There is huge difference between Saber rattling and and actually following though. Vigilance where Iran is certainly called for, but the rhetorical saber rattling coming out of the US isn't particularly useful or productive. It turns Iranians who are fence sitters or even pro-US more likely to turn anti-US. Incidentally, there are plenty on our side of the world who prophesize armageddon-like events. We should be frightened of them too. IMO, a chickenhawk like Newt or a Pres. Romney that needs to prove something are both potential recipes for disaster.
I see nothing to fear in either Romney or Gingrich as president. I guess I see things very differently, but I don't see how either of these two are aching for a war with Iran, or saber rattling or whatever.
Iran has recently threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and conducted an excuse for a naval excercise there. THAT is certainly sabre rattling.
I don't think we can afford to simply ignore Iran's sabre rattling. We have to make certain they know we
WILL respond if they do shut the strait down. Now, I don't think Iran will actually close down the strait; they know we could open it up quickly and it would be costly for them, but then they have to have some assurance we will bite if we bark.
Frankly, if I were an evil leader of a country and had to deal with a large bully empire with garrisons in my backyard, I would want a couple nukes too. Those nukes are the ticket to the big-boys table, and at the very least would allow me to get on with oppressing my people with less outside intervention.
Frankly, the equanamity in which people indulge in response to the possibility/likelyhood of maverick countries getting the "bomb" is disturbing to me. When I was growing up nuclear proliferation was a grave concern to all because of the possibility that some nutcake might get a nuke and start playing chicken with it. The fact that the U.S.S.R. lit one off in 1947 was bad enough. They were an evil empire; ruthless, deadly oppressive even to their own people. But they weren't apocolyptic. They were not insane. For all its ostensible insanity, "
Mutually
Assured
Destruction" worked, because beyond whatever world-dominating aspirations the Soviet Communists had, they also wanted to survive.
I grew up in that period and I never really feared that either side would deliberatly initiate a nuclear war. What I feared was an accident, such as almost happened during the 1980s. A Scandinavian country launched a missile for scientific purposes. Soviet radar stations spotted it and their defense systems initiated, thinking the USA had launched a nuclear strike. The Soviet Premier was being primed to respond via their equivelent of the "football" when he, being nasty evil and everything -- but still an intelligent person -- realized that a nuclear first strike would not be just one missile, as this was, it would be a whole heckuva lot of 'em. So he smartly called off the USSR's response and thus saved the world.
But, as has been said, the "genie is out of the bottle." Every nutjob and his brother wants a nuke. The Indians, the nasty Pakistanis, the insane NorKs .... and some people here respond ; "oh, so what? we have no right to stop 'em --- HEY, if you were surrounded by bullies you'd want a nuke, too."
We're sick. All sick.
Someday it will matter.
I don't know if Ahmadinejab will launch a nuke or not. But I can't be sanguin about his desire to off Israel, and his apocolyptic theories with regards to what happens when he does it. If he feared his own country's destruction, that would be one thing.
THAT would be sane. But Iran's leader is NOT sane.
And to me that means he's unpredictable. And therein lies a danger.
We apparantly can't afford to do much about it now. We don't have the $$$$$ and we surely don't have the cojones.
Incidentally, there are plenty on our side of the world who prophesize armageddon-like events. We should be frightened of them too.
Like who? The one that comes to my mind right now is Gerald Celente, who appears on George Noory's "Coast-toCoastAM" every once in a while, predicting grave problems ahead. He may be right or wrong. Given our current economic and political situation, predicting bad cr@p ahead should be a "no-brainer" even to a blind squirrel in search of nuts. That doesn't mean I think Celente is a prophet, it just means that when your country is 15.2 trillion in debt and still spending like there's no tomorrow, it's pretty friggin' easy (and doesn't require a crystal ball) to predict disaster ahead.
But if you're infering we should fear either Romney or Gingrich, phooey. While neither candidate represents by any means what I'd consider an ideal leader
both are sane enough and solidly grounded enough to deal with the world ahead much more effectively than "hope & change" Obama.
So who's the doomsayer that you say we should fear? People like Celente are a dime a dozen and really don't amount to much more than reasonably bright people who want to write scary books and make $$ while running websites and appearing on fringe radio programs.
Political wannabes? Well, try Ron Paul. While many of his economic ideas are sound enough his foreign policy --- now there is a dangerous, dangerous philosophy.
Some how.... I don't think that's who you means.... though.