Tomorrow is a Holy Day, so I won't post a blog on Tuesday, but I shall return Wednesday. Meanwhile, as I have been reading about the captured Britons, I'm truly confused. If they were working under a U.N. mandate, where's the U.N. in all this? I read that the U.S. had the GPS information, but wouldn't release it, as it was top secret . . . Wouldn't the GPS of the ship, at the time of capture, resolve this issue? If there is simply an issue about the water itself, then everyone step back take a deep breath and form some committee or bilateral peace talks or whatever to determine where that line is, or just make it Duty Free! Meanwhile, if the crew was under the supervision of the U.N., then somebody besides Tony Blair needs to be stepping up and being heard, and it certainly shouldn't be G. W. He's already said he won't have discussions with Iran or Syria, so before he makes matters worse, he needs to just tend to his business, which is more than America can handle, anyway. Now, let's get back to just what the deal is with Iran. In November of 1979, the hostage situation began and lasted until January of 1981. It was resolved just moments after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. I, personally remember the pressure through the campaign between Carter and Reagan, it was a huge issue. I thought then, that the Iranian government obviously preferred republicans in office in America. As a matter of fact, I kind of felt that Iran had played a very influential role in determining the President of the United States. President Carter had imposed an oil embargo. S,o we're right back to that interesting little natural resource, eh? From the 50's until the late 70's Iran was an American ally. Then, through the 80's Iraq and Iran battled and America didn't have to do too much in that region. As a matter of fact, our President at the time seemed to actually avoid that region, politically and militarily. The Middle East just wasn't in the forefront of Mr. Reagan's foreign policy, even after the attack in Lebanon. Then Bush 41 went after Saddam, and it became personal, or perhaps it already was! History indicates for the past 15 to 20 years, Iraq was the buffer between Iran and the rest of the world, then America removed the power in Iraq and Iran is getting more powerful . . . May I ask who is surprised at this fact besides our "fearless" leader and his gullible followers? So, when we invaded Iraq, did that make us backstage allies with Iran, again? Did this "generational Presidential obsession" against Saddam Hussein allow Iran the time to gain the advances they were seeking, because we do know the US has supplied Iran with arms, in the past. And don't think for a moment, in our materialistic, consumer based society, that an oil embargo between American buyers and Iranian providers is going to hurt them more than it does us? They can find other buyers, but in our global standing, right now, can we find other suppliers? Is this why our government has been discussing our gasoline dependency? Have they been preparing us for the inevitable consequences of Iran's response to American aggression? What are we thinking and are we considering what Iran or the rest of the world just might be thinking?
He that diligently seeketh good seeketh favor; But he that searcheth after evil, it shall come unto him.
No comments:
Post a Comment