2 points for naming the ethnic group whose members and sycophants are
over-represented in the bomb Iran camp.
Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
>http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/30/content_8459225.htm
>
>Just this week.
>
>http://www.newyorker.com/re****ting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh/?yra
>il
>
>But, those who read counterpunch already knew.
>
>http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew05022008.html
>
>Incidentally, there is also an article (quite long, actually)
>
>http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21617
>
>I will copy and paste the last part of the article, which might help
>understand why this rush to go to war against Iran.
>
>"If the United States is ever to withdraw from Iraq, reaching some
>accommodation with Iran would seem essential. Trying to make sense of
>this, I recalled something Toby Dodge had told me: "When the
>Americans go home, the Iranians will inherit the earth." Iranian
>hegemony over Iraq: that is the Bush administration's worst
>nightmare. The Iraq invasion was designed to project American power
>in the region at Iran's expense; instead, it has done the exact
>opposite. And so it dawned on me: no matter what happens in Iraq, the
>Bush administration doesn't want to leave, since if it does, Iran, in
>one way or another, will take over. That helps explain recent re****ts
>that Wa****ngton, in negotiating a long-term status of forces
>agreement with Iraq, is determined to maintain nearly sixty bases
>there indefinitely—a position the government of Prime Minister
>al-Maliki is strongly resisting.[8]"
>
>What this means is that war is inevitable, and Iranian leaders know
>it. They know that it matters not what they do, because the US is
>going to bomb Iran, anyway. Bush knows that he will be leaving the
>presidency in less than a year, and that the coward Congress will not
>dare impeach him. So, he follows the example of Hitler when he got
>bogged down in Russia: when your war is going badly, open another
>front.
>
>Of course, those who are professionals of war are not so enthusiastic
>about this, as can be surmised by the reactions among commanders.
>
>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5244/is_200803/ai_n25232328
>
>http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/admiral-resigns-over-iran-discord/200
>8/03/12/1205126014170.html
>
>Even the air force had some shake up, though the White House would
>like us to believe that it has nothing to do with Iran.
>
>http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123101575
>
>And today, this new one.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486338.stm
>
>
>The USA is going to war again, and not in a very good shape. It does
>not take a genius to realize that if these high commanders are so
>opposed to the war that they preferred to resign rather than obbey
>Bush, it is NOT because they thought that the participants in the war
>were going to cover themselves in glory. They did it because they
>KNOW the US is digging its own grave, and they do not want to go down
>in history as the "Westmorelands" of Iran.
>
>Yet, despite all, Bush still has the sup****t of 25 to 33% of the
>population. This means that one in three or one in four is still
>behind the worst war criminal of these century, the man that so much
>damage has done to his own country, let alone the world.
>
>Needless to say, oil will hit $300 a barrel, and probably go over,
>not to mention what is going to do to the value of the US dollar,
>when the country that cannot pay for its current wars starts another
>one.
>
>Now, when we try to think about who would benefit from this war,
>Israel immediately comes to mind. However, we should not forget
>Saudi Arabia. Once the Iranian oil is removed from the market, the
>profits for the Saudis will be astronomical. I am not suggesting that
>Bush is doing this war for Israel and Saudi Arabia. But they will
>benefit from it, so they have no interest in stopping Bush.
>
>We have a very small chance to stop this. People all over the world,
>but mainly in the US, MUST take to the streets and march against the
>impending war. Many peace organizations are not planning anything
>because they have not seen any propaganda campaign from the
>administration trying to convince the people to sup****t this war, so
>they beleive we are still far from the beginning. The problem with
>that reasoning is that the administration might not have any plans to
>lie to the public as they did with Iraq, since Bush does not even
>care if the public is behind him or not. He knows he has that "25%"
>sup****ting him, and that might be more than enough for his plans.
>
>V.V.
>V.V.
|
