The US/UK coalition propaganda machine is now telling us that Iran has become “newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why” as “UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears” and “British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran’s capability ” (guardian November 2).
Could it well be that they are feeling threatened by the ‘aggression’ of the US and the UK, and their gigantic stockpiles of nuclear weapons? Nothing new here. Perhaps it just fits in perfectly to suggest Iran’s ‘aggression’, because the coalition’s middle eastern ally is suggesting that they themselves might launch an attack on their arab neighbour. Why? “We’re just attacking them, because they attacked our Israeli buddies” .. “We warned them” – you can hear it now, right?
Such perfect examples of the ‘sleeping giant theory’ (a childish, ‘he hit me first’ excuse – the kind of game that US congress have long played) and the kind of ‘devil made me do it’ reasoning also outlined in the book ‘The seven deadly spins’ by the author Mickey Z, which dissects the cunning lies utilized for war propaganda, also used to justify the US war-machine’s self-serving needs. And when i say ‘self-serving’, dont get that confused with serving the US state. It really only benefits a few small hands of power, as they well know.
“to go to war when there are insufficient funds in the treasury is a recipe for failure, and for the ultimate destruction of the state” .. “war causes inflation, and inflation exhausts the country waging the war” – from his classic ‘the art of war’, Sun Tzu’s anti-criterium for engagement only serve to highlight the tenuousness of any pledge by the US/UK coalition to be serving the interests of their respective countries, or the people (or the world).
Such language as that which has been outlined by the guardian newspaper can only be viewed as completely, utterly irresponsible, belligerent and provocative behaviour…
When George Bush invaded Panama (just two weeks after the fall of the Berlin wall) on the weak pretense that Panama was being used as a port for smuggling drugs into the USA, he was asked if the amount of civilian deaths in the fight to capture Manuel Noriega was worth it (Noriega, a man transformed at the click of a finger into a brutal figure, by the very authority that previously installed him as a US backed CIA agent – the US government) “every human life is precious, and yet i have to answer, yes it has been worth it”, Bush answered. Such open, delusional, insane hypocrisy.
The similarities – to past, current and now, possible future wars – is startling, to say the least.
But who are we to argue?