Onward to Iran. Why? Does anybody care?
Onward to Iran - can you hear the drums calling the US to another war, can you hear the lies spreading, and can you see another nation destroyed. I can and very soon it will be another reality, you will see it too.
Just so you know, I do not approve of it and this is my public statement against it - unless I can be convinced otherwise.
————————
1959 - The US gives Iran a 5-megawatt nuclear reactor which became operational in 1967.
Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970.
The Islamic Revolution in 1979 saw the overthrow of a CIA back Dictatorship -The Shah.
Israel, a nuclear state, has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By NOT declaring nuclear capabilities, Israel doesn’t have to let inspectors in!
The Iranians took their own country back, to escape Britain and US control of their oil. And to rid themselves of a brutal dictatorship!
Iran isn’t a threat to the US, nor is Iran a threat to Israel!
It’s the US and Israel that has been threatening Iran!
————————
I have to say why wouldn’t Iran want nuclear capabilities? It has seen what has happened to Iraq and it knows that Bush has his eyes set firmly on Iran as his next target. Wouldn’t Iran be crazy not to try and defend itself? But to do so it risks being labelled a terrorist country, but wait it has already been labelled as such.
Why is the US about to take out Iran?
Before we went into Iraq about 52% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks on the US. I don’t know where they got that information from as originally it was said to be the work of Osama Bin Laden, but I guess as the propaganda machine does its work the blame gets put onto the next target.
It is time to think and protest. You know that you were lied to about the Iraq War, so why should this time be any different – I suspect it isn’t any different, I suspect we are once again being lied to.
Why is the US and Israel preparing to attack Iran?
It appears that Hillary Clinton has the
answers and obviously a vote for Hillary is about as good as voting the
Republican Party back into office.
* Added 11.10am 03/09/07.
*The speech made by Hillary was given in February 2007 at an AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) fundraiser. AIPAC is the America’s largest pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC is widely believed to the most powerful lobbying group in Washington and routinely sees major politicians from both sides of the aisle. The purpose of this AIPAC fundraiser was to send over five thousand AIPAC members to Washington to have meetings with American politicians.
Hillary’s wording for me is significant and please note I am not taking a swipe at Hillary herself, I am taking a swipe at all politicians on both sides who maybe under the influence of AIPAC.
"Regimes pro-terrorist, Anti-American, Anti-Israeli rhetoric only underscores the urgency of our response to the threat we face................."
Once again this shows to me that US leaders/candidates must keep Israel happy in order to be elected or re-elected. This is not just about America; this is about America's ties to Israel. It seems that Israel must be protected by America at all costs, either directly or indirectly through yearly contributions of $2-3 billion/year in military aid.
Also who gets to define a country as a Terrorist country? The word terrorist is rapidly loosing meaning, as it is used way too often and the definition of what defines a terrorist is growing and as a result the net that its definition may trap is widening too.
Is it a crime to be anti-American and/or anti-Israeli? Does that make you a terrorist?
I don't believe that the US will use nuclear weapons against Iran, but they may use other missiles if they attack. I hope they don't. If the US doesn't attack, don't rule out Israel as a potential threat to Iran.
Hillary’s full speech can be seen at Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton statements and releases page. I would also suggest that you read this article for a more balanced view in regards to some of the things that she and others have said about Iran. Senator Clinton won't rule out use of force to stop 'pro-terrorist' Iran
Just ignore the bombing footage at the end of this video as it is not relevant to the point I am making. Also as far as a nuclear strike is concerned, the woman wouldn't even have a chance to scream - she would be vaporised in an instant if she was that close to the explosion. *
Is there any choice when it comes to a US election? I am an Australian so I don’t know.
So why is an Australian concerned about
what the US has got planned? Because what the USA does, affects the world as a
whole. It isn’t all about America or Israel, it is also about the rest of us and we count as well.
By Ed Ciaccio
09/01/07 “ICH” — - A shirt I recently bought from Old American Century (www.oldamericancentury.org ) has the figure of Uncle Sam, steely-eyed, fists on hips, and under it, the following text:
“If you had told me a few years ago that we would have secret prisons through out the former Soviet republics, tortured our enemies, and used chemical weapons on civilians, I’d have thought you were crazy. But I also didn’t think you’d let Bush steal another election.”
Regardless of whether you choose to believe that both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections were stolen (and there is ample evidence; see, for example http://www.gregpalast.com/one-million-black-votes-didnt-count-in-the-2000-presidential-election-rnits-not-too-hard-to-get-your-vote-lost-if-some-politicians-want-it-to-be-lost/ and http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen ), there are many other disturbing facts about our nation which no longer need to rest on faith to be “believed” because they are now part of the historical record.
Among them are the following:
· Bush and his administration had many warnings before the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks (http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html )
· War on Iraq for “regime change” was planned long before the 9/11 attacks (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm , http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html , and http://pnac.info/index.php/2003/4-years-before-911-plan-was-set/ )
· Intelligence about Iraq was “fixed” starting in 2002 to support Bush and Blair’s decision to attack Iraq (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/ and http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI505A.html )
· The U.S./U.K. invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal and constitutes the supreme war crime, that of an unprovoked, preventive war of aggression similar to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm , http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/13670 , and http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman09172003.html )
· Over one million Iraqis died, including over 500,000 children, as a result of the sanctions imposed by George H.W. Bush after the 1991 Gulf War and then maintained by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush until the U.S./U.K. invasion in March, 2003 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm#summary , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm , http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/270307Iraq_toll.htm , and http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright ) as all three administrations tried to provoke “regime change” in Iraq
· Detainees held in U.S. prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq have been tortured (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html and http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=us_torture_abuse )
· CIA “Rendition” (kidnapping) of terrorist suspects to nations known to torture started in the Clinton administration, continued and increased under Bush, and was known by “top officials” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml and http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510512006 )
· U.S. forces have committed war crimes by using weapons such as napalm (Mark 77 firebombs), depleted uranium, white phosphorous, and cluster bombs in Iraq (http://www.brusselstribunal.org/WMD.htm , http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/was-there-napalm-in-fallujah/ , http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11020.htm , and http://www.consumersforpeace.org/pdf/war_crimes_iraq_101006.pdf )
· Between 600,000 and one million Iraqis have died since the March, 2003 illegal U.S./U.K. invasion and occupation* (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=516b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss , http://pressesc.com/news/99409082007/one-million-iraqis-killed-us-invasion )
· In spite of prior warnings, Bush failed to have the New Orleans levees repaired or see New Orleans was properly prepared for Hurricane Katrina (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,372455,00.html and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/ )
· Bush admitted he broke the FISA law, an impeachable offense (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm , http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html , and http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/19/1515212 )
*If you consider the one million Iraqis who died as a result of the 1991-2003 sanctions and the one million who have died since the 2003 invasion, the word genocide comes to mind. If you consider the four million Iraqi refugees resulting from our invasion and occupation, and the resulting sectarian violence causing the creation of unprecedented sectarian enclaves in Iraq, the term ethnic cleansing comes to mind.
As Americans, supposedly believing in the rule of law, supposedly believing in fairness and compassion, what do we do now that we know these facts?
Do we deny them because they clash with our view of America as the “greatest country in the world”?
Do we shrug and say, “Well, every country has its dark side”?
Do we throw up our hands and complain that we can’t do much because Cheney and Bush have so much power and, besides, they’ll be out of office soon?
Or do we simply turn the page and see what else is on TV?
The “Good Germans” who did nothing had similar reactions while Hitler destroyed Europe and murdered 6 million Jews, and 5 million Poles, Russians, Communists, homosexuals and other “non-Aryans” in his death camps. They denied, or accepted and approved, or said they didn’t know, or (justifiably for many) feared punishment or death in Hitler’s dictatorship.
But we don’t live in a dictatorship.
And we DO know what has been done in our name.
So who are we? What have we become?
Right now there are three massive U.S. aircraft carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf, and B-1 and B-2 bombers and many fighters on airfields in countries surrounding Iran. They are there waiting for Bush, with Cheney’s urging, to give the signal to repeat “shock and awe’, this time on the Iranian people.
