The response of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the Trump administration's assassination of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani was that nobody informed her.
The response of Obama foreign policy chappie Ben Rhodes was to hope for the best but worry that there is "serious escalation to come."
The general shock-and-horror response from Democrats makes me wonder: what is going on that I don't understand?
And more to the point, what exactly was the strategic rationale behind the Obama administration's accommodation of Iran -- not to mention the sending pallet-loads of actual cash? (Hey, wanna job as a fork-lift driver?)
I mean, in my view of the world, you look at an expansive ideological power like Iran as something to be resisted: not maybe through all-out war but certainly by throwing sand in the gears. You look at the bigger picture and say, well, chaps, we sure don't want Iran dominating the entire Middle East -- not that there was anything wrong with those Zoroastrians back in the day.
I tell you what is intriguing to me. On the one hand our Democratic friends wage ceaseless ideological war in schools, universities, social media and cake bakers, with no quarter given.
So our Democratic friends believe in ideological war to the knife.
But then, when it comes to international affairs they are always whining about "escalation." Or Jimmy Carter is pontificating about our "inordinate fear of communism."
You mean the communism that caused the deaths of 100 million humans in the 20th century, Jimmy?
OK, I do understand it, in this way.
Our Democratic friends believe in global hegemony and domination by and for the Educated Gentry. They do not believe in the nation state, and the do not believe in the citizens of the nation state, the Commoners. Thus, they instinctively dislike all expressions of the nation state, from Trump to the US imperium. And within the nation they conduct politics by setting one group of Americans against another and conducting a non-stop Olympics of the Victims, which makes sense for them because it weakens the nation state of America.
I do not think that they have seriously thought where all this ends up.
Now, I don't know what is really going on in the Middle East. I don't know if the assassination of Soleimani is a good idea tactically or strategically. But I would say that when Iran-backed "protesters" attack the US embassy, which is a definite provocation and a jab in the ribs to US power, then the US needs to "send a message."
After all, the point of hierarchies is that the order of rank is understood by all and the hierarchy reduces violence and death. So that if someone in the order of rank jabs a chap higher up then the rules of hierarchy require that the higher-up chappie delivers a short, sharp lesson to the lower-down chappie. That restores the status quo ante and the peace of the hierarchy.
Of course, this may be rubbish. President Trump may indeed be stirring up a hornet's nest and starting a global thermonuclear war. You never know for sure.
But my instinct is that Iran cannot afford to torch the whole Middle East, because the outcome would, I suspect, involve the end of the current Iranian regime.
And now a word for you, Speaker Nance.
If you want to get advance word on US military strikes it might help if you weren't weakly allowing a left-wing-inspired impeachment of the president and going along with outrageous use of the intelligence community to bollix up a presidential election. Because when the House is impeaching the president, and when Democratic Party leaders seem to perfectly copacetic with spying on the opponent's campaign with the help of the intelligence community, I would say that it rather lowers the level of trust between the leader of the House and the President.
If you get my meaning, Speaker Nance.
And that is bad for America, Speaker Nance.
The response of Obama foreign policy chappie Ben Rhodes was to hope for the best but worry that there is "serious escalation to come."
The general shock-and-horror response from Democrats makes me wonder: what is going on that I don't understand?
And more to the point, what exactly was the strategic rationale behind the Obama administration's accommodation of Iran -- not to mention the sending pallet-loads of actual cash? (Hey, wanna job as a fork-lift driver?)
I mean, in my view of the world, you look at an expansive ideological power like Iran as something to be resisted: not maybe through all-out war but certainly by throwing sand in the gears. You look at the bigger picture and say, well, chaps, we sure don't want Iran dominating the entire Middle East -- not that there was anything wrong with those Zoroastrians back in the day.
I tell you what is intriguing to me. On the one hand our Democratic friends wage ceaseless ideological war in schools, universities, social media and cake bakers, with no quarter given.
So our Democratic friends believe in ideological war to the knife.
But then, when it comes to international affairs they are always whining about "escalation." Or Jimmy Carter is pontificating about our "inordinate fear of communism."
You mean the communism that caused the deaths of 100 million humans in the 20th century, Jimmy?
OK, I do understand it, in this way.
Our Democratic friends believe in global hegemony and domination by and for the Educated Gentry. They do not believe in the nation state, and the do not believe in the citizens of the nation state, the Commoners. Thus, they instinctively dislike all expressions of the nation state, from Trump to the US imperium. And within the nation they conduct politics by setting one group of Americans against another and conducting a non-stop Olympics of the Victims, which makes sense for them because it weakens the nation state of America.
I do not think that they have seriously thought where all this ends up.
Now, I don't know what is really going on in the Middle East. I don't know if the assassination of Soleimani is a good idea tactically or strategically. But I would say that when Iran-backed "protesters" attack the US embassy, which is a definite provocation and a jab in the ribs to US power, then the US needs to "send a message."
After all, the point of hierarchies is that the order of rank is understood by all and the hierarchy reduces violence and death. So that if someone in the order of rank jabs a chap higher up then the rules of hierarchy require that the higher-up chappie delivers a short, sharp lesson to the lower-down chappie. That restores the status quo ante and the peace of the hierarchy.
Of course, this may be rubbish. President Trump may indeed be stirring up a hornet's nest and starting a global thermonuclear war. You never know for sure.
But my instinct is that Iran cannot afford to torch the whole Middle East, because the outcome would, I suspect, involve the end of the current Iranian regime.
And now a word for you, Speaker Nance.
If you want to get advance word on US military strikes it might help if you weren't weakly allowing a left-wing-inspired impeachment of the president and going along with outrageous use of the intelligence community to bollix up a presidential election. Because when the House is impeaching the president, and when Democratic Party leaders seem to perfectly copacetic with spying on the opponent's campaign with the help of the intelligence community, I would say that it rather lowers the level of trust between the leader of the House and the President.
If you get my meaning, Speaker Nance.
And that is bad for America, Speaker Nance.
No comments:
Post a Comment