No Legitimate Justification for War with Iran
Given the complexities of the modern world, and the uncertainties inherent in such, it is prudent for any nation possessing global reach and ambition to be prepared to defend its legitimate interests through the use of military force. The geographic reality of Iran’s physical location vis-à-vis the Strait of Hormuz, and the dire economic consequences that would accrue should Middle Eastern oil supplies become choked off through any closure or lengthy disruption of shipping through the Straight of Hormuz, dictate that the United States plan for the possible deployment and employment of its military to secure this strategic shipping lane.
But there is a far cry from preparing for the possibility of conflict, and planning for the implementation of pre-emptive military action designed to eliminate capabilities not forbidden under international law (such as Iran’s nuclear energy program) or facilitate regime change in a sovereign state. The actions underway by the US military, operating under the aegis of its civilian leadership, are indicative of the former, not the latter, and as such can be categorized as undesirable on the part of those who embrace the rule of law set forth by the Constitution of the United States and, in related fashion (one only needs to read Article 6 of the Constitution) the Charter of the United Nations.
The United States should only consider the use of military force as representing a viable option once it has exhausted every venue short of war to resolve an identified national security problem. This must include seeking authority for such a military strike in accordance with international law as set forth under the Charter of the United Nations, as well as carrying out the coordination between the executive and legislative branches mandated by the U.S. Constitution. In the case of imminent danger to national security, decisive action would of course need to be taken, hence the need for updated military contingency planning. However, there is simply nothing transpiring in Iran today that constitutes categorization as an imminent threat to the national security of the United States, and as such nothing about the Iranian situation can be interpreted as providing justification for any accelerated military action that seeks to circumvent due process.
However, the reality is that the United States continues to plan to initiate and sustain a military strike against Iran. The Executive Branch of the U.S. government has successfully manipulated the Congress of the United States to the point that, through two War Powers resolutions (one issued in September 2001, the other in October 2002), there no longer remain any Constitutional remedies to the problem of unprovoked unilateral military action by a Unitary Executive which increasingly positions itself to operate above the law and beyond legislative oversight.
In the environment of post-September 11, 2001 America the executive branch of government has successfully extricated itself from legitimate oversight by claiming to be acting in the interests of homeland security. The resultant “Global War on Terror” has served as a cover for actions which are more about implementing far-reaching global dominance per the National Security Strategy of the United States (initially promulgated in September 2002, and recently updated in March 2006). Policies of regime change in Iraq were implemented under the umbrella of reaction to the terror attacks of 2001, although Iraq was not linked in any way to that horrific event, or the perpetrators of that event. In the same way, the U.S. government today seeks to pursue similar policies of destabilization and regime-termination in Iran making similar rhetorical linkage, although the factual record clearly demonstrates Iran’s absolute lack of involvement in either the September 11, 2001 attack or the organization, al-Qaeda, which carried it out.
Any military action on the part of the United States against Iran, lacking as it would be in justification and legal authority, would ultimately fail to achieve any objectives that could be construed as improving either the regional security posture of the Middle East, or the national security environment of the United States. In fact, the exact opposite situation would arise, with the Middle East sinking into a morass of conflict the consequences of which would detrimentally impact the global energy markets. Since the ostensible justification for any strike against Iran by the United States is illusory, there could be no real security benefit derived from a strike, in the same way that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not increase the security of the world by eliminating WMD stockpiles, since those stockpiles did not exist.
Iran today is a nation suffering under the combined effects of decades of sanctions, conflict and governmental mismanagement. There is a growing recognition inside Iran, reaching to the highest levels of government that something needs to be done to effect a change in course for the Islamic Republic. Iran has long since ceased engaging in the kind of irresponsible international adventurism which characterized its export of the Islamic Revolution. Iran’s nuclear program, declared as being exclusively for energy use, has become an impediment towards the normalization of relations with the world, and Iran would be willing to negotiate it away if the appropriate diplomatic environment could be created, especially vis-à-vis the United States. Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah in Lebanon could likewise be moderated through genuine diplomatic engagement which sought a resolution to the crisis in southern Lebanon in a manner which respected the sovereign will of the citizens of south Lebanon.
