Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran

[norml]

Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran
It's More Important Than Halting Nuclear Proliferation


by Bill Christison and Kathleen Christison

January 1, 2006
Counterpunch



The peace movements of the entire world should be in crisis mode right now, working non-stop to prevent the U.S. and Israel from starting a war against Iran. (See the James Petras article in CounterPunch on December 24, 2005 titled Iran in the Crosshairs for the best summary of the present situation.) The reckless and unnecessary dangers arising from such a war are so obvious that one wonders why normal political forces in the two aggressor countries -- both of whom love to glorify themselves as democracies -- would not prevent such a war from happening.

But the "normal political forces" in both the U.S. and Israel have become badly distorted. Democracy has been seriously undermined in both. The cowboy-like personalities and aggressive tendencies of both countries' leaders tend to feed on each other. Domestic political difficulties and coming elections in both countries probably add to the macho inclination of the ruling elites to use force to remove any problems facing them. The glue binding these tendencies together is the ever-strengthening institutional link between defense establishments and military-industrial complexes in both countries, as well as, in the U.S, the growing power and influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) over both major political parties. The entire mix increases the probability, against all common sense, that this absurd war will actually happen.

Nothing else more dangerous to the world, to the Middle East, to the oppressed Palestinians, or to the true interests of the United States is happening today -- anywhere. Americans who do not want an eruption of a new world war, started by our own government, ought to be strongly lobbying the Bush administration and all members of Congress against supporting any military action by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. Globally, people who oppose such a war should be lobbying their own governments in similar fashion.

Background

It is worthwhile to discuss briefly the broader context of why a war with Iran today seems a real possibility. During his all-out public relations effort in late 2005 to regain support for his policies in the Middle East, Bush has made it clear that he plans to continue his drive for complete victory in the "War on Terrorism," without making significant changes in his own, very aggressive, foreign policies. Those policies will make this planet a less safe, more unjust place to live for most people around the world, as well as for most of us living in the U.S. The special relationship between the U.S. and Israel has long played an important role in these aggressive policies.


snip


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHR20060101&articleId=1700

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Best way I can think to slow Bush down

is to insist that he be held accountable for his unlawful actions in snooping on people's phone calls without a warrant. Hearings are planned-even repukes are calling for them (Lugar is the latest, I believe). He should be held accountable for his actions, and his actions should give Congress pause before allowing him to do any more reckless things.

[still_one]

3. true, and the point isn't the spying, i.e. wire taps as you stated

but not going through the judicial branch, a clear violation of the law

THIS IS WHAT SHOULD BE SCREAMED BY THE MSM, but they are noticably absent

[tatertop]

5. That should work as well as a pea shooter slowing a Sherman Tank

Lieberman is already planning the Democratic
attack (better known as Bush's Best defense).
We are sinking lower and lower by the month.
2006 will be a horrible year if we fail to organize the
millions and millions of US citizens who are looking for an answer.

[still_one]

2. First let me state I am against a war with Iran

but at the same time the bias of the writers is quite obvious. First of all Iran is a real threat. Second the comment "oppressed Palestinians" though accurate, only looks at one side. When you comment on the "agressive policies of the U.S. and Isreal, you seem to forget the 55, 67, and 71 wars which tried to destroy Isreal. None of those wars was looking to establish a Palestinian state, it was looking to destroy Israel.

It is interesting that the leadership in Iran called for the complete destruction of Israel, but that seems to also be missing from this discussion.

