Firmly AntiWar

[PatrickHenry]

I sense an impending war that may be fomented clandestinely and carried out without reference to justice or public sentiment.

This is not really new.

A nuclear attack on Iran by US forces or by Israel as a US proxy is being given credence by many in the stratusphere in Washington DC.

I am not trying to debate the probability of it happening in this thread.

I am instead, stressing the necessity of a huge wave of public opinion that such an attack is outside the bounds of just war. It must not take place!

I ask for your support for a firm antiwar stance in this thread...

[Labrocca]

I don't think if Israel attacks Iran that it will be at the behest of the USA. Israel has shown itself to be very independent. While there may be a backdoor communication about it giving a heads-up I don't believe Israel would simply do our bidding.

Israel also has enough reasons of it's own to attack Iran and prevent them from gaining nuclear technology. A few nukes and Israel is essentially dead. They can't afford that.

I ask for your support for a firm antiwar stance in this thread...

I think I can support an anti-war stance BUT...I am a realist and sometimes war is needed. I don't believe we are there yet though.

[Jaaaman]

I ask for your support for a firm antiwar stance in this thread...


Fight the Power! [attachment=277]

[Trish]

I am not inclined at this point in time to give you or anyone else a commitment to make an anti-war stand against Iran. It makes better sense to me to make a stand at a time when I have something to make a stand about. Not being omnipotent, I have no way of knowing what Iran or any other country will do in the future or the whys and wherefores involved. Committing myself to or for something without knowing the specific conditions in play seems a waste of time, effort, and common sense.

[ViolaLee]

I'm with you PatrickHenry, firmly against war with Iran. We are losing two wars now, how can we expect to win a third? By nuking them? If so, we've turned into a MONSTER.

We are fanning the flames of war by congress passing a resolution that their military is a terrorist organization.

They have passed a resolution that our military is a terrorist organization.

What the f uck are we trying to start here?

Bush doesn't do one ounce of diplomacy. He uses name calling and threats like the little spoiled brat asshole that he is.

The Iranian people are young (the older folks were killed in the Iran/Iraq war) and they love the west and our music and our culture. They are like us, they don't agree with their president.

Should someone nuke us because Bush is fucking everything up and the world hates him? We hate him too!!!! We shouldn't nuke Iranian people. THEY AGREE WITH US.

[Trish]

Just as a matter of curiosity and nothing more. Is there ANYTHING worth going to war to fight for, against, etc. I'm not speaking specifically of Iran, just wondering if this anti-war position is all encompassing.

[ViolaLee]

Of course. We should only go to war if we or our allies are attacked or imminently threatened.

[Trish]

And what exactly constitutes an attack or an "imminent" threat? Are all our allies included in that protection?

[PatrickHenry]

The US has no formal alliance with Israel.

The connections are all sub rosa. The Executive Branch, not the people's representatives. The Empire...

And an imminent threat is a lot more than an allegation by lying leaders that there may be a WMD program underway...so don't get any ideas, Trish.

[tony mitra]

I am wholly with you Patrick Henry, but I do not belong to the US society. I am a lowly Canadian, and nobody listens to a Canadian anyway.

Iran has become a villain ever since they kicked the Shah out. It has little to do with nuclear power, and everything to do with control. Had that not been the case, USA should now be after Pakistan and India, both of whom have far more potent nuclear arsenal and delivery systems outside of IAEA or UN jurisdiction. It should also be going after Israel, for the very same reasons.

An attack on Iran is not only possible, I believe it is a near certainty. I also believe this will not improve the West’s position in the middle east, its position in world opinion, nor will it ensure better long term security for Israel. it will be one more nail into the coffin of a failed policy.

Radicals like Bin Laden like the idea of west or Israel massively hitting Muslim nations, causing more death and destruction. Those are the incidences that make more Muslims mad enough to join these radical groups.

See, we are all creatures of habit. This a very common human trait, to be a generation or two behind in our thinking. Most people base their predictions and plans for the future, on what they learned in the past.

