Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCan Obama Prevent an October Surprise Attack on Iran?
"Naturally, the common people do not want war . . . but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
- Herman Goering at the Nuremburg trials
The Obama campaign has undoubtedly considered the possibility that a desperate Republican Party will try to manipulate this Fall's election by waging war against Iran between now and November. An attack against Iran -- either by the US Air Force or using the Israelis as a proxy -- would be so dangerous that the possibility requires the Obama campaign to strategize not in terms of how they would respond politically to an October surprise, but to consider what they can do now, proactively, to make the political risks of an attack poisonous to a political party that has repeatedly shown itself to be willing to pursue, for short-term political gain, policies that undermine legitimate American foreign-policy interests and cost American lives.
From the Bush Administration's selling of the Iraq War (and countless past wars in all times and places), we can predict that an attack would be justified -- most likely after it actually occurs -- by a claim that the US had secret intelligence that Iran was on the verge of a nuclear or other WMD attack on us or Israel. Once we have launched an attack, any questioning or criticism will be silenced as traitorous: we will all be exhorted to support our brave troops. The media will be intimidated into serving as an echo chamber. The opposition party and its candidates, especially Obama, will be handcuffed against showing any opposition, and McCain as the ultimate military insider will inevitably be elected -- all before there is time for the whole thing to be exposed as a fraud.
A military attack on Iran -- whether led by U.S. forces or Israeli ones -- would be a disaster for the Middle East and for genuine American interests. In the short term, the Iranians could very easily mine the Strait of Hormuz, immediately cutting off somewhere between 20 and 40% of the world's oil supply and raising oil prices to the $250/barrel range. Or the Iranians could have their clients in Iraq, inside and outside the government, attack U.S. forces there -- not to mention the possibility of retaliatory terror attacks on American soil. In the long term an attack on Iran would likely guarantee, as even the current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has said, that "we'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America."
Despite this, there is ample evidence that the Cheney faction within the Bush Administration has been lusting for war against Iran for quite some time. As early as August of 2003, a British official knowledgeable about Bush Administration planning told Newsweek, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." In January of this year, a minor (but potentially very dangerous) incident occurred in the Strait of Hormuz, in which five Iranian speedboats were alleged to have provoked three US warships. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that after this event, officials met in Cheney's office to discuss how to provoke or even manufacture another naval incident to open a state of war between Tehran and Washington. Clearly, when considering an attack against Iran, the administration will not be restrained by international law, ethics, or the truth.
What "poison pills" can the Obama campaign bring into the campaign to help prevent such an attack? First of all, Obama can continue to press his general point that the GOP has essentially thrown away American diplomatic power by its continuing policies of shooting first and talking later. The campaign should also, however, integrate criticism of GOP foreign policy calamities into an overall narrative about John McCain. We recommend that this narrative be centered in words like "trigger-happy," "impulsive," and the like -- words that are reinforced by McCain's unvetted selection of Sarah Palin as running mate, by ludicrously childish actions such as his singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" at a town hall meeting in South Carolina this past April, and by McCain's increasingly well-known temper tantrums. Even one of McCain's fellow Republican senators, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, has said, "the thought of (McCain) being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
Obama also has the opportunity given him by the split between the most bloody-minded neocons -- who are extremely well-represented in McCain's foreign policy team -- and "realist" figures such as Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, former head of the U.S. Central Command, who this past spring felt it necessary to publicly speak out against a possible attack on Iran, and was forced to resign.
The McCain campaign has already begun exploiting the Iran situation, and lying about it, by having both surrogates and McCain say that Obama has called Iran "a tiny problem" (in fact, Obama said on May 18 that the challenge Iran poses is tiny in comparison to that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War). In discussing Iran, Obama should emphasize the lies his opponents have told about his position -- as a means of turning the conversation to the fact that the GOP has an obvious record of lying about foreign policy in general. This gives Obama the opportunity to first reiterate how we managed to ramp down the Cold War diplomatically (and how Republicans participated in that process) and to begin emphasizing how much of the neocon belligerence at the center of McCain's foreign policy is based on lies. The campaign should also not be afraid to use the word "lie." If needed as proof, there is one very prominent and concise example of Bush Administration telling an obvious lie to justify aggression: Donald Rumsfeld's statement about Iraqi WMD that "We know where they are."
By taking on the experienced and rhetorically uninhibited Joe Biden as Vice-Presidential candidate, the Obama campaign can begin taking control of the conversation about Iran -- and other foreign policy challenges such as Russia and Pakistan -- and demonstrate that bombs dropping will not necessarily lead to more GOP votes. The Democrats have bowed to right-wing "strength" on security policy all too often -- "strength" that's cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars we could put to use at home. We are at a unique juncture in American life and the war party has overplayed their hand tremendously. The American people are sick of Iraq, sick of being manipulated by fear.
Obama has the opportunity to start overturning a generation's worth of foreign policy discourse that has been fundamentally dishonest, wasteful of American resources and hundreds of thousands of human lives, because that discourse is centered in Goering's ideas of how to manipulate the public. The Obama campaign's hope for success, as well as basic patriotism, requires that he change our course.
75 Comments so far
Show AllFor all the hype surrounding Obama’s status as the first African-American nominee of a major political party, it is becoming increasingly clear that his rhetoric is so much empty sloganeering. He is an entirely conventional politician, a veteran of the Illinois Democratic Party machine, who will continue the same policies as his predecessors.
In a series of calculated moves over the past several weeks, Obama has sought to reassure the American ruling elite that he is a capable defender of its interests, from voting for warrantless domestic spying to backtracking on his pledge to eliminate Bush’s tax cuts for the rich.
In the course of the election campaign, Obama has rapidly shed his antiwar posturing, affirming his support for the continued occupation of Iraq, calling for stepped-up US attacks on Pakistani territory and denouncing Bush for not sending enough additional troops to Afghanistan. He has also echoed the Bush administration’s bellicose and provocative stance against Russia.
read more: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/elec-s13.shtml
What's next, quotes from the Drudge report?
Why don't you back up your claims with some legitimate links?
The US is an empire. Empires survive through violently taking from less powerful nations the means to make wealth. Obama has applied for the position of Emperor. He needs to demonstrate that he is willing to shed blood in the furtherance of empire and hence his lurch to the right and his bellicosity. And he certainly sounds like he's ready:
Obama: “And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?”
Obama: “We’re going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support,” Obama continued. “We’re going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We’re going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective.”
Obama:”Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.”
Obama: “We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator in the Afghan border region…etc.
1. A vote for Obama will not end the occupation.
2. Obama wants to increase military spending.
3. Obama's advisers want to keep Bush's Defense Secretary Roberts Gates.
4. Obama wants more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.
5. Obama wants to add an additional 100,000 troops.
6. Obama wants to intensify the war in Afghanistan.
7. Obama wants to keep over 60,000 troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil.
lil Ricky
Could you just go over to one of the other threads where you posted stuff just like this and repost the responses here? It would save everyone a lot of time.
In his speech Wednesday night, Biden accused the Bush administration of being weak on “national security.” He charged that it “has failed to face the biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China and India as great powers; the spread of lethal weapons; the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water; the challenge of climate change; and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front against terrorism.”
He drew particular attention to the confrontation with Russia over the autonomous regions in Georgia, accusing the Bush administration of “neglect” in relation to this conflict and suggesting that a Democratic administration would adopt an even more confrontational stance. “We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we’ll help the people of Georgia rebuild,” he declared.
read more: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/denc-a29.shtml
Equally significant, Obama criticized the war in Iraq as a strategic blunder, not an act of aggression that has resulted in the slaughter of over one million innocent people. He presented the US occupation, which has shattered Iraq as a functioning society, as though the Bush administration was favoring that country at American expense. “Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits,” he complained.
read more: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/obam-a30.shtml
What a thoroughly stupid and dishonest article written by DPAs (Democratic Party apologists) to try and obfuscate the fact Obama actually wants to escalate war and has said he wouldn't shy from invading Pakistani sovereignty by invading their territory without permission to chase down or bomb "terrorists".
From the Bush Administration's selling of the Iraq War...
-and how about the buying by Democrats? Any attack on Republicans must also include an attack on the enablers, the Dims.
What "poison pills" can the Obama campaign bring into the campaign to help prevent such an attack?
-how's this for poison: Obama says let's keep 50,000 plus troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil, pull some out and send them to Afghanistan. How's that?
Obama can continue to press his general point that the GOP has essentially thrown away American diplomatic power by its continuing policies of shooting first and talking later.
-sure, but square that with the fact he has a record of voting for war funding. These arguments are among the most absurd DPAs make. They try and present Obama as an antiwar candidate in spite of his wretched record.
By taking on the experienced and rhetorically uninhibited Joe Biden as Vice-Presidential candidate, the Obama campaign can begin taking control of the conversation about Iran
-What a hypocritical statement. Biden was a advocate of the war in Iraq.
Rhetoricians for Peace is an international network of students and teachers of rhetoric who advocate the open exchange of accurate information in order to promote social justice and peaceful resolutions of conflict.
-oh bullshit! These unabashed DPAs try and present Obama as an alternative to the militarist policies of the Republicans which is a lie. These dishonest DPAs pretend to not be aware of Obama's war funding record, proposal to escalate war in Afghanistan, ignoring of torture, lack of support for civil rights (FISA) and the saber rattling of Iran, Pakistan and Russia. You have got to be kidding, right?
ctrlz,
Endlessly saying that Obama is better than McCain is just gibberish. At least construct an argument as to why he's better. You say it "would be easier to work for change under Democrats, rather than under continued GOP subversion of freedom." You offer no argument to support your claim. Yet the Democrats have assisted Bush and the Republicans in every single subversion of freedom you can mention, from the authorizing and funding the Wars, to the PATRIOT ACT, to the FISA vote, and now soon with the bailout. In fact, the populace will never have more leverage over a candidate than during an election cycle. So how is your effort to change Obama's policy positions coming along so far?
If you are willing to be honest, then you should admit the obvious; he isn't listening to you, and he won't suddenly have an epiphany and support a progressive agenda. But I imagine you don't really care about any this. Because for every criticism you hear about Obama, you will simply retort how frightened you are of McCain, without ever confronting the flaws possessed by your candidate (or even examining if there is a real difference between them on a given issue). Your outrage towards the Republicans and McCain is complete nonsense unless you are equally offended when the Democrats act the same way. Can you deny, for example, that Obama is more hawkish on Pakistan than McCain?
{ctrl-z; "Check this. I read your posts for a while, ctrl-z, then 'z' appeared...coincidence? Not if this infection manifest after you.
I note this because I used to post under another name, voicing support for Obama, until a near identicle screen-name popped up defaming him.
Not coincidence.
Just microscopic examples of Republican honestly and integrity."
And yes, you aren't paranoid, I really am a member of a giant Republican think tank with plans to dominate the world through "trolling". We met in our secret lair and created the profile "z" with the specific intent of annoying you, "ctrl z".
little z sez:
"We met in our secret lair and created the profile "z" with the specific intent of annoying you, "ctrl z"."
Well, at least you're honest about it. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
little z said:
"Can you deny, for example, that Obama is more hawkish on Pakistan than McCain?"
I love the way the anti-Obama crowd selects a single country out of the whole world and uses Obama's policy toward one aspect of relations with that country to claim he's a war-monger like McCain.
Here's Obama's policy on cross border incursions into Pakistan:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801
"Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said."
Is Obama more hawkish on Pakistan than McCain? Well, McCain has said he would follow Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell", but he never said he'd follow him into Pakistan.
---------------------------------------------
To see a current comparison of the foreign policies of both Obama and McCain check out:
"McCain and Obama differ on how to handle global hot spots"
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/701724.html
This gives a balanced view of the foreign policies of both candidates, something you won't get from an anti-Obama fanatic like little z.
Sioux Rose
POET: If the machine can be halted in its tracks, it might be worth the initial fireworks; but I admit to being NO war strategist, as a peace activist!
"Address this: I said it would be easier to work for change under Democrats, rather than under continued GOP subversion of freedom.
Your statement is empty rhetoric.
"And I said Obama would be better than McCain."
"Uh, Obama good. Gooood. Mmm. McCain bad."
I think I summed up your argument.
little z
[sound of little z blowing a raspberry]
I think I summed up your argument.
As rhetoricians, the authors should be keenly aware of the wishful thinking fallacy. It permeates their piece.
Republican enthusiasm for war (and torture, and mercenaries, etc. etc.) is well understood on commondreams. It does not automatically follow, though, that Obama is anti-war. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Obama is also quite willing to continue the war that he has consistently voted to fund.
Therefore, even if candidate Obama could do what his entire opposition (sic) party could not do and prevent the Bush administration from this or that military adventure, there's no compelling reason to think that he would, or that his party would support him.
I am absolutely certain that Rhetoricians for Peace can distinguish between a lesser enthusiasm for war and an actual interest in peace. If they are willing to advocate the former, then they should reexamine their commitment to the latter.
Translucent wrote,
"Uh, Obama good. Gooood. Mmm. McCain bad. Very Bad. Me vote for Obama. No McCain. No, no, no... Nah, nah, nah... Good! Good Obama. McCain, grrrr! Boo Mccain! Boo! I vote Obama. I like. No to a new GOP Furher. No. No. No. NO!"
You will have to construct a more convincing argument than that.
z; Besides your infantile rugurgitations,
Address this: I said it would be easier to work for change under Democrats, rather than under continued GOP subversion of freedom.
And I said Obama would be better than McCain.
You did not deny these points.
You just brayed like the little jack-ass you have shown yourself to be.
Where did you come from? I've been on CD for years and don't remember a 'z'
Wipe the pablum off your bib and whine some more. Republican scum.
little z
Translucent wrote with clarity and simplicity.
You stuck your tongue out.
Perhaps your anti-Obama obsession has finally gotten the better of you.
ctrl-z; Hello. Check this. I read your posts for a while, ctrl-z, then 'z' appeared...coincidence? Not if this infection manifest after you.
I note this because I used to post under another name, voicing support for Obama, until a near identicle screen-name popped up defaming him.
Not coincidence.
Just microscopic examples of Republican honestly and integrity.
Obama. Not Palin-Not WW3.
You know, I wondered about that. As it is I feel like someone who lived comfortably with the last name of Dahmer for years - until Jeffrey popped up.
McCain-Palin? That is just absurd. Insane.
Obama. Things will get a little better under Obama, instead of a lot worse under McCain.
And those who choose to work for change these next few years will find they are more able to under Obama.
No to a new GOP Furher. No.
Obama.
You know, this article is about preventing an attack on Iran, but what about Pakistan. If you want to prevent attacks against Pakistan the you have to vote for McCain.
How's this for irony? With Pakistan, McCain's the pacifist and Obama's the war-monger.
Here are some quotes:
Obama: They are plotting to strike again... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Aug. 23, 2008
When Obama gave a speech saying he’d send troops into Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government was unwilling to act, Biden told NPR that “It’s a well-intentioned notion he has, but it’s a very naive way of thinking how you’re going to conduct foreign policy,” adding of his then-rival, in a remark Republicans are sure to revive: “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.”
BLIZTER: If you had good actionable intelligence in Pakistan where they were, would you give the order to kill him or capture him?
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Absolutely.
BLITZER: And go into Pakistan?
BUSH: Absolutely.
BLITZER: Even though the Pakistanis say that's their sovereign territory?
BUSH: Absolutely. We would take the action necessary to bring him to justice.
McCain: I'm not going to go there. And here's why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation.
JOHN MCCAIN: "Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?"
...a reporter noted that what Obama’s “saying is not going after Pakistan, but going after al Qaeda targets within Pakistan.” “That’s still bombing Pakistan,” replied McCain.
Khusheed Kasuri, Pakistan's foreign minister, said: "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say. As the election campaign in America is heating up, we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
If you don't want to vote for war, then you can't vote Dem or Repug.
It looks like we will be spending billions of dollars sending soldiers in to Georgia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and of course soldiers to stay in Iraq, too. Obama is a pro-war candidate, and we all know McCain is even more of a hawk. Fascism is allready here, unless we rise up and get rid of both major parties, BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM!
Maverick: A gunslingin', fast talkin',gamblin' con-man with a thirst for cheap booze n' young wimmen of a cert'n per-swashun' . Great concept for a movie, dangerous for a President. John McCain; wrong man, wrong plan!
Another Apocalyptic Shtick
'Apocalypstick' for the republican rose looks good
on a Barbie Palin or ‘mission accomplished’ doll/action figure
just a good strong stick unlike Cheeney's
more like Halliburtons upticks
or General Dynamics freedom sticks
and portfolios with missed cluster bomb opportunities
the warfare stick that makes our nation tick
You can be the second dick without one
Just stick with the timed out John
the experienced one with practical jungle time
spreading agent orange or napalm
to clear the peasants for a Johnny run
a 'wag the dog' one of dumb bomb sticks from another quagmire.. Johnny's pride
as songbird fly sticks or curly fly licks
keep the lies off the dung heap of empire
as it readies the world for a new partially clothed leader
the all in one pale in one.. one
The paleface pride of the north a family head like Amadinejad
the celebrity mom one but please keep her mum
just keep her pictured with stalwart leaders like Uribe or Kiss of death in ger
and Johnny the for/four strikes one
Let's sell the road to nowhere
to the enamored few
or to a gentile or a jew
Please keep that road to nowhere well oiled and ethically clean
Keep it away from that Putin team or those Mullah queens
or the chosen few who may prefer tolls and check points
Check points to nowhere
like fallen Johnny angel prophecy
Obama is not going to do anything to prevent an "October surprise". He and McCain have the same paymasters. Don't waste your time trying to figure out which of these is the lesser evil, or which one can save us. Voting for either corporate candidate is asking for more of the same---war and a lower standard of living for the American people.
We need to allow people to hear Ralph Nader. He must be in the debates. The corporate owners of the two major political parties have prevented people from even knowing they have a choice besides that between Twiddle de Dumb and Twiddle de Dumber. The "N" word may not be said on the TV, or the radio (even on Pacifica) or in the newspapers.
Apathy is in full force. Congress is preparing to give 700 BILLION dollars to the banking 'industry' who have been gouging us for decades!! and no strings attached--except those strings to the incomes of working people and our children and grandchildren for decades to come. Wake up America. Don't vote for the people that our fleecing you. We sent democracy to Iraq---let's try it at home!!
Vote for Nader and Gonzalez and tell your friends to do the same. Stand up and fight back!! It may be too late, but still, you gotta try.
Too bad you are not working for the change we can get this election. Nader is not part of the political scene this year. Only Obama gives us any hope for change. There is not going to be any October surprise. Yes,there is truly a difference between the Democrat and the Republican this year, just as there was in 2000.
Get over it. Neither Obama or McCain will go against extending our wars of aggression anywhere on planet earth. Who is the lesser of the two evils? or who will save us? between these two is a pointless question. They stand together cheek to cheek on nearly every issue. What a duet they sing in perfect harmony.
We have to let people hear from Nader. He needs to be in the debates. As you know the "N" word is not allowed on TV, or on the radio, (even Pacifica), or in the newspapers. People don't even know he is running. And that is not an accident or an oversight. The corporate owners of the two major parties don't want anyone to hear Nader. Fascism is fine for them.
We have to break out of corporate control. Voting for either of the corporate parties is agreeing to an even faster decline of our democracy. What a sad state we are in. Apathy is so rampant!! Now they want us to give Wall Steet 700 BILLION dollars with no oversight. That 700 Billion does have strings on it. The strings go to your income and that of your children and grandchildren for decades into the future.
"Rhetoricians for Peace" is the perfect name for an organization promoting the false rhetoric of Obama. These people are idiots. Did they even bother to look up Obama's position on Iran?
"Obama, June 4: The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."
There are many ways to eliminate a threat. One would be Bush/McPalin---no direct negotiation, bluster and threat, and maybe a preemptive bombing campaign. And another would involve Obama's promise to directly negotiate. That's what negotiation is for---to eliminate threats. Personally, I don't see them as a threat at all. They have a right to develop nuclear energy.
They may not have looked up Obama's position on Iran, just as you didn't look up anything about the group before slinging invective.
"Rhetoricians for Peace, a international progressive organization for teachers and students of rhetoric interested in influencing the tenor, manner, and truthfulness of public discourse so as to advance peace and justice."
source: http://interversity.org/node/16
You may also note that they've been around since 2003, quite a while before Obama's candidacy.
Their article recognizes implicitly that Obama's rhetoric is not what we want it to be:
"Obama has the opportunity to start overturning a generation's worth of foreign policy discourse..."
If Obama has the *opportunity* to do something, then he isn't currently doing it.
You're better off engaging teaching faculty with reason, not by calling them idiots.
The article assumes that Obama knows for sure beforehand that an attack is imminent. Besides, all the advice given Obama as to what he should say and do, he should have done them by now as part of his campaign anyway. Let's not forget that he is part of the same corrupt system.
It is no longer news that the Bush Administration is a big lying cheat. In fact, I was just watching Bush delivering his 2000 stump speech at Portland University promising that he would preserve Social Security, that his Administration would be remembered as the one kept peace, blah, blah, blah .Boy, that son of a motherless child is a shameless liar. And I mean SHAMELESS !!!!!!!!
Sioux Rose
Yesterday I dared to have this discussion with my boyfriend, who up until meeting me had been in the camp of his rightwing Christian authoritarian parents. He said that one of the maneuvers that helped the allies win WW II was blocking a route important to the Germans which cut off their fuel supply. (I hate war, and am not "up" on strategies, but this sounded right.) I bring this up because those nations that are fed up with the U.S. and its bullying tactics, trade at bayonet point, etc must notice this is an opportune moment to seize power. The best way to do it is to stop the US in its (military) tracks. By converting to Euros, the dollar loses the oil hegemony and because our dollar is currently so weak as to be nearly worthless, OIL could in fact stop flowing to OUR war machine. From a spiritual perspective, I can't think of a better outcome, nor a more fitting end to the Piscean Age which ran on black crude, what the Arabs term "a soft loan from Allah."
Siouxrose while I share your desire to "starve the beast" (the "beast" being an out of control war-profiteering MIC enabling the Christofascist wing of the Republican Party) your suggestions would be the ideal excuse for them to start WWIII.
Most Americans fail to understand that the proximate cause of the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which started WWII) was the American demand that Japan leave China or the US would cut off its oil suppply and freeze all Japanese assets in the US. The Japanese had less than 30 days of petroleum reserves and so decided that they had nothing to lose. Fascists don't change their stripes, just the colors.
Saddam was in the process of beginning that very process of "Euroization" when suddenly he found himself in a deeper pile of s__t than he ever imagined possible. Sadly the people of both political parties' leadership have the deluded notion that the here and now is all there is and so what the hell, let's shoot the moon.
I plan to be watching the President's speech tonight because I want to see if the sorry miserable crumb squirms, what new lies will come out of his mouth, and also because I am worried that he is desperate and foolish enough to up the ante in this month before the election just out of spite (also known as "October Surprise"). I wonder if (or who) the Democrats will choose for a counter-statement.
So many of the political leadership in both parties have been compromised
that it is scary to contemplate what (if any) form any opposition would take.
Poet
“It is extremely important for the present administration to preserve the state of confrontation with Russia. This creates an environment for aggressive rhetoric, in which John MaCain has succeeded so well. This is why in its fight against Barack Obama the White House is ready to continue confrontation with Russia even though this is at odds with the interests of their NATO allies and the interests of the United States,” Russian permanent representative to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said. (ITAR-TASS)
I truly hope you are not counting on Venezuela, Arab world, et all to cut us off? It would cut their own throats. Not going to happen.
Your boyfriend was quite right I believe, stopping fuel supplies to both Germany and Japan helped speed the end of the war.
We could do better than they did because we have many sources of energy. But I would suggest that the only people really hurt by shutting down part or all of our oil supplies would be the poorest and most vulnerable.
"I truly hope you are not counting on Venezuela, Arab world, et all to cut us off? It would cut their own throats. Not going to happen."
But when the oil finishes drying up, won't they be in trouble anyway? Besides, Venezuela exports heavy crude oil these days instead of light if I recall. As for the Arab world, my cousin's friend who has a lot of knowledge about the working class in Saudi Arabia and most oil producing Arab nations has confirmed that except for the royal elites in power, everyone else has actually been further pushed into poverty after black gold became the dominant source of revenue. I already am aware that there is no middle class in Saudi Arabia just like Israel and that the poor working class are suffering human rights violations big time. It's already very scary enough to even imagine the consequences of global peak oil as it's hitting us all.
IF THE US OR ISRAEL ATTACK mmmmmmmmm
Can anyone of you say WW3? You attack a good friend of Russia and Russia attacks a good friend of America.
Although I have not completely ruled out tactical strikes against high-value targets in Iran... and I have noticed how the issue is being quietly pushed off the back-burner now that the focus has changed almost completely to "economic survival", I do not agree with the rest of your premise.
Obama?
Don't you know that almost all of us who are not totally deluded by his complete perversion of the meaning of "hope", do NOT believe that Obama is a viable solution.
He is more of the same.
He is owned by the same masters.
America: Can you spare some "change" o Savior Obama??? Pleeeese???
Obama: Uhhh, I "hope" to have some extra change in about four years or so. In the meantime... quit whining! It makes my trigger finger itchy and gives me the impulse to be a stern taskmaster.
toast,
You best completely rule out a tactical strike. Once a missile is lobbed, it'll soon come to a total war.
"Once a missile is lobbed, it'll soon come to a total war."
That is called escalation... and I agree with you... *that* alternative reality always exists.
As of a few days ago, Russia has refused to meet with Americans on the Iran nuclear issue as a result of incessant NATO pressure to string missiles around their country.
So, where there was once a little "accord"... no consensus exists today among major players.
Bottom line. There is a much better chance today (due to CheneyOilCo)... that your vision of the future has real validity.
I cannot see it happening. There are a number of reasons:
1) The unplanned financial meltdown will occupy the White House so there will be no time to plan a "surprise";
2) No money (see item 1 above);
3) The majority of people are already reacting to McCain's cheap trick of tapping a woman for VP. An October Surprise is just too obvious, even for idiots.
WTF,
4) The US may end up getting a bloodier nose than expected.
Q: How did Napoleon finance his 1812 invasion of Russia?
A: counterfeit money
Lack of money has rarely stopped agggresors.
1) They have had years to plan. Cheney has a man-sized safe in his office and it's not filled with chocolate-chip cookie recipes.
2) There's always money for war. Print, print, print. Inflation of the money supply and devaluation of the dollar will even make the deficit irrelevant. So what if it impoverishes the masses?
3) So what if it's obvious? If some zealot (of either side) sets things off and the shooting starts, who will stand up and say 'Hey, let's stop shooting at each other long enough to figure things out'?
Things can get out of control faster than anyone can get control of the situation. And, the guys with all the power have no incentive to get control. In fact, they have lots of incentive to have things get out of control.
Once a nuke goes off things will never be the same.
Many people thought the buildup to war with Iraq was obvious but the invasion surprised lots of American sheeple.
Dick Cheney shot a man in the face. He is capable of anything evil.
At the first comment by FrrederikJohnson: there seems to be a campaign in comments on this and other progressive web-sites that Obama and McCain are equivalent and therefore it doesn't really matter much who is (s)elected...
There is a difference and it does matter.
Iran is no where near the threat to world peace that the United State of Arrogance is at the moment.
__________
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round and a promise in the evening when the sun goes down
-“there seems to be a campaign in comments on this and other progressive web-sites that Obama and McCain are equivalent”
I haven’t noticed anyone saying that they are equivelent. Many people ARE saying that they are both terrible choices for president of the US. Keep looking, there are candidates that are not bought and payed for.
-“Iran is no where near the threat to world peace that the United State of Arrogance is at the moment.”
I can’t disagree with that.
jlocke123 sez: "I haven’t noticed anyone saying that they are equivelent."
Have you noticed the big round light in the sky that is only there in the daytime?
Most likely scenario is a combination of all the tactics that have worked before.
A false flag attack (or many attacks) to generate American casualties and cause the military to react automatically, thus ensnaring us into a shooting war that we can't get out of and generating more American casualties to keep the spiralling hostilities going. No effort will be made to back off and cool things down, only a cacophony of dire proclamations and fevered patriotism.
Lies. The kitchen sink will be thrown at us, lies upon lies to confuse, obfuscate and generate hatred and the need for revenge. And, of course, pointing out the one and only road to Victory!
A supporting cast of catastrophes. Now the bailout, next something else, etc, giving no time to reflect, only calls for instantaneous reacting. Keeping everyone off-balance.
-Excerpted from my unwritten book "How to start a war and stop an election".
You are right. They are not even making an attempt to hide the criminality. This is where it would be useful to have an opposition party waiting in the wings to take over. Sadly opponents of the Bush government are reduced to hoping that his Democrat supporters will do a slightly less criminal job in the future.
Can anti-Obama trolls resist this piece?
Survey says, "No."
Does everyone see the empty space where pro-Obama arguments should be?
Yes the Obama supporters seem few and far between these days. I can't blame them for going away. Yesterday I was called:
"ass clown"
"mindless nit-wit tool"
"monkey poking at the keyboard"
"Your mindless drivel is nothing but offal and stain."
All for the "thought crime" of arguing for Obama's election.
Your group drags a good progressive like Norman Solomon over the coals and ridicules him for being a puppet and a sellout because he supports Obama. You dismiss us with names like "lesserevilist" and DPA.
You've become what you despise---intolerant knee-jerk right-wing extremist. Just substitute left for right.
When a group resorts to this kind of unprovoked vitriol and invective it shows me that their ideas are bankrupt.
And if this group of supposed "common dreamers" has no room for us, then I'm sure the progressive movement will keep dwindling away the way it has.
And don't think I don't realize it takes two---many times---for these things to blow up. I too share in the guilt, as not long ago I called someone a "sputtering Rovian tool"
It's hard not to get wrapped up.
I've reformed my ways, and I apologize for any offense I may have given.
Apology accepted.
Thank you---that's nice to read.
Weak, madcow, and off target. I said none of those things. I challenge you to show otherwise.Is acusing me of being part of your imaginary “group” the best you can do? Disgraceful!!
No Jlocke, I picked the first post that seemed to carry that general attitude. I'm not accusing you of saying any of that. Do you deny that it's out there?
We are not the enemy!
I understand that you identify with Obama, but, isn’t he a public figure? How many times do we read, here and elsewhere, worse things being done to the names of Bush, Iranian leaders with long names, Nader, Hugo Chavez. I don’t stoop to scatology, like some posters here. I also, as you do, try to not use ad hominem arguments like some others buzzing around here. I will try in future to not get you “wrapped up”. At the same time I struggle to find a way to express my puzzlement at the “Obama phenomenon”.
