![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Iran: If this is true, we as a country are screwed...
I don't know how many of you out there have been catching the news, but the persistent rumors that the U.S. will be preemptively attacking Iran got another boost of credibility today.
All over the world (and in a few blogs), news organizations are reporting that within weeks the Administration will launch a war on a third front with Iran as a target.
It doesn't matter that a full 70% of the American public wants out of Iraq, let alone start another cauldron of bloodshed in yet another country with a military we don't have. It doesn't matter what any of us say about it. It doesn't matter what the U.S. Constitution has to say about it.
War with Iran may very well be the Sword of Damocles hanging over our immediate and long-term future.
I seem to remember making a statement about rogue elephants and what happens to them, ooooooh, sometime before the last election.
If this is true, and if this happens, I suspect that We the People will discover just how much saying "it wasn't me, it was those guys in Washington" is going to protect us.
Following the breaking news about the U.S. preparing for an attack on Iran:
Pentagon 'three-day blitz' for Iran (The Times — London)
Will President Bush Bomb Iran? (The Telegraph — U.K.)
U.S. 'Iran Attack Plans' Are Revealed (BBC News)
Test Marketing (The New Yorker — New York)
10 Indications That the U.S. Is Planning Military Action Against Iran (Pacific News Service — California)
Pentagon Draws 'Three-Day Blitz' Plan for Iran and Study: U.S. Preparing 'Massive' Military Attack Against Iran (Raw Story — U.S.)
Countdown to Midnight in Persia (No Quarter — U.S. Blog Analyzing U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Activities)
Considering War with Iran SOAS (Sic Semper Tyrannis 2007 — U.S. Blog Analyzing U.S. Intelligence and Military)
Post Labor Day Product Roll-Out: War with Iran (Informed Comment Global Affairs — U.S. Group Blog on International Relations)
The President's Escalating War Rhetoric With Iran (Salon/Glen Greenwald — U.S.)
If you're not at least a little bit concerned about the future of the U.S. after reading the above links, than I won't hesitate in calling you a fool.
All over the world (and in a few blogs), news organizations are reporting that within weeks the Administration will launch a war on a third front with Iran as a target.
It doesn't matter that a full 70% of the American public wants out of Iraq, let alone start another cauldron of bloodshed in yet another country with a military we don't have. It doesn't matter what any of us say about it. It doesn't matter what the U.S. Constitution has to say about it.
War with Iran may very well be the Sword of Damocles hanging over our immediate and long-term future.
I seem to remember making a statement about rogue elephants and what happens to them, ooooooh, sometime before the last election.
If this is true, and if this happens, I suspect that We the People will discover just how much saying "it wasn't me, it was those guys in Washington" is going to protect us.
Following the breaking news about the U.S. preparing for an attack on Iran:
Pentagon 'three-day blitz' for Iran (The Times — London)
Will President Bush Bomb Iran? (The Telegraph — U.K.)
U.S. 'Iran Attack Plans' Are Revealed (BBC News)
Test Marketing (The New Yorker — New York)
10 Indications That the U.S. Is Planning Military Action Against Iran (Pacific News Service — California)
Pentagon Draws 'Three-Day Blitz' Plan for Iran and Study: U.S. Preparing 'Massive' Military Attack Against Iran (Raw Story — U.S.)
Countdown to Midnight in Persia (No Quarter — U.S. Blog Analyzing U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Activities)
Considering War with Iran SOAS (Sic Semper Tyrannis 2007 — U.S. Blog Analyzing U.S. Intelligence and Military)
Post Labor Day Product Roll-Out: War with Iran (Informed Comment Global Affairs — U.S. Group Blog on International Relations)
The President's Escalating War Rhetoric With Iran (Salon/Glen Greenwald — U.S.)
If you're not at least a little bit concerned about the future of the U.S. after reading the above links, than I won't hesitate in calling you a fool.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
We don't want to be in Iraq (as you said) we want to get out of there (as you said) we DO NOT want to go into Iran. Now we'll have to find a way to pull out of TWO countries and try not to get our own asses kicked in the process. God help us.