This was alright for millennia, and even the past few centuries. That is because the world was changing ever so slowly, that lessens of the past generation still applied to the future generation, with minor modifications.

USA for example, believes that its security was maintained by an aggressive military expansion to keep the Soviets in check. By the same logic, it plans to handle the next generation, or the next century, following the same basic plan.

But the Soviets are gone, and the world is changing so rapidly, that nothing now has any similarity to the cold war years. And the cold war is barely 20 years into the past. The only modification to the US policy has been a change from containment, to preemption.

There are very few people that can think out of the box, and be ahead of their time in their approach. That is also why these handful of people have historically been ridiculed and marginalized.

Don’t forget, Christ was crucified with the masses either watching silently without protest, or enjoying spectacle as a neutral, or even cheering and goading.

So, how you could stop the war, is a very relevant and under appreciated question.

American democracy has been more or less hijacked by big money and special interest, no matter who comes to win which election. The system is geared to self perpetuate itself. So, what can one really do?

Well, mass movement can do miracles, but the masses usually do not move unless things get really bad. For many Muslims in the middle east, things are really bad. But are they that bad for the rest of us yet? I doubt it.

But, I can always be very wrong, and hope I am.

This is not to put you down Patrick Henry. Far from it. I applaud your efforts. Just see that you don’t get crucified in the process. :)

[PatrickHenry]

Those of us who have never experienced war in the 'hood have a very difficult time empathizing with those victims in other nations.

To us here in North America, war is a phenomenon in far off lands. And America is addicted to war. http://www.addictedtowar.com/atw1a.html

But it is always couched in terms of security for us...our interests...democracy and freedom.

What it is really about is death and maiming for people who don't look like us on the outside. Who don't pray to a God with the same name as ours. Who speak a different language, eat different food.

It is about profits for war companies. It is about expansion of a de facto Empire. It is about garrisoning the world with US bases.

It is the anti-thesis of self determination and democracy. It is control by the elite, not the grassroots.

It is about hate, not love.

That is why I ask for a firm commitment to ANTIWAR.

The exception is self-defense when attacked by the military of another nation. Every nation has the right to self-defense. Terrorist attacks by international actors do not qualify as a casus belli.

The US has lost its way.

[Trish]

The US has no formal alliance with Israel.

The connections are all sub rosa. The Executive Branch, not the people's representatives. The Empire...

And an imminent threat is a lot more than an allegation by lying leaders that there may be a WMD program underway...so don't get any ideas, Trish.


I have all kinds of ideas on all kinds of subjects and issues, Patrick Henry. As far as I am aware, there is no power on Earth that can mandate what ideas I, or any other person, can "get."

We (the US) may not have a formal military alliance with Israel, however, we do consider them as allies. Like other Presidents before him, President Bush has stated that the US would defend Israel if Israel were attacked.

"Israel is a solid ally of the United States. We will rise to Israel's defense, if need be....

Asked whether he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."" (Kessler, 2006, Bush Says U.S. Would Defend Israel Militarily, The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/
AR2006020102134.html)

"President Clinton reiterated the steadfast commitment of the United States to Israel's security, to maintain its qualitative edge, and to strengthen Israel's ability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or a possible combination of threats...

The [Clinton and Barak] two leaders also reviewed the status of the U.S.-Israeli defense relationship and agreed that existing defense channels of coordination and cooperation work effectively...

President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak agreed that Israel faces new challenges in the strategic arena, particularly the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles that threaten to undermine Israel's security. In this context, the two leaders agreed to step up the overall bilateral cooperation and coordination...

Upon concluding the Prime Minister's visit, the two leaders expressed their shared conviction that these meetings have laid the foundations for a vigorous effort to bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as for even closer American-Israeli ties based on the U.S. ironclad commitment to Israel's security..." (Joint Statement by President Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak, 1999, The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mid031.htm).

