Why can't the American public see what's coming? Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by The Cohen Brother, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 27, 2007 at 8:54 am
The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A Massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq.
This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue--the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran.
Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs. But Congress and the Media--and the demonstration in Washington--are focused on Iraq.
What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world?
In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush's planned attack on Iran.
Writing for Global Research (January 24), General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecast an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world's protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran.
There will be shock and indignation, General Ivashov concludes, but the US will get away with it. He writes:
"Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc. . . . The probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9-11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say "Yes" to the US President."
The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorized the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorization for the war in Iraq.
Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans.
For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq "won't stop us." According to the Associated Press and Yahoo News, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, "I'm the decision-maker."
Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US Media.
General Ivashof and everyone in the Middle East and at the Davos globalization conference in Europe understands the Bush Regime's agenda.
Why cannot Americans understand?
Why hasn't Congress told Bush and Cheney that they will both be instantly impeached if they initiate a wider war?
Posted by Ron, a resident of another community, on Jan 27, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Bush and his neo-con gang have decided that Israel must survive. This drives them to confront Iran, hidden inside the context of Iraq. This moralistic stance is our future doom. BTW, a likely scenario will be that Israel will drop the bomb, in order to give the U.S. a bit of cover.
There have been so many moralistic stands by the U.S., once we decided to go international (T. Roosevelt). We have paid an enormous price for this idealism. The only major war we needed to fight, since the Civil War, was against Japan, starting Dec. 7, 1941.
Why did the U.S. ever get behind Israel? It has cost us an immense amount of unnecessary American lives. And now, we are about to see many more American lives lost.
I applaud your post. It is starting to get at the real issue.
Posted by Ron, a resident of another community, on Jan 27, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Walter...Many innocents have been victims. Why should we sacrfice our own to save them? If we buy into saving Europe and Israel and Kosovo and Darfur and Somalia and S. Africa, etc., then we become obligated to save the innocents in Iraq. No way!
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on Jan 28, 2007 at 9:02 am
Agreed. I have often used the analogy of your neighbor has an arsenal, has already killed one of his family members, beats the rest, has invaded 2 other neighbors and been beat back into his home, is threatening to annihilate the house on the other side of him and take over the rest of the neighborhood, but is telling you to stay out of it or he will blow your house up too. A couple of his sons-in-laws have escaped and told the whole city where he is hiding his biggest bomb-making machine..they go back and he kills them. One of his daughters interviews with Barbara Walters and brag about the great chemical weapons program that household is building.
All the other neighborhoods get very nervous, and tell him to "stop, publically destroy it all, or else" 17 times, and he just laughs...He kills a few more of his family, just second-cousins, and praises the folks who blow up another house on the next street.
YOU decide to stop it under the premise that at the very least he has still failed to show what he did with his arsenal, as demanded 17 times. You think everyone is going to go along with this, and then learn that there is too much money to be made off of him to get the more corrupt people to agree.A few of the most powerful neighbors are making a lot of money off of this guy, so they don't really want to stop him, they are just giving lip service to keep you happy.
This takes 6 months for you to give up on those neighbors, who have been desperately trying to stop you, but the rest join you, and off you go.
You free his family, kill him ..but can't find the arsenal all the neighborhoods had seen, and told him to publically destroy. What a surprise! 6 months of warning and you can't find anything.
This "proves" that he hadn't had any. HA!
No matter, at least you and your neighbors are no longer in danger from him, and his family is free to try to re-build their lives, free from torture and murder from an iron-fist. They have to fight, still, a couple cousins who are still trying to take back the control of their house, but they are beating them back, with the help of you, and getting stronger by the day. Won't need you soon.
Your newly free neighbors go out into the city and start buying stuff. One of the very many stores they freely choose is yours.
This "proves" it was all about money. HA! You spent hundreds of thousands to free them and improve your safety, and they buy some bread in your store. Good investment. Obviously you helped because of money.
The family that was saved is watching to see who is against them. Their children will remember.
Posted by Wolf, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Your isolationist position may seem attractive. Yet in the long run it is against both our own, and the world's interests. WE can probably politically survive, but will the rest of world? Between more muscular Russia and more powerful China, how exactly will decaying Europe fare? Should we abandon NATO? Taiwan? South Korea? And how long before this will affect our economic welfare too due to trade restrictions imposed by the new order in attempt to make us even less threatening to them?
Posted by Ron, a resident of another community, on Jan 28, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Wolf...Our allies (yes, I believe in allies), can defend themselves, if they have the will to fight to the death to do so. We can support them with materials, but not troops, unless they are directly attacked AND we decide it is in our own best interests). Why the heck are we still stationed in Japan and Korea? Germany? NATO? We are being played for suckers. Those countires refuse to stand up for their own defense. They don't even come close to spending enough $$ on their military establishments. They spend their money on their health system instead. We are subsidizing those creeps. It's time for us to stand up for America, with no apologies. Being an ally of America should come with serious strings attached, not the freebie that is currently going on.
