Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Coming Uncertain War against Iran
When Admiral William J "Fox" Fallon was chosen to replace General John Abizaid as chief of US Central Command (CENTCOM) in March 2007, many analysts didn't shy from reaching a seemingly clear-cut conclusion: the Bush administration was preparing for war with Iran and had selected the most suitable man for this job. Almost exactly a year later, as Fallon abruptly resigned over a controversial interview with Esquire magazine, we are left with a less certain analysis.
Fallon was the first man from the navy to head CENTCOM. With the US army fighting two difficult and lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and considering the highly exaggerated Iranian threat, a war with Iran was apparently inevitable, albeit one that had to be conducted differently. Echoing the year-old speculation, Arnaud de Borchgrave of UPI wrote on 14 March 2007 that an attack against Iran "would fall on the US Navy's battle carrier groups and its cruise missiles and Air Force B-2 bombers based in Diego Garcia".
Fallon is a man of immense experience, having served equally high-profiled positions in the past (he was commander of US Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007). The Bush administration probably saw him further as a conformist, in contrast to his predecessor Abizaid who promoted a diplomatic rather than military approach and who went as far as suggesting that the US might have to learn to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Fallon's recent resignation may have seemed abrupt to many, but it was a well-orchestrated move. His interview in Esquire depicted him as highly critical of the Bush administration's policy on Iran; the magazine described him as the only thing standing between the administration and their newest war plan. Further, his resignation and "Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's handling of [it] is the greatest and most public break in the Bush team's handling of preparations for war against Iran that we are ever likely to see," wrote respected commentators and former CIA analysts Bill and Kathy Christison on 12 March. "Gates has in fact publicly associated himself with the resignation by saying it was the right thing for Fallon to do, and Gates said he had accepted the resignation without telling Bush first."
Fallon's resignation represents a bittersweet moment. On the one hand it's an indication of the continued fading enthusiasm for the militant culture espoused by the neo-conservatives. On the other, it's an ominous sign of the Bush administration's probable intentions during the last year of the president's term. Sixty-three-year-old Admiral Fallon would not have embarked on such a momentous decision after decades of service were it not for the fact that he knew a war was looming, and -- having considered the historic implications for such a war -- chose not to pull the trigger.
Unlike the political atmosphere in the US prior to the Iraq war -- shaped by fear, manipulation and demonisation -- the US political environment is now much more accustomed to war opposition, which is largely encouraged and validated by the fact that leading army brass are themselves speaking out with increasing resolve. Indeed pressure and resistance are mounting on all sides; those rooting for another war are meeting stiff resistance by those who can foresee its disastrous repercussions.
The push and pull in the coming months will probably determine the timing and level of US military adventure against Iran, or even whether such an adventure will be able to actualise (one cannot discount the possibility that as a token for Israel, the US might provide a middle way solution by intervening in Lebanon, alongside Israel, to destroy Hizbullah. Many options are on the table, and another Bush-infused crisis is still very much possible).
In an atmosphere of hyped militancy, Fallon's resignation might be viewed as a positive sign, showing that the cards are not all stacked in favour of the war party. Nonetheless, it is premature to indulge in optimism. Prior signs have indicated a serious rift among those who once believed that war is the answer to every conflict. Yet that didn't necessary hamper the war cheerleaders' efforts.
Last December, the National Intelligence Estimate -- an assessment composed by all American intelligence agencies -- concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, and that any such programme remained frozen. Meanwhile the "bomb-first-ask-questions-later" crowd suggested that such an assessment is pure nonsense. Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain has since then sung the tune of "bomb Iran", -- literally -- and Israel's friends continue to speak of an "existential" threat Israel faces due to Iran's "weapons" -- never mind that Israel is itself a formidable nuclear power.
According to Borchgrave, "McCain's close friend Senator Joe Lieberman... invoking clandestine Iranian explosives smuggled into Iraq, has called for retaliatory military action against Tehran. He and many others warn that Israel faces an existential crisis. One Iranian nuclear-tipped missile on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv could destroy Israel, they argue."
In fact, Lieberman, and other Israel supporters need no justification for war, neither against Iran nor any of Israel's foes in the Middle East. They have promoted conflicts on behalf of that country for many years and will likely continue doing so, until enough Americans push hard enough to restack their government's priorities.
An attack on Iran doesn't seem as certain as the war against Iraq always did. Public pressure, combined with courageous stances taken by high officials, could create the tidal wave needed to reverse seemingly determined war efforts. Americans can either allow those who continue to speak of "existential threats" and wars of a hundred years to determine and undermine the future of their country, and subsequently world security, or they can reclaim America, tend to its needy and ailing economy, and make up for the many sins committed in their name and in the name of freedom and democracy.
Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
79 Comments so far
Show AllI do jump to attention when they mention Tic Tacs. As in: "Tic Tac, Tic Tac, our time is running out!"
I said we would not likely use ICBMs against Iran. Many nuclear subs do not carry ICBMs, but some models have cruise missiles. I also said if we bomb Iran, it would be our un-doing.
