The Wars and Rumors of Wars GOP Debate

In last night's debate, there was a lot of talk of war, no fly zones and sanctions. Sanctions appealed to most of the candidates as a reasonable solution, so let us reason.

Sanctions are just an early stage of war. They are a political barricade, intended to starve out an enemy. In simple theory, playing Age of Empires (a computer game), it makes a lot of sense; but in the real world, it is just fuel for the propagandist. If we want to lose any good will toward the west that remains in Iran, by all means, starve them ...or should I say, try to starve them, because China and Russia will not play ball. They will not oppose the sanctions, but they will profit from them as they will buy goods at a lower price based upon the politically imposed demand reduction, and sell at a higher price as they are the only ones big enough to cross our sanction lines without the threat of being invaded. Sanctions sound all peaceful and such but you have got to look at the whole food chain, and the unintended consequences. Newt's, Perry’s, Mitt’s and Herman’s plans to sanction will not harm Iran, but will grow their hate for us deep into the fabric of their culture. We face the very real probability of alienating their people who are still sympathetic to the west right now. Their plan will also make China and Russia richer and strengthen the alliance between the three nations through trade. Trade always makes people friends. If we force them to trade with Russia and China we strengthen their friendship, and reliance upon each other. With reliance comes the desire to defend. Bottom line, sanctions do nothing positive for the US, but they do make Iran a lot stronger through new and stronger friendships with powerful buddies. We are about ready to step in it again.

Just Don't Skin the Cat!

One question I ask people who are beating the war drum on Iran is: Has our policy regarding the Middle East since 1954 (subversive overthrowing of leaders, diluting Israel's sovereignty via the UN and US demands for multi-lateral negotiations, outright invasion, occupation of lands and trade sanctions) improved the situation or made it worse? I think just about everyone will acknowledge we have made a mess of things, but a lot of people think if we only micromanaged the affairs of others differently, things would be better. I scoff, as the unintended consequences abound. We installed Saddam and he turned on us or we on him (depending on the congressional testimony you choose to listen to); we funded Osama, the fruit soured, and we killed Kadaffi and now the Al Qaeda flag flies over some of the buildings. We have used a mink glove at times and an Iron Boot at others. We have offered lobster tail under some leaders and made them eat dirt under others; alas the song remains the same.

Not only have none of these methods worked, but they have changed us, the America of today is not the one of our Founders. We have lost our compassion and justified those we kill as acceptable collateral damage because our intentions, we are told, are noble. We can justify our actions or ignore the brutal reality that the TV screen does not sanitize death. We sing the Battle Hymn or God Bless America, and turn it into a patriotic affair, all while the fear merchants (useful idiots for the terrorists) play their theme song, "We'll stick a boot up your ass it's the American way." Really? Is that the American way? Whether one claims to be a Christian or not, only a fool rejects the fact that our country is based upon Christian morality. Would Jesus sing that theme song? Is that the country God would bless? Do the fundamental ethics of man change with the times? NO. It is time to return to the prime ethos of kindergarten, keep your hands to yourself.