All right. For a while there I actually thought we were being alarmists in asserting that the U.S. was likely to attack/invade Iran in the near future. Now I'm reverting to my previous mindset -- even though it seems impossible (politically, economically, and especially given the Iraq situation, Iranian influence in Iraq and the fact that our troops are stretched too thin and increasingly discontent), I think it's going to happen. It's as though it's already been set in motion -- just like the Iraq invasion was quietly set in motion shortly after 9/11. The media daily reports the alleged desire of Iran to produce/attain nuclear weapons as a fact, and not only a fact but a "crisis" of urgent importance. "How are we to deal with Iran?" Etc. By the time the bombs begin to fall, we will all have been so innundated with propaganda that it will seem natural, inevitable, necessary. When in fact it should seem absurd, horrific, and not only completely unnecessary but detrimental to our security and that of the world.

The number of reporters/pundits calling for -- or acknowledging the strong possibility of -- a military strike against Iran increases by the day. Many are now openly saying that we might have to bomb them, if they do not bow down to us.

And the pinko liberal wishy-washy mamby-pamby soft-on-defense weak-on-security commy socailist America-hating pussy Democrats, whose primary goal is to give aid and comfort to The Enemy? . . . Well, Hillary Clinton sounds basically like Bush. And I have yet to hear anyone in Congress pointing out the complete and utter hypcrisy and lunacy of the Bush Crime Family's policy/behavior in regards to Iran. (If you have, please provide the links.)

An excellent, excellent interview on DemocracyNow:

Former Labour MP Tony Benn on how Britain Secretly Helped Israel Build Its Nuclear Arsenal

Someone please, PLEASE explain to me:

1.) how the U.S. and Britain are not in violation of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)
2.) how it is acceptable for India, Pakistan, and Israel to possess nukes, but not Iran
3.) why it's O.K. for the U.S. to HELP India with their civilian nuclear energy program, while in the same breath demanding that Iran NOT seek nuclear energy

There is no evidence that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons (only fears and speculation). There is a strong prima facie argument for this -- if you were the leader of Iran right now, what would YOU do? (Be honest.) When you are constantly being overtly threatened, and both overtly and covertly provoked (with foreign military jets illegally flying in your airspace, presumably so that they can detect the locations of your radars and so forth, or so that you might even shoot down one of the planes thereby providing the casus belli for an attack in "response" or "defense"); when you have been singled out, along with two other nations, by the world's only super power as a member of an "Axis Of Evil," after which said super power proceeded to bomb, invade and occupy one of the members of this "Axis"; and following this, this super power threatens you and makes hypocritical demands on you day after day after day . . .

Clearly possession of nuclear weapons is the only possible deterrent to an attack by the United States.

In short:

According the doctrine of "Preemption" -- aka the "Bush Doctrine" -- Iran has every right to attack/bomb/invade/occupy the United States right this moment.

Sounds like a good "National Security Strategy," no?

Thoughts?

—ungeziefer