John Bolton is Still a Blood-thirsty Loon, I See

It doesn’t really surprise me that Sen. Ted Cruz thinks that former UN Ambassador (R-Ironic) John Bolton is the apian patellas—that particular candidate is happy as an arsonist in a match factory when he’s signifying for the dropped-knuckle set. But a moment’s reflection on how this dumbass thinks should reflect back on Cruz.

After all, the call to bomb Iran in this recent op-ed is blatantly stupid, or, to put it in context, shamefully consistent with the rest of his mental work-product. But to put it mildly, if someone has been paying a bit of attention to nuclear proliferation, his mention of Israel’s 1981 attack on Osirak as being particularly successful is just babbling. Because the attack on Osirak didn’t end Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program. After the 1991 US invasion of Iraq, inspectors discovered a pretty active underground nuclear program which was, depending upon who you asked, months or scant years from having bombs. The military strike damaged material capacity, but as I’ve been banging on about—it doesn’t destroy know-how, and likely increases the desirability of having such a weapon.

For that matter, in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, Bolton was one of the very wrong people who insisted that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear program. When, no. Hussein isn’t alive now for us to ask him about it, but it looks kind of like having sanctions on and inspectors in was keeping him largely in check. So is there any earthly reason why anyone should listen to this yutz?

(X-Posted at Strangely Blogged.)

Posted by Vixen Strangely on 03/26/15 at 11:18 PM • Permalink

Categories: MessylaneousPoliticsElection '16NuttersWar In ErrorSkull Hampers

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Our record of making the Middle East worst though coups and wars is remarkably consistent.

From Operation Ajax to the “Not regime-change” regime change we sponsored in Libya.

The talking-head chatter regarding Iran anymore gives me a distinct feeling of “deja vu all over again.”

Not to argue the fundamental point—arsonist in a match factory is a good one—but the Osirak attack did probably set Iraq’s atomic bomb program back by 6-7 years.  The ultimate outcome was that when the first Gulf war took place, Iraq only had conventional munitions and a little chemical warfare stuff on hand, too little to even use against Kuwait or the US troops.  Things might have been uglier if they had an atomic wepon.

6-7 Years—but only 6-7 years. The way I see it is, we overvalue the means of proliferation, but ignore the real reason why nations see an interest in engaging in a nuclear quest—because they find it a useful strategic tool.

I look at the acquisition of a nuclear weapon anymore as largely a defensive quest, in the interest of having a weapon so dire other people don’t bother to try it. 1991 was exactly the predicted cakewalk because their munitions were at reserve use and no one shoots their wad at a world power like the US unless they want to be under glass.

For many countries, aspiring to nuclear status right now is really about “don’t try us” and not “we are gonna burn stuff.”

I think the invasion in ‘91 was probably more intelligent then we’d now give it credit for on the strength of the Kuwait invasion alone. Just to understand the regional power Iraq was aspiring to. But I still would say the latter war was solely a war of choice, when the US could exercise a sortie whenever we chose—not that I like this—just that it was so. We never needed an actual invasion—there were inspectors in!

I was chatting with a PhD candidate from Iran recently; he pointed out that if the deal gets made with Iran, oil prices will drop even further as Iran dumps more supply into a flooded market.  Iran will have to do this simply because sanctions have been crippling for so long, and they need $ to buy what’s been denied for so long.

So, this makes we think that a good deal of the animus for Iran is due to the people who tell Bolton and Cruz when to jump, and how high, are really quite tired of making so little money currently.  And that points to Kochs, if you ask me.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main