The Tic-Tacs are are a differnt type of tick COCO. They are small mint candies for freshening bad breath and are extremely exensive. But Americans are very gullible and often don't' realize actual costs, ___ as noted by Bush's little MISSION ACCOMPLISHED war with Iraq. ___ Woff__ woff.
KEM PATRICK
no we don't have tic tacs. sounds like something a dog would get though....
however, take a look at this just in: 'u.s. deploys nuclear sub to persian gulf'
www.presstv.ir
what were you saying?..........about bombing iran?........
Yeah ~COCO~, you're right, I forgot. We also have, "Put a Tic-Tac in your mouth", and "Head On, apply directly to the forehead." Do you have the Tic-Tacs over there? They are available at every check out counter in America. A buck for 5/8 of an ounce, or over $22.00 a pound, ___ for a tiny sugar coated mint and we number ONE, smart Americans, buy them, ___ by the millions. We also buy "Head On", which claims to do nothing, and that is so, but it's the hottest seller since the Hula-Hoop.
Cheney/Bush cannot allow Iran to sell their oil for anything other than American dollars. That's the bottom line. That factor will determine if we bomb Iran.
KEM PATRICK
well, kem, you've got 'paris hilton', 'american idol' (whatever that is), 'macdonalds', 'hollywood', 'britney spears', 'cloned meat', 'gm crops', 'the surge'............etc. etc.
The whole Iran prep thing may just be a ploy to distract us while Cheney plans an invasion of Venezuela.
(We would attack Venezuela because Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan, or maybe Afghanistan, or maybe Walter Reed, for dialysis.)
Humor aside, I don't think Cheney/Bush would count on either an invasion or threat of invasion to protect themselves from prosecution -- given Pinochet's fate. War crimes have no attached statute of limitations. The non-extradition treaty with Uruguay and the big estate Bush purchased there are the insurance policy, enforced by Blackwater and underwritten by the Carlyle Group and Halliburton.
I wish Obama would step out pre-emptively and denounce war with Iran for the idiocy it is -- starting his new approach to international relations now instead of waiting for January.
In rallying support against war with Iran, here are some of the petitions and information we are trying to get people with mailing lists to link to:
http://www.citiesforprogress.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=217&Itemid=70
That's the Cities for Progress link. It provides a vehicle for people to get together and make themselves heard, which can, on occasion, influence their representatives. I also like this kind of thing for the future value it gains, in that folks who convocate on this issue can also get together on other progressive issues.
***
The one below is geared to the administration. If you believe the Secretary of State is more moderate than Bush, and may be able to talk him out of going to war with Iran, here's a petition to help stiffen her backbone:
http://democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/Peaceact/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=358
***
Here's a good one that acts as a resource center:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=98
Fight the good fight, people!
The destruction of the US is the Neocon agenda! This is blatantly obvious to anybody who has seriously studied their allegiances and loyalties.
The ideal war. Success or failure in foreign intervention by choice doesn't matter. In fact it is best if the intervention is moderately successful but requires continued intervention. Then the war racket can be continued. The guaranteed jobs and income flow gives a better investment climate for the war capitalists. It is hard to tell if the US of I is gearing up the war machinery for future large anticipated conflicts, just keeping it warm, or more likely still, wearing itself out. It is best to pick a war with a country that has no signficant opposition nor has any real threat. Best targets are as far away from ones own nation as possible, and culturally different, so there is no possible public appreciation of the target nations culture. It helps to isolate the country internationally first with sanctions and trade barriers, and build up media disapproval. The US of I is losing because the costs out weigh returns. The folly of US pressure to attack Iran is that of a gamblers mad betting of his last stakes, in order to try to win everything back. The gambler doesn't understand that the long term workings of the game and the players are set to make him lose.
Iran is not yet an ideal case for war, which is probably why it hasn't been attacked yet by the US of I. Iran still has allies, and not too many people should believe US outright lies and propaganda that left to itself , it poses any sort of threat to world peace. However continuing external hostility and economic pressure to grind Iran down to becoming an acceptable invasion target for the US of I could backfire and convert the Iranian people into a hostile force. You cannot continue to prod a tiger with goads and expect to stand back in safety. Rest assured the Iranians are practicing a lot of restraint right now, as everyone in the Middle East is carefully watching everyone else. The plan of the US is appears to be to apply pressure until the restraint gives up. A chain of resulting war atrocities will probably not be confined to Iran. The US applied similar constrains to Japanese imperial expansion prior to the Pearl Harbor strike. The US had the resource advantages in that conflict. Say goodbye to remaining oil supply reliability, the centerpiece of everyones greedy eyes. Oil shortages and consumer economic downturns could happen overnight. Is generalized Middle East war avoidable or is it just a matter of time? As the US of I grows weaker in Iraq and the dollar and the US economy falters, the futility and destruction of general warfare may even be more certain, when some gambler may decide they have nothing left to lose. I could be very tragic for the players families and peoples lives.
