Friday, August 31, 2007

Yes, It's All On the Table

One of the qualifications for being a Serious, or Upper-Tier, Candidate for the U.S. presidency is talking about the "table," and what's on it, and what's off it. Mrs. Clinton, for example, is so Serious and Upper-Tier that she is the current presumptive presidential candidate of what is supposed to be the opposition party, and her table has everything on it, with the possible exception of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, depending on which time you believe her. Mr. Giuliani currently leads the pack chasing the booby prize that is the incumbent party's nomination, and it goes without saying that the table of the cross-dressing Mayor Nine-Eleven is likewise fully set.

The "table," of course, is metaphorical. It contains all the actions that the rulers -- or potential rulers -- of the United State are publicly willing to take in furthering their aims. And one option that all Serious Candidates for the presidency agree is the use of nuclear weapons to incinerate large numbers of recalcitrant foreigners. Not just any wogs, of course; the ones whose rulers have nuclear weapons of their own are pretty well immune from mass slaughter. But most of your Ay-rabs and Aferkins and other southern-hemisphere types have rulers who are not so equipped, and are thus very much subject to a good nuking.

So, in view of the "table" and all the jolly things spread out on it, what is any sane and self-respecting Third Worlder to do? It seems to me that there are several possibilities. One is that, perhaps, your land lacks any natural resources coveted by the corporations that pull the strings on United State rulers. If so, those rulers may have no reason to impose their will on you, and you might be allowed to practice water-buffalo-powered agriculture in peace. Another would be to reconcile yourself to jumping whenever you hear an American voice shout "frog!"

Or, you might hope that your rulers are acquiring nuclear weapons of their own. It's true that such weapons are even more useless than most things that rulers buy; they don't put food in any kids' bellies, nor a roof over their heads, nor serve any other positive good. But there is good evidence that they might be expected to keep the Imperial crosshairs off you and your family and your land. Should it surprise us that Iran's rulers might (or might not) be seeking these weapons? After all, we allowed our rulers to set up the incentives; and those incentives say that they'd be crazy not to do their very best to build nukes.

It becomes clearer and clearer, I think, that the incumbent rulers of the U.S. plan to attack Iran; both the volume and the tempo of their war drumming are increasing, and there is one of those all-important anniversaries coming up very soon now. There is no meaningful opposition from the "opposition" party. Most American subjects seem sufficiently preoccupied by other weighty concerns: this one, and this, and this, and that, too.

Many of us seem to suffer from some goofy need for another World War II, the "good war." If that describes you, it may be that I have both some good news and some bad for you. The good news is that perhaps the next more-or-less global war is getting ready to kick off, so you may be able to get some dub-ya dub-ya eye eye thrills. The bad news: this time, we get to be the Krauts, or the Japs, or the Eye-ties, or maybe some war-crimes-liable amalgamation of the three. Yeeee-ha!

1 comment:

Grace Nearing said...

Should it surprise us that Iran's rulers might (or might not) be seeking these weapons?

I always think about Senator and presidential candidate John McCain singing (jokingly?) bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran to the tune of "Barbara Ann"....might not the Iranains construe that as being belligerent? Or are only Westerners allowed to construe such things as belligerent and threatening?