Impending War On Iran

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes.


The US Senate votes 76-22 to approve of this idiotic measure to authorize military action against Iran when it is only too clear that the majority of the American public is tired of Bush's wars and threats.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/breaking-lieberman-kyls-iran-amendment-passes


Meanwhile the apathetic international community persists in its appeasement of Bush and Congressional threats.

World War III looms and the corporate war profiteers rub their hands with glee.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
You are referring to the one passed in 1998 regarding Iraq, right? And what happened next? War.

Same difference. Only that the consequences are going to be worse.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Look again: the invasion started post legislation - in fact several pro war types on this forum used reports of that law as proof that Clinton and the Democrats were equally responisble for the war. In a sense, they have a point. Henceforth, Dems can no longer say Republicans are exclusively responsible for the consequences of any war that takes place in Iran (and in Iraq for that matter).
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Nah, its still too early to suggest that war may come of this. One needs to consider the fact that China and Russia have a lot of interest in Iran for many reasons. I believe China has now surpassed Germany for imports into Iran, which has Merkel a little annoyed, it seems. It is quite true that the US diplomats are seemingly doing everything to avoid a peaceful resolution, viz a viz their rejection of the IAEA agreement and pressing for further sanctions. However, they are largely blocked by Russia and China which gained a lot of political sway in the world since the US invaded Iraq.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
its still too early to suggest that war may come of this


This is precisely what critics said about the Congressional resolution of 1998 that was signed by Clinton.

It took only 5 years to transpire before Bush put it into use by invading Iraq. I guarantee it will take less time for Bush or his successor to do the same in Iran. We have already seen accounts of kidnapping of Iranian officials and other provocations designed to induce a conflict with Iran. So don't be too surprised to see another major flare up soon.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Hiya Gopher!:)

I really really hope you're wrong about this apparent residual effect or history repeating itself...

The United States has lost a great deal of "standing" or as the Chinese would say a good deal of "face" through their behaviour in the past six years. Whether Americans will buy the line that like the song and dance of the "urgent necessity" to invade Iraq as "defense" of America or not....is the big question. It's been made very clear to me here at CC that Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks about them and isn't terribly interested in modifying its foreign policies to meet anyone else's ideas of what "international peace and cooperation" might mean...

I don't know how realistic it is to put much faith in the American people or any western society at this juncture in human history. There certainly may be those who believe that their governments are trustworthy and can be trusted to act in the people's best interests, but the difficulty with that is the evidence that seems to be accumulating that people don't know what's in their own best interests!

Consumers flocked to buy Chinese goods and food only to find that the "bargain" carried with it some element of danger to their children's health and well being....what's more important to an American?

Is it continuing the sham of robust prosperity in a planet choking to death on its own industrial waste and promoting a similar slide into over-consumption and "prosperity" regardless of the outcomes that accompany that "prosperity"? Is it America that still suffers the outrage of racial prejudice that has re-appeared in the media out of Jenna or is it the legacy of unbridled greed and consumption that sees bridges collapsing that represents the wisdom of modern government?

Some would suggest that Bush stole the election and although this would imply that the electoral system in America isn't open and free and legitimate, that serious issues other than what some other nation is doing or how some faction is acting somewhere other than America is more important that protecting America from factions within...

It is a most untidy decline into anarchy and chaos that America seems more than prepared to entertain...
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,039
196
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
To complete the consolodation of regional hegemony Iran must undergo regime change. There exists no more pivotal point of geocorporate importance. Iran must be transformed by the neoliberal economic miracle even now rebuilding Iraq into an example of an advanced liberated free market a'la
the Chicago/Freedman temple of enlightenment. One hundred and sixty thousand mercinaries can't be wrong, follow the money, see the miracle of capital at work. FTA.....(phuck them all) haha
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
its still too early to suggest that war may come of this


This is precisely what critics said about the Congressional resolution of 1998 that was signed by Clinton.

It took only 5 years to transpire before Bush put it into use by invading Iraq. I guarantee it will take less time for Bush or his successor to do the same in Iran. We have already seen accounts of kidnapping of Iranian officials and other provocations designed to induce a conflict with Iran. So don't be too surprised to see another major flare up soon.

Well by that token, the USA has had similar resolutions with Cuba for decades without any invasion. So, you can look forward to a long period of tense name calling, just like with Cuba.

The difference is that few nations could be considered allies of the previous Iraq. Currently, both Russia and China have an extensive interest in Iran. The USA didn't really step on many people's feet when they went into Iraq but they did lower their global influence by acting in such an overtly imperialistic fashion. Pay attention to the Russian and Chinese rhetoric on this issue, that is something that was lacking in Iraq. The USA must play the diplomatic game here, whereas it was able to ignore it in going to Iraq.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
the USA has had similar resolutions with Cuba for decades without any invasion.