Right now another propaganda campaign, similar to that which preceded our 2003 Iraq invasion, is beginning, but this time charging Iran with unproven “evils” against our troops in Iraq. Again it is accepted without challenge by our compliant, corporate mainstream media with its many links to the so-called “defense” industry. Meanwhile, that same media distracts us with “coverage” of Larry Craig’s men’s room saga, or the death of Princess Di ten years later, or John Edwards’ haircuts, or Britney, or Lindsay, or Paris, or…
And right now, Iranian forces are accused, with little, if any, solid evidence, of helping kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Meanwhile, ignored by our media, U.S. special forces and CIA operatives are in Iran selecting targets for our planes, drones, and cruise missiles and supporting anti-Iranian government groups there. In effect, we have been waging war on Iran from inside Iran for almost two years already (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4180087.stm and http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm ).
And now Bush wants our always-accommodating Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to declare a part of Iran’s military as “terrorists.” This will enable him to attack Iran without Congressional authorization.
These are also facts.
So what will you do about this?
Will
you be a “Good German”?
——————————
Pentagon ‘Three-Day Blitz’ Plan For Iran
By Sarah Baxter
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for
massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the
Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security
expert.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18290.htm
————————–
The War Criminal in the Living Room
By Paul Craig Roberts
The media is silent, Congress is absent,
and Americans are distracted as George W. Bush openly prepares aggression
against Iran. - US war doctrine has been altered to permit first strike nuclear
attack on Iran and other non-nuclear countries.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18287.htm
---------------------
Do We Have the Courage to Stop War With Iran?
By Ray McGovern09/02/07 "
ICH" -- - Why do I feel like the proverbial skunk at a Labor Day picnic? Sorry; but I thought you might want to know that this time next year there will probably be more skunks than we can handle. I fear our country is likely to be at war with Iran - and with the thousands of real terrorists Iran can field around the globe.It is going to happen, folks, unless we put our lawn chairs away on Tuesday, take part in some serious grass-roots organizing, and take action to prevent a wider war - while we still can.
President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being "fixed around the policy," as was the case before the attack on Iraq.
It's not about putative Iranian "weapons of mass destruction" - not even ostensibly. It is about the requirement for a scapegoat for US reverses in Iraq, and the White House's felt need to create a casus belli by provoking Iran in such a way as to "justify" armed retaliation - eventually including air strikes on its nuclear-related facilities………………………….
----------------------
By Simon Floth
09/03/07 "ICH" -- -- On July 11 this year congress loaded and pointed a gun at Iran in the form of Lieberman’s amendment to the Defense Authorization act (S.AMDT.2073, amending H.R.1585 and S.AMDT.2011). That was more than six weeks ago, yet the most pivotal feature of the amendment, and indeed of history in the making, has gone entirely unremarked: It is a demonstrable non-sequitur.
Claiming that Iran is complicit in the murder of US soldiers, the amendment is a crucial link in an unrolling geopolitical chain of events. Yet it depends entirely on a fallacious inference smuggled under sobering rhetoric……………………………………………….
Comments
a) Bush is lame already and won't want to leave office with a worse legacy than he already has; and
b) Iran has already stated loud and long that any aggressive action by the US against the Islamic Republic will result in missile attacks against Arab oil interests on the western side of the Persian Gulf.
Now, ask yourself. Would Bush would be willing to risk the loss of Arab allies in the Persian Gulf, for the sake of looking as though he was laying the basis for an American ideological victory against Iran, while Iraq literally collapses as he does so? The current Iraqi regime has already voted in council demanding the US lay down a withdrawal timeline. How long can it be, before the Iraqi government turn against America openly and demand withdrawal on the international stage? Whether or not Iran is attacked.....whether or not Iran retaliates against Arab US allies, the future is already written. Iraq and Iran will merge ideologically and/or politically in one form or another, if only to deny terrorist elements from gaining control of the Iraqi collective consciousness. Iran doesn't want the so-called 'al qaeda' ideology gaining a foothold there any more than America does. Iran may well be supplying materiel at the moment in a bid to oust America, but once they're gone, watch the flow dry up like water in sand.
Don't panic about Bush. Be concerned more about the cost of filling your petrol tank between now and the end of the decade3.
I agree that Iran won't be attacked, but for different reasons than you list. Your reasons require that Bush uses logic and thinks of consequences to his actions before making decisions, when in fact he makes his decisions based on gut feelings and what he thinks God wants him to do.
Despite this, Bush is also a wimp. He attacked Iraq after successfully making an emotional connection in the American people between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, but the thrall has worn off and the American people are tired of war. With an approval rating in the low 30's for perhaps the longest time in polling history, Bush no longer has the support he had when he went to war in Iraq, and I don't think even "The Decider" could push through all of the opposition there would be in the Pentagon to go to war with Iran.
As for Hillary Clinton, I think it's a stretch to go from "no option can be removed from the table" to "I'm going to nuke Iran." It is not in the America's best interest, let alone the rest of the world's best interest, for an Islamic fundamentalist state to succeed in developing nuclear weapons. To keep that from happening, I would expect some tough rhetoric, but tough rhetoric does not always translate into brutal actions.
As for the cost of petrol, well if the governments and the multimillion dollar corporations who have a vested interest in oil stopped trying to stop research into alternatives, we wouldn't even have to worry about foreign oil.
As you may be aware I have responded to your comment left on the video in question. So I will actually agree with you when you said,
As for Hillary Clinton, I think it's a stretch to go from "no option can be removed from the table" to "I'm going to nuke Iran."
I don't think Iran will be nuked, they will use conventional bombs and missiles.
Obviously if a country is developing nuclear weapons then they need to be monitored. But it is still a double standard that Israel can be armed to the hilt in the Middle East, but the other countries in the Middle East cannot be armed to defend themselves. People may say that it is okay for Israel or the US to be overly armed, as they won't use their weapons unless absolutely needed - well in my opinion history says otherwise.
It is a complete double standard that weapons inspectors have restricted access to the likes of the US and Israel, because they are the "good guys" while other countries have to allow open access or action gets taken against them in the form of sanctions or even worse.
I would like to point out one more thing and some will not think it significant, but I do and I have a real issue with it.
That speech made by Hillary was given at AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and her wording for me is significant. "Regimes pro-terrorist, Anti-American, Anti-Israeli rhetoric only underscores the urgency of our response to the threat we face ................."
Once again this shows to me that US leaders/candidates must keep Israel happy in order to be elected or re-elected. This is not just about America, this is about America's ties to Israel. Israel must be protected by America at all costs, either directly or indirectly through yearly contributions of $2-3 billion/year in military aid.
Also who gets to define a country as a Terrorist country? The word terrorist is rapidly loosing meaning, as it is used way too often and the definition of what defines a terrorist is growing and as a result the net that its definition may trap is widening too.
Iran isn't some noble group of indigenous freedom fighters who have thrown off the tyranny of western colonialism to forge their own destinies without foreign interference. These people believe in an ancient warrior code based upon honor and unified and codified by Islam. They are not nationalists, or if they are it is only a temporary strategy -- they are pan Islamic. The Shah was bad enough, but the Revolution was pretty much a jump from the fire pan and into the fire if you were a secular Iranian. The Shah was a despot, but he wasn't a true believer. This hardline "president" they have now is, and he would enjoy seeing the jews pushed into the sea, especially those who couldn't swim.
Which isn't to say i would support any new adventure in Iran. Iraq was idiotic enough.I'm Libertarian enough to believe American intervention, in the very few instances it is actually really necessary, should be about very clear threats to our national security, and then should be short, to the point, and unbelievably violent. But let no one be deceived, the people running Iran are dangerous people, and would use nuclear weapons in the blink of an eye if they could justify the action religiously.
I get a grim laugh outta American politics. The Left and the Right ideologues hate each other so much here in the States that they will whore around with ideologies they hate overseas in order to score points against their political opponents at home.
Evangelical Conservatives support Israel, on of the most leftist socialist states in existence, knowing that as Conservative they despise socialism just on general principle. Liberal Progressives will support Palestinian refugees and Iranian Mullahs who advocate theocracy, the sharia, while knowing that separation of church and state is the cornerstone of any liberal democracy. Politics sure make strange bedfellows eh?
I seriously doubt that Iran will be next any time soon.
I know that the people running Iran are not to be trusted and I know that the hardship they are inflicting on their people is against Human Rights codes. However at the moment I don't think some Western leaders can be trusted, especially if they really are having their strings pulled by the Israelis. Get Israel out of US politics that's what I say.
