Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Hillary Clinton wants to extend our nuclear umbrella over our beloved Gulf state allies:
Asked if "it should be US policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack against the United States," Clinton astonishingly responded that she'd use American nukes not just to defend Israel, our traditional strategic ally, but also other neighboring states such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from an Iranian nuclear attack.
Hillary Clinton is willing to risk millions of American lives to protect the sponsors of 9/11 and the hub of world terrorism. This is a proposal that's so stunningly drenched in idiocy, it transcends standard perceptions of logic and existence.
In contrast:
Barack Obama's far more sensible answer was simply to commit to definitively and aggressively extend our deterrent protection to Israel - period.
Go Obama!
If you look at Clinton's policy in light of two factors, it makes sense:
a) the incredible importance of the Gulf Arab oil producers to the global economy: an attack on them would be devastating;
b) the deterrent effect: providing an umbrella to Arab states friendly to the US gives them an incentive not to seek their own nukes (which, let me remind you, they could well buy from Pakistan) - and could well prevent a war against them. This was, of course, the idea behind NATO.
There's a third point and this might be the most important: the people who live in the Gulf Arab states are not necessarily anti-Western or illiberal. This region is changing - slowly - and within its own frame of reference.
We should not write off the Arab world because elements therein are opposed to the West or to any nontraditional influences; rather, we must, I think, recognize that there are progressive people living there, people who've been educated in the West - even feminists - even people and states who (gasp) have some kind of relations with Israel.
One of the worst things we could do is ignore the voices of change and dissent even within states like Syria. For example are you aware that there's a Kurdish minority there? Or that Syrian and Egyptian dissidents aren't necessarily M.B. - some are proWestern? Meanwhile the Gulf Arab states like UAE, Dubai and the Emirates - and even KSA - really shouldn't be stereotyped as backwards terrorist strongholds!
a) the incredible importance of the Gulf Arab oil producers to the global economy: an attack on them would be devastating;
An attack on anyone would be devastating, but if you read the post below, you'll se that the oil producing abilities of these states is not as incredible as they claimed it was.
b) the deterrent effect: providing an umbrella to Arab states friendly to the US gives them an incentive not to seek their own nukes (which, let me remind you, they could well buy from Pakistan) - and could well prevent a war against them. This was, of course, the idea behind NATO.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE sponsored the 9/11 attacks. The majority of car bombers in Iraq are Saudi. Most extremist literature worldwide is distributed by the KSA. The UAE has been responsible for spreading the influence of the "Islamic Banking" system, which is yet another cover for terror financing.
These countries are not "friendly" to the United States. They're at war with us, and we're too stupid to notice. We spend all our time worrying about nukes and not enough time worrying about the effects this alliance has had on our status in the world and our economy.
And, if you're worried about nukes, can you tell me what country has been helping Pakistan guard their nukes? We do. Nukes are the ultimate white elephant of a weapon. Most countries can't even afford to maintain the useless things.
This region is changing - slowly - and within its own frame of reference.
The region has been changing within its own frame of reference for thousands of years, which is why the countryside out there looks like a set for a biblical epic.
Meanwhile the Gulf Arab states like UAE, Dubai and the Emirates - and even KSA - really shouldn't be stereotyped as backwards terrorist strongholds!
They are backwards terrorist strongholds and everyone knows it. If they're stereotyped that way, it's their own fault. But, if you read the post below, you'll see that isn't the worst thing about these states. Economically, their tulipmania bubble is about to burst, and if we keep clinging to our beloved troglodyte/terrorist allies, we'll be as doomed as they are. That's why I'm voting for the candidate who wants to put the most distance between these states and us. Right now, Obama looks good.