Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Now Here's A Frightening Thought

I read a couple of things today that mention the possibility of the United States attacking, or going to war against Iran. The first was an article by Pat Buchanan which ask and attempts to answer some questions, "Is the White House rattling sabers to prod Iran into talks? Perhaps. But the administration has also painted itself, and us, into a corner with the war talk. And there are only three ways out." The second (thing I read) was an e-mail from Down Size D.C. "Quote of the Day:

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become
the instruments of tyranny at home."

-- James Madison

Subject: Summertime War with Iran?

Is another war brewing? ...this time with Iran?

The administration claims Iranian-backed Shia militias are attacking
U.S. troops in Iraq. Iran denies its involvement. Other reports say
that Sunnis have been responsible for 2/3rds of the attacks in Iraq.
It's also important to note that Al Qaeda is a Sunni group, not Shia.
So who is responsible for most of the killing? Is is really the Shia
Mullah's in Iran?

These Sunni-Shia distinctions confuse John McCain, Bill O'Reilly, and
millions of Americans. General David Petraeus played on this
ignorance in testimony to Congress last month. He blamed Iran's
support of Shia militias for MOST of the remaining problems in Iraq.
He said,

Iran has fueled the violence... with the Iraqi Security Forces, we
have also focused on the Special Groups. These elements are funded,
trained, armed, and directed by Iran's Qods Force... It is clearly in
our national interest to resist Iranian encroachment.

Petraeus' rhetorical performance earned him a promotion, from
military boss in Iraq, to chief of Central Command. His military
responsibility now includes virtually the entire Middle East,
including Iran.

Is this promotion another sign that President Bush wants to attack
Iran before he leaves office? Andrew Cockburn reports,

The administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran
in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no
secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war.
In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats
approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a "taunting"
manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander
on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close
to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly
ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff
officers, was "absolutely furious" with Fallon for defusing the
incident.

There are other signs of a pending war with Iran. Headlines and
newsclips over the past month tell the story. Here's a partial list:

* Diplomats: Iran Assembling Centrifuges, The New York Times, April
3, 2008

* Iran And Al Qaeda Among Greatest Threats to U.S.: Bush, The New
York Times, April 10, 2008

* Cheney on the War Path Again? By Dan Froomkin, Washingtonpost.com,
April 11, 2008 (The Vice President portrayed Iran as apocalyptic
zealots who yearn for a nuclear conflagration).

* Iran Nuclear Ambitions are Major Gulf Threat: NATO, The Washington
Post, April 24, 2008

* Hawkish Engagement Needed with Iran?, by Michael O'Hanlon,
Brookings Institution (A call for military action).

* Hamas are Iran's proxy warriors: Rice, AFP, April 30, 2008

* CIA Director Says Iran Wants to Kill Americans in Iraq, AP, April
30, 2008

But the evidence isn't limited to heated rhetoric and hand-wringing.
The U.S. government has also taken physical steps to prepare for war.
Just last week CBS News reported that the Pentagon ordered military
commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran. A second
aircraft carrier has also arrived in the Persian Gulf, and a Marine
amphibious force was allegedly sent there Sunday.

Even worse, Republicans aren't the only ones rattling sabres.
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has suggested a scenario where
she could, as President, "totally obliterate" Iran.

Do you want another war in the Middle East? We already have two wars
there that are bleeding us dry.

Do you want your gasoline bill to soar? Bombing Iran would make that
happen.

And ask yourself this: would bombing Iran really deter the Shia
militas in Iraq, or simply cause them to increase their attacks on
U.S. forces and the local Sunni population?

Here's something else to consider: The Iranian population is now
pro-American, in opposition to their clerical leaders. Do we really
want to throw away their support? We have done this before. We
squandered the post-9/11 support and sympathy of the whole world,
including even Iran's Shia leaders, by invading Iraq. Do we really
want to repeat this mistake?

President Bush has shown that he really doesn't care what anybody
else thinks. He is going to do what he wants to do. Only Congress can
stop him, by taking firm action to prohibit an attack. But Congress
is too spineless to take this action unless it knows the public is
passionate to avoid another war."

I hope you'll contact your elected officials and urge them to give some serious thought to what a war with Iran would cost us. What effect would a war with Iran have on a barrel of oil assuming we can get a barrel of oil. Worse yet how many more lives would be lost? Some might feel that we have nothing to fear, this would be another Bush war and he'll be gone in just a few months. Or will he. If Bush could get a war started with Iran wouldn't he be able to declare a National Emergency even Martial Law. Suspend the Constitution, and the election making Bush our Dictator for life. I don't really think Martial Law is coming before the election. I wanted you to think about what could be in our country's future if we don't get more involved. Our elected officials can not be allowed to give themselves more power day by day.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.


Thanks go to:
Human Events
Down Size D.C.

4 Comments:

Blogger American Interests.blog said...

Good posting!

War with Iran? It's a scary prospect.

Here is an excerpt from a recent Frontpage article.

"Assuming that a strike could be successfully carried out, the associated consequences would be very severe and may well consist of any number of the following:

• The 350,000+ American and foreign troops, contractors, and mercenaries stationed on Iran’s borders in Iraq and Afghanistan will almost certainly be targeted in some way as part of Iran’s response; as will Israel and nations in the Gulf and Caucasus that have a hand in the attack.

• Parts of Europe, all of Israel, and the Middle East (including the Gulf nations’ oil installations) are within the range of Tehran’s ballistic missiles.

• Iran has established biological and chemical weapons programs.

• Iran’s terrorist proxies could also be activated:

-- Iran’s militias in Iraq will cause as much havoc as possible, undoubtedly erasing all the security gains made in the past year.

-- Israel can expect to be attacked from all sides by Tehran’s proxies with Hezbollah’s Katyushas raining down from the north and Hamas/Islamic Jihad striking from the east and south.

-- Iranian funded Shia militias could also cause mayhem and unrest among the Shia populations in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

-- Terrorist attacks against Western and Israeli targets in South America (where Hezbollah has extensive terror networks and has struck on behalf of Tehran before), Europe, Africa, and Asia might also be part of the retribution.

• Iran can retaliate against the Strait of Hormuz, through which 30% of the world’s oil passes, sending the price of oil skyrocketing and dragging the economy down with it.

But what would this attack really accomplish? Domestically, the Iranian people, under attack, will presumably “rally around the flag.” In all likelihood, there will also be a vicious crackdown on all forms of dissent and opposition to the regime.

All of this, to, at best, set the nuclear weapons program back a decade.

Of course, if it comes down to bombing Iran or allowing their elementary school dropout Supreme Leader and his apocalyptic President to get within a button’s click of setting the world on fire, there really is no choice at all. However, with all of the associated consequences, military action must truly be a last resort.

So what should be done to avoid military action?

First of all, economic sanctions must be ratcheted up as much as possible. If there is any hope of getting Tehran to give up its nuclear weapons program the financial squeeze currently applied must be a lot firmer. With Russia and China holding vetoes on any new UN Security Council resolutions, the likelihood of this within a UNSC framework is low. America and its allies could and should try to accelerate their own sanctions against Iran. But, the recent $28 billion gas deal between Swiss company EGL and the Iranians is a big step in the wrong direction.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has all but accepted that sanctions alone won’t do the trick, when she recently conceded that “this is not the time, I think, to expect changes.”

Since the prospect of sanctions alone doing the job is so minuscule, we must also do everything in our power to strengthen and support the various Iranian pro-democracy and opposition groups. Exiled groups such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the monarchist Constitutionalist Party of Iran, the liberal nationalist Party of the Iranian Nation, and the Mossadegh founded National Front, as well as the various groups inside Iran representing ethnic Kurds, Azeris, Ahwazi Arabs, and Baluchis, must all be assisted.

While many of these groups have deficiencies and are far from perfect, the more hands that are pulling at this regime, the weaker, and more likely to fall, it will be.

While these may seem like obvious approaches to addressing the situation we currently face, it seems that the U.S. and Europe are doing just the opposite."


Source url: http://frontpagemag.com:80/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=B84E30D9-DEF4-4DFF-938C-3D5B15D0FA92

Take care David!

4:57 AM  
Blogger American Interests.blog said...

Another very interesting article David.
I don't think this Iran thing is going to go away soon...

"Iranian Nukes = The End of the World as We Know It"

Check it out at:
http://pajamasmedia.com:80/blog/iranian-nukes-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/

5:22 AM  
Blogger Z said...

Then Iranian people are friendly towards AMerica? I haven't heard that too much. I know most would like the Mullas out, but...

I heard an excellent interview yesterday with a Vietnam War expert who, I believe, was in the WH during those days. He said Johnson didn't want to bomb the important parts of Vietnam like we did the weapons-manufacturing areas of Germany during Hitler's siege, because he'd get static from the left HERE for having killed too many innocent VIetnamese.........this guy reckoned we'd have saved Vietnam from Communism and saved thousands of OUR lives if we'd had the nerve, but we didn't. I felt empty and SO disheartened after hearing that.

I don't know how I feel about bombing Iran, but it does NOT mean bombing the toniest residential areas in Tehran! It means areas where we suspect they are building WMD. What's WRONG with that?

Are we ever going to believe OUR people over the enemy adminstrations anymore or is America so weakened by our professors and media indoctrination that we will NOT do everything possible to save ourselves? Is Iraq going to now be used as "You SEE they had no WMD's...we can't EVER EVER hit another country JUST IN CASE they don't, either"!?

I wonder. we've made a very dangerous situation for ourselves. I will NEVER believe Sadam didn't move WMD like General Said (sp?) said he had, a general who was there...a general who talked of Syrian ties.

My own husband was in Iraq years ago and, when OUR OWN experts said, during Desert STorm, "WE GOT SADAM'S JETS", he turned to me over the coffee table and said "Honey..the jets are in bunkers underground...they didn't get them." The day later, Schwarzkopf said they'd made a mistake, we'd NOT got their jets. WHY did MY HUSBAND (who was NOT in military intel but admittedly was involved in ...weapons.......) know better than OUR INTEL?

have we stupied ourselves into extinction?

4:32 PM  
Blogger Katherine Thayer said...

Obama knew the only way to avoid conflict was to agree on the nuclear deal. Now its future is in question

2:31 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home