Only 17 more months until Bush is out of office - I cannot wait. We can't stand to be involved in his BS wars anymore. The next president needs to find a way to fix things and cover our own ass. *facepalm*
no subject
no subject
Suddenly my five-year plan for transferring countries yet again looks far too slow. :(
no subject
Sadly, from Stalag California
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Thanks for the links)
no subject
no subject
Can you be totally sure? It seems to me that your government don't actually take any notice of things like the law or the constitution, is there anything stronger than those to guarantee that they won't reinstate the draft?
no subject
It's because it's political suicide, to the point were even waging three elective wars with an ineffective army is still more popular than the draft.
no subject
Although, as the president is not going to be around (unless he brings in special measures or whatever) he can bring in the draft, ignore the flack, and leave it in place for his successor. Incoming presidential candidates can then play lip service to the idea of rescinding, but not do anything quick once they get into post.
There are probably enough people around saying 'The discipline is good for them....it's God's will.... it never did me any harm....etc. etc.' for them to decide that 'more public debate is needed' and keep it for quite a while.
A cynical outsider might say that if a Democratic candidate got more votes because they promised to rescind it quickly, then it wouldn't matter - the Republicans would find some way with your strange elective system to make sure that, again, the person with the fewer votes got the job anyway.
no subject
Many of this biggest war boosters are quick to keep their kids out of the military. War is fought on the backs of the poor in this country and no one cares about their votes. The middle class, however, is quite another matter and that's who the draft would effect. It's not going to happen. There would be a riot.
no subject
I do hope that you are right. Sad though it is that middle class America would only riot over the possibility of its own kids having to die, and only the middle classes rioting would stop the president. So nobody does anything about him causing death and destruction over much of the rest of the planet.
War is fought on the backs of the poor in this country and no one cares about their votes.
It is so sad. I was quite horrified when I read somewhere that your military go into schools to recruit and promise poor kids money to join up - and then keep on ringing them up on their cell phones and things - the UK did away with 'taking the King's shilling' in the nineteenth century! The UK forces are only allowed into schools if there is a job fair or similar - and then only if invited to attend something like that by the Head.
I presume that the electoral college system than gives one man 0.1 of a vote, some other man 3 votes, and a third guy 10 votes means that the votes of the city poor are worth less than the middle classes - and then you see Americans deriding the UK about its class system! You get something similar in the UK - in as much as there are some constituencies that are always going to vote Labour, and others that are always going to vote Conservative - and so the electioneering is always aimed at those which are less predictable. But each constituency has roughly the same number of voters, and each MP has one vote when he gets to Parliament.
(Not that that makes a lot of difference to me as I have no vote in the UK - but it is the system, apart from our own, that I know best. I might be in one of the world's oldest democracies - we celebrated the millenium of our parliament in 1979 - but our voting system is a bit complicated!)
no subject
no subject
How the hell did Bush get elected, then re elected?!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Okay, Iraq was poorly thought out. But this is just idiocy. Does Iran have oil? How much oil does Iran have? Because it's not like another war can possibly prop up the administration any further, and I'm having trouble believing that the government actually WANTS to fuck you guys over just for shits and giggles...
I mean. What?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-09-03 09:23 am (UTC)(link)As for the "how Bush was elected" topic,this is a problem for all countries around the world...
Word of advice:stop using e-vote...
no subject
I'm not even as convinced as I was that, with Gordon Brown in No. 10, Britain won't support an attack. Thing is, the US has a gun at the head of our so-called 'independent nuclear deterrent' - if US stops supplying service and technology, then within a year and a half (so the military bods say), no more British nukes. Certainly no Trident replacement, which Brown strongly supported just this year.
Also, although an attack might be politically unpopular, if Brown chose to stay out, you could be sure Murdoch's papers would be screaming COWARDS AND TRAITORS!!!! for Britain deserting the US in her hour of need, and Brown would be terrified of that.
