Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSlam Dunk: The Bush Administration Is Trying to Provoke Iran
The Bush Administration is once again escalating its confrontation with Iran. Clearly they have multiple motivations for doing so. They're trying to "change the channel" from the failure of the "surge," ahead of the September Congressional debate on Iraq. They would dearly love to split off from the Democratic opposition on Iraq Members of Congress who share the AIPAC goal of confronting Iran. And they want to undermine negotiations taking place between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency over Iran's nuclear program.
But details have emerged from the recent escalation that strongly indicate what many have long suspected: the Bush Administration's fundamental conflict with Iran is not about its nuclear program or alleged weapons smuggling - so far unproven - into Iraq.
It's simply a great-power struggle for influence. And while there's nothing too shocking about that, people in the United States should ask themselves - and be asked by others - what sacrifices we are really willing to bear so that the Bush Administration can try to keep Iran from having the influence in Iraq that they would normally have - and almost certainly will have - if there is a democratic government in Iraq, given that 60% of the Iraqi population is Shiite and has strong cultural and religious ties to their co-religionists in Iran. How many U.S. soldiers' lives is that goal worth? How many billions of U.S. tax dollars?
On Wednesday, the New York Times reported:
Members of an Iranian Energy Ministry delegation were arrested and held overnight by American troops in Baghdad for having unauthorized weapons, before being released this morning, American and Iraqi officials said in Baghdad. Iranian officials protested the detentions today. The group had been invited to Baghdad to help resolve Iraq's electricity crisis, Iraqi and Iranian officials said.
A media adviser to the Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq told Reuters news agency that the group was in Baghdad at the invitation of Iraq's Ministry of Electricity to help build a power station in the Shiite city of Najaf.Why were these Iranians arrested by U.S. troops if, according to Iraqi officials, they were part of an Energy Ministry delegation invited to Baghdad to "help resolve Iraq's electricity crisis"? That Iraq has a serious electricity crisis is well known. Surely such assistance should be welcomed. There must have been some mistake.
Not so, apparently, The Times reports. A manager at the hotel where the Iranians were staying said:
"I told [the US soldiers] that the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity had invited them, that they were guests of the ministry and that we had a letter from the ministry confirming this."
So, prior to the Iranians' arrest, U.S. soldiers were aware that the hotel where the Iranians were staying had proof that the Iranians were in Iraq at the invitation of Iraq's Energy Ministry.
What was the point of arresting these officials? Surely the U.S. forces could have anticipated that they would be compelled politically to quickly release them, since, as they knew, these officials were in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government. There is a strong whiff of harassment and provocation about this.
Here is something very simple Congress could do to indicate that they are serious about preventing the Bush Administration from provoking a war with Iran. They could mandate that U.S. forces in Iraq cannot arrest Iranian government officials who can prove that they are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless they have explicit authorization from the "sovereign" Iraqi government to do so.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy.
45 Comments so far
Show AllSeig Heil, it is your ilk that are the cause of the whole mess we are in today in the Middle East. It was European anti-semitism that forced the Jews into Israel in the first place, even before the Nazis. Thanks a mill' scumdog.
"Be sure to thank your congressional "representative"..."
-provoice
I've written to my congressman to express my concerns several times this year. Each time checking yes to the little box asking if I'd like a response. I've never received one. This scumbag has been re-elected time after time by the clueless citizens in my district. His name is James Walsh, Republican sycophant of the Bush administration.
The Iraqis under Sadam Hussein started selling their oil in Euros.
The Iranians have recently accepted Japanese yen for oil.
The tiny squeaks behind the bankers are not through milking the stock market and the inflation income in the world. The dollar is still the most useful, useless currency around. Iraq and Iran are operating a threat against this. Baby Bush is their useful slave as was his papa and Clinton and . . .
Pathetic, yes. Be aware and still live in the light of love. Squeaks hate awareness and despise love along with all forms of life. It's not so much about keeping our bodies, more about keeping our true nobility as men and women
Don't stress over baby Bush. He is a scab to his masters and living a life without love and compassion is a pitiable and terrible state to be in.
I think we're there to grab the oil. How long will the US remain a super-power if Iran and Iraq run themselves and make deals with China and Russia? We want that oil and we'll do anything to get it... anything.
