Just say no to an attack on Iran
Iran is one of only two countries in the Middle East that has the four prerequisites to become a power in the region: wealth (oil), water, a substantial land mass and a large population. The other country was Iraq, now headed by a U.S.-dominated government.
There are serious reports from high-level government sources that the Bush administration is planning to launch a pre-emptive, illegal and sustained air and naval war against Iran. The reason? The Bush administration wants exclusive control of the Middle East’s huge oil reserves and they view the current Iranian regime as an impediment to that goal.
When Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to include a prohibition against an attack on Iran in the Iraq supplemental funding bill, she gave Bush the green light to go ahead with his plans against Iran.
Members of Congress will not be able to undo the profound and lasting effects an attack on Iran will have on the entire region. And they will not be able to dodge the shame of shunning their oversight responsibilities yet again. Call and tell them to prohibit Bush from attacking Iran.
James Duncan, Denver
Nope..I say bomb em back to the stone age. I'll call my elected officials and tell them that!
Posted by tmr on May 31, 2007 07:08 AMSorry James, but as unpleasant as the thought of a war with Iran may be, we will have no alternative, due to their nuclear ambitions. Iran would almost surely use a nuke against Israel, the US and perhaps Europe. Here's a scenario - Iran tests a nuke and the world knows it. Six months later, Iran says (falsely or accurately) that it has posited nukes in Rome, London, Berlin, Paris, etc and that if XYZ are not done, they will order their suicide teams to detonate. It would be history's greatest blackmail, and it would never end. W/O even doing anything, that threat would paralyze the world as we know it. Why? Because we know that Iran would pull the trigger. This cannot be allowed. Iran's nuclear program must be stopped, no matter the cost.
Posted by Liam on May 31, 2007 07:13 AMTurn the whole middle east into a glass parking lot.
Posted by on May 31, 2007 07:32 AMI dont remember Bush saying anything to the fact he wants to go after Iran but good ole hill sure said it in one of her finer moments
Posted by Sean on May 31, 2007 07:45 AMEven Bush isn't dumb enough to start another war right now.
The "nu-klur" genie is already out of the bottle. We won't be able to strongarm the world forever.
Posted by Tim on May 31, 2007 07:48 AMLiam,
Your scary scenario sounds like the isreali governemn blackmailing the U.S to go after their enemies RIGHT NOW.
Joe Blow - you can say it sounds like anything you like - the fact is that it is a highly plausible scenario if Iran goes nuclear. Israel has never resorted to nuclear blackmail, or did I miss that?
Posted by Liam on May 31, 2007 09:01 AMThe late great America is not militarily capable of taking on another war just now. Please check back in another generation, or refer the Iran problem to America's imperial successor, China.
Posted by Turn off the radio on May 31, 2007 09:05 AMYeah Liam, you missed that. Israel blackmailed the U.S. into re-supplying their would-be-doomed army using the threat of nuclear retaliation against egypt and syria during the Yom Kippur war.
Here's the story:http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.html
I know the zionist-controlled media has tried to keep that secret from the American public, just like the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. That story is also recounted in Henry Kissingers memoirs.
Joe - I am well aware of the USS Liberty - I have Ennes' book and have read it twice. No argument there.
I have no doubt that if Israel's existence were threatened, as its sabre-rattling neighbors constantly try to do, that it would use nukes DEFENSIVELY. Iran will use them OFFENSIVELY and preemptively. Minor distinction.
Posted by Liam on May 31, 2007 09:57 AM"Prohibit Bush from attacking Iran," says James. How can the man described below be compelled to not (to not) do what he wants to do when he wants to out-do Elvis Presley in "King of the whole wide world.":
Donald Rumsfeld gave the president his daily briefing. He concluded by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."
"OH NO!" the president exclaimed. "That's terrible!"
His staff was stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the president sat, his head in his hands.
Finally, the president looked up and asked, "Just how many is a brazillion?"
George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are flying on Air Force One. The President looks at the Vice President, chuckles, and says, "You know, I could throw a $1,000 bill out the window right now and make somebody very happy."
The Vice President shrugs and says, "Well, I could throw 10 $100 bills out the window and make 10 people very happy."