The bottom line is that while one may be able to articulate justification for prudent military contingency planning in the Middle East inclusive of an Iranian scenario (I myself participated in such planning in the mid-1980’s), there must be a distinction between planning and implementation. Implementation of military action should only come in the face of an identified viable threat, authorized by proper authorities in accordance with due process set forth by legal mandate, and then only when all venues short of conflict have been exhausted in seeking a resolution to the situation. None of these prerequisites for conflict have been met in the case of the current state of affairs between Iran and the United States. Simply put, there is no justification whatsoever for the United States to be planning for the implementation of a pre-emptive war of aggression against Iran. If we are to have learned anything from history, it is that such pre-emptive wars generally tend to lead to defeat (Iraq, 2003) and are recognized by international law as constituting war crimes as we saw at Nurnberg in 1945.
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).
© 2006-2007 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
The hidden justification for war with Iran is because the Likud party wants it as do the Christian Zionist lunatics in the United States and the leading democratic candidate and her mentors Bush and Cheney desire it as well.
No Legitimate Justification for War with Iran
or Iraq
or Afghanistan
or VietNam
or . . .
There is opposition to aggression aimed at Iran visible even by the mainstream press. We need to keep on them and attack provocative and inflammitory propaganda for what it is every time it raises it’s ugly head. We should also instist that those who call for war should be prosecuted for hate crimes.
What Israel Wants, Israel Gets
October 10, 2007
By Joharah Baker
There is a consistent thread, a pattern, which designs Israel’s policies in the Palestinian territories. Any scrutinizing observer will notice how Israel first pitches an idea to the public – however preposterous – then allows … the international community to absorb it before putting it into action. This way, policies and measures are less shocking and seem more acceptable once the dust has been allowed to settle…
http://www.miftah.org/
The White House’s propaganda campaign laying the groundwork for military action against Iran dates back almost six years—to Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address in which he designated Iran as a founding member of the “axis of evil.” Since then, this drumbeat has waxed and waned as other concerns—primarily the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq—have often commanded center stage. Now, with the Bush administration approaching its final year in office, a renewed push and a shorter fuse are increasingly evident. My 3-minute YouTube video entitled “Forewarned Is Forearmed: Bush On Iran” is available HERE. It offers a very brief but deeply troubling chronicle of the president’s public warmongering and demonization of Iran. As has been said before, “the hour is getting late.”
Military Industrial Complex is intertwined with Energy Corps and The MEDIA.
Endless small wars wanted!
There is no justification for ANY WAR.
I left Bahrain Dec. 22, 2006–after 3 weeks of massive buildup of troops at the US Navy base 3 blocks from my apartment.
This is not news, guys.
Lets keep the MIC (military industrial complex) rolling. The more belligerent we are, the more hatred we engender. The more hatred we engender, the more enemies we have.
The more enemies we have, the more money we throw at the MIC. See how this works. How can I get some of that money?
There is not, as far as I am aware, a drop of Jewish blood in my ancestry, but this constant hate mongering against the Jewish people and Israel has got to stop because it does nothing but harden the Zionist resolve. Let us forever seperate being Jewish or being Israeli from being Zionist.
Yes the Zionists and their policies are reactionary, backward, counterproductive, inhumane and are doomed to failure and obliteration, but they are not the Jewish people or the state of Israel.
What Scott has been trying to do, very delicately and carefully, over the last several days is to make the distinction between the Zionist influence on American policy and the very basic thrust of U.S. policy.
athea I typed a very long reply to your post of yesterday not realizing my computer had gone off-line. Poof - it was gone. But here is the gist of it.
Get a copy of the 1999-2000 position paper prepared by The Project For The New American Century entitled “Strategies For Rebuiding America’s Defenses.” In it you will find the underlying philosophy as well as the detailed programs for global U.S. hegemony. Everything accomplished or attempted by the Bush Administration is there. From Rumsfeld’s smaller but highly techno strike forces to a mind-bogglingly massive increase in U.S. military might (those authors insist we must build a military force that can simultaneously wage and win two major theater wars!!!) to the missile defense installations in Eastern Europe to the militarization of space, and on and on in horrific cynical detail.
Yes, Israel is a factor in American policy, much like that little territory strategically located on the Risk gameboard where you place all your bonus firepower. Yes, Israel is a factor, but if we thought they couldn’t be useful we would probably let them self-destruct.
The Bushies, the neocons, and the great morass of scared-shitless conservative Americans have the seemingly unshakable mindset that all of humanity is flawed and we are forever doomed to roam the planet like packs of viscious dogs taking what we can, where we can, when we can. For them, power unused is power lost. And overwhelming power unexercised is a heinous travesty against human nature.
Being a military professional Scott is walking a very fine line of pragmatism and truth.