Vote Ron Paul, hopefully Bush won't have started WW3 before then.
Your absolutely right!,the so-called "Democracy" is a joke.There IS no democracy in our country.All too many people THINK that because we have an alledged VOTE,that demonstrates the democratic way.How is that possible when all along the Bush Admin has circumvented the vote,bought the vote,forced millions NOT to vote,tied their hands until it was too late to vote.Supposedly,from what we read,what we see on the news,"Everybody" wants America OUT of Afghanistan and Iraq,wants the Bushco impeached--but only in the homes,in the coffeeshops where talk is cheap.Swamp all of our Representatives and Senators with cards,letters,emails,phonecalls,remind them of what WE do want,remind them an election isn't too far off and IF they wish to stay in office,better get OFF their collective butts and STOP the reign of terror by the Bush/Cheney regimes.NOW!!.Good grief fellow Americans,stop all the useless flag-waving,ask yourself:"Who will be the next servicepersons' life to be uselessly wasted?your family?,your neighbors?,when is enough,enough already.CUT OFF ALL THIS TALK/COVERT ACTION,TO ADD IRAN TO THE MIX.Sadly,we are at present,the most hated country on the globe,is this really what WE want?!!.
To Kem Patrick,
I sincerely hope that your post was tongue-in-cheek. The "democracy" in Iraq? They didn't separate into political parties. No, they immediately divided into religious sect alignment, triggering a civil war. Do you even know who is the majority party in the new Iraqi government? I do. It is "The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq". (SCIRI) Should our troops be dying to spread that version of "democracy"?
The pressure on Iran and the war in Iraq has secured the position of all the reactionary rulers of Iran. Bu$h the inferior and the neocons have forced the Iranians to unify for safety.
The people of Iran were getting tired of the dictates of the unelected religious overlords. In time they may have had to back off or face an angry population.
Remember the elected leaders of Iran are on a very short leash. Now their people are too, thanks to Bu$h the inferior and his stupid policies.
Undoubtedly there were movil and fixed phone calls being monitored between the Iranians and the government in Iran.
All communicative modes between any Iranian delegates virtually everywhere in the world are being monitored and if not, attempts to establish a method of monitoring their communications are being performed.
Certainly they were interested by what method they used when visiting Caracas, Venezuela... right?
Preemption is more than preparation, and holding the delegates for a few hours gave the US enough time to arrange coordinate tracking methods.
Some would say that it's a good thing the UN is in New York for the same reasons. Not me.
What I suggested (an international Nuremberg trial) was a reality check for the US soldiers. -BeingSpied24/7
Perhaps I should elaborate further. Refer to the following article. From this article, one legitimate question arises: Have US soldiers been capturing, and sending men, women, or children off to camps to be imprisoned and tortured? Note that I have not placed a label on our US soldiers (nor do I want to be labeled). All I have suggested is, again, a reality check - to determine whether this type of activities has violated any international law, and whether certain military personnel should be held responsible for their action.
History Will Not Absolve Us
Leaked Red Cross report sets up Bush team for international war-crimes trial
by Nat Hentoff
August 28th, 2007 6:30 PM
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0735,hentoff,77643,6.html
-BeingSpied24/7
my post above was cut in half, here is the first part:
i find it encouraging to see the false flag event of 9/11 is slowly being drawn into the light of day. it was used as the basis for a lot of very evil action on the part of the ammerican government and revealing the truth of what happened that day will go a long way towards beginning the process of reclaiming the government from the factions who seem to be in complete control of it at this moment.
there are in fact two theories about 9/11. the government's theory is that 19 muslim fanatics commandeered three commercial planes and drove them into, respectively, wtc buildings 1 and 2, the pentagon and the third, heading for the whitehouse was brought down as a result of a passenger revolt in shankesville pa.
the government, who stated they had absolutely no prior knowledge of this event only took a few hours to bring up the pictures of the fanatics and had the plot crisply laid out in a matter of hours. the fanatic motivation was that they were religious extremists who hated american freedom.
