Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 17, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Star-Spangled Baggage
Science Finds New Routes to Energy




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar
Kolyma Tales

Kolyma Tales

By Varlam Shalamov; John Glad (Translator)

more items

 
Report

Taking a Stand Against War

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 11, 2008
Chicago skyline
Wikimedia Commons / AllyUnion

By Scott Ritter

(Page 2)

“WHEREAS, Iran has not threatened to attack the United States, and no compelling evidence has been presented that Iran poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States that would justify an unprovoked unilateral pre-emptive military attack.”

In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that Iran, rather than conspiring against the U.S. in the Middle East, has actively reached out to Washington in an effort to normalize relations. Iran was the first Islamic nation to condemn the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attack on the United States, and Iran coordinated with the U.S. military on certain aspects of the American military response in Afghanistan. Likewise, Iran was supportive of the U.S. drive to remove Saddam Hussein from power. 

In May of 2003, Iran made a bold diplomatic approach to the United States which sought to resolve outstanding issues such as the Iranian nuclear program, Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and Iran’s relationship with Israel. It was the United States which rejected this outreach, not Iran. The fact is that it is the unilateral policy objectives of the Bush administration, which revolve around regime change in Iran, which serve as the principal threat to regional peace and security in the Middle East today. Iran poses a threat to no nation, least of all the United States.

“WHEREAS, We support the people of Iran who are struggling for freedom and democracy, and nothing herein should be construed as supportive of their government, the Islamic Republic of Iran, but a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran could well prove counterproductive to the cause of promoting freedom and democracy in that country.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
We should never forget that while Iran functions as a theocracy in terms of ultimate constitutional authority, both its legislative and executive branches are a product of democratic processes. The best course of action American policy could take would be to create the conditions inside Iran where the genuine will of the people can be expressed through the existing democratic structures. This is best accomplished by creating increased opportunities for interaction between Iran and the rest of the world. Such interaction would go far to moderate the theocratic structures inside Iran. The current policies of economic sanctions and political isolation of Iran are counterproductive in this regard, and serve to strengthen the political power of those conservative institutions that Americans hope would be undermined by an Iranian population moderated by international interaction.

“WHEREAS, A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), representing the consensus view [of] all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and an earlier NIE concluded that Iran’s involvement in Iraq “is not likely to be a major driver of violence there.”

While the United States has been plagued by the increasing politicization of intelligence—prime examples being the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and the creation within the Pentagon of a special intelligence entity (the Office of Special Programs, under the guidance of Douglas Feith) whose sole purpose was to introduce into the policymaking body data and information which had been rejected by the intelligence community as unfounded—the entire work of the intelligence community cannot be dismissed out of hand, especially when it publishes a major finding which clashes with the position held by an activist administration. The fact that the U.S. intelligence community and the Bush administration do not agree on the specifics of how Iran constitutes a threat to America in and of itself begs intervention in the form of congressional oversight. It is not unpatriotic for Congress to hold hearings for the purpose of discerning the facts surrounding a given policy. When such policies involve war or the threat of war, the need is even more imperative, and the failure of Congress to act accordingly represents a dereliction of duty which must not be ignored by the American people, whom Congress purports to represent.

“WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to cause untold thousands of American and Iranian casualties, lead to major economic dislocations, and threaten a much wider and more disastrous war in the Middle East.”

While it is currently in vogue for ideologues and proponents of neoconservative ideology to promote a “limited airstrike” against Iran, anyone with any military experience will point out that no plan survives initial contact with the enemy. The Iranian government will have a say in how it will choose to respond in case of an unprovoked American military strike, however limited it might be. Any Iranian retaliation might prompt an American counter-retaliation, and one might find a limited strike quickly spiraling out of control and threatening full-scale conflagration. The American economy has been bankrupted by the war in Iraq, and the American military, especially the Army and Marines, is stretched to its breaking point. While an argument can be made that any limited strike would rely primarily on the resources of the Air Force and Navy, if the conflict escalates, this will no longer be the case. Given the fact that any attack on Iran would represent an elective war rather than a war of national security, there is no compelling reasoning which cites the so-called national interest for the United States to consider any military action against Iran, either now or in the future. 

“WHEREAS, a pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran would violate international law and our commitments under the U.N. Charter and further isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world.”

Most Americans remain ignorant of the laws which govern our nation, and the document which serves as the foundation of these laws. The United States Constitution, in Article 6, declares that international treaties and agreements ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate become the supreme law of the land. The United States is a signatory to the charter of the United Nations, and the charter has been ratified by the U.S. Senate. As such, the United States is bound by international law and its own Constitution to not only reject pre-emptive warfare (a notion cited by the Nuremburg tribunals as the greatest of all war crimes, since it is from pre-emptive war of aggression that all other war crimes are born), but note that the United States can justify going to war only as a result of legitimate self-defense (i.e., in response to an attack), per Article 51 of the U.N. charter, or as a result of a Chapter VII resolution of the United Nations Security Council authorizing the use of military force. 

The Bush administration violated every legal principle the United States claims to represent, internationally and domestically, when it pre-emptively invaded Iraq in 2003, without provocation and void of any Chapter VII authorization. Two wrongs do not make a right, and it is imperative that the Congress take action to make sure that the administration is not permitted to embark on a similarly illegal and illegitimate course of action regarding Iran. 


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 27, 2008 at 3:25 am Link to this comment

By Rus7355, June 26 at 6:01 pm #

“The conversation between Beck and myself has little to do with Israel. The conversation was in regards to a threat assessment of Iran. Not Israel”.

Maybe someone should do a threat assessment on Israel, it is their provocative banter which is increasing tensions in that region.  Iran wouldn’t be an issue if Israel would quit making daily war threats.

Who do you think is pushing the U.S. down this path to war? 

“I find your constant focus on Israel tedious and myopic in focus. That single minded bigotry is unhelpful”.

Unhelpful to whom?  Get use to it.

Report this

By cyrena, June 26, 2008 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment

•  “..In Lebanon we saw 182 American Marines blown up during a peace keeping mission. We saw the Khobar Towers blown up in Saudi Arabia. Each of those actions are internationally recognized acts of war.”

Wrong again Russ7777, because it was NOT a peacekeeping mission, and the US was on the sovereign territory of another state. Regardless of whether or not you’ll ever accept it Russ, state sovereignty is KEY to international law. It is THE HIGHEST priority in International relations between nation states. The US doesn’t own Lebanon, and the US doesn’t own Saudi Arabia, and the US doesn’t own Iraq or Afghanistan, no matter how much you wish that to be true.

The USS Cole was sabotaged/terrorized in 2000, as it was illegally docked at Yemen. Many sailors were killed and injured. One of the parents of one of the sailors sued the US Pentagon for wrongful death of her sailor son, and she won the case.