What were the successes? Other than perhaps the Marshall Plan and MacArthur as Governor of Japan? I honestly cannot think of any since 1948.
David Grayling. March 23rd, 2008 4:16 pm
Just put up a post about committing suicide. Reading these comments, some of you might find it helpful.
America must have the greatest list of foreign policy failures of any nation on earth during the last 10,000 years. It's a world record!
Pretty impressive! Especially as there has only been nations for the last 4500 years - tops. One can also argue that the usa has had enough foreign policy successes to counter their fuckups, after all they're still a nation state aren't they? Should the world survive bush, I am quite sure much will be forgiven - especially if bush and cheney are sent to the Hague and not as diplomats...
What I get out of the above is that Dick Cheney is doing is utmost to create war.
If war happens, then you know who to hold responsible for all the consequences.
Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, has triggered speculation that he has been using a tour of the Middle East to prepare Iran's neighbours for a possible war with Tehran.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/21/wiran121.xml
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in a meeting with visiting US Vice President Dick Cheney has rejected any US military strike against Iran.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=48452§ionid=351020104
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Thursday warned that any military means to solve Iran's controversial nuclear programme would have a "disastrous" effect.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTvtSNN2PiGCCkwQkTl6-HXd4SJA
Well, Bernice, my guess as to what's wrong with these people is that Israel wasn't created because the Allies felt sorry for the Jewish people, but because they knew that there was a lot of oil in the region and if they recreated the Biblical "promised land" there, they'd have a good excuse to set up military bases there, with the onstensible excuse for this being to protect Israel, although the real reason would be to protect the oil.
And, yeah, we should call Bush and Cheney's bluff and impeach both of them.
So it's a possibility that the US might "intervene in Lebanon" to help destroy Hezbollah as a little favor to Israel???
Israel has twice (twice!) destroyed Beirut in efforts to steal the Litani River. Labeling Lebanon's resistance force, Hezbollah, as "terrorists," like our similar labeling of Iran's elite guard, is the all-purpose, good-all-around-the-world, not-to-be-challenged-lest-you-be-"against"-us excuse for any violence we wish to perpetrate against those already victimized by us and/or Israel.
I believe you can bet money that Lebanon's internal political dissension has nothing to do with Syria as claimed by the administration (Syria being also a "state sponsor of terror according to Bush et al) and everything to do with US and Israeli Zionism/Christian Zionism.
What in the h*** is the matter with these people?
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
Just put up a post about committing suicide. Reading these comments, some of you might find it helpful.
America must have the greatest list of foreign policy failures of any nation on earth during the last 10,000 years. It's a world record!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Fraid you might be right on there ~BBR~.
Lets just hope there are more commanders like Fallon willing to stall this thing until Bush and Cheney and their neocon masters are gone.
No impeachment is coming. Most of the public is in denial. No sacrifice asked, no draft. No compassion for Iraqi or US losses. Just some perception the war is dragging down the economy, and reports the "surge" is working. It looks like the war and the abuses of this adminstration will have little effect on the voters this fall.
So it wouldn't be a complete surprise if we wake up one morning and see the stealth bombers and cruise missiles have taken out suspected Iranian nuclear facilities along with hundreds of defensive facilities. And it wouldn't be surprising if the American public ho-hums it. Bush is in more trouble about $4.30/gal diesel fuel than about Iraq.
Chess, poker. Chess, poker. Chess, poker. It doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that for Bush and Cheney it's a game, and what we need to do is impeach both of them and find us some leaders who won't treat us, our country, and the world as a game for their own perverse pleasure and financial enrichment.
The ~Lizard~ isn't always wrong. Cheney/Bush may be want to play poker but Iran is going to play chess. Only it's a very serious chess game and Bush is no Alexander The Great. If we bomb Iran, turn out the lights, the party will be over.
Nah, it's poker. No point in singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran," in a chess game. Be a waste of time.
Attacking Iran would unleash regional chaos.
There seems to be little thought to what would happen to the attacker. If the US attacks, it could lose a significant part of its fleet and 140,000 soldiers in Iraq. Iran has control over US supply lines and for all intents and purposes has the US army hostage right now. The quiet you are seeing is Iran's way of saying "we have you by the short and curlies". This lull is courtesy of Iran. Chess ,people, was invented by the Persians (Iranians).
The US can play it as a poker game, but the reality is that what is going on is a chess game. There you see why the US ends up losing.
Citizen:
Ayep, and while we're sitting around, trying to figure out whether Bush and Cheney got a full house or just a pair of threes, we're not getting a darn thing done. We're not out in the streets protesting the Iraq war, we're not organizing to get ourselves some decent health care, we're not insisting that our "leaders" do something about global warming, and, above all, we're not getting a movement going to impeach the bastards, so we can get on with our lives.
Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" thing is part of this, as is Bush's "no-torture bill veto" thing (if Bush doesn't veto the no-torture bill he'll be admitting that he's committed war crimes by allowing torture before, and committing war crimes is, I'm pretty sure, grounds for impeachment). Bush and Cheney know full well that they're not going to gain control of all the oil in the Middle East, so now they just want to keep us distracted and in a tizzy so they can get through the rest of Bush's term without our waking up and calling their bluff. They've lied to us and conned us and bluffed us for years, and they're still doing it, and we're still falling for it.