Not so. The resolutions passed by Congress in re to Cuba dealt only with maintaining its stupid embargo, not invasion of Cuba. In fact, the USA under Kennedy signed an iron clad agreement not to invade Cuba during the Missile Crisis.

Bush has been emboldened by international appeasement and an invasion of Iran should not come as a surprise.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
I don't know how realistic it is to put much faith in the American people or any western society at this juncture in human history.


Polls reveal that the majority of Americans oppose Bush's imperialist dreams in Iran just as we oppose his war on Iraq. But this has not stopped Bush from continuing and expanding his war nor has it stopped Congress from supporting him. Therefore, it is not the American people who are the problem, it is the pols who are.

Since our votes won't stop them, the only other alternative is for the international community to stop its appeasement of Bush. That's what the UN is supposed to be doing. But we are still waiting for constructive action on its part.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,164
94
48
USA
I don't know how realistic it is to put much faith in the American people or any western society at this juncture in human history.


Polls reveal that the majority of Americans oppose Bush's imperialist dreams in Iran just as we oppose his war on Iraq. But this has not stopped Bush from continuing and expanding his war nor has it stopped Congress from supporting him. Therefore, it is not the American people who are the problem, it is the pols who are.

Since our votes won't stop them, the only other alternative is for the international community to stop its appeasement of Bush. That's what the UN is supposed to be doing. But we are still waiting for constructive action on its part.

This is a funny one.

I wonder how that poll question was phrased since the majority of Americans participated.

Do you oppose Bush's imperialistic dreams in Iran?

Is that how the poll question went? I'd like to see a link to it. Can you post that link here?

Part Deux- So the UN Charter states that the purpose of the UN is to stop the International communities appeasement of Bush? Wow, they had a lot of foresight to agree upon that when the UN was founded. :lol:
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Eagle,

Here are your polls:


international poll:

http://globalpolicy.org/empire//intervention/iran/general/2006/0920worldpoll.htm


American opposition:


Opposition to an attack

A Reuters/Zogby opinion poll taken in the United States and published on September 28, 2006 found a large majority (70 percent of those polled) opposing an attack on Iran if it were to involve a land attack by only US soldiers. Small minorities supported a land attack (26 percent) or an air attack against military targets (9 percent). A relative majority (47 percent) was opposed to an Israeli attack on Iran and a minority was in favour (42 percent).[13] A compilation of polls regarding the opinion of US adults about an attack Iran also suggested majority opposition to an attack on Iran among US adults during 2006 and early 2007, for questions where no leading information was supplied to those polled: a CBS February 2007 poll indicated about 10-20% of US citizens supported a USA attack on Iran at the time of taking the poll between June 2006 and early February 2007; a CNN poll on January 19-21, 2007 indicated 70% opposition to an attack on Iran; a Newsweek Poll taken on October 19-20, 2006 indicated about 76% opposition to a land attack and 54% opposition to an air attack. [14]


source: wikipedia



I'm sure that you believe in democratic rule and, as such, respect the fact that the majority opinion should override Bush's ambitions. Of course, if you are prepared to die for more of his lies, that's your right to do so.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,164
94
48
USA
Eagle,

Here are your polls:


international poll:

http://globalpolicy.org/empire//intervention/iran/general/2006/0920worldpoll.htm


American opposition:


Opposition to an attack

A Reuters/Zogby opinion poll taken in the United States and published on September 28, 2006 found a large majority (70 percent of those polled) opposing an attack on Iran if it were to involve a land attack by only US soldiers. Small minorities supported a land attack (26 percent) or an air attack against military targets (9 percent). A relative majority (47 percent) was opposed to an Israeli attack on Iran and a minority was in favour (42 percent).[13] A compilation of polls regarding the opinion of US adults about an attack Iran also suggested majority opposition to an attack on Iran among US adults during 2006 and early 2007, for questions where no leading information was supplied to those polled: a CBS February 2007 poll indicated about 10-20% of US citizens supported a USA attack on Iran at the time of taking the poll between June 2006 and early February 2007; a CNN poll on January 19-21, 2007 indicated 70% opposition to an attack on Iran; a Newsweek Poll taken on October 19-20, 2006 indicated about 76% opposition to a land attack and 54% opposition to an air attack. [14]


source: wikipedia



I'm sure that you believe in democratic rule and, as such, respect the fact that the majority opinion should override Bush's ambitions. Of course, if you are prepared to die for more of his lies, that's your right to do so.

No no no... that was not the poll question you alluded to. By your post you said...

The majority of Americans oppose Bush's Imperialistic Dreams in Iran.

Where is that poll?

What are his dreams? Any link?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
RSK,

I wouldn't bet my life on that statement:


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092607a.html


quote:


This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places.