Vince Lawrence is correct in his statement “Zionists and their policies are reactionary, backward, counterproductive, inhumane and are doomed to failure and obliteration, but they are not the Jewish people or the state of Israel.” Zionists are not the Jewish people. It’s like saying you are anti-American if you are anti-neocon.
An amendment to our constitution that in the event of war our President plus first born of age must take front lines would end aggressive wars. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sons (all 4 of them) participated during WWII.
VINCE LAWRENCE: Thank you for your intelligent & sensitive commentary. I, too, find the anger at Jews a bit stunning in this progressive forum. As if we US citizens hold any influence over those martial US powers intent upon war! Israel has been subsumed by similar forces.
Scott’s analysis is impeccable. The only thing I’d like to point out is the way language is sanitized as per the “regime change” euphemism, when in reality, it merely masks the intent to assassinate or kidnap the targeted leader.
Demerara,
A war on Iran would not be “small” nor would it likely make a good demonstration war for the benefit of US arms makers.
Right on, Vince Lawrence: we must expose any attempt to conflate Jews and Zionists.
Zionists include Evangelical Christians too, as countess pointed out. This still puzzles me. Is it a business relationship? Flipping past the Jesus channel yesterday (TBN) I saw an appeal by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to send in money to help Jews “return” to Israel. It included sad imagery of weeping Jews pining for their “homeland.”
Wah? Giving money to the people who deny Jesus is the savior (and who happen to be as a group the wealthiest people on earth)? What’s going on here? I doubt it’s because Christians want Jews to be in the Holy Land to bring back the Messiah… I don’t think Falwell and Robertson really believe that stuff.
It just makes me think.
Vince,
I don’t think you accomplish anything by broadly identiying any critique of the power of the Israel lobby as hate mongering. Please identify what you have found to fit that description.
The document you site was written and signed by participants in the Iran contra crimes. They have lifelong carrers in the service of zionism. here is nothing “hateful” in exposing this reality by the way.
Siouxrose,
Where exactly have you seen “anger at Jews” on this thread?
By the way the term Sioux is a derrogatory term used against the Lakota people. Are you ignorantly pretending to be Native American?
athea: points well taken. I was attempting to diffuse what usually happens on these comment threads whenever Israel is mentioned. Yes, the list of signatories to that document is quite a rogue’s gallery, isn’t it?
I’ll insist on my main point though: U.S. policy is mainly about U.S. powerbrokers and only incidentally about Israel.
Siouxrose: a truce at last? thank goodness, and apologies.
finally, please stay with us athea because we need all the informed intelligent commentary we can absorb. One thing I know for sure: I am a fool, but at least smart enough to realize it. Is “Souix” really an English corruption of the Lakota language? Didn’t know that and am sure I first learned about the Lakota/Souix in the sympathetic “Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee.”
I believe in Jesus, he is my teacher and role modal. I vow not to bring harm to anyone physicly,mentaly or spirtualy. the ten comandments are the answer to war.Profits from war are satans teaching.
||Given the complexities of the modern world, and the uncertainties inherent in such, it is prudent for any nation possessing global reach and ambition to be prepared to defend its legitimate interests through the use of military force.||
Go fuck yourself america!!!!
get your fucking global reaching mitts offa my country and my life regardless of your selfish interests!!!
“………..Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah in Lebanon could likewise be moderated through genuine diplomatic engagement which sought a resolution to the crisis in southern Lebanon in a manner which respected the sovereign will of the citizens of south Lebanon.”
Scott Ritter.
What does this mean?
There is not, as far as I am aware, a drop of Jewish blood in my ancestry, but this constant hate mongering against the Jewish people and Israel has got to stop because it does nothing but harden the Zionist resolve. Let us forever seperate being Jewish or being Israeli from being Zionist. Vince Lawrence.
While it is undoubtedly true that there are significant numbers of the worldwide Jewish peoples opposed to the policies of the State of Israel it is equally true that significant numbers especially in that State approve of unjust policies. The victims of these policies have become a stain on the conscience of mankind for 60 years now. Criminal acts and behaviour appear to be winning acceptance at the expense of any semblance of Justice. The Jewish peoples cannot hope to achieve peace for future generations on the back of injustices perpetrated on the indigenous Palestinian population by their fellow Jews. Indeed it is only to be expected that many Jews should be righteously outraged at the pernicious policies being persued by the State of Israel since its inception. It is the actions of this State that so many people hate with a vengeance. The Zionists and the Neocons Christian Evangelical base have allied themselves to destructive wars and theft in the middle east in particular. As in the USA, where the Democrats are so similar to the Republicans on foreign policy, it appears that no matter which party or coalition takes the seat of Government in Israel these policies abroad continue with no apparent international mechanism for redress. Laws, Treatys and Constitutions are ignored and broken and high crimes continue as a matter of course.