Would you rally want to play poker with Dubya??
Poker relies upon the other person(s) acting in a reasonably sensible and predictable fashion, within certain parameters...
CITIZEN MEDIA
very good points and i agree with the 'surprise' attack. as for the question of the international community tolerating another hiroshima: they didn't do much about the first one, did they? but now things are somewhat different. and as you say, other countries now have the capability to react.
but if this scenario comes to fruition, unfortunately, the damage will already be done. we can only stand by and watch as passive 'sheep' to see how far the irrationality of the worlds' leaders takes us................
Add to that the recession-cum-depression at home, the very peril that waging an expensive new war could push the American economy into "fall of empire" mode ... even Cheney's insatiable appetite for oil would recoil from such a prospect.
I agree with ticonderoga [March 22nd, 2008 6:45 pm] "What we're looking at is a poker game" : after all, we are sitting here puzzling over behind-the-scene theatricals we'll never have a real clue toward, but the fact of our doing so in itself constitutes a form of unease and suspense that both Bush and Ahmadinejad want their peoples to be engaged in. Now convert that to larger scales of states and admins, and you really have the world on a string.
The thing about Iran is its a very different scenario:
1- The political climate has changed, with the legacy of lies in Iraq; therefore winning public support via scare tactics is not nearly as easy as five years ago;
2- Iranian terrain is about twice the size of Iraq, with three times the population, and much more capable defense systems. So ground invasion is unlikely as US troops would be at severe disadvantage.
3- Tehran has support factions in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Pakistan, and Shiite Iraq, that would unite in rage against a perceived onslaught against Islam - this would register not only as unilateral attack of sovereign territory but as an ideological crusade.
4- The IRGC (Revolutionary Guards) are a huge body (upward of 200,000 as a modest estimate) rumored to have guerilla cells that can operate independantly in case of shutdown of central command. They are fanatics and will stop at nothing to defend the country (remember, this is nation in which martyrdom is ingrained in the collective religious psyche as the supreme honor)
5- The international community makeup is also different from 03. Russia and China may not sanction the action if they see imperialistic motives that endanger their cut in the ME share.
The only possible way for the US to attack is by a surprise airstrike campaign in sync with Israel to curb immediate responses that may lead to WWIII-like all-out regional chaos. Even in such a case, the repercussions will be almost impossible to contain without bring in the nuke threat, esp. viz. radical Pakistan. And herein lies the question: will the international community tolerate another Hiroshima, this one, unilaterally orchestrated on the ashes of an entrenched bloody Iraq? Especially when the world's fuel is passing thru the Strait of Hormuz and when such an unwise move may flare up a war of epic ideological proportions?
HETWARE
thanks for the link. here's one for you (et al)
www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk
KEM PATRICK
but think about it kem.......if the u.s. nukes china it will get rid of their debt. btw, there are more posts now on the 'climate change' issues.
The War Party
"We may have to attack Iran, if someone reports they saw Osama bin Laden there.
Of course come to think of it, we attacked Iraq because Osama bin Laden was in Afganistan."
Kem, we'll attack Iran because Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan.
Have you got your wide-screen television yet? How you gonna see Iran burn if you haven't got a big, big screen. Bill O'Rielly is waiting to bring you a blow by blow, factual account and George will give updates once a day and tell you about how he's bringing freedom and democracy to the world.
Yes, roll-up, roll-up, get in pizza and beer and let the imperial show commence!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Please! Put impeachment back on the table.
RATIONALITY!!!
YES!
startle cheney
www.startlecheney.org
Another good documentary that recently aired on the CBC was "No End in Sight". It revealed in chilling, and depressing, detail the callousness, ignorance and stupidity that has marked the entire operation in Iraq. It's heartbreaking. This is the website:
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/
Here is a link to a show from one of Canada's left leaning tv stations
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lies/video.html
would you ever see this on American MSM ?
the neocons and the MIC are pulling the same crap with Iran now
btw it is pronouced ear ron not eye ran...i would be shot if i called america
ay merica
Remember last election when the admin. raised a hypothetical about whether the election could be suspended in an "emergency?" I fear this may have been a trial balloon to get the sheep ready for the next election. Bush Co. will bomb Iran thus creating the emergency he requires to suspend the election and stay in office indefinitly. They have already set the precident that the commander-in-chief can do anything he deems necessary (ANYTHING!) to "protect" the American people;he claims to be above the law and no one has called him on it. I pray I'm wrong but Dick says he doesn't care what the people think. If it looks like the dems will take over the white house there may well be no election...otherwise these low dogs would be subject to war crimes charges (maybe) and I doubt they will let that happen.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that we're not looking at a plan to attack Iran. What we're looking at is a poker game, designed to bluff the American people into thinking that we might attack Iran, so we'll back off from impeaching Cheney and Bush. I think that's what everything is about now: Cheney and Bush trying to distract us from impeaching them.
As wacky as Cheney and Bush are, they're not stupid (well, at least Cheney isn't), and they know damn well what would happen if they attacked Iran, which would be unimaginable chaos. Plus we couldn't win, mostly because we're out of money, and they both know it.
But if they can get us to believe that they might do something as crazy as attack Iran if we try to impeach either of them, we might not do so, in the interests of peace. And they'll both get off scot-free, leaving the Iraq war mess for the democrats to clean up, which is a very difficult job, so difficult that the public will lose faith in the democrats when they fail, which is probable, leaving the door wide open for a republican resurgence in 2012.
We may have to attack Iran, if someone reports they saw Osama bin Laden there.
Of course come to think of it, we attacked Iraq because Osama bin Laden was in Afganistan.
Hi ~Skippy~, yeah I havn't given up on CD yet, but there are far too may articles here for a decent thread to get off on a really important subject. This one is important, but pales in comparrison to those whose subject matter concerns the end of all life on the planet.
Russia and China both have the capability to nuke us to the stone age with missiles with both land based silos and nuclear subs and Russia has excellent long rang bombers also. The Chinese subs are as good as ours now, one sufaced in the midst of one of our fleets which was conducting war game exercises in the Pacific recently and we didn't even know it was there.
So much for high-tech sonar capability. The bad thng there is, we had the technical secrets for making the best ball bearings for sub's silent running and we gave that technology to China, so they could produce them for us at less cost. ___Un-Bee-Leavable.
Yep, ~Skip~ an accidental world war three could ignite, but that too is not likely, possible but not likely. If we attack Iran it won't be with long range ICBM's. Whatever the method, it will be the stupidest thing since attacking Iran and far more costly. If any think $4 bucks a gallon for gas and a buck a pound for wheat is high, wait till some idiot bombs Iran. Oil will go to $300 a barrel or more overnight, or eight to ten bucks a gallon for us. The result,___ DEPRESSION. And Katy, "bar the door" when that hits.
The Bush administration-neocons' motto: Stupidity got us into this, and stupidity will get us out.
Yee haw! Bring it on! More war profiteering for the wealthy and more slavery and poverty for the working people.
KEM PATRICK;
Hey, good to see you're still here. What I said earlier, and Gwhar(sp?) expanded on was that the Russian's might not trust you not to nuke them. Way different thing from your gov't actually planning an attack, I don't think even Cheney is crazy enough for that kind of thing. If a nuke is launched from the continental states (one of your ICBM's) there's no way to be absolutely sure that the course of htat missle would land in Iran or on Moscow, and the course of most missles would take it over the pole and accross Russian territory before it could land in Iran. The Russians would launch if they saw you firing them, they wouldn't wait to see where it would land. If you used a sub launched nuke missle, the Russians might nuke you because you'd nuked a nation on their continant, or because they'd fear not nuking a nation that was so contemptuous of human life.
What I argue is that if bush is nuts enough to launch an attack against Iran, either conventional air attacks or a nukular one, it will escalate. Just as in 1914 the mobilization of the Russian Empire's armies locked the European empires into a war they couldn't get out of.
If indeed we are observing another run-up to another ill-advised military jaunt, then one should point out that there is a major difference compared to the Iraq case; the public were living in abject fear and shock after 9/11, were blindly trusting of their leaders and thus easily fooled.
Media complicity abounded. Democrats removed barriers.
Would the general public be as supine this time around, given that the majority of them have now a true measure of Bush's sincerity? I think not. It'd take near-martial law/dictatorial orders and actions from the CiC. Media complicity is not assured. Perhaps even Democrat enabling of such wars have reached their limits.
Those who have posted Bush is planning on attacking Russia and China really ought to reason that short sighted opinion out. The Bush Cartel may be a bunch of hair brained crazies, but they aren't stupid-crazy. They went after Iraq for a purpose and almost achieved their goals. Things just didn't work out as they had planned. Of course their planning is piss-poor at best.
They may attack Iran for the same reasons, but it is not remotely concieveable to believe they would ever nuke Russian and China and hope to live through it. They might live, but there wouldn't be anything left to live for.
And the person who wrote that Bush won't attack Iran because they have nuclear weapons is wrong also. It's been well established that Iran does not have any nuclear weapons.
Hi ~Siouxrose~ How is the new baby and grandchild doing? ___ Yes indeed, CD does publish enviromental articles, and they are the very most important issues for all of humanity, but few of the the so called "progressives" who post here, seldon ever comment on them.
There is a very important article here today on the issue of climate change, that will be in the archives tomorrow. For the past three days, there have been (10) ten total individuals who posted a comment. Another new one on climate change and water shortages was posted today, and so far four have commented.
Progessives? If we were as progerssive as we claim, we'd be far more concerned with what will happen when the Arctic methance gas starts going up into our atmosphere and be having shit fits about it. Cause when it happens, we are all gonna die and that includes our children and theirs.
So all of us "progresives", lets switch over to an Obama or Hillary article and post our brains out, making stupid comments. Push the actually serious issues into the shadows of our minds and let lie, and maybe they'll go away.
Some optimism please...I think we Americans have seen the light on these wars for empire and oil. We are going to elect Obama and with him comes diplomacy and reason. Forget mccain/lieberman-Obama will beat them in a landsslide
How I wish these jingos would settle their differences within a London call box - with hand granades.
THADDEUS STEPHENS: If you read CD daily you'd have to notice there in fact ARE articles about biotech, our economy, women's rights, indigenous rights, Green forms of energy, etc. Since CD culls the major news organs for stories fit for progressive print, they mirror the trends the MSM itself promotes. They do NOT avoid the subjects you mentioned, there may be less however in those fields.
EZEFLYER & PROVOICE: Good posts
GHAWAR: A chilling perspective (if logical).
~LIZARD~ you are a moron. Go out and make a snowman and talk to it. When asked if he was aware of the public opinion, that the VAST majority of Americans thought the occupation and surge etc, in Iraq was not working and was a horrible waste, Cheney replied in a cocky, so-what manner,___ "SO". ___
For your info ~Lizard~, since you are a Canadian and may not be aware, Cheney is hired to work for us and our opinions should have some effect upon his decisions. They do not however and he may have well have replied with, __ "The public can go fuck themselves." Your opinion on this is just as bad as Cheney's ~Lizard~, you incredible nut-case. Better go check on some of your patients doctor. BTW, you never have told us if you are just a poracticing MD, or a specialist, what is it?
Why do the Republicans do it? Why, its mass destruction campaigns of war have been just to annoy the "liberals" and keep them out of power. The Democrats are only different in name. In such a god fearing nation of anti-communists, Wars bolster the common ego, and keep the current lot in power. The disease is in a bad stage, and a drastic cure is to find some internal means of conflict within the US of I to manage the same purpose, if the foreign adventure collapses. Plenty of dictators have managed this, with periodic purges, mass crackdowns. The homeland security and mass spying campaign, immigrant abuse and the paranoia of roundups of suspicious persons, no fly lists and mounting jail attendance, foreign prisons and torture is evidence of same. No wonder the US of I loved the Shah of Iran. As Mr Bush so amply demonstrates every day, its so easy to lie, that lies for war are the primary method of maintaining power. And the right wingers listen to their primal impulses, that say their life is enhanced by the blood of others. They are truely vampires.
lizard__I am so glad you straightened that statement of Cheney`s out. He is such a nice, considerate man that would not want any wrong to happen to any other person anywhere, even in Gitmo, so we need to realize that fact. We should all emulate Mr Cheney, even to the look on his kind face, and all of us would be much happier.
We are engaging in disinformation. Cheney did not say no to the question of wether or not he cared about public opinion. He said: "No. I don't believe decisions should be based on fluctuating polls." It is wrong to quote out of context and selectively. It is wrong when they do it , and wrong when we do.
As I see it, here are the possibilities(or at least synopses of the thinking behind them):
Conservative- The troops are stretched too thin and we are too much in debt.
We need to come home and guard our borders, AND abide by our own constitution.
Liberal/Progressive-There is no moral reason to invade; diplomacy will serve us better. We have needs at home that are unmet. We need to bring the troops home, care for those who lack, and abide by the constitution and
bill of rights.
Libertarian-We have no business interfering in the affairs of other countries. We need to let the markets sort things out.
PNAC/Psychotic-Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
I am deeply afraid of which of these sets of reasoning will predominate. If the last prevails, it will be the end of the United States as either a republic or an empire, and for combinations of the reasons enumerated by the conservatives, liberal/progressives, and libertarians.
My synopses of schools of thought are too brief, and, of course, caricatures, but in three out of four cases, they are FRIENDLY caricatures, but, mark my word, invasion or bombing of Iran will be the beginning of the end of the United States.
There are other things more important than what the whooping war party is up to-commondreams.org, along with the rest of America, focuses on what Bush & CO want them to.
What about these issues:
1. The mess our financial system is in?
2. our over reliance on foreign oil is tearing down our money system on a minute by minute basis.
3. Our over reliance on oil based modes of transportation is destroying our planet.
3. Our children need a better education system.
4. Our health care system regularly kills hundreds of thousands of people every year on the one side and on the other lavishes too much care on hundreds of thousands of others.
5. The list of topics commondreams.org is ignoring is legion. Are the Webmasters in the pay of Bush & CO?
" We is goin' ta war with Iran, and this here letter from ma Daddy says I donts have ta go..whoopee!" - George W Bush
I believe the tracks are clear. The United States government fabricated (and badly!) a military threat by an Iranian motorboat against a U.S. destroyer. Also, the U.S. has been playing aircraft carrier bully, keeping most of its assets close to Iran for a long time.
I also see a complete failure to nonviolently get rid of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The only thing propping up this guy is the stupidity of the United States government.
