U.S. Sends Second Carrier Group to Persian Gulf, Warns Iran About Trying to Dominate Region
January 24th, 2007I’d like to believe that a group of admirals and generals will say, “Enough. We’re not doing this,” buying the world a bit more time.
But time for what?
Maybe humanity just needs to learn this lesson the hard way. Again.
Via: AP/MyWay:
A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington’s way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday.
Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, ruled out direct negotiations with Iran and said a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran was “not possible” until Iran halts uranium enrichment.
“The Middle East isn’t a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn’t a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That’s why we’ve seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region,” Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.
“Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us,” Burns continued.
i love how these fascists couch everything in terms of the *other* guy being too militant, too aggressive, too ambitious when it is WE who have become the threat to peace everywhere, re: “…the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us.” a rule of thumb i’ve noticed with this soft dictatorship in washington: they accuse everyone else of the very things they are guilty of. from the get-go, the bush cabal accused the gore camp of voter fraud, and that has set the tone for the last four years.
we bombed somalia again today/yesterday, committing yet *another* act of war against a sovereign country, an act of war we’ll *never* be help accountable for–it’s all so f***ing exhausting….
Your comments reminded me a of a short story posted at SimHQ in 2004. It always stuck in mind and suddenly seems kinda relavent. Its about how the US military leaders might react to a president who overreacts.
http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=11&Number=245504&Searchpage=5&Main=28756&Words=fiction&topic=0&Search=true#Post245504
Hope the long link works, (there must be an easier way), but a good read.
Great site!
Jon,
I don’t accept the “WE…(see comment 1)” notion of culpability; if one does, then he (or she) allows himself (or herself) to become the victim of a clever tool of psychological manipulation used by the ruling classes to get you to bear the costs of actions THEY undertake, with no requisite benefits accrual, over which you have absolutely no control.
As recorded facts can show, THEY’RE the controllers of the world’s money supplies, which controls the world’s resources and politicians, and THEY make the paradigm-altering decisions, filter them through their political hitmen and hitwomen as a hedge, who shove them down your and my throat, regardless of whether we desire to consume them or not, and neither I nor you bear any significant part in this decision-making process (Were you consulted before this carrier group set sail; I think not; and neither was I).
Therefore, I will accept no blame for the decisions THEY make, nor will I accept blame for the outcomes of these decisions; I advise you to begin using this Principle of Non-Culpability everytime you think of blaming yourself for the actions of these velociraptors.
Climbing down from my soap-box…
This article,
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/The_Logic_Of_US_Deployments_Points_To_Iran_999.html
augments the point Kevin makes in his post.
[…] get a feel for the numbers! Everyone knows who’s at the bottom of that list, right? You know, the country that’s trying to squeeze another carrier strike force into the Persian Gulf… Red = deficit, Blue = surplus, Grey = no data Posted in Economy | Trackback | Top Of […]
Love your post, David.