Worryingly recent opinion polls in Israel show an increasingly hard line support for its governments policies with up to two thirds of those polled in support of walls and ghettos, repression and discrimination. It is an absolutely appalling state of affairs when large segments of the population are indoctrinated and rendered docile while the destruction and dispearsal of millions of native Palestinians is ongoing. Their suffering deserves respect as it is totally unnecessary only being perpetrated by criminal leaders whose God is money. Every Jew and Christian Muslim and Hindu, atheist and agnostic should rage at the audacity, cruelty and injustice evident here as such criminal behaviour has come to effect us all to our detriment. How dare European Governments support her ally the USA when our populations are not blind to such obvious hypocrisy? The mass media in European capitals persists in supporting Government’s spin. The Europeans recently issued an apparently definitive answer to the probe into the rendition of prisoners by the CIA throughout european air space and strips. We can do nothing about it, our hands are tied. Back when Shultz was doing his shuttle diplomacy we were told by the US to butt out that the middle east (Israel) was their ball game. Well, its no longer good enough. Expect Tony Blaire to reappear to this next farce with Abbas and ask yourselves “Did we bury our heads in the sand and allow these war criminals to get away with perpetuating injustice in our name?” Blessed are the peacemakers.
All the Democratic leadership in congress has to do is to announce that they will allow no resolutions or authorizations, to delegate to the president, Congress’s constitutional power to declare war against Iran or any other nation period, end of sentence.
Now to go one further if the Moron in Chief doesn’t get that then explain that without Congress’s solemn deliberation and declaration of war that no money will be appropriated for any military action against another nation without a proper declaration of war.
Where are the Senators or Congressman who will stand down this miserable failure of a president, and his war profiteering pals?
Michael Chavers,
I take it the question you ask at the end of your post is rhetorical. If not, you probably will find very few. After all, getting re-elected is more important than human life, right?
Euro……..NOT
A war with Iran will make Iraq look like a snowball fight.
let’s also throw into the mix the false flag aspect of 9/11, an inside job by the same shadow government that seems determined to ruin all of our lives.
about 50% of the people of the us see that day for what it was (shadow government scaring the masses into accepting the terrorism bullshit) and that has been under a complete mainstream media blackout.
now we have naomi klein’s new book: shock doctrine
http://www.naomiklein.org/
to help us understand the function of terror and its value as an economic enterprise.
false flag event (9/11) - war in iraq (wmd -right) and now iran, venezuela, north korea, russia and china.
there is no limit to the sickness.
we have to take them out.
an onerous task but there is no reasoning with these liars and killers (bushco).
its very clear - its them or us.
and it all comes back to the bankers, those nasty little bastards who make all the money from the blood of the poor.
its time.
Vince,
I’m no expert but I believe that sioux means slut in another native tongue. European Americans used the name against their hated foe. For some reason our (Israeli? Would any American be so ignorant?) commenter chose it as her moniker.
Homework assignment: this weekend, everybody grab a white sheet, spray paint “Don’t Let Bush Bomb Iran” on it, and go hang it in a high-traffic area - foot, auto, whatever.
You’ll feel better, and the viral campaign will be launched.
Vince,
” U.S. policy is mainly about U.S. powerbrokers and only incidentally about Israel”
If US interests were the goal, the obvious course of action would be to discontinue aid to Israel and develop friendly relations and commercial ties with the nations of the middle east. The wars are only harming US international standing and indeed economic strength.
Likewise, the occupation of Palestine is contrary to US interests.
The cheapest (and most legitimate) way to control Iran’s oil production would be to own it. As an avid reader of the Iranian press, I can assure you that Iran’s productive capacity is fully open to private transnational corporate penetration. The only thing blocking western access to control over Iranian production is the zionist imposed sanctions:
Europe warns US on Iran sanctions
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c87fa5ba-411a-11dc-8f37-0000779fd2ac.html
To find a list of those congressmen that want to continue “Wars for Israel”, type this into your browser (Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2006 Congressional Candidates) !
correctivelens, If you are interested in understanding why Christian Zionists exist then check out this interview with Bill Moyers from PBS http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/watch3.html
Its very informative and a bit scary.
The warmongers and proven war criminals in the US can easily bypass all justification and legal requirements by creating a Gulf of Tonkin incident for an excuse to start another criminal adventure.
