A quiet little story in the El Paso Times lets the cat out of the bag with regards to America’s future plans for the Middle East; apparently the 3-43 Air Defence Artillery out of Fort Bliss are soon to be on their way to the Middle East (actual destination unknown).[1]
One needs to ask why the US needs Patriot anti-missile missiles when the only other folk out there that have missiles are Israel and Iran. Now, we know Israel won’t be sending missiles against either themselves or the Americans so that leaves Iran. But why would Iran want to launch missiles against the Americans or their allies the Israelis?
Iran has said time and time again that it will retaliate if it is attacked and that its response would be immediate. Since Iran do have missiles capable of making the distance to both American strongholds in Iraq and to targets in Israel one wouldn’t be drawing a very long bow if one were to conclude that the Patriot missiles are being brought in to protect against an assault by Iranian missiles that were launched in retaliation against an attack on Iran, presumably against its nuclear facilities, by America and/or Israel.
Since we know that Israel really does have nuclear weapons, one can assume that, in circumstances where, say, Irans retaliatory attack killed large numbers of Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv or Haifa, that Israel may feel that it has no alternative but to use its nuclear ability on one of Irans smaller cities in order to break Irans continued resolve to fight Israel.
Does one really want to think about the consequences resulting from such escalation? It would be catastrophic for both the Middle East and the world.
It is time for the people of America and Israel to make a stand against the lunacy of their leaders. It is time for the world to make a stand against the lunacy of these leaders and their own leaders if they support this stupidity.
ENDNOTE
[1] Chris Roberts, ‘Bush’s troop surge includes 600 from Fort Bliss’, El Paso Times, 12 January 2007. Available online: http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_4997755 Accessed 15 January 2007.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
9 comments:
Egypt has missiles, too.
So does France. So what?
You think the US are bringing in Patriot missile to defend against Egyptian missiles? I don't think so and I doubt if anyone else on the planet thinks so either.
So, given that, explain the relevancy of your comment.
And if you wish to be pedantic and point out that I said it was only Iran, Israel and the US that has missiles 'out there', I'll be equally as pedantic and remind you that I was talking about the Middle East - not North Africa.
Find any map of the Middle East that doesn't include Egypt.
http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q=middle+east
You hate to admit when you get it wrong, don't you?
Typical right-wing distractive obfuscation. Accuse people of being wrong (when they are not) about totally irrelevant detail stuff in the hope that it distracts from the main point.
With regard to Patriot missiles going to the Middle East (as against North Africa), what is your point (assuming you actually have one)?
Your main point was that only two states in the Middle East had missiles, that one of them (Israel) was not likely to attack the US, therefore the missiles were somehow related to Iran, the only other state you believe has missiles.
Thus, pointing out that there is at least one other state in the region with missiles is not irrelevant - it speaks to the heart of your argument. My point is - as others have shown with frequency in relation to your blog - that you don't bother to look for facts or do any real research on your posts. Rather you search for the 'facts' that fit your 'argument' and then claim anyone disagreeing with you is some sort of idiot.
A person who can't get the geography of the region right and who has trouble getting the facts about the military missile systems of the region right is hardly credible when talking on either topic.
It seems it is you that has missed the point entirely. My main point was not to highlight the states in the Middle East that have missiles but rather to highlight the fact that the only state that is relevant in terms of needing Patriot missiles to protect against is Iran. My main point is that the US has brought in Patriots to defend against an enemy that it would seem it is about to attack. Why else would one need Patriot missiles?
You pointing out that at least one other state in the region, Egypt, does have missiles is, contrary to your assertion otherwise, about as irrelevant as Israel having missiles since Egypt is a friend of the US.
Unless you have something to say that is directly related to the point, i.e., the prospect of an attack on Iran by either the US or Israel or both whereby Patriot missiles may be needed to defend against an Iranian retaliatory attack then any further irrelevant or deliberately obfuscating comment from you will be trashed.
Damian,
Good to see you responding to the irrelevant argument put by one of your readers.
Your way of debating one point at a time, rather than bringing in a plethora of side issues is the way to go in my opinion.
Finding a simple slip or hole in an argument can be the easiest of things. Like discovering a typo, then arguing the article is invalid.
Finding a flaw in the logic of an argument is much harder.
Maybe that's why a lot of critics don't even try.
You're points about the signs that the US is going to attack Iran are clear for all those who want to see them.
Unfortunately we in oz are likely to be dragged into any conflict.
Damian,
Looks like you're not the only one who thinks this way.
This link to an article by the editor-in-chief of the Arab Times also makes the point.
I sincerely hope you are wrong on this.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16169.htm
So do I, Terrence, so do I!
This really is shoving it right up to the edge.
Post a Comment