Peace will only be acheived through dialog, but unfortunately the bush administration has all but destroyed any possibility of that

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

10. first of all there was no where I said we should defend Israel

or have our foreign policy centered around Israel, I was only commentting on the ONE-SIDED view of the article

I never commented about making our foreign policy just an extension of the policy of Israel, or for that matter any other country

America should do what is best for America. Yes our politicians should NOT be owned by AIPAC OR ANY OTHER LOBBYIST FROM ANY OTHER COUNTRY

but that is NOT what I was commenting on. I was responding only to the one sided view of the article

[pretzel4gore]

13. what came first, the chicken or the rooster?

c'mon israel only came into existence in 1948, on land that had been home to the 'palestinians' from when before popeye was a sailor! saying that the 'wars' were all the fault of the arabs might be technically true, but it just misses being logical (that a child caught stealing cookies is bad, even evil{?}and must be punished by lifetime on a chaingang also misses being logical)...Israel has never been served by out viciousness-ing the arabs, cuz too many of us see viciousness as disgraceful, especially if unecessary- history shows that Israel has been a terrible provacation, made worse by the constant glib media lying about it here in the west...AND remember rachel corey? i will not listen to any excuse for her pointless murder; israel kicked its own teeth out doing that one deed, imo (and believe me, i love israel and the Jewish people, but will not allow jackbboted thugs to have ANY say in the matter, NONE)
--------------
World's Largest
Military Budgets:
($U.S. Billions)
United States 416.0
Russia* 65.0
China* 47.0
Japan 42.6
U.K. 38.4
France 29.5
Germany 24.9
Saudi Arabia 21.3
Italy 19.4
India 15.6
South Korea 14.1
Brazil* 10.7
Taiwan* 10.7
Israel 10.6
Spain 8.4
Australia 7.6
Canada 7.6
Netherlands 6.6
Turkey 5.8
Mexico 5.9
Kuwait* 3.9
Ukraine 5.0
Iran 4.8
Singapore 4.8
Sweden 4.5
Egypt* 4.4
Norway 3.8
Greece 3.5
Poland 3.5
Argentina* 3.3
U.A.E.* 3.1
Colombia* 2.9
Belgium 2.7
Pakistan* 2.6
Denmark 2.4
Vietnam 2.4
North Korea 2.1
Czech Republic 1.6
Iraq 1.4
Philippines 1.4
Portugal 1.3
Libya 1.2
Hungary 1.1
Syria 1.0
Cuba 0.8
Sudan 0.6
Yugoslavia 0.7
Luxembourg 0.2
Source: www.cdi.org.
========================================

[still_one]

15. again my pont was the one-sided view of the article

I am NOT sure who you are referring to as jackbboted thugs, since that can apply to all parties involved, but one thing is for certain, you do NOT make peace with your friends, only with your enemies, even if you view them as "jackboted thugs". My personal view is that both parties are preaching to their constituients. If we had the view of the Russians as "jackboted thughs" during the Cubian missle crisis, and refused a dialogue, I do NOT believe we would be having this dialog

[pretzel4gore]

20. there's such a thing as having too great an advantage....

considering both the usa and israel's military spending as compared to iran's or syria's etc.....in his book 'from beirut to jerusalem' bush spokesman thomas friedman had an interesting take on mordecai vanuunu's revelation about israel's nuclear weapons program: this knowlege was actually a good thing, sayeth friedman, especially as israel could both have nukes and also deny it, and what friedman giggled about was the the denial wasn't to the US authorities, which knew damn well what was going on, but the PEOPLE of the US!....this one anecdote tells us alot about where we the PEOPLE are placed in the hierarchy of the various players, which is way down there.... I agree that a balanced, sensitive to both sides article should be the norm, but friedman, among alot of others, has set the standard of integrity to start with, and friedman is little more then a julius streicher type propagandist (he surely regrets exposing his real knowlege of the nukes in his book(?)) and it's the friedman type who invokes the 'jackbooted thug' bogeyman i mentioned. i really hate the lying liars still_one, and friedman gets me *&G%R$)@#! like few others! his book has been very influencial in my latter thinking about the ME conflict, and that he is an outright liar...well it frustrates to say the least...to see a proponent of israel's military violence at the same time receiving the hospitality of the arabs throughout the region, then enjoying the military advantage his side possesed, and being part of the newsmedia that kept the truth at bay!!....well, bush and friedman do represent the 'good guys' to a TOO large extent (and that's not good, i hope we can agree)

[still_one]

24. Yes we can agree that bush and friedman are NOT good for the situation

but it also applies their adversaries

[Maat]

40. How is Iran a threat to the U.S. mainland?

Are we in imminent danger of deadly attack? Unless it is via terrorists, and not the act of a sovereign nation, this is not likely.