These creatures that already have the blood of more than a million innocent men, women, and children on their hands will not stop at anything until they destroy another Middle Eastern country at the behest of Israel and get their hands on other people’s resources for the benefit of their rich corporate bosses. What a shameless bunch.
Update for those interested,
The name “Sioux” is an abbreviated form of Nadouessioux borrowed into French Canadian from Nadoüessioüak from the early Odawa exonym: naadowesiwag “Sioux”.[7] It was first used by Jean Nicolet in 1640.[3] The Proto-Algonquian form *na·towe·wa, meaning “Northern Iroquoian”, has reflexes in several daughter languages that refer to a small rattlesnake (massasauga, Sistrurus).[8] This information was interpreted by some that the Ottawa borrowing was an insult. However, this Proto-Algonquian term most likely is ultimately was derived from a form *-a·towe·, meaning simply “speak foreign language”,[7] which was later extended in meaning in some Algonquian languages to refer to the massasauga. Thus, contrary to many accounts, the old Odawa word naadowesiwag never equated the Sioux with snakes. This is not confirmed though, as usage over the previous decades has led to this term having negative connotations to those tribes to which it refers. This would explain why many tribes have rejected this term when referring to themselves.
Some of the tribes have formally or informally adopted traditional names: the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is also known as the Sicangu Oyate, and the Oglala often use the name Oglala Lakota Oyate, rather than the English “Oglala Sioux Tribe” or OST. (The alternative English spelling of Ogallala is considered improper)
one finger…one button…world goes kaboom…why bother…bush has really screwed things up with iran….diplomacy will be hard to improbable, would have to ‘barter’ with them,do we have anything’good’to bring to the table? ?bush is a stonecold troublemaker…i like the bumpersticker”do the world a favor,give bush a blowjob”
atrupatriot,
A minor correction to your post. Cyrus (Kurosh), the founder of Persian empire, is the one who freed the Jews from their captivity in Babylon and gave them back their belongings and treasures, and made sure that they returned to their homeland safely. You are correct in pointing out that Iranians still retain many of the Zoroastrian rituals and beliefs; for example, celebration of Nowrooze (the fist day of Spring) with seven S (standing for seven things that begin with the letter s), the Yalda (the Winter solstice), The Mehregan (the first day of Autumn) and many more.
Since the introduction of Zurvanism, a mythical derivative of Zoroastrianism, the concept of time has played a very deep seated and profound role in Iranian culture. Before the appearance of Zurvanism, Ahoramazda, the god of light, was the only god, and Ahriman, although quite powerful, was nonetheless never considered of the same rank. Zurvan, representing Time, became the father of both Ahoramazda and Ahriman, thus elevating the latter’s ranking and lowing the farmer’s one. When Ahmadinejad said the Israel will vanish (not wiped out) from the pages of time, he was echoing this aspect of Zurvanism. Those ignorant of the Iranian culture, especially the wireless reporters, have no clue what actually was said. They are ignorant, arrogant, and unfit to report facts. Oh, they report accurately on Britney Spears shenanigans, the never ending story of who fathered an obscure second rate actress, and countless other totally trivial and stupid things.
Iran has not been a threat to any of its neighbors for at least three hundred years. On the contrary, it was invaded by Czarist Russia that after many battles succeeded to annex great parts of Azerbaijan and Northeast of Iran to Russia. It was semi-colonized by the British, occupied by the Allied armies during WWII, its democratically elected government was overthrown by a CIA engineered coup, was semi-colonized by US from 1953 until the 1979 revolution.
Oil has always been a curse on the Iranian nation. From the discovery of it by the British, it has resulted in the devious machinations of the British and the brutal and arrogant interferences of the Americans. The majority — perhaps as much as 90% — of the Iranian people have got nothing, zilch, from the trillions of dollars earned from sale of the oil, not before and not now. Iran would most likely be a quieter and more agreeable place if there were no oil.
If left by itself, the Iranians will get rid of the current regime, whose bloody hands is choking the nation, and does not have the support of the masses. Unfortunately, a viable alternative has not presented itself. It goes without saying that no foreign country, including US, especially after Iraq’s debacle, can present itself as such an alternative. It must come from within.
Iran has produced some of the greatest poets. When the great Goethe first became familiar with Hafiz’s poetry, he felt small and inadequate. It is extremely difficult to translate Persian poetry — Goethe actually learned Persian in order to understand Hafiz. Contrary to popular understanding, Fitzgerald’s translation of Khayam’s Rubaiyat bears very little resemblance to the original. The only time I came across a translation that embodied the sense and feeling of the original Persian was by Will Durant, a philosopher.