I know what you mean. It seems like the debate in simplified form boils down to: They're all sellout bastards, and we need to throw them out!----or: Lets try to get the best candidate we can and work within the broken system.
I have no answer, but thanks for your words---it means a lot.
You are on the right track.
It is insane to say "let's make things a lot worse, instead of a little better," there is one huge difference between the two.
Obama.
It's like a troll magnet.
And the empire goes out with a bang...fitting.
Didn't I hear Obama say something to the effect that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable? That sounds just like McCain, Bush, AIPAC, etc.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
The only thing that will stop the USA/Israel from attacking Iran is for Putin to place his front line SAMs in Iran, along with Russian military personnel to maintain and operate these systems. The Russian TOR SAM systems are there now, but they are insufficient to deter/confront an attack. The newer SA300 system will do the job.
How about a couple wings of MIGS with top gun Russian pilots? The Israeli planes will be heavy with fuel and bombs and on the radar for hours. Zoom zoom kill.
One suspects that the two major presidential candidates are terrified that this little but powerful snippet could ever make its way onto the corporate airwaves as it gives strong credence to the belief that Obama and McCain are much more similar than they are different. All the more reason why the presidential debates should be open to voices other than either a Democrat or a Republican.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5WiE6MnmCM
“Can Obama Prevent an October Surprise Attack on Iran?”
Urrr… can McCain prevent an attack? What makes the author believe that either of them have any interest in doing so?
Is it the multiple votes for more Iraq occupation money? The votes to threaten Iran with a blocade? The sending of more troops to Afghanistan? The kidnapping and torture, by the CIA, of Europeans? The USAID money sent to destabilize South America? The authorization of commando raids inside Iran? The US bombings of Pakistan?
Please do tell, how Saint Obama’s Democrats will save the US (with financial backing from Wall St. of course).
This doesn't pass the smell test. How exactly do these folks think we are going to go to war with Iran?
Those who have the will, have the way. (They think.) Iran is not really off the table for these lunatics.
Well, nothing is impossible I guess. But we simply don't have any assets left to attack them with. And it would expose the troops left in Iraq to direct attack. Thats what I was thinking.
The US would have to be convinced that there would be no major retaliation by Iraqis or Iranians against American troops, ships, allies etc. Could they pull it off? A little retaliation would be good, from their perspective, to oil the war machine, but major losses or spectacular counter attacks, that would be problematic.
Sure we do. Carrier groups, warships armed with cruise missiles (which conveniently are already over there to support the Iraq war). Stealth Bombers and B-52s that can fly from here in the US to bomb Iran. An attack doesn't have to mean ground forces.
An attack would mean ground forces in this case because we have about 140,000 troopps right across the border. We attack Iran and they don't go for them? I would. We can't support them.
Unless we are prepared to obliterate Iran, which yes we can, any lowly Lt. would say have you gone crackers at the suggestion that we attack Iran unprovoked.
I remind all, my wife says I am not always right.
We seem to be forgetting Afghanistan, the other border. Beyond that, we're operating on another border, in Pakistan. And then you have the US and friends messing around nearby with their friends, the Russians.
Any attack against Iran would by design be a precursor to a full-blown, winner take all war.
I daresay that propaganda and cartoon trucks presented to the UN will not start this one. Why? Because we've basically been at war 8 years already. The military can't handle it, no matter how much fake money we throw at them--and the country can't, no matter how much fake money we throw at organizations that sell fake money.
The public is dumb, but they also scare easily...both for war and against it.
All Hopey needs to do is come up with--and sell vigorously--a "5 year plan" and get people actively engaged in it--that is, a five year plan that puts people to work or back to school. Put the Republicans on their back foot--they can't rhetorically fight "new, better jobs for Joes" with "they hate our freedom."
Think of it: the only reason the trades have stayed strong over the beginning of the Bush II recession was the fact that all the factory workers who initially lost their jobs went to work in home construction. A bunch or real estate agents just lost their livelihoods too.
It's gonna take at least five years for these people to re-adjust and pop back into income. Right now they're packing and checking on Chapter 11....
Everything's fine when you're drunk, so you can be sold on anything. But when you have a hangover, you'd rather shoot the salesman.
We didn't have any assets to attack Iraq but we did it anyway. Of course, the ongoing oil crisis and the further bleeding of the economy might slow down the push to Iran but we need to weaken the pro-war forces in the long run.
Obama or Mccain, the push to go to war with Iran will keep going until the oil prices go right back up to above 150/barrel and never go back down!