Posted by Wolf, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I disagree. That is how we behaved when the Germans annexed Austria and occupied Czechoslovakia. That is how we behaved when Germany conquered much of Europe, until we were directly attacked in Pearl Harbor. In retrospect, I believe that that was a mistake.
Since then our interests became even more global, and we definitely should not take an isolationist stand. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Ron, a resident of another community, on Jan 28, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Wolf...Ok, we disagree. But please remember that we allied ourselves with Stalin order to kill Hitler. Stalin killed many more than Hitler. Also recall that FDR limited war assets in the Pacific in order to fight Germany, even though it was Japan that attacked us. You are making a moral argument.
Posted by Wolf, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2007 at 3:39 pm
"You are making a moral argument."
Indeed I am. At least partially. I do not believe in pure real-politics. I do not believe in pure moral action either. The former ignores the long term need for a nation to feel morally right, while the latter runs the risk of falling on your sword. Pure angels and villains live in heaven and hell. We are human.
Posted by Ron, a resident of another community, on Jan 28, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Wolf...You seem to be saying that we should have attacked Saddam, because he was evil (he was). I have a close friend who believes this. Do you believe this? If so, should we also attack Castro? Should we go into Darfur, to save the women and babies? Should we preemptively attack Iran, in order to save Israel? Should we attack Saudi Arabia, because they fund the madrassas that cook up so much of the Islmastic fundamentalist hatred? Should we have intervened in Rwanda?
If I read you correctly, you are saying that you want to choose your moral battles. Whatever battles you so choose will require American troops to fulfill your ideals. Feel lucky? If so, whose day will you make?
Posted by Ron, a resident of another community, on Jan 28, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Wolf...I admire that you take it on in a moral context. I completely disagree with your approach, but you own up to it. You are moral. I am amoral. I don't need luck in any specific intervention, because there will be none, unless we are actually attacked.
If Saddam was left to his mass murder and rape rooms, there would still be 3000+ American troops alive, instead of dead.
Posted by Thomas, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2007 at 5:28 pm
If Saddam was still in power and we never went into Iraq we might have seen another 3,000 American civilians perish. If we let Iran be we might see another catastrophic attack on American soil. We can not react we have to take initiative and act. When America is seen as the enemy and such a power house we cannot isolate ourselves.
Posted by Wolf, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2007 at 5:39 pm
"If Saddam was left to his mass murder and rape rooms, there would still be 3000+ American troops alive, instead of dead."
Indeed. And many more would not be wounded. But let me provide some perspective to these 3000 dead over three years.
Every year we have about 110,000 death from accidents in this country, about 40% of that from car accidents.
Every year we have over 30,000 deaths from suicide in this country.
Every year we have about 18,000 death from homicide in this country.
Each one on the 1000 dead soldiers in Iraq every year is a tragic loss to their family. Yet the family can at least console itself that their loss was not meaningless; unlike all the other 150,000 of accidents/murders/suicides every year.
Posted by Ron, a resident of another community, on Jan 28, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Thomas...Of course we can isolate ourselves. We will be seen as an isolated powerhouse that does not meddle in other nations' affairs. We will not be the world policeman, nor it's savior. The rest of the world, especially Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, S. Africa, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, etc. will need to step it up to defend themselves. We will have far fewer obligations, even if we still have the same enemies. Once our so-called allies get serious about their war capabilities, especially their willingness to take casualties, we Americans can sit back and watch them take the punches - it will wake them up (finally). The world will be a better place.
The U.S. should be feared, for our own selfish reasons, period. Attack us, we crush you. It won't happen very often, but it will be remembered. This approach would probably save millions of lives, net. More importantly, it will save thousands of American lives.
Thomas, your approach will cost many thousands of American lives. America should be about America, nothing else. Forget the idealism. If other people like our freedoms, they will fight for it. If not, they will die, or be enslaved.
How many of you moralists want to sacrifice your kids for your principles? How many kids in your fine town are currently in the U.S. military? I don't want my kids to be killed for some other country's cause. I am selfish. I am amoral.
Posted by Ron, a resident of another community, on Jan 28, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Wolf...If your point is that Iraq is a relatively low cost war, in terms of blood and money for America, I agree with you. But it could be almost zero cost. Why not? 3000 American military families would not be agrieved, if we, as a country, would simply be selfish.
Let the Middle East destroy itself. Let America defend itself. Let Africa and Europe decay away. It is not our responsibility.