On the other hand, the Labour Party would utterly hate another war, but then most of the Parliamentary Labour Party are spineless toadies who handed in their powers of independent thought at the door when they entered Parliament.
Wish I had more idea what can be done...
no subject
Now we share this fear for our own daughters.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-09-03 12:37 pm (UTC)(link)You should see this if you haven't...
no subject
I really, really hope that I'm right.
A moderate/Conservative Republican rambles on
That said, and speaking as a moderate/conservative Republican, depending on my indigestion at the time, any attack on Iran is stupid beyond belief at this time. The time to stop the Iranian nuclear program with a couple of air strikes passed us by several years ago. Now, the program is so large and dispersed that any attack would ultimately fail in its objective. All we would do is enrage the Iranian public and unify them behind the Mullahs.
Any military action to effectively stop the Iranian from getting the bomb would have to be so widespread that it would constitute an invasion of Iran with a long-term occupation afterwards. I think two counter-insurgencies in the Middle East is enough of us right now.
I say this as someone who is on record against the Iranian Mullah regime, but as much we could get a thrill out of bombing the bad guys in this situation, it would be counter productive.
There are better ways to accomplish our objective. The Iranian economy is very vulnerable to economic sanctions. Remember it was in Iran where there were riots at gas stations over petrol rationing, not the United States. The Iranian economy is weak once you get past those oil resources. Any economy that is dependent on one resource as its many strength is one that is vulnerable to outside sanctions.
In this case Churchill said it perfectly "Better jaw jaw, than war war."
Forgot to post this link
Almost forgot, I wanted to post this link about Iran. Maybe the Bush National Security team should read it.
no subject
no subject
Just call me a fool
What worries me is much more socio-economic in nature.
1) Trade. 1986. That's the last year the US had a positive balance of trade. We've been bleeding money ever since, and more money each year. We can afford to go on bleeding a few more decades, but sooner or latter, the tab is gonna be called due.
2) Immigration. Ever seen that really neat cartoon from back in the 1800's withe fat rich Amerikuns preventing immigrants from coming in... while their own shadows are drawn in the shape of their own immigrant ancestors? Or maybe the picture of two crossed riles and a Indian chief labeled "Homeland Security: since 1492"? Yeah, that;'s why immigration politics riles me.
Anyone who studies history will tell you that one of the US's greatest assets was our reputation as the Land of the Free, where Lady Liberty stood proud in New York harbor, welcoming "your poor, your huddled masses"; a reputation that brought the best and brightest of every land, especially the minorities, who were by necessity, innovative and industrious, to our shores, to help build up our country.
Now, we have those asshole "militias", and congress trying to impose further limitations on immigration. Do they remember how many of our Nuclear Physicists in WWII were minority immigrants fleeing Nazi persecution? Do they remember the most highly decorated military unit in US history was composed of JAPANESE AMERICANS? Immigrations is almost always a NET POSTIVE to a nation, and Idiots who think that closing the borders will preserve Jobs (the jobs are already moving offshore, and will only move faster if you don't let people in, bakas)are going to mess it up for everyone.
3) Education. Do I even have to explain this one?
Given this, why the heck is a war worrying?
I wouldn't be concerned if we went to war with *China*. No nation has enough sea-lift capability to seriously threaten the US (unless they lob nukes, and that;s a losing preposition for everyone), and the only two nations that actually have borders with us... Yeah, I really expect Canada to attack, any day now.
So in the end, yes I am desperately concerned for my country, but over saber rattling? not hardly.
no subject
I think things are past hoping Congress will fix them. I think we need the military to frog-march Bush, Cheney, et al. to holding cells for their International War Crimes Trials. That includes any member of Congress who appeased Bush and the Republicans. (You know, those who've whined that impeachment was worse than getting Bush's cabal out of power ASAP, and voting him the money to continue the war in Iraq.)