![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Despite reassurances by King George that he wants diplomacy to solve things, the rhetoric (and our actions) toward Iran — as well as President Ahmadinejad of Iran's recent comments — are worrying me. There are too many people shaking too many big sticks, and it's difficult to tell whether these are ploys to advance diplomacy or serious threats.
What worries me is that King George has shown too many times in the past that he doesn't give a damn what other people think if God has told him he's right. He'll go with his gut and he'll go with his faith, and he'll ignore or change any hard evidence if it doesn't tell him what he wants it to tell him -- listen to the administration's criticism of the just-released GAO report on Iraq, or the reports that the White House intends to write up General Petraeus's report themselves. Despite growing belief among the citizenry that Iraq was a terrible mistake and despite growing pressure to pull troops out, I can believe that Our Decider would compound his mistake by attacking Iran with the justification that they are undermining our chances of success in Iraq, that they are a nuclear threat that must be quashed, and that they are, after all, part of his Axis of Evil, and Evil must be eliminated.
That's what his faith-based rhetoric has been saying all along. When you deem your enemy to be pure "Evil," you are obliged to destroy them.
We don't have enough troops in Iraq to control that broken country. We absolutely don't have enough troops to also control Iran -- not without a draft. Yeah, we can bomb Tehran into rubble and break their country the way we broke Iraq, but what happens afterward? If we're truly concerned about insurgency and terrorism, how many terrorists will we breed if we send the missiles raining down on yet another Middle Eastern country? I hope Bush means it when he says "I know we're here in Washington (where) prevention means force. It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy." But I don't believe him; he's given us too many lies already.
Color me concerned.
What worries me is that King George has shown too many times in the past that he doesn't give a damn what other people think if God has told him he's right. He'll go with his gut and he'll go with his faith, and he'll ignore or change any hard evidence if it doesn't tell him what he wants it to tell him -- listen to the administration's criticism of the just-released GAO report on Iraq, or the reports that the White House intends to write up General Petraeus's report themselves. Despite growing belief among the citizenry that Iraq was a terrible mistake and despite growing pressure to pull troops out, I can believe that Our Decider would compound his mistake by attacking Iran with the justification that they are undermining our chances of success in Iraq, that they are a nuclear threat that must be quashed, and that they are, after all, part of his Axis of Evil, and Evil must be eliminated.
That's what his faith-based rhetoric has been saying all along. When you deem your enemy to be pure "Evil," you are obliged to destroy them.
We don't have enough troops in Iraq to control that broken country. We absolutely don't have enough troops to also control Iran -- not without a draft. Yeah, we can bomb Tehran into rubble and break their country the way we broke Iraq, but what happens afterward? If we're truly concerned about insurgency and terrorism, how many terrorists will we breed if we send the missiles raining down on yet another Middle Eastern country? I hope Bush means it when he says "I know we're here in Washington (where) prevention means force. It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy." But I don't believe him; he's given us too many lies already.
Color me concerned.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject