Can we stop the strike on Iran?

[iconoclastNYC]

Is anyone going to try?

Watch this clip on Crooks and Liars.... http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a7955

This is the same shit they were saying about Sadam. Are we going to fall for it again?

Why is it that a few radio DJs can get 500,000 people out in LA but there isn't anything about this Iran situation?

When is it going to start?

[movonne]

1. Maybe we can't, but russia and china can...

[LSparkle]

2. Thank God for that

Even if our country has jettisoned diplomacy, there are still other nations that practice it. Funny that I'd now be thankful for two countries I was taught to hate ...

[Sinti]

5. If it's in their interests and if we don't offer them more to stand down.

I'm pretty sure we're in talks presently with them. This is very, very scary stuff.

[No New War]

3. Holy Shameless Fearmongering Batman!

Isn't our country ever going to get tired of being afraid all the time? The terrorists don't even have to attack us to send us into panic anymore, just issue a press release to the news media.

[iconoclastNYC]

14. Oh really?

Like thru thier "media committees" and stuff?

[magellan]

4. I doubt there's much we can do

The country knows what a deadly sham Iraq was and the polls I've seen say the majority prefer diplomacy over military intervention...But as I recall they said the same thing before Bush** invaded Iraq. He doesn't give a damn what the American people say. He's "the Decider", as he puts it.

BTW, I'm afraid. Last night for the first time in my life I dreamt we had nuked Iran and someone had retaliated. A nuke went off in a city near us; we saw the flash. All I could think of was getting home to our two dogs. (If they were our human children I couldn't have been more upset.) I woke up suddenly, terrified and in tears.

I hate Bush**.

[bdamomma]

8. that wasn't a dream it was a nightmare

[ladjf]

6. If this Bush lunacy continues to far, there may well be a global

coalition of reasonable countries formed to stop the madness. Such a coalition would start with diplomatic efforts. If that failed, it could turn very nasty for everyone.

[Peace Patriot]

7. I'm afraid the answer is "no"--not if the junta determines to do it,

despite what may be terrible consequences for them, for us and for the world. Congress' inability--or lack of desire--to stop Bush from openly committing felonies was a very bad sign that there is no one who can or will stop them. Possibly the U.S military brass will, especially if it involves nukes. Randi Rhodes said the other day, "Are things this bad, that a military coup looks good?"

That's where we're at, I'm afraid, as to this out-of-control fascist coup. However, THIS situation is different from the leadup to the Iraq invasion in several respects. One is that the leadup to the invasion of Iraq has been exposed for the load of crap that it was. A lot of water under the bridge since then. The disapproval numbers against Bush are far bigger than they were back then. He and his junta really have no political capital, so to speak. The only thing they have going for them is their ever-loyal lapdogs, the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and even they are fraying at the edges, as the junta becomes more and more difficult to defend with Rovian "talking points" and other blather.

For another thing, the Arab world, which pretty much sat back and let Bush invade Iraq, is not likely to be that passive when it comes to Iran. Saddam Hussein was a secularist and did not have a lot of Muslim religious support. And he DID invade Kuwait. Iran is a completely different matter. It has invaded no one! And it is a country with a Muslim religious leadership. Bush bombing, nuking and/or invading Iran I think would arouse the entire Muslim world. And that's just for starters. Then there is Europe--much closer to the situation than we are. They are not going to take kindly to nuclear winds blowing over the Mediterranean. And Russia and China, both of whom have trade agreements with Iran, oppose any such action. And don't forget Latin America, where a huge leftist revolution is taking place, and where country after country is now making decisions about trade agreements and allies quite apart from anything the Bushites want. Iran is not the pariah there that it is in the Bush junta's Washington DC.

Iran is a sovereign nation. It has not been the subject of sanctions by the U.N. And it has every right to defend itself. The junta is risking US becoming the pariah state--more than hated and disliked; boycotted, isolated. They may think that they can Nazi-boot their way through. But this is a different world and a different political scene than in late 2002/early 2003.

It's true that the junta ignored world opinion, AND American opinion, and invaded Iraq anyway. But, really, I think that conditions have changed very significantly--including (but certainly not limited to) the failure to find any WMDs in Iraq, the disintegration of Iraq, the looting of the U.S. treasury, and the beginning of indictments against pervasive Bushite corruption and --very importantly--against the White House Iraq Group for the outing of Valerie Plame and the entire CIA WMD counter-proliferation project that she headed. Libby is up for perjury and obstruction. I think more will follow. The White House is not nearly the impervious fortress that it was in 2002/2003. In fact, it is quite shattered. The calls for Rumsfeld's resignation by former/recent U.S. military brass is a good example. How easy is it going to be for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & Co. to bomb, nuke and/or invade Iran, with the U.S. military (through very prestigious retirees) calling them incompetent and worse? Will the U.S. military even obey their orders, if it comes to that? I think it's a real question.

The junta is on very shaky ground, in every respect except technical authority to issue orders. And anybody who has ever been in command of anything knows that if that's all you have--technical authority--you are in deep trouble.