Vince Lawrence,
One cannot have his cake and eat it at the same time. There has been so much talk about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East. Would you say that is a true statement or is it a hoax? Let’s assume it’s true. But it’s also true that the regime in Israel (not the people) is Zionist. So, you have a situation where bad Zionists rule over some good people. Ever wonder why they don’t change their government?
A bad government may also adversely affect its citizens. Remember some nice girls in Israel signing their names on bombs intended to blast Lebanese children?
Also, when some posters here criticize Israel, it’s the regime they criticize, not the people. In the same vain that criticizing the Bush/Cheney regime is not the same as criticizing the American people. So, please allow us to criticize Israel, and do not attempt to mix the two together as it may bring us the charge of anti-Semitism, whereas we may only be anti-Zionist.
I would suggest Scott Ritter choose a different source for trying to explain the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001, such as Paul Thompson’s excellent timeline found here:
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/
The electoral coup of December 12, 2000, signed, sealed and delivered by the Supreme Court, followed by the events of 9/11/2001 are the foundation that is currently supporting the criminal cabal at the highest levels of our government.
Here is an excerpt from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision they made that fateful night of December 12th:
The majority opinion effectively precludes Gore from attempting to seek any other recounts on the grounds that a recount could not be completed by December 12, in time to certify a conclusive slate of electors. Several justices issue bitter dissents. “One thing … is certain,” Justice John Paul Stevens argues. “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” Justice Stephen G. Breyer adds that “in this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public’s confidence in the court itself.”
Until the American People come to grips with this rotten foundation by which all the rest has transpired, and gets to the absolute truth of the events surrounding those events, we will have no hope of repairing the damage that has been done to the Constitution, the American public and the people and countries of the world we have harmed and to whom we owe our deepest apologies and reparations to in the hopes that as a People we may be forgiven for our blind faith, ignorance and cowardliness to the “evil-doers” who lurk at the highest levels of our government, including the Democrats and Republicans who have aided and abetted this criminality and treason.
Israel a democracy? Certainly not; see “Fourteen steps on the stairwell to hell:
An essay on Jewish and Israeli fascism” by Alexander Eterman
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Eitam.cfm
Even if it were, as Michael Scheurer said recently on Bill Maher’s Real Time, “So what?” US is also supporting unconditionally the Saudi regime, one of the most backward, brutal and reactionary regimes. US support of Israel and the most reactionary and repressive regimes in the Middle East has come back to haunt it. Without doubt, these regimes, like that of Shah, will sooner or later collapse, and since all the viable alternatives have been obliterated by the regimes (with the help of the Americans), there are none left but the fundamentalists, just like what happened in Iran.
There is no legitimate justification for attacking Iran –or– for supporting a right wing militaristic, murderous fraud like Ritter.
Scott Ritter’s article is clear, concise and supports the rational stance that there is no logical reason for ANY incursion into Iran. The drawbacks are too numerous to enumerate.
Yet, I feel as if I am watching Kabuki theater gain. Just as we saw in the days before Iraq, the prophets of rational truth we swept away by the fervent believers seeking to follow a sacred truth. Of course the sacred truth is again flawed and will, when acted upon, result in another curse being placed n the nation.
Perhaps we should give the chicken-hawks cod pieces so they might parade about with “confidence”.
Would that our legislature gain the strength to act.
Scott Ritter -
I usually trust your forthright/honest analyses –but in the above article, your quasi-RealPolitik analysis gets perilously close to the same kind of Situation Ethics that we hear from America First moral rationalizers, like Henry Kissinger, and also the newer Neocons.
E.g.: Whatever it takes to keep America’s (allegedly, morally superior) System dominant on this planet, is what we Americans have to do; -even if that means acting just like, but outsmarting, the OTHER monkeys.
SCOTT: You don’t believe this nonesense, DO YOU? You DO understand, I hope, that, beyond being morally self-destructive, such hypocrisy doesn’t and can’t work as an organizing principle for Humanity….?
I hope you’ll clarify your analysis, and come to agree that: even if acting “internally constitutionally,’ neither the USA nor any other nation which invades another country unilaterally, or manipulates the UN Security Council to gain bogus legal-cover to do so, has the moral right to declare that protection of or outright seizure of that other nation’s natural resources constitutes the morally-legitimate National Security Interests of the plundering nation.