Not to be outdone, the Secretary of Defense says, "Of course, then, I could throw 100 $10 bills out the window and make a hundred people very happy."
The pilot rolls his eyes and says to his co-pilot, "Such arrogant asses back there. Hell, I could throw the three of them out the window and make 56 million people really happy."
Cribbed from: http://www.funnyhub.com/jokes/pages/from-jesus-perspective.html
Iran wants full power over the gulf and only needs two ingredients to accomplish this.
1) The US to pull out of Iraq leaving the gulf wide open for their control.2) Obtain nuclear weapons to maintain the control of the gulf.
Once Iran has achieved these objectives they will have control over the majority of all oil exports to the rest of the world. Then it will be too late for anyone to take action without causing a worldwide nuclear war.
It's so convenient that now we have to stay in order to keep this "stability".
Posted by Phil on May 31, 2007 11:12 AMWell, the United States maintains control of the Gulf of Mexico, doesn't it? Is the PERSIAN gulf ours, too? As for "control" of the oil(that's in their country)...I'm sure they wouldn't mind selling it to us, but nobody likes to have a gun stuck in their face and jack the oil from them.
Posted by mike h on May 31, 2007 11:14 AM"Well, the United States maintains control of the Gulf of Mexico"
Not the Mexican portion. They have control of their own waters. The same way Iraq has controlled their portion of the gulf.
The new Iraqi government isn't strong enough yet to hold off Iranian backed insurgents and would eventually loose control of the gulf if the US pulls out prematurely.
Posted by KW on May 31, 2007 11:48 AMThe new Iraqi government isn't strong enough yet to hold off Iranian backed insurgents and would eventually loose control of the gulf if the US pulls out prematurely.
Well...the much heralded, democratically-elected, "new Iraqi government" (remember all those wonderful purple thumbs?) is dominated by Shiites who can simply choose to align with Iran and ask American forces to leave...the request for American withdrawal is actually moving through the works as we speak. "Iranian-backed insurgents", to the extent they exist, might be useful for guerrila tit-for-tat paybacks against the Sunni insurgents, but Iran doesn't need insurgents anymore.
One consequence of constantly changing the rationale for invading Iraq (WMD --> 9/11-connection --> UN violations --> to spread democracy in Middle East') is that America is now twisted around the axle of its own rhetoric. Our soldiers and our tax money are directly contributing to the consolidation of Iranian power in the Middle East, as the result of 'spreading democracy'. Regardless of whether Iran develops a nuke or not, they are the ultimate winner of this conflict, as we have effectively handed them substantial political influence over an historical political and religous regional counter-balance.
Given how hard it is to admit to this incredible geo-political blunder we now have the very same neo-conservatives painting sinister images of Iran, in the same breathless call-to-arms.
Sorry -- it ain't gonna happen. Bush/neo-cons succeeded in fooling all the people for some of the time in 2002-2003, but it won't happen again. Conservatives efforts are better spent trying to blame this mess on ACLU, Democrats, FDR, and TeleTubbies. Meanwhile, expect China, whose current/future demand for oil far surpasses America's, will tactically align with the Iran/Iraq axis as both a buyer and protector.
Posted by on May 31, 2007 12:19 PMThe letter writer needs to stop listening to late night conspiracy theory shows. The President does not have Constitutional Authority to go to war with Iran. Just as the Congress needed to grant authorization for use of military response in Iraq, they will need to do so with Iran.
Since the US has actually taken part in diplomatic discussions with Iran for the first time in almost 30 years, I highly doubt that the anti-war Congress will suddenly make a HUGE U-Turn and first strike Iran.
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 01:30 PMThe letter writer needs to stop listening to late night conspiracy theory shows. The President does not have Constitutional Authority to go to war with Iran. Just as the Congress needed to grant authorization for use of military response in Iraq, they will need to do so with Iran.
Maybe, maybe not. This is where the Viet Nam parallels surface. If Iran is deemed to be supplying/harboring the enemy (like Nixon thought Cambodia was), and if America's limited clandestine efforts in Iran result in sufficiently dramatic spilling of America blood and guts, the President might press on into Iran under the same AUMF, or simply bully Congress to rubber stamp him again, lest they appear as weak-on-defense, Democrats' most primal political fear.
Posted by on May 31, 2007 02:07 PM