As for an act of madness or desperation--there's no accounting for that. If it happens, we--and the rest of humanity--will have to deal with it. (And THEN maybe we will reform our non-transparent election system, and rid it of Bushite corporations and their "trade secret" programming! --if there is a world left to do that in.) But I think it more likely that a political scenario will unfold, whereby a future president is "forced" into a war with Iran, by booby traps that are now being laid. You don't hear a chorus of opposition to bombing, nuking and/or invading Iran, from our war profiteering (some of them) Democratic leaders, do you? They are probably mostly on board the oil tanker of our foreign policy, and/or want the U.S. to surround Israel with U.S. armaments, military bases and cannon fodder. And there aren't many of them of the presidential candidate variety who would resist a "Gulf of Tonkin"-type excuse to control most Mideast oil and keep their pro-Likud donors happy. (What may be best for Israel is another matter entirely--I'm just talking about U.S. politics.)

I think that THIS is actually more of a danger than "madman Bush" --that the American people will be dragged against their will into occupying the entire Middle East for the foreseeable future, by the NEXT president, a War Democrat--or, in any case, if not more of a danger, more of a likelihood. And that brings me to the question of WHY the Democratic leadership has been COMPLETELY SILENT about rightwing Bushite corporations gaining control of the "tabulation" of all of our votes with "trade secret," proprietary programming code.

Why? Why this deafening silence about non-transparent elections controlled by the likes of Diebold and ES&S (brethren corporations, the one headed, until recently, by a Bush/Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser, and the other initially funded by far rightwing 'christian' billionaire Howard Ahmanson)?

Are they insane, or what?

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. for the sake of humanity we have to try

last week when the Seymour Hersh story first broke a number of posters said "nah it's not going to happen" "Bush cannot possibly sell another military actions politically to the American people. Now we have people on DU innocently and naively promoting the Bush/neocon view and repeating the very same propaganda, lies and distortions. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE WAR-PROPAGANDA MACHINE

I'm reminded of the words of the religious leader of the anti-Nazi resistance, the Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He spoke of three things a person can do when the state is practicing evil:

1. They can try to convince the state and the population to change their minds

2. They can aid the victims of the state

3. They can try to throw a spoke into the wheel of the state and inhibit its ability to abuse its power.

[Fire Bush]

10. No we can't....

But our military leaders can. It's time to forget about impeachment and start thinking military coup.

[Clarkie1]

12. Really, you don't want that. I assume you are speaking figuratively. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

15. I don't think it's remotely possible.

The CIA and the intelligence services of our allies are on constant look out for this.

The only way I see it is shutting down the economy. If we can get enough people to walk off the job and into the streets we can seriously damage the world economy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. that clip would make Goebbels drool with envy

almost everything that evil madwoman had to say is empirically untrue.

But I guess that doesn't matter.

NEVER NEVER NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE WAR PROPAGANDA MACHINE and how shameless they are in their lies:

those familiar with the Bush Administration are familiar with their kind of bravado.

But for the record the Iranian President is not the commander of Iranian Armed forces. The final Decision would be up to the Chief of State and Supreme religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamanei who has already delivered a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. And as pointed out in the Juan Cole article-even the Iranian President has stated several times that he would never condone any mass killing of civilian.

But for the sake of argument, if Iran or one of their minions were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel - they would not only desecrate Islamic holy sites, desecrate a land considered sacred to all Muslims--they would kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims; including countless Shiites in southern Lebanon; and this does not include those killed by a retaliatory strike. This is quite implausible

And let us remember, so far their is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near such a capacity.

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. be sure to listen to Ron Paul's speech regarding Iran

I have generally not been a big fan of Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul and I don't care much for his brand of capitalist-libertarianism.

But this speech is absolutely awesome and extremely informative:


http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buildasx.asp?sProxy=80_hflr040506_146.wmv,80_hflr040506_147.wmv,80_hflr040506_148.wmv,80_hflr040506_149.wmv,80_hflr040506_150.wmv,80_hflr040506_151.wmv,80_hflr040506_152.wmv,80_hflr040506_153.wmv,80_hflr040506_154.wmv,80_hflr040506_155.wmv&sTime=00:03:17.0&eTime=00:01:11&duration=00:42:42.0&UserName=reppaultx&sLocation=G&sExpire=0

and here is the other link:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a7953

transcript - link:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm

excerpts from transcript:

snip:"This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that “all options” remain on the table. And there’s little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties."

Snip:"There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one--only conjecture.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.

Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons. But we reward them just as we reward India."

snip:"IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of “undeclared” sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of nuclear material.

We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradi states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement."

snip:"Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It’s the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.

The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The “Iran Freedom Support Act,” HR 282, passed in the International Relations Committee; and recently the House passed H Con Res 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal. Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors are still in charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in the three-year occupation of Iraq.

Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how American citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change! How many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Even though El Baradi and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons-- refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible."

snip:"Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that some might resort to a terrorist attack on us. They will not passively lie down, nor can they be destroyed easily.

One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure “our” oil supply. This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result. We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump. The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion"