RANGER AGAINST WAR: Not Too Clever Bad Boy <

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Not Too Clever Bad Boy


We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace

--George W. Bush


Well, thank God for that, George.

The U.S. invades Iraq, and the macho good guys win. Yea team. Saddam is out, but neighbor Admadinejad is elevated in stature, thereby gaining regional hegemony for Iran, another bad guy. Oops...my bad, says the U.S. administration, or so would say the administration if they had any integrity and humility. Unfortunately, the president must have dropped those qualities out of his flight suit on the deck of that aircraft carrier back when.

Well, the only answer when faced with eating crow is to press on, and fight the next bad boy. This action will result in increased oil prices, but that's the price to pay for dealing with Iran.

Except now, higher oil prices increase profits for all oil-producers, so emboldening Venezuela's Chavez to foment his anti-American policy in this hemisphere. Alright, so Chavez gets it next (it's been awhile since the U.S. has carried out these games south of the hemisphere), meanwhile giving Iran a chance to consolidate and reorganize.

We know where Iran and Venezuela get their funding, but who pays for the U.S. war policy?

The Chinese are happy to lend the money to execute these endless wars, and the Saudis get to sell their petroleum to keep all the war machines well-oiled. And the Chinese provide weapons to all of our adversaries, in the name of fair play.

The U.S. is like a naive yet blustering entrant on the playground who lacks a sense of discernment, but is so full of bravado he imagines himself cleverer then them all. America is sucking up to the Saudis and Chinese, all the while having its feet unwittingly yanked out from under it.

America has the best politicians and career diplomats that the Saudis can buy.

4 Comments:

Blogger A.E. said...

One wonders how long the Chinese will continue funding America's "pre-emptive" wars. I wouldn't suspect very long, especially if we invade and occupy another state.

It brings to mind the question: what is their strategy? Is their mission to get us so deeply dependent on them that it impedes our options in East Asia and clears the way for their regional hegemony?

Friday, February 16, 2007 at 12:39:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Welcome, A.E.,

Jim's out-of-town for a few days, but will read comments upon return.

Your supposition is not a bad one; U.S. options will be restricted all the way 'round.

Friday, February 16, 2007 at 1:55:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger A.E. said...

Speaking of that, have you heard much about the Chinese military modernization program?

Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 5:40:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

a.e.,

I don't really even consider the Chinese military, as I consider they are primarily such a great threat economically.

I believe their entire national policy is to consolidate and consolidate some more. They're building up their national base. Their interest is in economic growth, vs. military adventures.

...But lord help us if they do get militarily aggressive. Stop-loss won't save us if they do, and Cheney's scowl won't have much of a deterrent effect either, without Libby to provide covering fire.

Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 6:18:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home