She won because Yemen was NOT on the plan for the USS Cole, not even for a pass -thru, let along an extended stay. Let me repeat. There are international laws that all nations are expected to abide. When ANY country encroaches upon the sovereign soil/territory of another nation state; THAT is an act of war.

It is a breach of the Geneva Conventions, unless the encroaching state has obtained a resolution from the UN Security Council. Understand that Russ, because it isn’t going to change. It’s based on customary law, and it’s been codified.

The attack on the embassy in Iran is an exception, because in legal terms, that building…the Embassy, is actually US sovereign territory. So, that would obviously be taken into the proper context, if it were ever to be addressed in an international court. But, I think the Iranians made it clear that they didn’t want the US interfering in their affairs any longer, and they had much to be annoyed about, after the CIA overthrew the democratically elected and very popular president Mossadegh, in 1954. As you should well know, that was because Mossadegh was in the process of nationalizing that country’s oil industry, which would have left the Brits out of the action. This is the standard procedure for US take-overs of the past half-century, (in some cases longer) and at some point in time, ALL members of the US population WILL become as educated about these events as are the members of the nations that have been subjected to these take-overs.

Patrick Henry,

Thanks for your post #165661. I too appreciated the response from Beck, and yours as well.

Something has slowly ‘dawned’ on me in the past several weeks, in reference to Russ7whatever. My guess, (and admittedly, that’s all it is) is that Russ is a member of one of the many subversive groups who are violently opposed to the current Iranian regime, and are willing to assist in the destruction of that nation state, if that’s what is required to overthrow that regime.

The current US regime has long since organized these various groups of ‘dissidents’ both here and inside Iran. The US is ALSO using al-Qaeda to launch aggressions against the Iranians as well.

The worst of it is that our money is funding these operations as well, and an additional ‘guess’ is that Russ whomever, is a recipient of such funds, and highly likely is paid to post anti-Iranian propaganda on these and other blogs.

Needless to say, it is the epitome of perfidy and treason, (if he were an Iranian himself, and I don’t know that he is…there are many US operatives involved, beyond just the CIA, which is pretty standard). But, that will hopefully explain the nature of his obnoxious posts. There IS a reason. He has a job to do, as a subversive troll operative.

Just a couple of links that might provide some background.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/060407Anti-Iranian.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/16/usnews.iran/print

Report this

By Beck, June 26, 2008 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rus7355:  I’m not confusing border incursion with war.  I was only pointing out an exception in a long list of hostile actions against Iranian over the last couple hundred years where the people and government of Iran have been more than reasonable in their defense.

You state “the current Iranian government is made up of some of the most aggressive in the world” (assuming you mean with respect to foreign policy) without real evidence.  Other than the taking of the American hostages, which began during the chaos of a revolution and was never planned, none of those other actions were performed by Iranians.  Are you arguing that Iran cannot attempt to strengthen its position or financially support allies (or enemies of its enemies) in the region? 

Should the US be completely responsible for all the atrocities committed by Israel against Palestinians, Saddam against the Kurds and Shiites, Musharraf against democracy in Pakistan, Contras in Nicaragua, Noriega in Panama, Marcos in Philippines…  The list goes on and on.  How about US support for the Shah of Iran against his own people?  Or how about US support for the MEK/PMOI against the Iranian government right now, an organization which the State Department itself lists as a Marxist Muslim terrorist organization.  I’m sorry but you’re paltry list of weak ties pales in comparison. 

I am not arguing that the current Iranian government is decent or what the people of Iran deserve.  I just don’t see where you get the “most aggressive” in terms of foreign policy.  Why do you not believe that the Saudis (or the US indirectly) are “most aggressive” when they support some of the same organizations in Israel/Palestine and Lebanon?

Now to this “goals of hegemony over the region”, you might first want to look up the meaning of “hegemony”, since it implies a certain amount of consent by those being dominated.  Iran has always had a strong influence in the Middle East.  That’s why Israel and Iran were allies before the revolution and why according to some reports Israel sold arms to Iran after the revolution during the Iran-Iraq War.  As everyone has pointed out at this point, it is the foreign policy of our current administration, which has embolden the leaders of Iran to believe that they can increase hegemony (using the accurate meaning for that word) in the region.  This administration certainly has not provide a role model or standard which we would like others to follow.

Lastly, without saying directly, you have made your position know.  You believe bombing Iran (military action less of invasion) is the final solution assuming that they don’t just roll over to US demands.  You do realize that this is not going to be like the simple Israeli bombing of one nuclear power plant in Iraq?  After looking over the map of nuclear facilities, military resources, and regionally vulnerabilities, do you truly believe that an unprovoked bombing will prevent Iran (or the remnants remaining) from obtaining nuclear weapons someday and therefore be in the best interests of the US?

I think in the end you have already made up your mind about what action to take without truely thinking about the consequences.  Why else provoke someone into the exact behavior which you are trying to prevent?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 26, 2008 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

By Beck, June 26 at 7:08 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Very true, good post.

By Rus7355, June 26 at 11:54 am #

Your obviously with the Israel first crowd.  If Israel makes a first strike against Iran, they deserve the losses they get, if the U.S. intervenes, I hope open revolution against the U.S. government begins as unpopular this act of war would be.

The Israel-Arab conflicts in the middleast have bled the United States financially for decades, the cost of waging war on the other side of the world for really no reason and my government borrowing the money to do it. 

Cut off all AID to Israel and withdraw all our troops from Iraq and Afganistan and gas would plummet.  More pressing matters here in America.

Report this

By Beck, June 26, 2008 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rus7355:  It’s been a while since anyone has posted, but I thought I’d respond to your last point in a respectful and thorough way.  I don’t think any reasonable person would disagree that an Iran with nuclear weapons is a threat to the region, just as a Pakistan with nuclear weapons is, or an Israel for that matter.  The question at hand (then and now still) is the following:  What is the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining those weapsons or at least slowing them down from rushing to obtain those weapons?

Although you never say so directly, your constant repetition of English translations of the Iranian president’s Persian words suggest you believe that Iran would irrationally use such weapons on Israel.  Isn’t that the only connection between those quotes and your point that the rest of the world views Iran obtaining nuclear weapon a threat (which I’ve already admitted is obviously true)?

In fact, Iran has hundreds if not thousands of years of history in it’s defense that it has been a peaceful nation.  Other than a minor incursion into Afghanistan roughly 150 years ago, Iran has not started a war in several hundred years.  What other countries can say the same? 

Would such a country with a proud and long history blow it all away in some mutual destruction with Israel?  Now try to go back and reinterpret some of those Persian quotes, considering words such as “regime” instead of “Israel” and “collapse” instead of “destroy”.  I’ll boldly suggest that a “regime” where citizenship and conscription is based on one’s religion must change or it will “collapse”.  Does that make me anti-Semitic as well?

Rus7355:  So again, I ask you (if you’re still around), how do you propose we prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

BTW, although I’m an Iranian American, I am first and foremost an American born and raised.  I put my country and it’s defense first.  I would hope any Jewish American (even if they have dual citizenship) would do the same.  America will always be the best!  We just need (and the world expects us) to live up to that ideal.

Report this

By cyrena, May 18, 2008 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment

Nabih,

AGAIN…my thanks to you for your continuing gifts of knowledge. That is how I receive every post from you; as a gift of knowledge/information that I would not otherwise have known, or had to the proper tools with which to research or discover on my own.

Indeed, I’ve ALWAYS known that none of the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad, (or any other of the previous and current leaders in the Middle East) was ever intended as Israel and the West have chosen to interpret it, bastardizing it in the process. And then, they use it to create an entirely contrary image (to the rest of the world)of what the reality actually is.

It is from this that comes (I think) the ‘myth’ that Iranian and other leaders speak of in reference to the Holocaust. In so far as any ‘connection’ to the Middle East and the genocides that have occured THERE, it IS a myth.

Anyway, thanks again. I don’t speak or understand Arabic (or Persian) at even the most basic of levels, and I’ve admitted being ‘scared off’ from undertaking any study of it, just because I’ve been forewarned that it is a very difficult language to learn, and that it does require full attention. (like, I probably couldn’t study much else at the same time). Still, I’m very anxious to understand the CORRECT interpretation of whatever pretains to the on-going struggle for self-determination for SO MUCH of the Arab and other Islamic peoples of the world, and specifically in the Middle East. To do that requires some knowledge of the language, or at least a professional helper who can interpret it for us.

So, I’ve saved this to my collection of much have information. Thanks again.

cyrena

Report this

By Nabih Ammari, May 18, 2008 at 6:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re:Ahmadinejad Calls For Israel’s Destruction May 15

“Ahmadinejad used an Arabic word,Ismihlal,that can be translated as destruction,death and collapse.”

Being fluent in the Arabic language,including Arabic
grammar,composition,knowledge of Arabic poetry,prose
and even in interpretations of some verses of the Holy Qura’n,I feel that I must make the following comments:

The Iranian President meant to say Idhmihlal”,not
“Ismihlal”.Perhaps,when “Idhmihlal” is pronounced in
the Farisi language of Iran becomes “Ismihlal”, precisely as the British/West has degenerated “Jabal Tariq” into “Gibraltar”.“jabal Tariq” in Arabic means the “Mountain of Tariq”.Do not take my word for that, Just Google:

Jabal Tariq=Gibraltar?

and you will get plenty of information reconfirming
what I have just stated.Similarly,the Arabic words
Makhazin became Magazine,Salah Eddeen became Saladin,
Al-Jbr became Algebra.These just few of so many Arabic originated words remain unknown to the average readers of the English language.

Now,returning to the definition of the correct Arabic
word"Idhmihlal”,what does it really mean? Answer:

“Idhmihlal” means decomposing from within such as
meat,vegetables and fresh foods in general,as it is stored improperly for a rather long period of time.
To change the meaning of the word “Idhmihlal” from
decomposition from within to destruction,death and
collapse out of ignorance is quite understandable.
It is not understandable,however,as the intention
is to agitate and propagandize for Israel’s war drums
for war against Iran.

The group of cohorts who must be held accountable for the emergence of Iran as the regional super power in
the Middle East are those who pushed hard and fast for the invasion of Iraq and toppling its SECULAR regime which had proven that it had the ability and capacity to keep Iran in constant check and real worry.The conquest of Iraq and the destruction of its
infrastructures which the Iraqi people depended upon for their daily lively-hood are war crimes of the first order of magnitude,according to well known International Laws and the 4th Accord of the Geneva Convention.Period.To repeat the same crimes against Iran is absolute madness and total insanity. 

Ignorance or distortion of the rhetoric of the Iranian President,Ahmadinejad,will not bring peace
to the people of the Middle East including Israel, nor will it solve any of the Middle East’s complex problems.

HONESTY is the prerequisite to achieve JUSTICE and
eventually PEACE to all the people of the Middle East.Can the agitators for war wise-up and be honest
with themselves first,and the rest of us second??
Sincerely,
Nabih Ammari
An Independent in Ohio

Report this

By mrmb, May 18, 2008 at 9:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Neo-crazies stop at nothing. Read below.

US plan for Lebanon attack revealed
Sun, 18 May 2008 18:13:12
Israeli intelligence sources have revealed that the US had given the green light to Israel to attack Lebanon’s Hezbollah on May 11th.

They said that, on May 10, the US government urged the Israeli army to launch a fierce military strike on Southern and Western Beirut as well as other Lebanese regions, DEBKA website which is close to Israeli intelligence agency reported.

May eleven was the day when Hezbollah forces were engaged in street battles with opposition militiamen in Beirut and other Lebanese regions.

Two controversial decsions made by the pro-US ruling majority against Hezbollah’s telecommunication network and Beirut Airport’s Security Chief mounted tensions in Lebanon.

“Israel failed to grasp a historic opportunity to get rid of one of its four enemies (Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, and Hamas). This would certainly lead to the destruction of Hezbollah,” DEBKA quoted a senior US military source as saying.

The report said US president George W. Bush had promised not to postpone his May 14 visit to Israel even if the Israeli army was still fighting in Lebanon and Hezbollah struck back against Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion airport.

American intelligence estimated that Hezbollah could retaliate by firing only 600 missiles into northern Israel.

Israeli premier Ehud Olmert, war minister Ehud Barak, foreign minister Tzipi Livni were the only officials who were informed about the US secret plan, the report added.

Olmert, Barak and Livni decided not to intervene and cancelled the operation at the last moment. The decision outraged hawkish echelons in the Bush administration.

On May 11, Olmert called Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his allies, majority leader Saad Hariri, Druze politician Walid Jumblatt and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and informed them there would be no Israeli strike against Hezbollah.

According to the plan Israeli Air force were to bombard Hezbollah’s positions.

This would provide the pro-government forces with an opportunity to attack Hezbollah forces. Israeli tanks would simultaneously drive into the South and head towards Beirut, the report said.

Israel and its staunch ally, the US, have long been seeking to destroy Hezbollah’s military capabilities particularly after the Arab resistance group inflicted a humiliating defeat upon the Zionist regime in the 33-day war in 2006.

Pundits say Israel failed to go ahead with the plan because of the military deterrence of Hezbollah.

Report this

By prosefights, May 16, 2008 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment

Dr mamoud ahmadi nejad?

best

http://www.prosefights.org/thecanadian/thecanadian.htm

Report this

By prosefights, May 16, 2008 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.

cheers

http://www.prosefights.org/bakhtiardead/bakhtiardead.htm

Report this

By cyrena, May 14, 2008 at 11:39 pm Link to this comment

You’re right of course Johnathon, but there IS a reason for it, having nothing to do with Iran and nukes of course. It was part of the plan all along. And then too, as Louise mentioned a while back, they’ve got all of these new war toys they’re anxious to play with.