I think your piece, above, blurs this very crucial moral distinction; a distinction which must be adhered-to by all nations, if international law is ever to gain the functional potency required to pacify humans’ age-old, monkey-like behavior against themselves, across the plantet:
No nation, group of nations (UN Security Council-aligned or otherwise), or such nations’ chartered business corporations, have the moral right to manipulatively control, either thru invasive political domination or seizure thru outright military force, the indigenous human or, raw, natural resources of another nation in the name of “National Security,” “International Security” — or in the name of any other alleged exigency, for that matter.
It’s irrelevant to the civilization-building, moral imperative that I cite above, whether the ‘resource needy nation’ is a super power acting alone, or a group of nations acting thru legal artifice of their ability to dominate the internationally-undemocratic UN Secutity Council.
Such resource-grabbing actions are nothing but monkey-like predation; nothing but theft by the stronger property-wanter against the weaker property owner. Nothing but more of the endless delay in Human reckoning.
You, the usually-good-thinking Scott Ridder, seem to be suggesting that, under certain, ‘more-legal’ justifications/rationalizations, such outrageous actions could be (theoretically) morally legitimate National Security actions (for the USA, at least..)
If this is what you meant to imply: I must strongly disagree.
I would say that such rationalized national actions Never could be justified via viably-reproducible Moral Law — and that it’s precisely viably-reproduced Moral Law, that the Legal Law respects, that is needed on this aching planet.
Consider:
If one nation, citing it own internal Law, or a group of nations, citing their co-optation of International Law, ratified an international course of action that defied obvious, creaturely Moral Law, would that make it decent? Just? Reproducible as a practical way for everyone else to behave?
(I hope you won’t say ‘Yes!’)
RealPolitic analyists always responds to such questions of elemental decency with some variation on the World-chaos-perpetuating theme, to wit: Well, we humans ARE such violent, monkey-like creatures; and that’s Just the Way it Is. And since we in the west, are better monkeys than eveyone else on the planet, it’s best that WE win again and again — and in ALL things.
I expect more from you, Scott Ridder, than THIS, even if you’re only, however accidently, implying this.
Wolf Blitzer suggesting to Jimmy Carter this morning on CNN that the United States can attack and defeat Iran with airpower alone. What? These guys (tv pundits) are quoting Hermann Goering now? They are all war criminals including us (US Citizens) because we refused to get off our big fat butts. Fascism is attacking; We must fight back!
SIOUXROSE__Don`t let these nitpickers get you down about your name. I sort of like it as I get to use my X key once in a while. Your comments are interesting and add to the discussions. I suppose now someone will think my name is corny!
It is good to be able to discuss trivialities occasionaly and get off the life and death matters.
Reading the comments on this and other CD articles is a real learning experience, and many of you contribute important information and commentary worthy of any professional journalist. When I see Common Dreamers attacking each other, it hurts me, because we are the very few in this country and world who care what is happening. I stated a point several times that the ruling class with the money and power stick together in spite of petty differences. Ideologues on the left ( and I am VERY guilty of it ) just can’t seem to unite on a course of action to defeat the tyrants.
This country is going down in more ways than one. It may sound pessimistic, but each day brings another negative action either in Washington or somewhere in these ‘un-united states’.
We have relinquished our rights to representative government by being uninformed, apathetic, and disregarding our Constitutional right to vote by dismal turnouts for decades. And that was during the time of countable paper ballots!
No universal health care, an education system that insures our kids are not ‘educated’ in the real sense of the word, and at least 50% of our federal tax dollars for the enormous military budget, the Republican quest to destroy pensions and the little labor unions we have left, a concerted plan to eliminate the ‘middle-class’ and just have rich and poor as it was 100 years ago, and the reduction or elimination of social benefits going back to the ‘New Deal’ of FDR, and are we ready to ‘take to the streets and withhold our labor’, until these transgressions are corrected or are we going to continue lamenting on the internet?
This ‘one-party’ ( repugs and dems ) is foul and putrid and has contempt for the citizens of this once great country. But they know, as long as people stay inactive and don’t do anything meaningful, they’ll continue on with their plans.
Emma Goldman was way ahead of her time. She’s my political mentor.
And now a passage from theTAO TE CHING. ( by the way- I’m not religious at all )
“When the Great Tao is lost sight of- then the people have to be kind and gentle.
They try to compensate by being clever but this only breeds hypocrisy and sleight-of-hand.
When families fall out, relationships sour into useless formality.
When the nation is misled and in chaos, ministers mouth empty promises.”
Does any of this ring true?
Boy I can’t wait for the snappy analysis of my online name. Lets spend a page or two discussing the ROSE part of the name. Why not DAISY? or TRILLIUM?
