In recent week the Bush administration has expanded its case against Iran. Even some of the administration's harshest critics appear willing to buy into the new evidence that indicates that Iran is in fact pursuing nuclear weapons capability and has played an active role in the Iraqi insurgency.
Do you buy into the case against Iran? Could there be an expansion of the war in Iraq into its longtime rival and neighbor's borders? Is all of the recent action just posturing for diplomatic purposes or is America heading into a new conflict? What do you think?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
Of course they don't have our best interests at heart -- why should they? Nor did we or do we now have their best interests at heart. Had Bush not blown our credibility wad, by invading and destroying so much and botching the job in the first place, we may have been able to negotiate. Secretary Rice and Negroponte both have made it plain in testimony before congress that they have no intention of pursuing a meaningful dialogue with either Iran or Syria.
I don't recall the name, but CNN International interviewed a journalist who said that the administration is trying to provoke a response from Iran. To date, the mainstream media have not made this case -- which seems so obvious. But then, they reported WMD and visions of mushroom clouds in the run up to Iraq. So, looks like we're on our own as to what's really happening and once again will have to rely on alternative and international media and our gut instincts to come up with the truth.
Here's a thought. We know it's about the oil and a world wide grab by everyone to get dibs on it. On the other hand, if Bush and Co. are on an all out grab--which I think they are--for strategic position and dominance, particularly in the middle east, it stands to reason that we would not want Iran to develop nuclear capability of any kind, not just for weapons development. [Iran's production has been down -- why?] We can't afford them the leverage they will have with nuclear "energy" when our own energy resources are so limited: no oil, no alternate forms, and no nuclear energy program. Easier in the minds of our greedy and shortsighted leaders to take someone else's -- no matter the immediate and long term costs.
Whether it's true or not, the administration is trying to make a case for a direct link between Iraq and weapons from Iran. Never mind for the moment that we created a playpen for those who want to do mayhem in general. If the administration were "worried" about escalation, there would be redeployment to the borders. They "want" to escalate.
Rep Gilchrest [Repub/Maryland] asked the House Rules Committee today to consider history: the bay of pigs; Kruschev's saying he would bury us; the continued arguments for escalation in viet nam and other seemingly do or die circumstances where negotiations made the ultimate difference. He said he would vote yes for the resolution to stop the escalation. Rep. Gilchrest and more and more republicans believe that the soldiers on the ground know what is happening and will not perceive the resolution as a lack of support.
In the meantime, I say, the horrors for the civilians continue and our troops remain in jeopardy of not being able to get out -- while congress dithers and the administration charges ahead full steam.
Bush Jr, Dick, Don, Candy, and let's not forget my one time hero Powel (aka Mr. Anthrax) and the entire administration (top to bottom) has already lied to the American public and more than once, they have twisted, and miss used Intel from many areas to sell the War in Iraq. Let's tell the truth Jr, there never were any WMD, there never was any connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, so there never was a real terror threat before Jr stated "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" !!!
And now he really believes that we'll buy into this his brand of Texas long horn BS again trying to sell us on the idea that it's in our interest to go and attack Iran? I never bought in to the lies and BUSHIT, the first time around, so what makes him think that I'll buy it this time?
No, I don't trust the current Iranian nut case. And just because the current nut case in the White House shows us some very questionable (date and location) arm caches and they says that it's a slam dunk, that there is an Iranian connection, don't make it so.
I agree that with Iran developing a nuclear program (and I don't trust them to use it peacefully) is some thing that the world can live with out, and that they'll use it, if they're backed into a corner, and then we'll use ours... that's a sure bet. Would then Israel start lobbing a few in to downtown Tehran, just to make sure ? And what then about Russia ? Pakistan and India, then China? Where will it stop then?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/weekinreview/30KINZ.html?ei=5007&en=757504ae740ed91c&ex=1385528400&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=print&position=
According to the article:
"What the United States wanted in Guatemala — and in Iran, where the C.I.A. also deposed a government in the early 1950's — was pro-American stability. In the long run, though, neither Colonel Castillo Armas nor his Iranian counterpart, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, provided it. Instead, both led their countries away from democracy and toward repression and tragedy."
"Iranians wrote a constitution and elected a parliament early in the 20th century. Their progress toward democracy stopped after the Pahlavi dynasty took the throne with British help in 1921, but resumed after World War II. By the time of the 1953 coup, Iran was more free than at any time before or since."
"Mr. Mossadegh pursued a neutralist foreign policy and cooperated with Communist members of parliament to win approval of social reforms, but was not inclined to socialism. American officials who were assigned to monitor Communist movements in Iran during the 1950's admitted years later that they had routinely overstated the strength of these movements."
Interesting stuff. I think this helps to explain why radical Islamic governments succeed in Iran. The moderate side of Iranian politics never really recovered from the coup, a situation aggravated by years of barriers to free speech. Religion provided the rallying cry for the Iranian revolution as weakened moderate voices were sidelined.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/weekinreview/30KINZ.html?ei=5007&en=
757504ae740ed91c&ex=1385528400&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=print&position=
What is sad is that this is a double-edged sword. Mr. Bush has so destroyed the ability of all but a few knee-jerking dittoheads to believe him that even if he were to suddenly discover a real and imminent danger now, people would remember all of his lies and think he was again crying "wolf" just for his own warped purposes.
You done done good! Outside of the fact that you almost totally stole my thunder, yours was a very meaningful, fact filled and do I dare say, articulate article. My thanks!
UN Sec General Ban Ki Moon told Charlie Rose, amongst a lot of other interesting things, that the "international Community" [and I guess that means us too] must "dialogue" with Iran. In spite of his best efforts, Rose couldn't pin Moon down as to whether he thought Iran was sending fighters and weapons into Iraq. Moon just kept saying everyone must "dialogue." Gee, wonder who he's thinking of and did he come up with it all by himself -- I'd hazard a guess, NOT and hope that he has some real clout. [Norm Coleman, Duncan Hunter and others will not be pleased.]
Thanks for highlighting the info above regarding our penchant and miserable history for "backing" and fomenting behind the scenes [all around the globe] resulting in our alignment with not so savory characters in order to grab resources.
Venezuela is an example of a rather benign outcome, depending of course on whether the prospect of nationalization gives you the shudders vis a vis "free" markets. Iraq is the extreme example at the other end of a most violent, chaotic and destructive stick -- which the civilians and militants get to hold and will internalize --- and most likely not in a democratic "free market direction. Western powers, and this administration in particular, may "sing the praises and extoll the virtues of amber waves of grain and democracy," but they always settle for "grab, hold, and reap" -- whatever is there. Oil is good stuff and make our wheels go round -- and we are definitely addicted to it.
We do have a chance -- it's just that midterm elections and once every four years at the polls doesn't seem to quite get their attention. Also, congress is not the only place where there is power of the purse. Jeff Sessions is sahing the media has adopted the democrat talking points -- HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE LIBERAL MEDIA CRAP and the same old DOUBLESPEAK.
Dick Durbin is telling Charlie Rose that the constituencies of the republicans are not budging and the repugs are going to filibuster. I say, "go for it" repugs and reap the consequences. The grassroots are watching and listening.
Dick says he's not sure whether anything can get 60 votes but there may be some many on both sides of the aisle who won't want to send soldiers until they're well equipped and rested and prepared to face the enemy. I should jolly well think so -- but I'm beginning to think they're all bloody warmongers or craven cowards.
As whether there are 60 votes to repeal the 2002 war auth, Dick said he voted against it [he was 1 of only 23] in the first place but doesn't think there are 60 votes to ammend or repeal it.
And then there is Douglas Feith: Charlie asked for his reaction to "the report"of Feith's work on the intell for an Al Q connection. Feith refers to it as the work "my people" did. No, not him, his people. It takes my breath away -- what a CYA yes man moron. Charlie Rose is an elitist hawk. I remember his interviews with the big oil CEO's -- chummy chummy and it's all about the technology [and of course they want the little gas guzzling voters to pay for it]. And then there was his interview with Amy Goodman, to whom he was openly dismissive and hostile -- didn't know what to do with her, so was derisive.
Thanks for the thoughtful recitation.
What do I think? I believe that Bush and Company is trying to perpetuate this phony "war on Terror" by secret actions and commitments of this country beyond January of 2009. I'm mindful of the similarities between our fleet in the Persian Gulf and our fleet in Hawaii in 1941 when our President then was anxious for us to join in what became WWII. And I believe that we have more wars than we can handle right now. I think our military personnel are worth more to us than oil.
I also believe in Peace... remember that idea? Remember using diplomacy, acting like a good neighbor, keeping our nose out of other countries' business and minding our own economic problems at home, and for those rogues who want to cause trouble, joining with others to police the world in solidarity with honesty and dignity.