It is AGAINST THE LAW to go to war based on what MIGHT happen. The only legal reasons for going to war involve the imminent threat of deadly attack on us, or on another (an ally).

I can't go kill my neighbor because he has a shotgun, doesn't like me, and might attack me. In order to use deadly force, one must be in imminent danger of attack by deadly force.

I know that you are against war with Iran, and I agree with you that dialog is the only thing that will prevent future danger to everyone.

I would just like DUers to remember the 'war rules.'

The only other basis for war is a U.N. resolution.

Booosh broke the law by invading Iraq; how many other times are we going to allow him to break the law and kill thousands?

I don't mean to offend, and I realize that we need to address nuclear weapons proliferation; it is just that I would like DUers to have it first and foremost in their minds that the Rightwingers are refocusing everyone, so that they don't keep the law in mind.

And I realize that the poster I'm replying to was simply asking for a fair and balanced discussion of the issue, which I feel should include a discussion of the law.

[unsavedtrash]

4. another "Israel is bad" article giving them more power than they actually

have. Looks to me like someone has been reading Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I am against another war but stop blaming Israel.

[tatertop]

6. Israel is pushing for an immoral illegal war on Iran: Let the blame stand

[Pavulon]

7. Or they can just get wiped off the map..(nt)

[High Plains]

14. Will their nuclear arsenal not protect them?

[Pavulon]

18. Nope

They have a small arsenal and limited second strike capability. IE they can't dump 3000mt into Iran after a first strike.

Jew hatred plays a pretty good part in all of this.

Best case we get an arms race - standoff. We should just sign into a nato agreement providing the second strike capacity they lack.

That is how nuclear weapons balance. There is no limited use. Nuclear retaliation has to be complete.

I haven't heard sharon threatening their neighbors with the nuclear weapons they are assumed to have.

No threat to wipe Iran off them map..

[pretzel4gore]

28. the media that says this is tainted, they're liars.

they lie about bush and about so much, then they expect a statement that iran's leaders (who might have all sorts of bizarre opinions, being human: you can just imagine what the private opinions of the bushviks are, or the horrorshow opinions of that murderer sharon, they cannot be any less atrocious then the iran leaders, who might not have said anything in the first place- i do not believe the western newsmedia, cuz they are proven consistent relentless liars about everything they say)
See, that's the problewm. If Iran's leadership officially said they wanted to destroy israel (and why they would do so defies explanation anyway) and that was a provable statement, then that be alot different then this "'bush is god, worship him or die' and also, 'iran says israel should be destroyed'" etc which is what cnn and fox etc are trying to say is truth (didya hear, john kerry never went to 'nam, that's democratic bull) needs alot more evidence then the bushvik crap the pigmedia spews all the fukking time (and Israel shouldn't need foxnews or cnn, that she does PROVES something about Israel...something terrible)

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Say what?

"If Iran's leadership officially said they wanted to destroy israel (and why they would do so defies explanation anyway) and that was a provable statement..." The PRESIDENT of Iran said this! There is NO doubt about this; it is NOT media spin. Also, Israel does not "need" Fox News or CNN, but you really might want to explore more than those views, because you would find, in this case, what they are reporting is actually true!

[Cults4Bush]

35. So you think we should attack Iran?

Because of extremists Jews (make no mistake when I say that I am talking of Likud) and extremist Iranians are constantly antagonizing eachother?

I mean I could go all hyperbole on you but you almost seem to be supporting the Likud which is every bit as bad as supporting Neocons and if that is what you do and that is in turn what this website supports and further more what the Dems support *dems supporting neocon like likudniks!) I am in the wrong fucking place and the wrong fucking party.

I am not a practicing Jew but if you say Im self hating I will return fire in kind. I know a lot of Liberal/Progreesive Jews that hate all war and would hate the idea of going to war with Iran. They understand how war corrupts, how it indulges every crime of humanity and gives the guilty cover. Wish it were so for those that believe Israel can do no wrong around here.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. What in the Hell are you talking about?!

Where did I say or even imply we should attack Iran?! The poster to whom I was replying made a factual error, which I corrected!

Knock yourself out with hyperbole, because nothing in my post supported anything other than making sure the poster knew the statement from Iran was not media-spin from CNN or Faux news!

"I am not a practicing Jew but if you say Im self hating I will return fire in kind. " Seriously, what are you babbling about?! I made no comments in this thread, except for the above and this one. I don't know that I even knew you were a Jew. So why are YOU throwing down a gauntlet?!

I know lots of people who are anti-war too...again...your point?! My New Year's wish...that the "Israel is always wrong" crowd would learn that supporters of Israel are just as nuanced and complex as any other individual.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

41. Again...what are you going on about?!

"You didn't make any comments in this particular thread." Correct. Just as I said.

"That is why I felt the need to put the caveat of being Jewish in there." This makes no sense, even with "Im sick and tired of any critique of Israeli policy being labeled anti semitic by the "Israel automatically equals all Jews" crowd around here."

"Im sick and tired of any compassion for the Palestinians (who ahem, were thrashed from every direction Isreal, Syria, Egypt and themselves and in many peoples eyes who aren't anti semitic are deserving of the exact same amount of empathy that Israel garners)." This was not even about Palestinians! So, again, what the Hell are you talking about?

"My wish is that the Sharon and Likudnik supporters around here will realize that they are supporting neocons under any other name. Those people are my enemy." Interestingly enough, those are the names tossed at supporters of Israel, no matter if they support the Likud or Sharon. Most posters don't even bother to ask, they just assume a pro-Israeli poster must be a "Likudnik."

"Im sure Ive never ever seen you use any hyperbole in defense of Israeli tactics and policies... have I?" I have no idea what you have seen or think you have seen. I also made no claims of the sort. You were the one threatening to "go all hyperbole" on me.

"You were only trying to educate them that in fact the Iranian pres had said such crap?" Uh...yes...which is why I said to that poster..."The PRESIDENT of Iran said this! There is NO doubt about this; it is NOT media spin."

"Is that really all you were doing? " Are you claiming or implying you know better why I posted than I do or what was actually stated?

"You weren't standing up for Isreal to defend itself against faux nukes (I hope not considering the hypocrisy that would be self evident by such)." I was correcting an incorrect assertion. The only "faux" I was "protecting" Israel from, was a faux (and I am guessing the poster was just misinformed and not purposely posting erroneous (faux) information) assertion.

"One thing I didn't do was yell." Nor, did I. Generally, in netiquette, yelling is an entire sentence in all caps (see the rules). Posting singular words or a phrase, especially in bold or italics, but generally bold, is considered EMPHASIS!

"That is all that seems to go on here in the IP dungeon." Is this the hyperbole of which you speak?

[Cults4Bush]

42. You are right, you are always right.

Never mind and have fun with that.

[Behind the Aegis]

43. LOL!

:eyes:

[eyl]

34. The statement

was made by Iran's President and carried on its own official news agency.

[pocket]

12. Amen.

.

[still_one]

16. and Iran is calling to wipe Israel off the face of the earth

so where does that get us?

[SPKrazy]

11. Oh come on

criticizing US policy, and the influence of AIPAC is not anti-semetic.

Elders of Zion

Geez

[Colorado Blue]

44. Thank you. And let's also stop blaming Jewish people here

in America, for causing the war in Iraq. It's disgusting.

[Wordie]

8. Such a war would be a disaster.

It is very difficult to tell how much all these articles we have seen lately are saber-rattling, and how much indicates a genuine intent. Given that the tone of the articles is very similar to those that preceeded the Iraq war, I for one am worried.

I don't like the Iranian regime, but I also recognize that they themselves may feel highly threatened by the West, and by the nuclear capacity of Israel. I pray for someone with the wisdom to try to find a diplomatic way out of this escalation of rhetoric before it gets to the point of no return.