the government has offered no proof to substantiate their claim, yet they have stuck by it, though it has been completely discredited. at least 3 of the hijackers who died that day, according to the governemt, have been interviewed on the bbc and have stated that they have never been to the united states, let alone had taken part in the hijackings. for certain, they did not die on 9/11 as claimed by the government account, but they have never been removed form the list of conspirators.
the government's theory states that the entire air defense of the us and norad simply "went down" for this crucial three hour window taken by the hijackers. they have never explained how that happened and no one has ever been reprimanded or demoted for that lapse in security.
the 9/11 commission has stated the wtc buildings 1 and 2 fell according to an accordion theory whereby one floor fell onto another and so on. this phenomena which has never occurred before or since was unique to wtc and 9/11.
the 9/11 commission never even took a stab at why the 45 story building 7 fell, which it did, apparently, according to its own volition, not having been hit that day by either a plane or falling debris.
it is interesting to note that there were 3 fires of undetermined origins in the building 7 that day, small fires, that destroyed all the paperwork relating to the enron 500 billion swindle of the california taxpayers. that investigation is unable to proceed due to lack of documentation. wow!
now as to the other theory:
this is the counter theory to the government's explanation of that day. it has been started and continues to be directed by american scholars form many disciplines who have offered well documented and scientific explanations of the events of 9/11.
they have been attacked by the media, which we all know is own by 4 or 5 corporations as being malcontents, insane, mad, ravers, unpatriotic and so on.
i remember when dr steven jones was appearing on the tucker carlson show, that fucking asshole carlson refused to even let dr jones speak.
hannity and oreilly from the republican brainwashing ministry - i mean fox non-news attacked jim fetzer without giving him even one moment to speak.
none the less their voices grow louder as time goes on and as the american people driven by an ever desperate madman in the whitehouse have overcome their fear and opened their eyes to this alternative theory.
here are a few of them:
david ray griffin: is an outstanding american theologian who has written two books that have revealed the inconsistencies and ommisions of the 9/11 commission.
he is a reverential man of god who has an aura of saintliness about him and he is most definitely not a raver.
read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
steven e jones: is a physicist at brigham young who got involved in this theory when he received a piece of steel that was sent to him by a lady who picked it up at ground zero while attending a remembrance ceremony for the victims.
he is a loving family man who did not want the notoriety and celebrity his speaking out has brought about.
his main work has been to publish a peer reviewed analysis of the destruction of wtc buildings 1 and 2 and his theory states that these buildings were not brought down by a plane crash but rather by a controlled demolition.
for his work he has been placed on admin leave and has been barred from working at his university. his wife asked him why he did it and he said it was because he loved his country. he has sacrificed and placed himself in harm's way to do the right thing. remember when we used to value that kind of sacrifice?
read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
i find it encouraging to see the false flag event of 9/11 is slowly being drawn into the light of day. it was used as the basis for a lot of very evil action on the part of the ammerican government and revealing the truth of what happened that day will go a long way towards beginning the process of reclaiming the government from the factions who seem to be in complete control of it at this moment.
there are in fact two theories about 9/11. the government's theory is that 19 muslim fanatics commandeered three commercial planes and drove them into, respectively, wtc buildings 1 and 2, the pentagon and the third, heading for the whitehouse was brought down as a result of a passenger revolt in shankesville pa.
the government, who stated they had absolutely no prior knowledge of this event only took a few hours to bring up the pictures of the fanatics and had the plot crisply laid out in a matter of hours. the fanatic motivation was that they were religious extremists who hated american freedom.
the government has offered no proof to substantiate their claim, yet they have stuck by it, though it has been completely discredited. at least 3 of the hijackers who died that day, according to the governemt, have been interviewed on the bbc and have stated that they have never been to the united states, let alone had taken part in the hijackings. for certain, they did not die on 9/11 as claimed by the government account, but they have never been removed form the list of conspirators.
the government's theory states that the entire air defense of the us and norad simply "went down" for this crucial three hour window taken by the hijackers. they have never explained how that happened and no one has ever been reprimanded or demoted for that lapse in security.
the 9/11 commission has stated the wtc buildings 1 and 2 fell according to an accordion theory whereby one floor fell onto another and so on. this phenomena which has never occurred before or since was unique to wtc and 9/11.
the 9/11 commission never even took a stab at why the 45 story building 7 fell, which it did, apparently, according to its own volition, not having been hit that day by either a plane or falling debris.
