Cartoon by Terry Wise
The single most disturbing thing about the Republican debate in Iowa last week was the near-obsession among the candidates for a war with Iran. Only two, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, appear to be immune to what the remaining candidates believe to be a litmus test for their qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and each tried to outdo the others explaining how many cans of whup-ass they were willing to open up on Iran. In primaries past, candidates had to show their pro-life credentials to be a contender, now its the willingness to commit the country to another bloody, pointless war.
What’s gotten all of the candidates but Paul and Huntsman into fits is the threat that Iran is within weeks, days or minutes, apparently, of developing a nuclear bomb and wiping Israel and the United States off the map. You can forgive knuckleheads like Ricks Perry and Santorum and Michele Bachman for their breathless mania, but Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are old enough and smart enough to know better.
Ever since the Iranian Revolution booted US-backed dictator Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi out of power in 1979, politicians, journalists and scientists have repeatedly warned that the end of the world was nigh with consistent enthusiasm and earnestness. Conveniently left out of the dialogue is the fact that both the US and France were providing nuclear technology to the Shah and that the CIA had developed intelligence that he had diverted some of it into a covert weapons program before his fall.
That Iran develops a nuke is probably inevitable but war with Iran isn’t. Currently, there are nine countries with nuclear weapons; other than the US, no one has ever used them. During the Iowa debate, Michele Bachman turned up the mau-mauing, saying that an Iranian nuke guaranteed mutual assured destruction, but it is just that concept that guarantees that nukes won’t be used against similarly armed rivals. Even nuclear-neighbors Pakistan and India, which loath each other and have warred before, never allowed their conflicts to escalate to the exchange of nukes. If ideological enemies like Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan can refrain from incinerating each other’s cities, realpolitik dictates that Israel and Iran can as well. Unless, of course, either is backed into a corner, which is exactly Ron Paul’s point, and it was evident that he grew impatient, or rather flabbergasted, during the debate by the chickenhawks’ lust for Persian blood.
If you insist on voting for a Republican other than Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman, at least make the effort to ask your candidate how he or she intends to pay for their war with Iran and who they expect to fight it.
The economy is still in the dumpster, we have record high deficits and debt and military manpower and weapons procurement are already being cut to try to stem the flow of red ink. The only sane way to fight this highly-sought after war with Iran is with a draft and a war tax.
Before you pull the trigger on one of the chickenhawk Republican candidates ask yourself if you are ready to see your taxes go up and your spouses, children or grandchildren forced into fighting a futile war that will surely bankrupt the Republic.
What’s gotten all of the candidates but Paul and Huntsman into fits is the threat that Iran is within weeks, days or minutes, apparently, of developing a nuclear bomb and wiping Israel and the United States off the map. You can forgive knuckleheads like Ricks Perry and Santorum and Michele Bachman for their breathless mania, but Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are old enough and smart enough to know better.
Ever since the Iranian Revolution booted US-backed dictator Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi out of power in 1979, politicians, journalists and scientists have repeatedly warned that the end of the world was nigh with consistent enthusiasm and earnestness. Conveniently left out of the dialogue is the fact that both the US and France were providing nuclear technology to the Shah and that the CIA had developed intelligence that he had diverted some of it into a covert weapons program before his fall.
That Iran develops a nuke is probably inevitable but war with Iran isn’t. Currently, there are nine countries with nuclear weapons; other than the US, no one has ever used them. During the Iowa debate, Michele Bachman turned up the mau-mauing, saying that an Iranian nuke guaranteed mutual assured destruction, but it is just that concept that guarantees that nukes won’t be used against similarly armed rivals. Even nuclear-neighbors Pakistan and India, which loath each other and have warred before, never allowed their conflicts to escalate to the exchange of nukes. If ideological enemies like Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan can refrain from incinerating each other’s cities, realpolitik dictates that Israel and Iran can as well. Unless, of course, either is backed into a corner, which is exactly Ron Paul’s point, and it was evident that he grew impatient, or rather flabbergasted, during the debate by the chickenhawks’ lust for Persian blood.
If you insist on voting for a Republican other than Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman, at least make the effort to ask your candidate how he or she intends to pay for their war with Iran and who they expect to fight it.
The economy is still in the dumpster, we have record high deficits and debt and military manpower and weapons procurement are already being cut to try to stem the flow of red ink. The only sane way to fight this highly-sought after war with Iran is with a draft and a war tax.
Before you pull the trigger on one of the chickenhawk Republican candidates ask yourself if you are ready to see your taxes go up and your spouses, children or grandchildren forced into fighting a futile war that will surely bankrupt the Republic.