Against this backdrop is first, the utter war-weariness of the American people, and the degradation to near-collapse of the U.S. military. They have 50,000 disabilities, mostly concussions, post-traumatic stress disorder and limb losses, and the ranks are puffed up with high school dropouts and ex-cons now. We've seen elsewhere that soldiers going on patrol regularly hide themselves and then manufacture patrol reports all day.
Can the U.S. beat the Iranian army? Yes. Can they fight for 100 years? Oh sure, they can sell Iraqi oil to pay for the Iranian war too. That was the plan in Iraq, to have a profitable war.
And that's the rub. We can print three trillion more dollars, but nobody else will accept it anymore. From now on they all want Euros. We can only finance getting into Iran, not out. It's a one way ticket.
I agree with skippyagogo41 that there is a reasonable chance that preparations for war on Iran are being used as cover for a nuclear attack on Russia and China. The U.S. enjoys nuclear primacy - momentarily - meaning that it can destroy the Russian and Chinese military in a single nuclear attack. The defense expenditures and programs of the last several years might suggest that such an attack has been in preparation all along.
If we were to ask George Bush, he would tell us that he himself is the most qualified person in history for making the decision to unleash a global nuclear war. I think that he will feel unfulfilled as president if he fails in carrying out his perceived responsibility.
Why don't they put Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater as head of CENTCOM.
He clearly is "on board" with the christofascist plan to wipe Islam off the map and install Exxon Mobil as the new Jesus to lord over the middle east and all of that black gold.
It would once and for all bypass the men of honor and service to the constitution who represent the Military and our last best hope from letting the neoCON filth ignite WWIII.
America will not attack Iran; because, Iran possesses nuclear weapons.
America never attacks a country that has nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Please be mindful of that.
Mr Bush said (above) The problem is that we cannot trust a government that enriches uranium, which has cloaked and continues to hide activities, and which announced that it wants the atomic bomb in order to destroy people, some of which are located in the Middle East.
Was he talking about the good old US of America??
Which proves Cheney does not always lie.
Then too, when people are half crocked they are often truthful.
"In an atmosphere of hyped militancy, Fallon's resignation might be viewed as a positive sign..."
Adm Fallon to Esquire on "war" with Iran: "Get serious. These guys are ANTS. When the time comes, you CRUSH them."
75 million humans living in a country over 4,000 years old... nothing more than ANTS to be CRUSHED - WHEN, not if, but WHEN the time comes. If you're a "serious" person, that is.
("Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon "one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today." And awesome ant-crusher, he added.)
Obviously, the only "positive sign" we can view from Adm. Ant Crusher's resignation is that he didn't agree with the ant-crushing time-table (which would be the "when" not "if" part.)
"There is ample documentation that Iran has provided many different forms of support to Sunni extremists, including Al Qaeda as well as Shi'ia extremists in Iraq. It would require a willing suspension of disbelief to deny Iran supports Al Qaeda in Iraq." Randy Scheunemann, McCain's national security spokesman.
"Gen. David Petraeus recently made a point of saying publicly that Iran continues to train Iraqi militants. 'We call it a lethal accelerant to a situation in Iraq that already has enough challenges.'"
"Mr. Bush said he had "told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." 10-18-2007
Bush said: "The problem is that we cannot trust a government that enriches uranium, which has cloaked and continues to hide activities, and which announced that it wants the atomic bomb in order to destroy people, some of which are located in the Middle East". 03-20-2008
When asked to comment on a recent poll showing that most Americans say the Iraq war is not worth it, Cheney responded with "so?"
"You don't care what the American people think?" the TV host asked.
"No," Cheney answered.
Three ways to spare Israel and us from WWIII:
1. Nuke Iran before they launch and hope millions of arabs and former allies will not react, nuke us all, including the oil companies and the war profiteers themselves, and that the corporate duopoly can squeeze the public for enough money to pay off would be terrorists and mercenaries before we go bankrupt.
2. Give Palestinians a fair deal, get out of the Middle East, buy the oil on the open market and subsidize green alternatives instead of Big Fossil and Big Nuke, to make us energy independent.
3. Adopt Senator Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy and let the people decide, not corporate politicians or the Israel lobby.
DMAC
i very much enjoyed your audio compilation. shame the music was spoiled by the drivel being spouted from the mouths of incompetents............
In fact, Lieberman, and other Israel supporters need no justification for war, neither against Iran nor any of Israel's foes in the Middle East. They have promoted conflicts on behalf of that country for many years and will likely continue doing so, until enough Americans push hard enough to restack their government's priorities.
You're allowed to say that here? I believe it is a step in the right direction, but it misnames the real threat. Look into Stephen E. Herbits and Ronald S. Lauder. Pay particular attention to Lauder's connections to the 07/24/01 privatization of the WTC, and his intimate ties to the IDC in Herzliya as well as to Netanyahu.
Just as we need to accurately call US activities in Iraq as an invasion/occupation, we need to call any Bush actions as an attack, not invasion.
The US has had special ops in Iran doing at least recon over the course of the last several years. The US is supporting anti-government elements in Iran.