it is interesting to note that there were 3 fires of undetermined origins in the building 7 that day, small fires, that destroyed all the paperwork relating to the enron 500 billion swindle of the california taxpayers. that investigation is unable to proceed due to lack of documentation. wow!
now as to the other theory:
this is the counter theory to the government's explanation of that day. it has been started and continues to be directed by american scholars form many disciplines who have offered well documented and scientific explanations of the events of 9/11.
they have been attacked by the media, which we all know is own by 4 or 5 corporations as being malcontents, insane, mad, ravers, unpatriotic and so on.
i remember when dr steven jones was appearing on the tucker carlson show, that fucking asshole carlson refused to even let dr jones speak.
hannity and oreilly from the republican brainwashing ministry - i mean fox non-news attacked jim fetzer without giving him even one moment to speak.
none the less their voices grow louder as time goes on and as the american people driven by an ever desperate madman in the whitehouse have overcome their fear and opened their eyes to this alternative theory.
here are a few of them:
david ray griffin: is an outstanding american theologian who has written two books that have revealed the inconsistencies and ommisions of the 9/11 commission.
he is a reverential man of god who has an aura of saintliness about him and he is most definitely not a raver.
read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
steven e jones: is a physicist at brigham young who got involved in this theory when he received a piece of steel that was sent to him by a lady who picked it up at ground zero while attending a remembrance ceremony for the victims.
he is a loving family man who did not want the notoriety and celebrity his speaking out has brought about.
his main work has been to publish a peer reviewed analysis of the destruction of wtc buildings 1 and 2 and his theory states that these buildings were not brought down by a plane crash but rather by a controlled demolition.
for his work he has been placed on admin leave and has been barred from working at his university. his wife asked him why he did it and he said it was because he loved his country. he has sacrificed and placed himself in harm's way to do the right thing. remember when we used to value that kind of sacrifice?
read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
you will find these men to be patriotic and courageous men who speak the truth.
check it out!
here are some important sites:
http://911scholars.org/
http://911scholars.org/
be brave. read. you will see that the madmen are not in the alternative theory but rather they are bush in the whitehouse and cheney in his secret undisclosed bunker.
i leave you with this, from yates:
TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of i{Spiritus Mundi}
Troubles my sight:somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at laSt,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
trying to provoke iran? this incident in the article is small potatos. the US is still holding 5 or so iranian diplomats in an undisclosed location, w/o charges. they are fomenting unrest among separatist groups w/in iran, fabricating charges about iran supporting insurgents in iraq, sy hersch reports special ops stuff is already going on in iran. a tiny incident, like the maritime boundary dispute w/britain, could blow this thing wide open.
and yes, ferency, you are right. congress & our next democratic prez are behind this 100%. get ready for ww3.
Elendar September 2nd, 2007 3:02 am
Joecommon,
I am sad to call you an American. Your views are so jaded out of reality.
What I suggested (an international Nuremberg trial) was a reality check for the US soldiers.
-BeingSpied24/7
"There is a strong whiff of harassment and provocation about this."
No shit.
"Here is something very simple Congress could do to indicate that they are serious about preventing the Bush Administration from provoking a war with Iran. They could mandate that U.S. forces in Iraq cannot arrest Iranian government officials who can prove that they are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless they have explicit authorization from the "sovereign" Iraqi government to do so."
Get a clue. Congress is backing the imminent attack on Iran all the way. Where has this writer been?
Bush is busy passing an empty hat around - while it's still on his head.
Never have I seen a regime so dumb trying to provoke a war in which its ass would be kicked—and kicked hard.
Yo PROVOICE
Bush isn't lying about democracy in Iraq. He means a democracy like Saudi Arabia!
+one party rule (crown prince is life of the party, so to speak))
+mandatory state religion (Allah Oil)
+compulsory dress code (white sheets only)
+only insider/males can vote (and only for the family-owned parliament)
+women can't drive cars (or leave house on foot without male guardian, 12 yrs or older)
+free political speech prohibited in outdoor areas (even if your a regime supporter)
+ all news media owned by royal family
+internet access controlled by royal family (just in case you have any funny ideas)
It was the Saudi's who taught the Bush's about democracy to begin with. Didn't you know?