Look, this post is the millionth time that Bu$h the inferior’s asinine foreign policy program is exposed as stupid everywhere except the mainstream media. They still quote these neocons as if they have creditability.
I’m betting no attack.
Siouxrose,
I wanted to follow up on Atheo’s post regarding your handle. Let me preface my comment by saying that I have appreciated and found thoughtful many, many of your posts on CD.
However, having spent a number of years working for a small public radio station in Minneapolis, where the Native American community is well represented, I have to admit I winced a bit when I noticed your login name. It wasn’t until I got to know a number of Native Americans that I myself learned that ‘Sioux’ is indeed a derogatory term, which in antiquated French translates as ’snake’. Unless I am mistaken, the preferred contemporary Lakota nomenclature is ‘Dine’ (DEE-nay). If I am mistaken, I welcome correction.
Although my post may smack of PC, so much misunderstanding stems from wrongful labels, whether intentional or not. Keep up the good work, and continue posting your intelligent comments which, as ever, I look forward to reading.
Regards,
Heyzhou
A quick follow-up to my previous post, wherein I addressed the ‘Sioux’ label. I posted before reading Sambagis’s informative post. I would welcome confirmation or correction that “Dine’ is the preferred term of self-reference among certain Lakota tribal members.
Thank you for your clarification, Sambagis. To other posters on this thread, apologies for writing off topic.
Regards,
HeyZhou
Really Siouxrose, or Dinerose or whatever. Criticizing Israel in not the same as anti-semitism against the Jews. Maybe you don’t live in an area where there is a sizable Jewish population but if you did you might see how any DISCUSSION whatsoever about the Israeli-Palestinian situation is immediately met with either rabid anger in defense of Israel or is just shut down. It is the same in Congress. The pro-Israel crowd is using the emotional issue of the Holocaust and centuries of anti-semitism to further what is a garden variety land grab and colonization which all nations have participated in at one time or another. What they are doing is no different than what we did in this country to the indigenous population, it just didn’t fly as well in the 20th century. Timing is everything.
Surge Protectors
The mixed motives behind the Freedom’s Watch ad campaign
by Philip Weiss
Late this summer, just as American political armies were squaring off over the next, and likely last, act of President Bush’s Iraq War policy, a new pro-war group called Freedom’s Watch announced a $15-million ad buy over several months in key states. The first ads featured soldiers who had been maimed in Iraq but stood by the cause of a global war on terror. Political observers said they were targeted at the districts of Republican congressmen who were going wobbly on the war.
The rollout was not auspicious. Ari Fleischer, a board member of Freedom’s Watch and the former White House spokesman, stumbled on MSNBC’s “Hardball” when Mike Barnicle screened one of the ads and asked, “What’s that soldier’s name?” “I don’t have that soldier’s name in front of me,” Fleischer said. (His name is John Kriesel, and he lost both legs in Fallujah last year). The fact that Fleischer and another member of the group’s board had worked in the Bush White House seemed to support the view that that the group was an administration front. Says Moira Mack of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (which has its own smaller ad campaign): “This is a desperate attempt to counter the strong and growing movement to end the war. We have the public backing of millions of members. They have money and ads, but they don’t have public support.”
The Jewish press offered a different take. “Pro-Surge Group Is Almost All Jewish,” reported the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the lead wire service for Jewish news. Four out of five members of the Freedom’s Watch board are Jews, and half of its donors are Jewish. The JTA quoted one of its directors, Matthew Brooks, saying this was strictly a “coincidence.”
As a progressive Jew, I don’t think it is that simple. Right-wing Jewish support has always been a crucial prop for the Iraq War. The neoconservatives, who pushed for the war for years and then got their way after 9/11, originated as a largely Jewish movement that formed in the 1970s in good part out of concern for Israel’s security. Many of the neocons cited Saddam’s attacks on Israel as a reason for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and similar pro-war arguments spread to liberal Jews. The New York Times’s Thomas Friedman pointed at Saddam’s payments to suicide bombers in Tel Aviv as justification for the invasion, and I remember being shocked when my own brother said he didn’t know what to think about the Iraq War. He had demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but his Jewish newspaper said this one would be “good for Israel.”
National polls show that Jews opposed the war by a higher percentage than other groups (about 60 percent against), but that opposition was soft…
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_08/article1.html
heyzhou,
I will have to double-check, but I think “Dine” is the proper nomenclature for the Navajo (who may have splintered from the Lakota).
Excellently written article.