Recommended.

[still_one]

17. I hear your concern, but in my view it is in no ones interest

for such a war, a coincidently we can thank this administration for that. Because of the lies and deception which caused us to invade Iraq, we have now created a Shiite theocracy in Iraq. Any attack on Iran, which is also a Shiite theocracy will NOT be accepted by the now ruling party in Iraq which is the Shiites, and as STUPID as we have been in the middle east, this is why I do NOT think it is very likely to happen

[norml]

19. Here's one reason the Iran War might start in March 2006.

Results 1 - 7 of 7 for iran march bourse. (0.33 seconds)


Doomsday for the Greenback
OpEdNews - Dec 28, 2005
... Now, Putin is trading oil in euros and Iran will open an oil bourse in petro-euros in March. For Iran, its actions are tantamount to a declaration of war. ...

Doomsday for the Greenback
uruknet.info, Italy - Dec 28, 2005
... Now, Putin is trading oil in euros and Iran will open an oil bourse in petro-euros in March. For Iran, its actions are tantamount to a declaration of war. ...

What's The Fed Up To With The Money Supply?
DisInfo.com, NY - Dec 24, 2005
... that they will hide M-3 effective March 2006. ... also happens to be the exact month that Iran will declare ... by trading its oil in Petro-Euros on its new bourse. ...

General Feedback
Free Market News Network, FL - Dec 24, 2005
... that they will hide M-3 effective March 2006. ... also happens to be the exact month that Iran will declare ... by trading its oil in Petro-Euros on its new bourse. ...

Headlines, briefing of Kuwaiti dailies issued Tuesday, December 20 ...
Kuwait News Agency, Kuwait - Dec 19, 2005
... for our nations -- Al-Kharafi expects bourse increase as ... tone of final statement towards Iran -- Release of ... and Huda Amaash -- "14 Azar (March) Forces" launch ...

Antiwar.com
Antiwar.com, CA - Dec 13, 2005
... Unfortunately, your logic for a nuclear strike on Iran is very solid ... backed up by the following: The Iranian Oil Bourse is scheduled to open March 2006 ...

Viewpoint: Iraq issues: Atoms or oil?
Rock River Times, IL - Dec 7, 2005
... its new exchange would be operational by March of next ... at the first phase of this project Iran may sell ... that creation of an Iranian oil bourse “means that ...


New! Get the latest news on iran march bourse with Google Alerts.



http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=iran+march+bourse&scoring=d

[still_one]

22. I still don't buy it.

It would put our troops in Iraq even in more jepardy. They would have to contend with both the Sunnis and Shiites, and we neither have the resources nor the will, because a draft would NOT be tolerated here

Incidently, NOT only was their no love between hussein and al queada, there is even less compromise between Iran and al queada

In the course of time we will see who is correct, but let us hope it is a non-event, i.e. NO WAR

[toymachines]

23. that and iran supplies china with a lot of oil

Willpitt wrote something on this recently that caught my eye. China owns a lot of US debt, and i dont think we could afford to fuck with their major oil source. Makes sense to me.

[still_one]

25. interesting, I didn't think about that, along with the Europeans

[doublethink]

29. See post #26 .....

Yes China owns quite a bit of the U.S. Economy, but it's a long poker game and the Bush/Cheney Regime don't play fair. :( If you owe a bank $3,000 dollars, they own you. However....if you owe a bank (China) 3 gazillion dollars ...... "you own them" (China doesn't want to see the U.S. Economy tank) so to speak because you are the Empire, and have by far the largest Military on the Planet. (So .... the U.S. really owns China so to speak, because they are hesitant to cash in on their investment at this time). Furthermore you have the capability of printing all the money in the world to pay them off whenever you want too (Again see post #26 and the M-3). So you invade Iran, and take quest of the biggest oil reserves on the planet for the next however long you can hold out for (The Bush Legacy as he says history will judge him) ..... What-cha-gonna-do? Boom ...... :nuke: Keep the faith, never give up never surrender. Peace. :)

[doublethink]

26. And I'll add to that ......

1. Iran Oil Bourse March 20, 2006.
2. M-3 monetary in U.S. dollars "not required to report" goes into effect March 2006. Therefore
the U.S. can keep China at bay (by dumping U.S. Dollars out there) ... China has so much invested in the U.S. Economy, that a short
term fiasco in the Middle East with Iran would keep China from getting too involved Militarily (physically)
with the U.S. And hey if they (China) can in the long term (turn the rest of the world against the U.S.) why would they risk their immediate investment? .... however that doesn't mean they wouldn't arm the Iranians (look they have their military industrial complex too.:( ).... Long term not so good. :(
3. The Final Decision on forwarding the "Iranian Nuclear Dossier" to the U.N. will be made.
(the members vote for, against, abstain) game over, March 2006.
4. U.S. Government declared 'broke' by March 2006, therefore raising the limit (to who knows where
on the deficit will go)
5. Israel Government says Iran will have Nuclear Bomb by March 2006. (Lies, other estimates say 5 to 10 years)
6. General Aharon Zeevi Farkash, head of Israeli military intelligence says the 'deadline' is no closer then ever'.
"Diplomatic efforts after March 2006 would be pointless".
7. Can't wait to hear King Bush's 'State of the Union Address' later this month.
8. Never Give Up, Never Surrender ..... Peace. :)
9. Google any and all of the above to learn more.......

[norml]

27. Last Chance to Spare Iran: You Can Do It

Last Chance to Spare Iran: You Can Do It


by Dr. Mary Maxwell,

January 1, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca




According to Scott Ritter, we Americans have been sending aerial vehicles (unmanned drones) into the Iranian hinterland for some months now. And, according to Kurt Nimmo, the CIA has put Turkey on notice for “the possible US air operation against Iran and Syria.” The fact that our newspapers and Network television refuse to tell us about this does not absolve us of responsibility. You must, and I repeat, must, do all you can to stop this.

Reasons to Spare Iran

Why should we act decisively to stop the Pentagon from bombing Iran? Of the following five reasons,

I cannot say which is the most important – they seem equally to merit priority. Still, for practical reasons, one can be singled out as the absolute top priority. Namely, the US should not engage in nuclear war – whether in Iran or anywhere else in the world. True, the US has already used bunker buster weapons and munitions with depleted uranium in Iraq, but nuclear weapons should NEVER be used. We must draw the line even against so-called ‘mini nukes’.

Four specific reasons why we should protect Iran are:

Quite simply, a consensus has been reached since 1945 that crimes against humanity are off-limits (not a bad consensus when you think of it – we may be on the receiving end someday)

Iran should be respected for its cultural achievements that date back to the Persian empire, and which were appropriated liberally by European civilizations (ah, Persian carpets…ah, glazed tiles)

‘Regime change’ sparks recollection of the fact that the CIA already changed Iran’s regime once – in 1953. It helped overthrow the popular leader Mossadegh, and then trained the horrific secret service, SAVAK, for the Shah

We Americans would be wrecking our own future, and our self-esteem, by engaging in such a war


snip


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAX20060101&articleId=1699

[doublethink]

31. Hey norml ....

you seem to keep up on this subject, will be in touch with you and a few other DU'ers on this in the next month or two. Hope this too comes so pass. Maybe we can make a difference on this. Hope so. Otherwise all the best, don't get sidetracked, or ever give into their lies. Wouldn't be on DU if ya did huh? :rofl: Peace. Mar. :)

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

32. How do you start a war if you don't have troops to carry it out?

There will be no war; Bush and the GOP can't afford a draft if they want to keep Congress in their pocket in 06

[norml]

37. One might have asked Hitler the same question, had they been able.

They are not part of the reality based community.

The greater the crisis, the greater the justification for drastic measures in response to the crisis.

They want it to be a disaster.

Maybe they're even planning on going nuclear.

They are insane.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.