As an American Indian the path that the Bush Administration is taking resembles the same policies that created the reservation system and which based it's faith in assimilation into the melting pot of Americanized idealism. We were made promises, committments, treaties, trust responsiblities and they would control our resources and have oversight of our governmental affairs. We would be soverign so long as within the strict guidelines of Congress, the supreme court, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Dept. of the Interior, the FBI (Mario Gonzalas) and left us at the mercy of health disparities, and the department of social services. They started by building forts to hand out rations of food and small pox infected blankets and took all the natural resources out from under us (gold/water). The same is currently happening to the indiginous populations of south American and pacific islanders.
Joecommon,
I am sad to call you an American. Your views are so jaded out of reality.
"And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.
But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.
He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war."
(From the lyrics of Universal Soldier)
You have to hand it to the Bushies for being able to convince the most feeble-minded among us that they are trying to create a democracy in Iraq and actually "fight terrorism there instead of here"... what a load of crap.
They are now taking advantage of the people who have lost loved ones or limbs in Iraq in order to keep their fiasco going.
Don't you get it folks??? They have already proven themselves incompetent liars over and over again!!!
If the Bushies can aggravate the Iranians enough to get them to openly invade Iraq, they will have accomplished their goal.
They can then use the invasion as a way to justify staying in Iraq and sending more troops.
War profiteers can't profit unless there is a war going on... These guys have made billions so far... as long as one American citizen has a buck, the neo-cons will try to get it.
Be sure to thank your congressional "representative" for selling our grandchildren into serfdom.
citizen1 September 1st, 2007 11:39 pm
And any soldier participating in an illegal war against Iran will be war criminals. You participate in war crimes? Then you are a war criminal. Pure and simple.
Send them all to an international Nuremberg trial!
-BeingSpied24/7
richard young September 1st, 2007 5:05 pm
" it is simply too much to ask that ordinary "grunts" refuse superior orders...". Only except at the VERY early stage of this illegal war could have any soldier made the excuse that he/she did not know the facts to make a decision. That time is long gone. There is NO EXCUSE even for the grunts to go to Iraq. They are committing war crimes.
-------
"The blame really lies with their Commander-in-Chief...", yes he is the "war criminal in chief". But that does not change the fact that all other US soldiers in Iraq are war criminals too.
------
".. with the bipartisan complicity of most members of Congress...". Yes in my book these bipartisan members of Congress have committed war crimes too. Their position as a Congress member is irrelevant. They enabled war crimes? OK, they are war criminals.
--------
And any soldier participating in an illegal war against Iran will be war criminals. You participate in war crimes? Then you are a war criminal. Pure and simple.
For Labor Day
Join in the battle
Wherein no man can fail
For who so fadeth and dieth
Yet his deed shall still prevail
William Morris
Anti-war activists cannot allow their critique of an attack on Iran to be boxed in by "support the troops" rhetoric. The Geneva Convention clearly states that it's a soldier's duty not to follow illegal orders. Any American military personnel who drops a bomb on Iran, or attacks Iranians on their own territory, is not worthy of our support and must be recognized as a war criminal. There have to be limits in our support for troops--and the troops must begin to take responsibility for their actions. No support for war criminals!
richard young et al -
I agree with you that, once in Iraq, it is very difficult for US troops to refuse to fight, even if the basic war is illegal. I will also state that military training is carefully designed to enable the commission of war crimes; a soldier is amoral, not moral, and if leaders are immoral, they will follow. I also note training and later circumstances make a soldier's primary loyalty to their immediate unit, and from then on the branch of service and to the military itself. (I note that loyalty to the nation is so far down the list that it is coincidental, i.e. if leaders are loyal, they are, and if the leaders ask them to betray the nation, they will, although the betrayal will be hidden from them.)
Just the same, the war is a crime, conducted with criminal aims and criminal methods, and therefore the willing US participants are criminals in fact. (Of course, there is no mechanism to fairly try them, as no one will turn them over to a court capable of conducting a fair trial.) At this stage of the war, any soldier who goes to fight is committing the act of premeditated serial murder just by getting on the plane to go. It is at this stage they have the duty to their country to refuse, yet virtually all lack the moral courage to do so.
