Neutering Iran

"Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top U.S. Senate Republican [...from South Carolina...], said Saturday the United States should consider neutering Iran's navy and air force if Tehran does not halt its nuclear program."


"Instead of a surgical strike on their nuclear infrastructure, I think we're to the point now that you have to really neuter the regime's ability to wage war against us and our allies. And that's a different military scenario. It's not a ground invasion but it certainly destroys the ability of the regime to strike back," said Graham, one of his party's top voices on defense." 


In short, wage war against Iran.


"Top leading voices on defense?" Didn't the writer mean, "Top leading voices for ill considered offense"


I'm too nauseated to read the entire article. I'll let you read it for yourselves.
Iran Offers New Nuclear Talks


Hold on a moment. I have to get my breath back after reading such an arrogant, naive, ignorant insult to human intelligence and humanity. 


What does he mean, "neuter the regime".


Does he mean like how we've neutered the Taliban or Al Qaeda or the Afghanistan warlords?  Like how we've neutered the ability of the different Muslim sects, keeping one sect from blowing up another? Like how we neutered Saddam by denying him access to his airspace while his atrocities just kept rolling along?


Do his mean like how the Republicans neutered the Democrats in the last election; well neutering only 1/4 of it, leaving the Senate, Presidency, and the Supreme court intact, though possibly diminished in power, but certainly not neutered.


"We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long — Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."
-- G.W. Bush


"Defensive preemptive action"? At least we can credit G.W. with a new oxymoron.


Bush did not understand the difference between a threat and reality. Does WMD come to mind?


A "preemptive action" to defend our liberty and to defend our lives? What he really meant was let's start a war and kill the other guy before he kills us. It goes against the grain of the entire U.S. history, morals, and ethics. Against tenets of American morals and tenets of our forefathers. Against the tenets of international law. Against the tenets of all humanity.  


We don't go around killing people just because we think they might kill us. That is mental illness, paranoia.


Has Graham forgotten the old adage, "Don't count your chickens before the eggs have hatched". Or to put it into a more modern context, "Don't count your WMD until you find them".


Graham obviously is not an expert on the Middle East or he would not be advocating further military involvement. Doesn't he know that engaging in combat in the Middle East is foolhardy at the very least? Ask the British. Ask the Russias. The middle easterners have experience in fighting amongst themselves and against invaders that goes back millenia, even before the genocide in Canaan. Conflicts In the Middle East


Hasn't he learned from history that an air assault is just long range artillery. Hasn't he learned from Iraq that denying the air space does not solve the problem? It only leads to more bombing, more billions wasted in impressive explosives. Hasn't he learned anything from Israeli experience how effective "neutering" and "surgical strikes" are?




Of course, he buys off on the obscenity, "acceptable collateral damage". It may be acceptable to him, but the civilians killed are dead. Dead is dead, whatever obfuscation he care to use. "Opps, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that" does NOT bring them back to life; it does not repair the damage done to their lives. Should we give him and his military a pat of condolence on the head and send them back to cause more "collateral damage".


And isn't he aware that if we attack Iran, an Islamic Republic, the whole Muslim world be against us. So much for middle eastern oil.  They claim Islam is a peaceful religion. If we follow Graham, like we followed G.W., the whole world would know that we were not.


Has Graham and other Hawks (Cheney?) forgotten Christ's teaching, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". (John 8:2-11 KJV) (Where does this left wing liberal secularist find these obscure quotations?).




Since our army is stretched to the limit in two wars, who does he propose we send - The American Veterinary Medical Association? They're the most experienced in neutering in the country, probably the world.


The biggest psychological swindle passed off on the American people are when they changed "Department of War" to "Department of Defense". We have been engaged in wars every since, but not one in our defense.  


"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matthew 22:39 (KJV)) (another obscure left wing liberal secularist quotation?).


Maybe Graham should spend more time reading Christ's teachings. After all, there is a free copy of the bible in every hotel and motel room in America and I'm sure that he has spent ample time in some of them. Many organizations are willing to give him a copy free. If he wants to wage war, he should read the old testament. If he wants to call himself a Christian, maybe he should confine his bible study to the Gospels.

TTFN
(Peace, Skepticism, Bright, Humanism, Green, TED)