There was a piece I read earlier today, (though I can’t find it right now) with Gates saying pretty much the same thing. He wants them to use all of the new equipment NOW. (he didn’t specifically say to use it on Iran, but the plans are all in the works, and have been for a long time).

Meantime, I don’t think the letter from Conyers is ‘pointless’ but rather a reminder of the way the Constitution is set up, which is of course to remind that it is only CONGRESS that can declare war. Now of course you’re right that stuff like the Constitution doesn’t stop this regime from doing whatever they’ve planned or want to do, but it’s still not a bad idea to educate or re-aquaint the public (that’s us) with the basic concepts of that blueprint for our government that we call a democracy. And, that is that the executive branch can’t just decide to wage a war on Iran without an approval from the Congress.

In reality, the wording of the original ‘permission’ that Congress gave for Iraq, could be taken as continuing ‘permission’ to bomb anybody that Dick Bush wants to claim is involved in ‘terrorism’ and of course he ‘decides’ that.

So, in that respect, the notice from Conyers may not do any good, but I hate to call it pointless, since after more than 7 years, it’s about time for there to be some opposition to the destruction of the Constitution by the fascists in charge.

It isn’t really a resolution though, (at least not if you’re talking about the same thing that I think you are). As far as I know, the fascists aren’t planning to request a resolution from the UN. They didn’t get one to invade Iraq, so I doubt they’d even consider such an effort for Iran. Beides, there’s no time. They have to be into this before Dick Bush leaves office.

Report this

By Jonathon, May 14, 2008 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

as just got to stop.  Aren’t we already in TWO of them!?  Our troops are already exhausted, our economy is all smoke and mirrors.  So how can this administration even think of starting another invasion?  Somebody please tell me this isn’t serious. 

By the way that whole resolution thing is just pointless.  Voicing our opinion against anything really is not enough.  When was the last time the elite gave a damn what poor Americans thought?  They’ve done it before and they will do it again.  If they want a war they will have war. 

So WHAT if Iran got a Nuclear warhead!?  Big deal.  Who doesn’t have wmds?  They have no reason to nuke us.  That is unless we invade them which would make it our fault.  We instigate terrorism and war.  We want them to have nuclear weapons.  We might as well just had them one.

Report this

By cyrena, May 14, 2008 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

Non Credo,

I ditto Evillive.

So, I guess I won’t say it again. Well, maybe I could add that the US (and any other nation states obligated to the NPT) are supposed to ASSIST the non-nuclear states in the developement of this technology that can be used for useful civilian purposes.

That’s quite the opposite of threatening to destroy them for attempting to acquire it.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 14, 2008 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

The tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots from time to time….

Report this

By cyrena, May 14, 2008 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

I must acknowledge that Conyers has disappointed before. Can’t deny it. And, I’m not certain of all the reasons. But, I’m willing to pay attention to this latest effort, if for no other reason than the fact that it IS one.

Report this

By jan dod, May 14, 2008 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Although Iran is not considering having it presently, Iran will have to make a decision to have her hands on couple of Nukes after we force them to do it. If Iran still resist, we will increase our threat accordingly. For example by passing say secret information via a third party that if they do acquire some nukeler bombs, we will certainly attack them perhaps using nukeler bombs! As a proof, we will point them Iraq as an example. We will tell if Iraq had nukeler bombs, we would have never dared to attack and destroy it. Once we make them do it, we will have all the excuses we needed convince ourselves to increase our military budget!
They also may think of making a nukeler bomb delivery method since we mistakenly provided them complete blue prints for making it. We wanted to pass them some incorrect blue prints to confuse them and keep them busy for years. The provider unknowingly added the missing information before final delivery!

P.S. I spelled nukeler to be consistent with some scholars!

Report this

By prosefights, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

We’re going to ask retired FBI agent Wayne R Gilbert for suggestions

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/fbifoia/fbifoia.htm#towayne

Dear President Carter:

An unfortunate situation resulting from your administration’s decision by apparently Zibigniew Brzezinski to incite Saddam Hussein to attack Iran in 1980 requires your immediate help to try to resolve peacefully. ..

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsalawsuit/nsalawsuit.htm#carter

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, May 14, 2008 at 8:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

people who approbate what US does have been rendered semantically blind.
they know so much that isn’t so. and who can blame them for it? it could have hap’d to me. just thinking ab. it scares me.
the history of US is being written by the plutocratic class and not a housewife or hobo. they need not apply for the job.
a caveat anent the word “housewife”. in my usage, the label is not dysphemistic. it means that from childhood on, a housewife is permitted to ‘know’ only so much.
and of what little she knows, 98% may be false to fact.
and i’v been there and done that. i’v watched john waine’s movies; i’v read corporate media; i too thought US was a democracy.
but some 30 yrs ago the devil of my own rescued me from the quagmire.
he tells me all i need to know; and he knows; after all he chums with baal,yahweh, god, and allah.
all four of these idiots were/are semitic.
yahweh must be turning in his grave seeing now ashkenazim being whiter than he.
he’l get even with them, says the devil of my own.  thank u.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, May 14, 2008 at 5:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

as far as i know american people r just like any other people.
i cannot hold them responsible for what their despots do.
can i flog a blind horse for eating some dung along weeds, and some hay? no, of course, not.
amers, canadians, russians, french, et al have been eating dung/weeds/hay for millennia.
so, why flog the serfs?
yes, folks i was once like that but thank the devil of my own, i’m no longer anyone’s intellectual slave.

Report this

By cyrena, May 14, 2008 at 1:32 am Link to this comment

I’ve copied this from the Truthout site to share on this thread, since it couldn’t be more appropriate.

I’m sharing with my local organizations as well, including those that have been committed to the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney. (nope, we haven’t given up). The full letter is contained at the link.


~Editor’s Note: Although this document, authored by House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr., contains a direct appeal for political action
we feel it is nonetheless striking. It is news unto itself. As such we offer it as news. ma/TO~

From: The office of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr.
May 8, 2008

Join Me in Calling on President Bush to Respect Congress’ Exclusive Power to
Declare War

Dear Democratic Colleague:

As we mark five years of war in Iraq, I have become increasingly concerned that the President may possibly take unilateral, preemptive military action against Iran. During the last seven years, the Bush Administration has exercised unprecedented assertions of Executive Branch power and shown an unparalleled aversion to the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution’s framers. The letter that follows asks President Bush to seek congressional authorization before launching any possible military strike against Iran and affirms Senator Biden’s statement last year that impeachment proceedings should be considered if the President fails to do so.

I hope that you will join me in calling on the President to respect Congress’
exclusive power to declare war. To sign the letter below, please contact the Judiciary Committee staff at 225-3951.

Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman

The letter and all appropriate citations is at the link below.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051308A.shtml

Report this

By cyrena, May 14, 2008 at 1:04 am Link to this comment

Johanna,

The people in Iran are still friendly, knowledgable and courteous. That hasn’t changed.

I wasn’t around at the time of Mossadeq’s overthrow, but I’ve read much about it, and it makes ME cry. The Iranians loved him, and had he NOT been overthrown by the CIA/US we can assure that Iran would have a totally different regime. The Theocratic regime was only a reaction to that, and that’s exactly what happens in a coup of any sort.

The horrible reality is that the US has done this in so many nations. Someone else mentioned here that Ahmadinejad would never have been elected if Bush hadn’t decided to tell the Iranian people that they were part of an “Axis of Evil”. I might not have understood what they meant say 5 or 6 years ago, because I didn’t know that much about the politics of Iran at that time in their history.

But, it makes all the sense in the world, if we simply consider the political mindset of ANY group of people anywhere. (except maybe the US under a fascist regime as we have now.)

The reaction to such threats from a ‘superpower’ would be to elect a conservative person who can sprout just as much bullshit as our own regime, and someone who appears to take a hard line, because of the hard, intolerant bullying that has come from the bullier. (GW Bush).

And, because GW is so totally stupid in his arrogance, neither he or any of his so-called advisors or puppet masters seem capable of acknowledging common logic. If you attack somebody, they are likely to bite back, even if it’s only in the form of rhetoric.

So, the Iranians elected Ahmadinejad as their spokesperson. He is certainly NOT the only voice that speaks from the Iranian regime, but I don’t find him any more bellicose than what we have here, in the form of Dick Bush, and he’s considerably more intelligent than either of them.

Report this

By fidelio, May 13, 2008 at 9:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What trouble me more than evreything is the fact that no one from the people whom wanted or pushed,wrote for it,ensured the world that they knew the truth,and made the invasion of Irak,no one of them was punished and even almost no one exprimed any regret.In such conditions,namely Irak’s invasion is a fact without any importance,the same people who push for war then,make this again.For what have to be punished ms.Ahmadinejad?Because he said,differently of how was translated,that the sionist regime should go.Yes,many people think so like Tony Caron,for instance or Illan Pappe,or even Avraham Burg.Nevertheless they didn’t become evil just Ahmadinejad did.In brief the actual “logic” demands american intervention in Iran because a"threatening sentence” but not a punishment is considered neccessary for a criminal war in Irak ,nor for the makers, neither for the pushers

Report this

By cyrena, May 13, 2008 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for posting this interview with Morris Motamed. I was aware that he was the only Jewish minister in the Iranian parliament, but I’d never come across any opportunities to hear from him.

Thanks again.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, May 13, 2008 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

let’s simplify it please.
US has TRUTH1; russia TRUTH2; china TRUTH3; iran TRUTH4; israel TRUTH5 and so on.
so, what now? so many truths, so many wars? is that it?
or we can assume that only US has the TRUTH. so, what now? well, now we establish for all time that all others have falsehoods and not just for a day but for an eternity.
so, what is the problem for those who approbate all or most of what US does?
i do not see need to get excited. not only that US has the truth and, by silent implication, justice, fairness, prudence, goodwill, etc., it also has wmd, warships cruising oceans, army bases in many lands , satellite spying, etc. 
so, why do not lands like US and do not accord US the right to rule the world?
are these people that dumb? a subspecie? that cannot perceive the simplest of issues, such as america being the fairest of them all.
and being, ooh so good and kindhearted, cannot extirpate some of these untermneschen to teach them a lesson? is this the message warsellers are puting across to us who hate what america does? thank u

Report this

By mill, May 13, 2008 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

I doubt the current president of iran would have won office if the US president had not labelled Iran as part of an “axis of evil”

the US and Iranian presidents feed on each others bellicosity

the staffs of the Iranian and American presidents are apparently filled with policy flame-throwers who are not themselves in harms way when bombs are set off, otherwise they’d think harder about imposing such violence on everyone else

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 13, 2008 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment

Absolutely Cyrena.

You know Obama had to pass the “smell test” lest all the editors from the major news mags descend upon him at the early stage of his candidacy. 

Its still not over and he will come under increasing scrutiny of the zionist press, who will mis-report, lie and sensationalize minor gaffs 24/7.

Once he is in office, I pray he cleans house of these vermin.

Report this

By cyrena, May 13, 2008 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

I stand corrected on my lack of complete information on Obama’s comments on Israel…Just read this from the NYT From Obama.

•  “I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and his decision to meet with Hamas,” Mr. Obama said last month in a speech to Jewish leaders in Philadelphia. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction.”

Ok, I personally have a ‘fundamental difference’ with Sen. Obama on this, specifically the wording, and it is THIS wording…

“A terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction”
First, I don’t consider Hamas a ‘terrorist group’. Rather, they are a group that formed as a result of the Occupation of Palestinian lands, and the failure of Israel to ever abide by any of the dozen or more resolutions and other agreements as negotiated.
I’m also tired of hearing the rhetoric about them being ‘intent on Israel’s destruction’. That is old stuff, and it’s no different OR worse than the rhetoric that comes from the US or anybody else. It’s definitely WORDS, which have absolutely no possibility of becoming reality in the face of what is obviously Israel’s mighty war machine, and the non-existence of anything even close for Hamas.
It’s about as ridiculous as the hypothetical question of what would happen if Iran attacked Israel with nukes. They won’t and they can’t, because they don’t have any. Israel has plenty. So, this is stupid language to continue perpetrating. Nobody is in a position, (aside from the US) to undertake the destruction of Israel, even if Israel DID have defined borders, which is does not.
As for Obama remarking at all on Jimmy Carter’s visit there as a private citizen, and as a known diplomat who has often brokered agreements, Obama should have simply refrained from commenting on it at all!!

Then there’s this:

•  “Asked if he thought Israel was a “drag on America’s reputation overseas,” he said it was not. But, referring to tensions in the Middle East, he said: “What I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions.”
I disagree and believe that Israel IS a drag on our reputation overseas, but it’s not the largest of my concerns, and I wouldn’t have expected him to answer any differently. At least he (Obama) DID make reference to the connection, even if he worded it more diplomatically, by calling it a wound, that DOES affect all of our foreign policy. Because we already KNOW that it provides a reason for militant actions.

He also said this:
•  “I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism,” Mr. Obama said in the interview. “That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel.”
And, I don’t have any ‘fundamental’ problems with this either. The much larger issue that is being avoided here, is that I’m sure that nobody is trying to deny the existence of a ‘secure Jewish state’ since that would be ludicrous. The state of Israel has existed for 60 years. The POINT is that Israel cannot and should not be ‘securing their existence’ by the genocide and long term acts of violence against the Palestinians, and there is NO denying that it’s what they continue to do!
And, THAT’S what Obama should have said, but of course then he might as well have kissed it all goodbye. In other words…YES, let Israel be a secure Jewish State, and let them also allow for the Palestinians to have a secure existence that doesn’t keep them in a lifetime prison.

Report this

By dicl, May 13, 2008 at 7:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The power elite want wars; they are profitable. Israel wants us to attack Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc.The power elite are also pro-Israel. Thus, continuous war is here to stay, regardless of who is elected. The only party is the Power Elite Party.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, May 13, 2008 at 6:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Russ,
according to reports iran does arm hezbos. however, not with cluster bombs, tanks, jetfighters, artillery, etc.
neither lebanon nor iran has ever invaded israel. israel has invaded lebanon three times.
US has invaded other countries dozens of times;some of them sevaral times.
so, iranian “meddling”  cannot be equated with invasions by israel and US.
US and israel supports lebanese factions who are against hezbos and amal.
on what principle r US/israel/eu involved in warfare/politics of lebanon or any land?
to my knowledge, none? they can get involved in other lands’ affairs and hezbo cannot get involved in other lands’ business or in US warfare/politics.
i am not an american. so, i don’t know what schools in US teach.
i understand that children think that it was USSR who nuked hironaga which is an unparallled atrocity.
thank u.

Report this

By Expat, May 13, 2008 at 6:01 am Link to this comment

By Rus7355, May 12 at 10:40 am #
(19 comments total)
Re: Re: Why Not Take a Stand Against
“And yes, if you travel the globe the most often heard complaint about Americans is what I indicated in my previous post. The complaint is that the American people (not the U.S. government or it’s policies There is a distinction there you missed.) tend to be self involved and know little about world events.”
Actually having lived abroad for more than 5 years: The thing I hear is the opposite; to wit, “Americans are okay but the American government is really bad (polite word); where have you been?

Your distinction misses the point.  It is precisely the point that Americans are ignorant of anything out side of the U.S.; that is the problem.  It is because of this provincialism/ignorance, Americans allow their government to implement the imperialist policies throughout the world and more specifically at this time in the Middle East.  It is precisely this ignorance (combined with a campaign of fear) that allows American citizens to accept the lies and to be propagandized, that allows this criminal government to continue its blatantly illegal policies abroad.  You state you do not want a war with Iran but equivocate when questioned about our jingoist rhetoric.  Make no mistake; Bush/Cheney beat the war drums and march toward Iran exactly as they did for the war in Iraq.  Fool me once, okay; damn me if it’s twice!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 13, 2008 at 3:53 am Link to this comment

This goes hand in hand with Israel’s claim that Iran is arming the Palestinian militants.  (Take my house and land and kill my family and I’d be a militant too.)

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/4886

Report this

By jonesy, May 13, 2008 at 2:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There seems to be several claims here
that Hezbollah has targeted and killed
Americans. Did I miss something?
When did this happen? It didn’t.
The reason that people think it did
is because of propaganda.

Report this

By Johanna Swaag, May 13, 2008 at 1:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am old enough to remember in old black and white footage the overthrow of Mossadeq, he was crying and
made a great impression on me.  If the meddling USA had not overthrown him America would not be in this
position today.  Also I have visited Iran although it
was 30 years ago and I cannot stress enough that the people I met were friendly knowledgable and courtious.

Report this

By cyrena, May 13, 2008 at 1:17 am Link to this comment

•  “Regarding Iran’s support to Hamas and Hezbollah: I do know that the President of Iran, Ahmadi-Nejad, and the Supreme Leader, Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, have on several occasions voiced their strong and collective support for both Hamas and Hezbollah as “freedom fighters” and “Brothers of good will”. And in the last gathering of Arab nations Ahmadi-Nejad pressed attendees to do the same (that is a matter of public record, my friend).”

Yes, this is a matter of public record. My response is SO WHAT? In my own very extensive study of both these organizations, I find it very reasonable that they’ve been considered as ‘freedom fighters’ and “Brothers of good will’ and I can state unequivocally that MANY scholars and researchers of the 60-year old conflict in the Middle East have suggested the same. They are most CERTAINLY considered that by the population they serve. Specifically, Hezbollah has been the ONLY means for even the most basic of social services for that population: food, water, shelter, etc. In FACT..that was their original mission. 

So yeah, for as long as either of these groups have been around, and for as long as they’ve been subjected to the genocidal practices of Israel, they’ve been fighting for their independence, and to survive. No doubt there are MANY people who view Hamas and Hezbollah as ‘freedom fighters’ or “Brothers of good will.” For you to tell me that the Iranians have voiced the same is of little relevance to anyone (in the entire world) who has witnessed this 60 year old genocide of the Palestinian people. It’s like, so what else is new russ?

More importantly russ, how does THAT make the leap to Iran being ‘sponsors of terrorism’? There are a whole bunch of dots missing in your connections here, and that’s why I called you out on it.

•  “you appear unaware of the IAEA’s official position regarding the Iranian government not being “forthcoming”, and it’s “stalling” and the “misdirection” on the matter.

No russ, I’m NOT UNaware of anything the IAEA has published in respect to Iran’s Nuclear Program, and I’ve seen all of Iran’s paperwork as well. There is nothing in the Iran folder/dossier maintained by IAEA that claims any ‘official’ position. The most RECENT conclusions of the IAEA is that there is NO EVIDENCE that Iran is now, has been, or is likely to be in the process of developing nuclear weapons, and if there was an ‘official position’ THAT WOULD BE IT! The most recent NIE from the US intelligence sources says THE SAME! The ONLY thing that the IAEA cannot do, is to prove beyond all scientific certainty, that Iran NEVER WILL, because of something as simple as this..NO ONE CAN ‘PROVE’ A NEGATIVE! Period. If doesn’t exist, you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist.

So the best that the morons and terrorists in the White House can do, is to claim that Iran has the INTENT to do something in the future, even though they have absolutely NOTHING to base that on, aside from the fact that there was a period of time in the 70’s- 80’s when Iran did not submit the required declarations to the IAEA. Meantime, Israel’s been sitting on an ARSENAL of nukes for over 20 years, and have NEVER submitted to International monitoring, and won’t sign the NPT!

As for Iran’s history, I’m well aware of it, and further back than 30 years. So, maybe you need to check back further yourself, to when the CIA destabilized THAT democratically established government as well, by overthrowing Mossadeq, and installing the US puppet the Shah. Do you know why the US directed the CIA to overthrow that government? Well, same reason they destabilize MOST foreign governments…Mossadeq was planning to nationalize Iran’s OIL industry, which was of course at the time, under the control of the Brits and the US. That’s just ONE of the countries where the US has performed ‘regime change’ in the past 60 years.

Report this

By cyrena, May 13, 2008 at 1:16 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2

As for this….

•  “Let us forget for a minute that over the last thirty (30) years Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism for its activities, very specifically in Lebanon, very specifically to Hezbollah, and remains subject to US and U.N. economic sanctions and export controls because of its continued involvement in terrorism and conventional weapons proliferation, and simply take Ahmadi-nejad and Khamenei at their word that they support these two groups.”

“DESIGNATED’ by WHOM? The US?!! Please. You can ‘designate’ me the same if you want, because of that fertilizer I keep in my garden shed, but that doesn’t make it so. And the US can’t ‘designate’ ANY other country as a ‘state sponsor of terrorism’ for their ‘activities’ as long as we still have troops stationed in 140 countries on the globe, and are routinely pitching bombs out of our mighty fleet and killing millions of innocent civilians!! As of now..CIVILLIANS in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and others that I probably haven’t heard about in the past few days, continue to die and be wounded by US bombs from overhead. Meantime, we’ve got 8 warships in the Persian Gulf, several of them sitting on Irans front porch. Please.

And no, I’ve yet to hear or read that Ahmadinejad or ANYONE ELSE in the Iranian regime has claimed to ‘support’ Hezbollah or Hamas, aside from calling them ‘freedom fighters’ and “Brothers of good will” and I’ve already explained exactly why they are viewed in that light. In case you missed it, Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinian people, except of course that the US didn’t like their choice, so I guess they decided to just ‘designate’ them as a terrorist group.

The only reason for the sanctions on Iran are because the US keeps insisting that they’re developing nuclear WEAPONS, despite what the IAEA has said, and the IAEA isn’t ON the security council. The US holds the geopolitical power on the UN, (though not enough to get a resolution to attack Iraq, which is why they withdrew the request and just went ahead with an illegal invasion and occupation) so none of this surprises me of the past 8 years. We have terrorists running the show in the US, and we have all of the military might. As far as the US regime is concerned, might makes right. They’ll do what we tell them to do or we’ll just bomb the shit out of them. Isn’t that right, russ? Or, just ‘designate’ them as state sponsors of terrorism. I think I’ll just keep believing the ACTION that I see, rather than the ‘words’ that you want me to ‘take them at’ which amount to nothing more than the truth anyway, as I see it. You call ‘em terrorists, and I see them as freedom fighters. It’s all in the eyes of the beholders and the victims of the aggression.

I mean, this was all decided so long ago anyway, when the PNAC came up with their ‘clean break’ project to rule the ME and all of its resources. Then GW made it very clear in his SOU address, when he SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED the people of Iran, (like they were all huddled in front of their TV’s half-way around the world to hear the US President threaten them) with his ‘message to the Iranian people’ and his ‘designation’ of the “Evil Axis”. Yeah russ, that’s a real good way to bring about peace and harmony in the world.

As for Clinton, he did his own unauthorized unilateral attack on the former Yugoslavia, so I’m not all that interested in what he has to say about Iran. I don’t believe in American “exceptionalism’ from the rules that all others are expected to adhere.

Report this

By s, May 12, 2008 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

INTERVIEW:  Morris Motamed
Only Jewish Minister of Parliament
Islamic Republic of Iran
Tehran, Iran

by Trish Schuh
Simultaneous translation by Meisam Jebelli, Iranian government interpreter

AGE:  63 years old
BORN:  Hamadan, Iran
JOB:  Only Jewish MP of the Majlis- Iranian Parliament
VOCATION:  Topography Engineer, Cartography, making maps. Aerial mapping, field mapping, site mapping, satellite images.  This is my field of study and this is a consulting engineers company.  I am one of the owners of this company. I worked here for more than 20 years.  So the time that I am free and not in Parliament, I sit here.
EDUCATION:  Tehran University

Morris Motamed is the only Jewish Minister of Parliament in Iran’s Majlis, and is the official representative of the largest (25,000) Jewish community in the middle east Diaspora outside of Israel.

The Persian Jewish community stretches back nearly 3000 years to around 680 BC when Jews fled King Nebuchadnezzar of Assyria and were later freed from Babylonian captivity by the Persian King Cyrus the Great.  Cyrus also helped them rebuild the Second Temple in Jerusalem.

Q:  What is the condition of the Jewish community in Iran?

A:  Fortunately we have no problem in the Jewish community’s living conditions.  This question has been asked by many- if there was any change after President Khatami’s time changed to President Ahmedinejad?  If there was any change in conditions for religious minorities, especially Jews? We always answered fortunately and happily that there was no change, and we hope that there will be no change in a negative direction.

Q:  Do you ever consider emigrating to Israel or the USA?

A:  As for emigration, I haven’t thought about it and haven’t decided anything.  For the time being all my family members are living in the United States. 

Q:  Would you rather live in Israel or the United States?

A:  If I was to decide to emigrate, I would like to live in a place where all my relatives, all my acquaintances, my family and friends are living- to have my connections and communications with them.

Q:  What is most difficult about life in Iran?

A:  Since all people here- I can say the majority of Iranian society are living in the same conditions in life, and they are almost the same.  There is no difference between the way of life of the minority communities and the main body of the society, which means the Muslims.  I cannot say what is the hardest part of my life.

Q:  A couple of years ago, it was reported that the Iranian government was going to force Jews to wear a star or marking on their clothes.  What was the truth behind this?

A:  Unfortunately, this was fake news published in a Canadian newspaper.  I considered this news a big insult to the religious minorities of Iran.  I countered the news very harshly, to the point where the source of the news and the Canadian government officially apologized to the Iranian government.  I was sure this news was fake.  It was published in a newspaper following a resolution that was being talked about in Parliament on fashion and fabrics- and they misused it.  I was the person who made them apologize to Iran’s government.

Q:  It seems this was not the only time the western press has mistranslated Farsi into English.  Please comment on the alleged statement of Iranian President Ahmedinejad’s threat to “wipe Israel off the map”.  What did he actually say in Persian?  (Ahmedinejads notorious threat to “wipe Israel off the map” was actually a quote of the Ayatollah Khomeini who said:  “The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time.”) 

A:  Mr. Ahmedinejad in my viewpoint, as a person has stated his ideas and viewpoints.  So after his speech we observed and saw that some Iranian political authorities talked in a different manner- said that Iran doesn’t want the wiping out or destruction of any nation from the page of history or from the map.

Report this

By wildflower, May 12, 2008 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment

It’s good to know some community leaders are speaking up against Bush’s latest war campaign. Of course, if our representatives had acted more responsibly before Bush’s unjustified invasion of Iraq, such resolutions would not be needed.

Report this

By Jonas South, May 12, 2008 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Ritter is clear about why the Irag war has been disastrous for Americans, the Iraqis, and humanity as a whole, but refuses to acknowledge that, for those who wish to neutralize Irag for all time, it really is mission accomplished. For Iran, the same result is desired by the same people.

Report this

By samosamo, May 12, 2008 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

Well, it is one way to get around the horrible msm if it gets national recognition for all the people in america to see. But I doubt abc, nbc, cbs, msnbc, cnn, the newspapers, the radios or any of the lines of communication will carry this because all of this has been shut down for real information too long.
Scott Ritter for President!

Report this

By Anna-Marina, May 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Full disclosure of how much money goes to mercenaries and contractors (with family name of beneficiaries please!)
Until citizenry learn about a degree of the plunder, the conversation on the Middle East Wars will continue suffer anemia.

Report this

By David, May 12, 2008 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hell, the SOBs won’t(and are not forced to) obey the friggin’ LAW.  What makes anyone think they’ll give a rat’s ass about a resolution from Chicago??  Jeeze, people, get a grip.

Report this

By JimM, May 12, 2008 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

And this is what the bush admin has always been about, to hell with anything else as long as they make their precious blood money,

These war pigs need to be tarred and feathered and driven out of our country along with the neocon sewer scum who support them

Report this

By tomack, May 12, 2008 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

Folks, you can argue the details of this travesty   any way you want. Who said what, where, why…who didn’t say anything…which administation three decades ago did what to who, and why; how do we get out, yada yada yada. But sometimes, just sometimes, you have to set details aside and look at The Nature Of A Thing. At its core. We didn’t do that in time for Iraq (if we did I must have been sleeping), but we have time for Iran, Mr/Ms Rus7355, we have time. 

And the Nature of this thing is that we do not belong there. It isn’t ours—it’s theirs! WE DO NOT BELONG THERE! Period. Simply that. Got it?

Oh, we can buy their stuff, like oil, but we can’t take it—it’s theirs. We can do our best to pursuade them to change their politics or religion. But we can’t MAKE them—because it’s theirs.

The very concepts and rules of basic human behaviour learned in kintergarden still apply: LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE’S STUFF ALONE.

One would think that after 10,000 or so years of fairly decent historical human accounting (more than half that with detailed records) we would begin, even at the fringe, to learn what happens when one tribe crosses another tribe’s border and tries to TAKE THEIR STUFF.

“Oh, you’re being simple Tomack, it’s MUCH more complicated than that.” Really? Then ask yourself this simple question in response, What would have happened if the West had stayed out of the East altogether?  And I don’t refer to the Crusades, or conversely, the Moorish invasions going in the other direction (but that would have been nice, and no telling what peaceful madness that would have caused), I mean in modern times. Trade continues, relations good or bad continue, love em/hate em continues, everything continues except the part where we GO THERE with an army and try to TAKE THEIR STUFF.

The Nature of the thing is simple, we choose to complicate it. Mr. Ritter is right—don’t go there. Simply that.

Note to Billy the Dik: I sent this as well, and already got an e-mail response, the essence of it was Dear (my real name) we appreciate your concern but we feel it isn’t the responsibility of local government to apply pressure to federal govenment for any reason. They left out the part about kneeling before Bush & Gang. 

Hmmmm…I wonder if that was their attitude a few years ago after the big flood our area had. Well, it is a predominantly conservative county after all.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, May 12, 2008 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

it shouldn’t be of any consequence whether US lies or tells the truth ab. its ‘right’ to attack any country.
for, if u’r going to kill someone, how u do that armed with ‘truth’? how can u have ‘truth’, a mere word, and murder of hundreds of thousands of people?
isn’t it a conradiction that one can posssess or know the truth and yet murder a millinon civilians?
scary. i’m nostalgic for fascism. thank u

Report this

By steve, May 12, 2008 at 8:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dick Cheney: So?

Report this

By Don Stivers, May 12, 2008 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

The troubling thing is, Bush, Cheney, Rice and all, think they know best and ignore public opinion, right or wrong.  Remember the “So?”

And our Congress and Justice lets the Administration keep weaving down the highway like a drunk driver without stopping them.

Report this

By cyrena, May 12, 2008 at 4:01 am Link to this comment

Billy
Here’s something you can add to your collection. (for your own city council). This is an excellent interview with Steven Kinzer. (the video of it is at the link below)

There are also a few dozen OTHER letters and resolutions that have been drafted during the past few years as well, similar to the project that Scott mentions here. (all on avoiding an attack on Iran). 

  Un-“threat”-ing Iran: An Interview With Stephen Kinzer
  By Maya Schenwar
  t r u t h o u t | Interview
Author Stephen Kinzer discusses the motivations behind the targeting of Iran, the emotional impulses that fuel American interventions around the world, and the strategy that may finally deliver the US from its “regime change” habit.

  Amid the foreboding language of the Petraeus/Crocker hearings, the Bush administration’s assessment of fighting in Basra and Baghdad, and some Congressional Democrats’ incendiary words - at a hearing last week, Congressman Gary Ackerman warned that “Iran’s nuclear cauldron continues to boil and bubble” - the specter of an Iranian threat to the US would seem to have grown to monstrous proportions over the past few weeks.

  However, according to Stephen Kinzer, bestselling author of “All the Shah’s Men” and “Overthrow: American Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq,” it’s the specter of a US threat to Iran which has really mounted as of late.

“Every time I pick up my newspaper and read about what’s coming out of Washington, my fears of an American attack on Iran intensify,” Kinzer told me during an interview last week.

  Indeed, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker made perfectly clear in their testimony that the administration would not rule out a military strike: Petraeus cited “help[ing] Iraq resist Iranian encroachment on its territory” as a main goal, and Crocker declared, ominously, “Iran has a choice to make.”

  Last week, President Bush warned that, should Iranians continue supplying Iraqi militants, “then we’ll deal with them.” And during a briefing in Baghdad on Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly cited Iran as the major force spurring militias and “special groups” in Iraq.

  During our interview, Kinzer pointed to the hypocrisy of Bush admonishing Iran for intervening militarily in Iraq. Kinzer stressed that the US must recognize the legitimacy of Iran’s integral role.
  “The fact is, Iran does have influence in Iraq, and Iran always will have influence in Iraq,” he said.

  The two countries are tied religiously, politically, historically and geographically, and the US is in no position to sever those ties, according to Kinzer. Rather, he suggested, we might use them to our advantage, viewing Iran as “our ticket out of Iraq.”

  By cultivating Iran’s involvement in Iraqi politics and allowing it to fulfill its responsibilities as the region’s most powerful country, the US could begin to take more of a backseat without ostensibly abandoning Iraq.

  “All the Shah’s Men” reminds us that, when it comes to Iran, the backseat is probably where we should be sitting. The US was responsible for the 1953 coup that toppled Iran’s democratic government, replacing it with the repressive Shah regime, which hastened the Islamic Revolution of 1970s, inspiring the rise of radical groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

  Yet the US has not yet taken its Middle East history lessons seriously. Kinzer noted that our attitude toward Iran and Iraq is symptomatic of the US’s overriding tendency toward using military force to shape economic policy - in this case, oil management - to its advantage.

    “As long as the US arrogates to itself the right to decide which governments may live, and which must die, these interventions are never going to work out,” Kinzer said.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042208J.shtml

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.