I realize war criminal is a provocative term, and should not be bandied about lightly. It can certainly be counter-productive, as many people, especially veterans and families, will be offended. However, in context it is correct, and lying about it does not improve the situation. One motive in stopping US participation in this war is to stop turning the troops into war criminals.
It is far past time for US military personnel to learn what they are really doing, to think beyond themselves and their comrades, and start the process of becoming responsible adult citizens of the US.
Remember, Smedley Butler said "War is a Racket" and the Marines were racketeers. In those days, he meant Al Capone style gangsters. The details have changed, but it is accurate to describe the US military as gangbangers. It is true their legal status will shield them from their crimes. It is also true the aims of their gang are as criminal as those of most violent street gangs in the US. (Actually, more.) The difference is in magnitude: they kill far more, they do a far worse job of distinguishing true enemies from innocent bystanders when they kill, and are far less brave. I note hard core gangbangers do not expect to live to be 30, and many of them don't.
That's the goose that laid the golden egg, folks. Not the golden goose.
Once is was, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
Now, who has time for all that? And it's become simply," The proof is in the pudding."
What is so depressing about this is that a year ago I assumed that Congress would be on to Bush and would never authorize an attack on Iran. Now I believe that they will roll over again. The Cheney-Bush gang is a criminal enterprise, but they could not have done the harm they've done to this country without the collusion of Congress.
Hitler ruled under emergency decree after dismissing the Reichstag. Bush doesn't have to.
For those interested in a psychological analysis of warmongering, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled "Resisting the Drums of War." It examines how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives--concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq--or an attack on Iran--will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and how to counter them. It's available for viewing HERE.
If the Government's goal was to prevent harm to Americans, they'd be spending these trillions of dollars on social and domestic programs instead, which would SAVE the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans per year...
Instead the government decided what was best is to send 4,000 MORE Americans to their deaths, along with 25,000+ wounded... not to mention the Iraqi's, 80,000 to 1,000,000 deaths, times 4 wounded... 4 million refugees.
As i've been saying all along, this is just peanuts to the corperate imperialist neo-cons. Preventing harm to Americans is not even a secondary goal in their mind. To them the war has been an outstanding success, and they will look to expand it indefinately. Venezuela next after Iran.
They don't care what you or I think. They know they can brainwash enough people into believing anything, and there's 50-75% of our country right there to swallow it all up without any critical thought.
Especially in a combat zone (which all of Iraq presently is) it is simply too much to ask that ordinary "grunts" refuse superior orders
Examples of the risk involved:
Lt. Ehren Watada - repeatedly trialed
Pat Tillman - 3 bullets in the head
But a soldier is supposed to defend our country from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Who killed 3000 innocent individuals in the 9/11 false-flag operation? Who will stop the killers here from repeating the same atrocity?
Wm. Rowland's post above is perfect, except the Articles of Impeachment do not need to be pro forma: they can be real. Invading Iraq without a UN Security Council resolution was a war crime; deceiving the country into the war was the most impeachable kind of offense I can imagine; torturing prisoners, etc. etc. Impeachment is the ONLY language the two criminals-in-chief understand. It is the only thing that has any hope of stopping them before they kill again.
I do want to stop wars, but calling our troops in Iraq "war criminals" is not the best way to do it. As a veteran I am well aware of the duty of our military to refuse to obey illegal orders; but as a veteran I am also aware of the immense burden that any individual in the military undertakes when he/she decides that a particular order is "illegal" and for that reason refuses to obey his superior officer(s). Especially in a combat zone (which all of Iraq presently is) it is simply too much to ask that ordinary "grunts" refuse superior orders. The blame really lies with their Commander-in-Chief, the self-styled "war President" who sent them on a criminal mission and who -- with the bipartisan complicity of most members of Congress -- insists upon keeping them in Iraq for shifting "reasons" which have long since made clear that the real reason for our Government's continued presence in Iraq is to rule the Middle East by force and intimidation. The persons who "should be brought to justice" for this obvious war crime (under the Nuremburg principles and under the collective security provisions of the UN Charter) are the policy makers residing comfortably in Washington, DC -- including not only President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, but all of our "representatives" in Congress who have supported the war in Iraq and are also supporting the imminent US attack upon Iran.
joecommon- he's being sarcastic
Here's the latest letter I sent to my local newspaper.