"...Since Harry Truman extended diplomatic recognition to Israel, every American President has cared deeply about Israel's security and its quest for peace. I carry on that tradition, and I renew tonight the pledge I've made before: The United States will always ensure Israel's security and work with her in partnership for peace..." (Reagan, 1987, Toasts at the State Dinner For President Chaim Herzog of Israel, http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/111087k.htm).

"...Our firm commitment to Israel's survival and security is rooted in our deepest convictions and in our knowledge of the strategic importance to our own Nation of a stable Middle East..." (Carter, 1979, State of the Union Address, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/jc39/speeches/su79jec.htm).

So whether the US has a formal military alliance with Israel or not, it is clear that the US is firmly committed to Israel's security as an important American ally.

As to your comment "an allegation by lying leaders that there may be a WMD program underway" I will only state that relegating all concerns about Iran's nuclear capabilities to "lying leaders" is naively short-sighted in my opinion. I belive such an inflexible position is dangerous in today's world for it leaves a person blind and impotent.

[Labrocca]

He uses name calling and threats like the little spoiled brat asshole that he is.

Hmm...so name calling makes one a spoiled brat asshole? Looks who's talking. :ponder: And btw...exactly what name-calling has Bush done with Iran?

I could care less if Iran counts the CIA and our government as a terrorist organization. Not sure how you count finishing WWII with a nuke after they started it by bombing Pearl Harbor is a terrorist act.

[Elrathin]

And btw...exactly what name-calling has Bush done with Iran?


Calling them one of the Axis of Evil was not a good call IMO from Bush. That speech automatically put a rift in any serious diplomacy. Even NK is doing their routine again on their nuclear stance by not coming to an agreement.[hr]
Not sure how you count finishing WWII with a nuke after they started it by bombing Pearl Harbor is a terrorist act.


You've got to admit, there is a distinct difference in attacking a military harbor and attacking a civilian population with two atomic devices.

The morality of dropping atomic bombs on Japan is going to be constantly debated for time to come.

The sad part is that in the long run, while dropping atomic bombs on Japan ended Japans involvement with WWII, another country could take up the precedence that it is better to nuke Washington D.C. to end a war we start.

I think in the long run we have done more harm than good by dropping those bombs. Of course only time will tell and that is just my opinion on it.

[tony mitra]

The sad part is that in the long run, while dropping atomic bombs on Japan ended Japans involvement with WWII, another country could take up the precedence that it is better to nuke Washington D.C. to end a war we start.


Very profound observation, Elrathin.

In many of todays blog discussion, where the overwhelming majority are Americans, one does not often see logic applied to further one argument equally applied on the other side.

Had these boards had equal participation from say China, Iran, Russia, Israel, Ghana, Brasil, Japan and the like - I'd guess there would be plenty of people that would mirror your comments.

Kudos and cheers. :)

[Labrocca]

Yes it was an insightful comment.

[preservanation]

Of course. We should only go to war if we or our allies are attacked or imminently threatened.

Like 911?
Or like Pearl Harbor?
Where we went after Germany when it was the Japs who attacked us?
Perspective and honesty is essential to understand this situation.
Iraq is an integral part of the overall war on terror.

[PatrickHenry]

Like 911?No, 9/11 is not a casus belli. Even the official story implicated no nation in a military attack on the US. It was civilian terrorists, under the control of no national entity that allegedly perpetrated those deeds. A cause for police work, not war.
Or like Pearl Harbor?Pearl Harbor, 1941 was a preventive attack like the one Bush did against Iraq. Even though the circumstances were exactly equivalent, the results are opposite, at least initially. A US victory over Iraq vs a Japanese defeat by the victim of the sneak attack.
Where we went after Germany when it was the Japs who attacked us?
Your ignorance of history is showing here, preserva. If you check, you will find that the Third Reich declared war on the US after the US declaration against Japan.
Iraq is an integral part of the overall war on terror.
There is no war on terror. It's all a smokescreen for endless war.