I think Bush would be mad to do anything as blatant as bomb Iran, but I don't think it is just up to him. I hope you are correct.
However there is talk around the White House, but maybe that is propaganda being given out by well I don't actually know who, because it can't be by some of the Democrat hopefuls, as they support action of some description against Iran.
Who knows?????????????????????
Does anyone????????????????????
The hard truth is whoever controls the Middle East can, to an extent, dictate to a certain point to the world's industrialized nations dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. Numbnuts and the rest of his neo-con buddies have managed to do what every superpower since 1950 has dreamed of doing -- achieving tactical control of the Middle East. Its a classic: Israel on the left flank, Afghanistan on the right, and Iraq up the Middle. In essence, the US has the whole region by the balls, especially when you figure in the Carrier groups off the coasts of the entire region. This is why the US invaded, and this is what Dubbya didn't have the balls to just come out and tell the American public. No wonder France and Germany was pissed -- we ruined some serious economic plans they had for the Middle East (and here people thought they were just morally outraged, which is funny if you think the French can be morally outraged).
I'm pretty sure this will come back and bite America in the ass. But the public will generally approve, unfortunately, as long as gas is still the lowest in the industrialized West, and China has the crude she needs to keep supplying the US with cheap products. It makes me wanna be a Luddite, truth be told, except who wants to go back to outhouses and horse bugys? Looks like my vote in the 08 election will once again be cast in protest for the Libitarian candidate.
Yeah we will live in hope. As for his advisers well what can I say .................
Bush is notorious for not listening to his own advisors, anyway.
It makes sense, in a sad, all he has to do is come up with the right excuse (nuclear weapons) and he'll get the usual suspects (Fox News, right wing radio) demanded the head of the President. Of course there will be the establishment of 'democracy' in an already democratic country.
Oh by the way, Iran has the capability to close the transportation of Oil out of the Persian Gulf, just a few well placed missles into the side of a couple of Oil Tankers and we will be paying 10.00 at the pump per gallon.
The US Military is planning, because they have been told to plan. It will be a big mess.
Just joking people, just joking!
But it is still a double standard that Israel can be armed to the hilt in the Middle East, but the other countries in the Middle East cannot be armed to defend themselves.
There are two rationales for trying to keep other Middle Eastern countries from getting nukes. One is non-proliferation - meaning that the fewer countries have nukes, the better off we are. Once a country has nukes, the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, as it is with Pakistan now, so the effort is to keep non-nuclear countries from going nuclear in the first place. The other issue is that neither the U.S. nor Israel, despite having gross political problems, are secular states. The idea of nukes being the hands of a religious fundamentalist state scares the bejeezus out of me, as it should pretty much anyone. To the extent that the U.S. and Israel as well as the other nuclear countries could slide into religious fundamentalism, there is a danger even without proliferation, but allowing states already operating under religious law to develop nukes is almost suicidal.
People may say that it is okay for Israel or the US to be overly armed, as they won't use their weapons unless absolutely needed - well in my opinion history says otherwise.
The U.S. is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against another country, and the culture was very different then. Israel is guilty of a lot of dubious practices in war, but the misues of nuclear devices isn't one of them.
That speech made by Hillary was given at AIPAC
If your reason for pointing this out is that Israel has too much influence on American politics, I wholeheartedly agree. Other nations, like China, likewise have powerful lobbying organizations in the U.S., and I think it's disgusting. Politicians who take money from foreign interests should be run out of office, but as things stand now, it's legal.
One of the reasons why Israel is a bit of a sacred cow in the U.S. is the religious right, which identifies defense of Israel as defense of the Holy Land, despite it being a Jewish state. On the other hand, it plays well with religious Jews within the U.S. (in general), many of whom vote democratic. Therefore, a candidate can't really go wrong, either way, by running to the defense of Israel, even when Israel's actions are out of line.
It is a complete double standard that weapons inspectors have restricted access to the likes of the US and Israel, because they are the "good guys" while other countries have to allow open access or action gets taken against them in the form of sanctions or even worse.
I absolutely agree. The U.S. should set the example by allowing nuclear inspectors to see what we're doing. I guess the difference is... what are they going to see? That we're building nuclear weapons? They already know that. Still, it could go a long way to securing the good will of other nations undergoing inspection.