"It's time to buy a new war"
Yes KEM PATRICK is.
Even Bush, in his recent speech, indicated that if US occupied Vietnam long enough, we'd have won! Huh!!
And of course, a new war necessitates a fresh set of labels for some of the American people (in addition to "enemy combatants," "domestic terrorists," etc.) coming from the White House. Let me think... Quite a few creative labeling schemes came to mind:
"Terrorist sympathizers," "anti-democracy radicals," "insurgent sympathizers", "anti-surge extremists," etc.
Do you think I have the potential to be a White House propagandist?
-BeingSpied24/7
Wanna stop the wars? Start calling our soldiers in Iraq what they really are: WAR CRIMINALS!!!!
Without their participation there would be no Iraq invasion, there will be no Iran invasion.
War criminal US soldiers, you should be brought to justice.
The Congress should act immediately to present pro forma articles of impeachment that include invasion of a foreign nation under false pretenses and name it as a war crime.
To have such an article of impeachment on the table and the Judiciary committee actively investigating it, will telegraph to military personal that should they participate in such a venture at the behest of the administration the United States will consider it a war crime for which officers of the military could be turned over to an international tribunal for prosecution.
Anything less than articles of impeachment will be the same as locking the barn after the horse has left if they, the Congress, thinks that it can wait until the shooting starts to do something about it.
Iran doesn't want to hold hands with the world's most notorius bully. Who can blame them. The truth is the American empire's biggest threat and enemy. It will destroy them (and their hold on power) but it will set our butts free.
Don't miss these two great talks - they're full of truth:
Michael Parenti on the American Empire
FSTV - Thu, 2007-08-23 (45 mins)
Michael Parenti discusses Empire at the Center for Creative Change,
Antioch University.
http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=detail&video_id=10828&browse=0
===========
Scott Ritter - Crisis in US Iraq Relations
FSTV - Thu, 2007-08-23 (35 mins)
Former UN Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ritter discusses the crisis in US-
http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=detail&video_id=10829&browse=0
The American people don't know that while we say we want to spread democracy, the record is quite different. We don't really like the way elections in Iraq turned out, and there has been talk of "replacing" Maliki. We Hamas won, we boycotted them, and gave arms to Fatah. Now back to 1953: Prime Minister Mossadeq nationalized Iranian oil. Our CIA managed to get him kicked out, brought the shah back into power and supported his dictatorship. So much for democracy! And we wonder why Iran doesn't seem to like the peace loving democractic US of A!!
Bush wants to bomb Iran, and he may do it yet unless the general balk at it. If he does, the decline and fall of the American Empire will begin. Unfortunately this means our living stgandards, and possibly our lives, will be endangered. We have to stop his plans.
From a Thursday, August 30, 2007 entry on Informed Comment Global Affairs, a group blog run by Juan Cole, Manan Ahmed, Farideh Farhi, and Barnett R. Rubin
On September 7, 2002, The New York Times White House correspondent Elizabeth Bushmiller treated readers to an explanation of how the Bush administration planned to sell the invasion of Iraq:
White House officials said today that the administration was following a meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein.
The rollout of the strategy this week, they said, was planned long before President Bush's vacation in Texas last month. It was not hastily concocted, they insisted, after some prominent Republicans began to raise doubts about moving against Mr. Hussein and administration officials made contradictory statements about the need for weapons inspectors in Iraq.
The White House decided, they said, that even with the appearance of disarray it was still more advantageous to wait until after Labor Day to kick off their plan.
"From a marketing point of view," said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, "you don't introduce new products in August."
A centerpiece of the strategy, White House officials said, is to use Mr. Bush's speech on Sept. 11 to help move Americans toward support of action against Iraq, which could come early next year.
This September 11, we will have the reports from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, filtered through a White House drafted report.
I watched Vice-President Cheney's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 26, 2002, in the residence where I was staying in Kabul, Afghanistan. I heard Cheney deliver his famous falsehood:
The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents. And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago. These are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq; these are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses, in his own region or beyond.
We know the results.
This year, on August 28, President Bush spoke to another veterans' group, the American Legion. He called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism," whose "active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." He concluded:
Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.
But this apparently is just test marketing, like Cheney's 2002 speech. After all "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Today I received a message from a friend who has excellent connections in Washington and whose information has often been prescient. According to this report, as in 2002, the rollout will start after Labor Day, with a big kickoff on September 11. My friend had spoken to someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions. He summarized what he was told this way:
They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this–they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is "plenty."
Of course I cannot verify this report. But besides all the other pieces of information about this circulating, I heard last week from a former U.S. government contractor. According to this friend, someone in the Department of Defense called, asking for cost estimates for a model for reconstruction in Asia. The former contractor finally concluded that the model was intended for Iran. This anecdote is also inconclusive, but it is consistent with the depth of planning that went into the reconstruction effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I hesitated before posting this. I don't want to spread alarmist rumors. I don't want to lessen the pressure on the Ahmadinejad government in Tehran. But there are too many signs of another irresponsible military adventure from the Cheney-Bush administration for me just to dismiss these reports. I am putting them into the public sphere in the hope of helping to mobilize opposition to a policy that would further doom the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and burden our country and the people of the Middle East with yet another unstoppable fountain of bloodshed
joecommon- he's being sarcastic
Here's the latest letter I sent to my local newspaper.
"It's time to buy a new war"
Don't be satisfied with that old war! We've had the old war for years now and it's not getting us where we want to go. It doesn't give us that thrill of victory anymore. The new war smell is gone and only the stench of corpses remains.
It's time for a new war, a bright new shiny high-tech war. Can't afford another war, you say? That's what credit is for! Leave the problem of payment to our children, just like we did with the old war. Let our children complain until they are blue in the face that they are born into debt. We don't care.
Think of how powerful we will feel when we bomb someone we've never bombed before! Think of how safer we will be when more people are dead. Surely the ones left alive will thank us and be our friends, just like we were told in the old war.
It's easy. It can even be fun. Buy the new war. Don't worry about payment, leave that for someone else. Hurry. Operators are standing by.
KEM PATRICK September 1st, 2007 12:33 pm
Arresting those men was a clear example of the type of democracy free people now enjoy in America.
The type of democracy we now have (enjoy?):
1. 9/11 - a massacre of 3000 common persons in a false-flag operation.
2. US Constituion of individual rights - nullified by the Patriot Act.
3. President - 'elected' by judges or black-box machines, not the common persons.
-BeingSpied24/7
Some headlines on this issue:
Bush attempts to continue his military destabilization of the region by selling huge amounts of arms to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH31Ak02.html
Meanwhile, the IAEA reports that there is little or no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, despite the claims of BushCo to the contrary.
Nevertheless, in a replay of the runup to the war in Iraq, our corporate media continues to support Bush's call for an attack on Iran by running disinformation as news.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294885,00.html
It looks like Bush has a new poodle in France named Sarkozy, who has replaced his previous lapdog, Tony Blair. Woof Woof! Wag the dog!
I remember when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld accused Iraq of WMD violations and demanded that the U.N. require documentation from Iraq. Remember when Bush et al. purloined the Mesopotamian missive, declared it to be a pack of lies and commenced bombing Iraq back to the stone age for the benefit of IsraOil.
Now we hear the 'broken record' of Iranian nuclear weapons over and over for the benefit of IsraOil, again. How much of our blood, treasure and reputation are we going to throw away for Big Oil and AIPAC? What will the NeoCons and the Zionists do when they finally kill their golden goose?
The arrests of thoses men from Iran by our military were justified, it makes perfect sense to any who have any understanding at all of the reason our troops now occupy Iraq.
No weapons of mass destructon were ever located in Iraq. Saddam and his two sons were ousted from power and killed. The reason for our military presence in Iraq were then perfectly clear, it reverted to expanding Democracy in the Mid-East. It is vital for our security and the securty of all nations that Democracy is sucessfully established in Iraq.
Arresting those men was a clear example of the type of democracy free people now enjoy in America.
They should also point out that knowingly providing false information or making false statement to Congress is a federal crime under the "patriot" act. They should also pass legislations making it a crime to threaten war, or provoke any nation without explicit authorization of Congress.