The capability of the carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf and potentially airpower from land bases (dicier proposition) could,in short time, create widespread damage to both the military and civilian targets in Iran, killing many civilians and, BTW would be an act of war.
What would happen after that?
It waould make the current instability in the Middle East look like tranquility.
The world economy would see a barrel of oil hit $150 or more, severe international reprecussions and the US economy would tank along with severe recession/depression throughout the world.
Imagine an extensive boycott of US goods. Imagine lack of safety of shipping on the high seas. Imagine extensive atteacks on US military and civilian installations in many areas around the world.
The proper terms for Bush, Cheney and their cabal are psychopaths and madmen.
Doom and Gloom hit the nail on the head. Israel is ruining the US at home and abroad. The sooner we get wise and divest from Israel, the better off we will all be. Ask yourself why we have dual Israeli-US citizens as Secretary of Homeland Security (Chertoff) and the US Attorney General (Mukasey)? Why did the Pentagon on Friday ruled out including Adm. Fallon as a witness before Congress when the top U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Baghdad testify next month on the Iraq problem? Could it be his knowledge about the Israel/Neocon conspiracy to start a war with Iran and Syria?
The manpower for an engagement with Iran comes from Israel. If there is a will they will find a way. US attack by proxy, not sure though if Israels performance in last summers Lebanon slaughter has made this less attractive an option. Also not sure if the Israelis are mental enough to think it would be a good idea to attack Iran. They did with Iraq in 82 & Syria last year in operation Orchard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard ) with great success from their point of view. If they get twitchy and paranoid enough maybe. Even such a limited style of operation would be a dizzyingly insane escalation so maybe not. The louder you scream the faster we go...
My first thought when Fallon resigned was that he KNEW Bush was already determined to invade or at least bomb Iran into involvement in Iraq... preferably within days of the election in November so he could pull the trigger on Directive # 51.
I would like to point out, that a large part of Bush's power comes from the support he has in the fascist neo-con owned "news" media. He would not have been able to sell this country down the river so badly without MASSIVE help from Fox News and the Moonie media.
These so-called "news" outlets have been nothing but a megaphone for Bush policy that has brought about a war based on lies, destruction of the American image through illegal arrests, imprisonment and torture... and devastation of the U.S. economy through open borders policies, unbalanced free trade policies and rape of the Treasury by "connected" companies like Halliburton and KBR.
It's kind of like that old poem you used to see in the bathroom stalls in high school:
"People who write on ****house walls...
roll their **** in little balls...
people who read those lines of wit...
EAT those little balls of ****."
Fox and others have been rolling out little balls of **** for years now and FAR too many people have swallowed them.
Nate, you're missing the false flag scenerio. Yes, most thinking Americans won't buy another 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident, but by then it'll be a bit late and how many yanks are really going to want to think about that? The media will be howling for blood, if congress were to vote against the draft a repuke congress would vote for it in 2009. Of course if Bush uses nukes as a first strike, other countries might decide that nuking the States would be a good idea; they may even launch by mistake if you use ICBMs against Iran, would they trust you not to use the excuse of an Iranian war not to bomb Russia? T'is a scary world we're in these last few months of a bush league presiduncy...
The only "existential threat" is from McCain and Lieberman starting WWIII --- if Cheney and the chimp have not already started it.
As Chavez accurately characterized Bush, "as dangerous as a monkey with a razor."
One thing being missed here is where are they going to get the manpower to carry out the actual invasion? They currently have two choices: reinstitute the draft (a non-starter as that seems to be the only lesson from history that the Neo-Cons have learned: do not fight a colonial war with conscripts) or hire a firm like Blackwater (where the lesson from history is that fighting a war over resources with a mercenary army is worse than the prior example) to do it. Either scenario is even worse than the current Iraq quagmire. If only the Democrats had been smart enough to hire their own counter-demonstrators to counter the "Brooks Brothers Riot" during the Florida re-count fiasco!
Bush will bomb Iran. Bush will initiate a draft. Bush will start WW III. Don't let your kid die for the American economic elites or for Israel. Say hail no !!!
An overwhelming number of people supporting Obama will make it very difficult for the GOP to cheat on the vote counts, as they have in the past. Unlike Hilary or McCain, Obama has the audacity to suggest that he can talk with our enemies, that we can wage peace for a change, and leave the chicken hawks out of the picture.
Fallon's resignation (firing) is a sure sign that cool-hand dick plans on attacking Iran. And if he doesn't get it done before the Nov election, he has a mccain/lieberman ticket to do it for him. Any wonder why lieberman is touring the area on mccain's coattails? If cheney/bush killed over a million Iraqis, I wonder how many Iranians they will kill.
The Pentagon is omitting Fallon from any Pentagon decisions.
Bush is all bluster when it comes to war. He'd never illegally invade a sovereign nation. HA!
If you want a little taste of the scary truth listen to my short audio compliation.
http://nukular-waste.tripod.com/Bush-The_Bringer_of_Wars.mp3