[ViolaLee]

And btw...exactly what name-calling has Bush done with Iran?

Axis of Evil[hr]

Of course. We should only go to war if we or our allies are attacked or imminently threatened.

Like 911?
Or like Pearl Harbor?
Where we went after Germany when it was the Japs who attacked us?
Perspective and honesty is essential to understand this situation.
Iraq is an integral part of the overall war on terror.
Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. Iraq didn't declare war on us. There was no imminent threat from Iraq on the US.

Germany declared war against us. I agree, perspective and honesty is essential to understand this situation.

[PatrickHenry]

Scott Ritter, the Republican weapons inspector who said there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the start of Bush's war of conquest in Iraq.

Ritter gets more credibility from me than Bush. He told the truth, while Bush lied his way into a war:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070927_ritter_stop_iran_war/
The long-awaited “progress report” of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on the status of the occupation of Iraq has been made, providing Americans, via the compliant media, with the spectacle of loyal Bush yes men offering faith-based analysis in lieu of fact-based assessment. In the days and weeks that have since passed, two things have become clear: Neither Congress nor the American people (including the antiwar movement) have a plan or the gumption to confront President Bush in anything more than cosmetic fashion over the war in Iraq, and while those charged with oversight mill about looking to score cheap political points and/or save face, the administration continues its march toward conflict with Iran unimpeded.

Bush responded to the Petraeus report by indicating that he would be inclined to start reducing the level of U.S. forces in Iraq sometime soon (maybe December, maybe the spring of 2008). But the bottom line is that the troop levels in Iraq keep expanding, as does the infrastructure of perpetual occupation. The Democrats in Congress are focused on winning the White House in 2008, not stopping a failed war, and as such they not only refuse to decisively confront the president on Iraq, they are trying to out-posture him over who would be the tougher opponent of an expansionist Iran.

Here’s the danger: While the antiwar movement focuses its limited resources on trying to leverage real congressional opposition to the war in Iraq, which simply will not happen before the 2008 election, the Bush administration and its Democratic opponents will outflank the antiwar movement on the issue of Iran, pushing forward an aggressive agenda in the face of light or nonexistent opposition.

Of the two problems (the reality of Iraq, the potential of Iran), Iran is by far the more important. The war in Iraq isn’t going to expand tenfold overnight. By simply doing nothing, the Democrats can rest assured that Bush’s bad policy will simply keep failing. War with Iran, on the other hand, can still be prevented. We are talking about the potential for conflict at this time, not the reality of war. But time is not on the side of peace.

<snip>

The highest priority for the antiwar movement in America today must be the prevention of a war with Iran. The strategic objectives should include getting Congress to repeal the war-powers authorities currently on the books, thereby forcing the president to seek new congressional approval for any new war. Likewise, a concerted effort must be undertaken to counter the disinformation being spread by the Bush administration and others about the nature of the Iranian threat. Every action undertaken by the antiwar movement must be connected to one or both of these strategic objectives. This is not the time for one-off sophomoric newspaper advertisements, but rather for sustained action focused on generating congressional hearings and public debate across the entire spectrum of American society. From the colleges and universities to the churches and on to the public square of small-town America, public information talks, presentations and panels must be held. Communities should flood local media outlets with requests for coverage and appeal to regional media to run stories. Mainstream media will follow. Demonstrations, if useful at all, must be focused events linked to an overall campaign designed to facilitate a strategic objective.

We all should remember the fall of 2002. Many felt that there was no chance for a war with Iraq, especially once U.N. inspectors made their return. In March 2003, everyone who thought so was proved wrong. The fall of 2007 is no different. There is a sense of complacency when one speaks of the potential for a war with Iran. But time is not on the side of those who oppose conflict. If nothing is done to change the political situation inside America regarding Iran, there is an all too real possibility for a war to break out in the spring of 2008.

