ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

There Are No Monsters in the World?

Updated on March 7, 2012

Why Do They Tell Little Kids This

Sometimes It's True

Of course it would be horrible if there were monsters such as the "xenomorphs" depicted in the "Alien" franchise. But, we don't have to look far to find a perhaps more gruesome type of monster within ourselves.

Once upon a time Americans could have their picture taken next to one of the phoenixes. I suppose if you don't mind taking your life into your hands, you can still do it.

Movies such as "Aliens" are works of art because the monsters present a realistic depiction of what we might see if we could collectively focus our worst/most hateful thoughts upon a single image. Fortunately we don't have aliens to fight, but we still have each other, and we haven't evolved much from the near-unthinking beasts we once were.

In the political game of brinkmanship, the battles between two sides becomes blurred. Most analysts tell us that the games being played between Iran and the US are nothing more than sabre rattling. Let's hope so. But, what happens if one side or the other gets nicked and real blood is drawn? Does the gentlemanly game of sword play suddenly let all the bats our of their cages?

In the game of brinkmanship, rather like a game of poker, each side must keep increasing the ante ... or give up.

Iran recently upped the ante by telling the US that it would no longer tolerate the US fleet into the Gulf if we put greater sanctions, i.e., a strangle-hold, on Iran. This may be bluster, and I fully expect the US will return to the Gulf, armed to the teeth. It only takes one fanatic to fire a rocket-propelled gernade at any target in the fleet. The convergence of circumstances could trigger an entire battle plan against the Iranians.

It's unlikely the US will back-peddle from its tougher economic sanctions against Iran. Thus, once again, the West is given the same old threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz.

This threat of war is Iran's to lose. The threat itself is not good strategy because the US is not going to stay out of the Gulf. If a single shot is fired by Iraq, resulting in significant casualties to our sailors, then Plan "A" goes into effect: The US would begin by eliminating their power grid and communication channels. Navy Seals would secure the physical location of the Strait's choke point; cruise missiles and unmanned drones would begin dropping their payloads; moments later our jets would light up Iran's main military targets.

We would not "go in there and nuke 'em," as so many know-nothings have suggested. An around the clock bombardment (with conventional weapons) along with the destruction of Iranian infrastructure would commence. The US could lose some of its heavier ships, but this would only provide the country to hit Iran with everything we have in the store (minus nuclear weapons).

This would also be a dandy time to take out the suspected sites of where the manufacture of atomic research and possible construction of an atomic bomb/missile may be buried. In light of the above, Iran will "blink." It's possible for us to set the clock back ten years -- during which time we will have developed even more precise and lethal methods of turning most of a country into cinders -- simply from the air. Other than the use of a few Special Forces units, I do not see this as a war that puts boots on the ground.

Americans haven't the stomach or cash in their wallet to pay for a manned invasion. Like Iraq we have nothing to gain by occupying the country, and everything to lose. No doubt this would increase single acts of terrorism across Western Europe, America, possibly even Australia. But, we can play tit for tat. For every successful terrorist act that the Iranians commit, we can triple their losses by targeting small, marginally significant sites back in the Mid-East. If they want to play a game of attrition, they would soon learn that the US is not going to roll over and play dead once the main campaign was completed.

The monsters on both sides would be doing what they do best -- killing people -- a good many of them before their brains could process annihilation a micro-second before it occurs. Somehow, someway, we have to dominate the hideous lust for killing, and stop hiding between political expediency. Most major wars have broken out over a single incident.

The US is show-boating inside the Gulf, exposing our fangs should the Iranians launch missiles toward Saudi Arabia and/or Israel in particular. Is it really strategically necessary to maintain this provocation? If not, why take the risk? Once the monsters are out and wrecking havoc, it's very difficult to get them to go back into hybernation.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.