No biggie--we already knew about it
Non-existent nuclear-weapons programs in countries sitting on our oil? Axis of evil, cause for war. A big, ongoing, admitted program in an unstable country that, with one bullet, could be run by Osama bin Laden? Oh--we've know about that all along.
The neocon approach seems to be simply to arm the rest of world sufficiently so they can destroy each other, retaining American military superiority to wipe out the last one standing. Two days ago, Billmon quoted the Daily Telegraph:
You wonder--if the Soviets had won the Cold War, at least to the same degree we claim to have done, would they now be playing off Catholics against Protestants, perhaps arming South America until it had nearly beat the crap out of North America? Would the Soviets then, concerned that those southern Catholics were getting too strong, have switched sides, re-arming us so we could kick some Catholic booty (both abroad and at home)? And would the Soviets claim to have been trying to stop Catholic terrorism all along?
Probably. Orwell knew of what he wrote. Power corrupts. Superpowers are supercorrupted absolutely.
The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it had long known about Pakistan's plans to build a large plutonium-production reactor, but it said the White House was working to dissuade Pakistan from using the plant to expand its nuclear arsenal.And how is the White House working to dissuade Pakistan? By illegally helping Pakistan's long-time enemy, India, develop its nuclear program.
...
The reactor, which reportedly will be capable of producing enough plutonium for as many as 50 bombs each year, was brought to light on Sunday by independent analysts who spotted the partially completed plant in commercial-satellite photos. Snow said the administration had "known of these plans for some time."
The neocon approach seems to be simply to arm the rest of world sufficiently so they can destroy each other, retaining American military superiority to wipe out the last one standing. Two days ago, Billmon quoted the Daily Telegraph:
White House aides have said they consider the Lebanon crisis to be a "leadership moment" for Mr Bush and an opportunity to proceed with his post-September 11 plan to reshape the Middle East by building Sunni Arab opposition to Shi'a terrorism. Yesterday Mr Bush cited the role of Iran and Syria in providing help to Hezbollah. (emphasis added)As Billmon points out, the biggest, baddest Sunni opposition to Shi'a terrorism (and Shi'a anything) was Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And that the government we have now installed in Iraq is dominated by Shiites, some of whom are certainly involved in the terrorism now ripping apart what's left of Iraq. Back in the 1980's, the US supported both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. We still do. More correctly, we still oppose both sides.
You wonder--if the Soviets had won the Cold War, at least to the same degree we claim to have done, would they now be playing off Catholics against Protestants, perhaps arming South America until it had nearly beat the crap out of North America? Would the Soviets then, concerned that those southern Catholics were getting too strong, have switched sides, re-arming us so we could kick some Catholic booty (both abroad and at home)? And would the Soviets claim to have been trying to stop Catholic terrorism all along?
Probably. Orwell knew of what he wrote. Power corrupts. Superpowers are supercorrupted absolutely.
<< Home