Sadly, there really is no alternative for the antiwar movement: Put opposition to the war in Iraq on the back burner and make preventing a war with Iran the No. 1 priority, at least until the national election cycle kicks in during the summer of 2008. If a war with Iran hasn’t happened by then, it probably won’t. And the national debate on Iraq won’t be engaged until that time, anyway. A war with Iran would make the current conflict in Iraq pale by comparison, and would detrimentally impact the whole of America, not just certain demographics. As such, it is critical that we all put aside our ideological and political differences and focus on the one issue which, if left unheeded, will have devastating consequences for the immediate future of us all: Prevent a future war with Iran.

[Todzilla]

I fail to see any kind of significant threat posed by Iran against the American people.

...never mind the idiotic folly of it.

[ViolaLee]

I fail to see any kind of significant threat posed by Iran against the American people.

...never mind the idiotic folly of it.

There isn't any threat.

Bush just wants war in the middle east. He thinks he's bringing on the rapture so he can float up to heaven.

He's just another form of an Islamic jihadi suicide bomber who thinks he's going to heaven with 72 virgins.

Bush and the suicide bombers will be burning in hell for all the death they've caused.

If there even is a heaven and hell. I think it's all just, thousands of years ago, made up stories, but that's just me.

[Deadshot]

A nuclear Iran is a threat, to the world. But then that begs the question, why should only the USA have to deal with it AND does nuclear threat = war?

To be blunt the other nations of the middle east, from Israel to Saudi Arabia to India, do not want a nuclear Iran and will probably stop them. Also France has already thrown down the gauntlet, so to speak. Don't you think Europe will follow? Right now everyone but Russia is asking for sanctions, so if we did go to war, it wouldn't be without major 1st world help...unlike now.

As to the second point, we negotiated with North Korea, so why not Iran? Country for country who's killed more Americans...without question North Korea has. Also there's a reason that there are 30K Americans on that border right now. If we'll play nice with one section of the Axis of Evil, why not the other?

So while I fear Bush being in charge during this challenging time, I do not fear an all out war with Iran. Because even before Iraq, Bush did attempt to sway the U.N. and others. Now with a U.N. that would back his play, I think we'd take it slow before going to war with Iran.

America's kinda of tired of war right now, that will play into peaces favor...that and Bush being gone soon.:ecstatic:

[NDNdancer]

I've vehemently opposed to war with Iran. I have been writing, emailing, and calling my Senators and Congressman for months now. Everytime Bush speaks out against Iran, or a piece of legislation comes out that would allow him to go to war, I call.

I've also been sending them articles, books, etc to read that shows the current war-mongering and lies.

The Supreme Leader of Iran has called a fatwa on nuclear weapons as not being in alignment with the tenents of Islam. He also sent a letter through the Swedish diplomat to Rove inviting a normalization of relations, open access to their nuclear facilities, and peace with Israel. The Bush administration ignored it. It's pretty clear they want no diplomatic resolution to the situation with Iran and are pursuing a military solution.

Yes, we need to speak out.

[Todzilla]

Iran has no credible mechanism for delivering a nuke to US soil. It's actually a very big deal to do so.

Their threat is to the region which messes with our SUV juice.

[ViolaLee]

I've vehemently opposed to war with Iran. I have been writing, emailing, and calling my Senators and Congressman for months now. Everytime Bush speaks out against Iran, or a piece of legislation comes out that would allow him to go to war, I call.

I've also been sending them articles, books, etc to read that shows the current war-mongering and lies.

The Supreme Leader of Iran has called a fatwa on nuclear weapons as not being in alignment with the tenents of Islam. He also sent a letter through the Swedish diplomat to Rove inviting a normalization of relations, open access to their nuclear facilities, and peace with Israel. The Bush administration ignored it. It's pretty clear they want no diplomatic resolution to the situation with Iran and are pursuing a military solution.

Yes, we need to speak out.


:clapper: You're my kinda patriotic citizen. Cheers to you!