly' beyond the capability of the invaded country, and which was 'explicitly' provided by direct order of the president of the 'meddling' country, and which 'clearly' turned the tide against the invading 'superpower', by 'slaughtering' and 'bleeding' tens of thousands of the young soldiers of that 'superpower' --- and yet that other 'superpower' despite its frustration and the wailing of its dead soldiers' mothers did not plunge the whole Middle East into nuclear holocaust ---- even though it had the nuclear weapons to do so.
In other words, just because Bush conspired to intentionally put his own soldiers in a war theater of his own making for the prize of oil, is he now going to launch nuclear hell and make a worse decision than the Soviet Unions' communist leadership in the 1980's, when they knew beyond a doubt that President Reagan at the 'highest level" was specifically providing 'Stinger' missiles that were destroying hundreds of their army's helicopters and 'bleeding' the youth of their army in Afghanistan --- and yet, those godless commies had the manliness to finally admit that they had put their troops in an unnecessary war for oil, and finally withdrew without further recklessness, rather than plunging the Middle East into a nuclear war?
Is Bush going to be less willing to accept reality than the old Soviet leadership --- and just keep fighting over whose football the oil is, like a cheating poor-sport --- or is he willing to admit his stupidity and bully tactics and withdraw from this deadly game before he kills half the people in the world?
The Soviet era leaders knew they had tried to take a 'bridge too far' in their Afghanistan war. They knew that they had been caught with their hand in the 'cookie jar' of an oil-war. They even knew that the people of their country would not take much more 'bleeding' of their sons. But those godless commie leaders apparently didn't have the stomach to allow more slaughtering of their own people, or the stomach to expand the immoral war into an insane nuclear conflagration. And they finally let human survival prevail --- even through it probably cost them their empire and their wrongful pride and vainglory.
But unlike those godless commies who stepped back from the abyss, our godhead Bush and Cheney have the 'stomach' to keep the killing going. They applaud having the 'stomach' to continue the killing. They even go on national TV and brag about how they have the 'stomach' to keep the killing going, and exhort us all to have the same 'stomach' for blood and gore, and to 'stay the course' for victory in such killing, regardless of the drastically increasing deaths.
Clearly, Bush and Cheney are no weak-willed, godless commie leaders who might take the approbation of the world and the deaths of thousands of their own young soldiers as a sign that their personal vainglory has reached the breaking point. No, Bush and Cheney are truly omnipotent godheads in their own minds and don't need to defer to the will of their people.
"This will not stop us", shouts Cheney on national TV.
Soviet era leaders might bend to the will of their people after years of bloody and senseless invasion and occupation. But Bush and Cheney are much less concerned with the outcries of their supposedly democratic people than the Soviet leaders were of the cries of Russian mothers.
"What wimps", Cheney would bellow with a shotgun in his dead cold hands.
But today, when a third rate, non-nuclear Middle East neighbor of Iraq is only suspected of possibly supplying a questionable quantity of questionable roadside bombs, and the only focus of Bush is to use this 'weak and contrived evidence' to justify launching nuclear attacks, then "you're no Jack Kennedy, Mr. Bush."
An earlier OpEdNews column "It's Coming Like Clockwork: New Evidence on Iran" by Gatto, makes the point that the Iraqis were already provided with hundreds of railroad cars full of high explosives, compliments of the Bush invasion plan that focused maximum effort on securing the stolen oil fields and none on securing the ammo.
Several recent articles and columns, including Paul Krugman's ("Scary Movie 2" 2/12/07), have documented that the vast majority (93%) of all US casualties are caused by Sunni insurgents, and not Shiite forces in any way related to Iran. In fact, it has also been extensively documented that financial and weapons support from Saudi Arabia to Sunni insurgents is a far greater factor than any Iranian 'meddling' in the Iraqi civil war.
However, let's suppose that some quantity of weapons have leaked into Iraq from its bordering countries --- which is likely in many wars. Were the possible IED EFPs (and a few mortar rounds) shown in the 'secret briefing' really supplied by Iran? Were any weapons supplied by the "highest level" of the Iranian government? --- which even Joint Chief of Staff, Peter Pace, doubts. Does this constitute 'state terrorism' by Iran?
For comparison purposes let's take a recent case where a highly sophisticated weapon which was 'clearly' beyond the capability of the invaded country, and which was 'explicitly' provided by direct order of the president of the 'meddling' country, and which 'clearly' turned the tide against the invading 'superpower', by 'slaughtering' and 'bleeding' tens of thousands of the young soldiers of that 'superpower' --- and yet that other 'superpower' despite its frustration and the wailing of its dead soldiers' mothers did not plunge the whole Middle East into nuclear holocaust ---- even though it had the nuclear weapons to do so.
In other words, just because Bush conspired to intentionally put his own soldiers in a war theater of his own making for the prize of oil, is he now going to launch nuclear hell and make a worse decision than the Soviet Unions' communist leadership in the 1980's, when they knew beyond a doubt that President Reagan at the 'highest level" was specifically providing 'Stinger' missiles that were destroying hundreds of their army's helicopters and 'bleeding' the youth of their army in Afghanistan --- and yet, those godless commies had the manliness to finally admit that they had put their troops in an unnecessary war for oil, and finally withdrew without further recklessness, rather than plunging the Middle East into a nuclear war?
Is Bush going to be less willing to accept reality than the old Soviet leadership --- and just keep fighting over whose football the oil is, like a cheating poor-sport --- or is he willing to admit his stupidity and bully tactics and withdraw from this deadly game before he kills half the people in the world?
The Soviet era leaders knew they had tried to take a 'bridge too far' in their Afghanistan war. They knew that they had been caught with their hand in the 'cookie jar' of an oil-war. They even knew that the people of their country would not take much more 'bleeding' of their sons. But those godless commie leaders apparently didn't have the stomach to allow more slaughtering of their own people, or the stomach to expand the immoral war into an insane nuclear conflagration. And they finally let human survival prevail --- even through it probably cost them their empire and their wrongful pride and vainglory.
But unlike those godless commies who stepped back from the abyss, our godhead Bush and Cheney have the 'stomach' to keep the killing going. They applaud having the 'stomach' to continue the killing. They even go on national TV and brag about how they have the 'stomach' to keep the killing going, and exhort us all to have the same 'stomach' for blood and gore, and to 'stay the course' for victory in such killing, regardless of the drastically increasing deaths.
Clearly, Bush and Cheney are no weak-willed, godless commie leaders who might take the approbation of the world and the deaths of thousands of their own young soldiers as a sign that their personal vainglory has reached the breaking point. No, Bush and Cheney are truly omnipotent godheads in their own minds and don't need to defer to the will of their people.
"This will not stop us", shouts Cheney on national TV.
Soviet era leaders might bend to the will of their people after years of bloody and senseless invasion and occupation. But Bush and Cheney are much less concerned with the outcries of their supposedly democratic people than the Soviet leaders were of the cries of Russian mothers.
"What wimps", Cheney would bellow with a shotgun in his dead cold hands.