Posted by Thomas, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2007 at 6:37 pm
The choice for America to not be isolationist was made after WWII because we saw what could happen. We cannot step back from 60 years of policy. If we put the weight on the shoulders of countries that cannot handle it they will crumple. Then we will have greater problems than we have today. America cannot sit idle while we let problems pass us by because one day they will catch up to us. If we withdraw from all of our foreign obligations we will see the world be destroyed around us, soon the destruction will reach home.
I beleive in morality to a limit, but this is not about morals. Our help to foreign countries is in good reason because in some indirect way, if we do not act, it can come back and get us. A perfect example of this is the spread on commusion during the Cold War and the steps we took to counter that growth by helping develpoing countries. If the countries dealt with those uprisings by themselves Russia might be the only remaining powerhouse.
Your ideas above would be great if they could work now. But we cannot go back in time and change what we have done. We need to stand by our decisions and not devaite. Deviations shows signs of weakness, and in that weakness will come terror.
I am joining the military in the next year. Not for other countries, but for my country. I see what letting this insanity in the Middle East continue will bring.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on Jan 29, 2007 at 7:15 am
Thank you for your courage and ability to see beyond our back yard.
Once you join, do not watch the news or read the papers,unless it is the Wall Street Journal, do not listen to the Democrats and do not read these blogs. You must have already been able to see past the constant attempts at brainwashing that the left does through their propoganda machines to be thinking of joining after all.
They do not represent the majority of people that you are working for. Remember, 3/4 of the American people who watched President Bush's speech last week support you, support America, and support him. We have to remember that, because of Pelosi, it was the biggest bipartisan group of viewers ever, so this includes intelligent Democrats, of the Lieberman ilk.
Most of the ones who didn't watch it have already made up their minds one way or the other, and don't care to learn anything else beyond their own pre-conceived notions. These are the people who yell the loudest in our country, because the media picks them to represent, so look like there are more than there are. For every Sheehan, there are hundreds of families of dead and wounded soldiers who are screaming at her to shut up and stop desecrating fighting against the cause of the soldiers and their memories.
They are also highly disproportionately represented in our media, so that you end up with silly reporters sayings silly things like one who stood in front of a bombed out building in Iraq and said "Iraqis aren't used to violence like this". That was hilarious, since with 1/2 million massacred Iraqis by Saddam and another 1/2 million from the war in Iran, and who knows how many from their invasion of Kuwait, there is hardly an Iraqi who doesn't have a missing family member, and another who was tortured.
Don't forget that. We had to learn that a long time ago. I still have family left in the military, and I don't tell them the horrors I read on these blogs, because I know these are the fringe. Some of them are well-meaning, and really think they are being helpful, trying to get our people out of war and bring them home. They are "useful idiots" ( read "Useful Idiots" by Mona Charon) for the people who are working hard to bring about the defeat of democracy in the Middle East, and by extension the defeat of America.
They have no clue the mentality of the fascists who use them in order to weaken us, and have a party to plan another bomb everytime Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, Shumer, Reid or Pelosi open their mouths. They have no idea that they are causing much more harm to our military and our country than the "neocons", who are nothing more than the true and original liberals of the USA, who believe that each and every human in the world has the right to self-determination, and it is our duty to help those who are ready to achieve this. They can not see the difference between working for the good of countries which, in the end, also benefits us.
They see no difference between dying Darfur, and dying for Iraq.
The reason the liberals want us to die in Darfur is because there is no long term good for us in it. There is no threat to us from that region. It would be useless death. Liberals like that. They hate it when we die for the good of our country's future.
They cannot see the big picture, and have been fooled into thinking they are doing "good" in the world and in our nation by constantly undermining our work in Iraq.
They are very, very lucky that the very people they are harming are still willing to put themselves in harm's way in order to assure their rights to keep opening their mouths.
Frankly, I am amazed that, after reading stuff like you see here and seeing our news, you still want to go risk your life for these people.
Posted by Tee off, a resident of another community, on Jan 29, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Wow. Where does one begin to attempt to cut through the nonsense, distortions and outright lies?
The "neighbor's house" analogy is stupefying. To continue the analogy, though. My uncle, whose name is Sam, helped build my neighbors house. My neighbor's name happened to be Saddam. Then my uncle didn't like the fact that my neighbor wasn't behaving the way my uncle wanted him to, so my uncle sets fire to my neighbor's house. Now I'm supposed to think that my uncle had some sort of altruistic aims in then trying to enlist me in putting out his fire? Sorry. The logic of this logic (to borrow from Richard Pryor) is absurd.
Complaining about Saddam Hussein invading two neighbors is even more disingenuous. One of these invasions was done with the not-so-covert support of my dear old, altruistic uncle, mentioned above. The chemical weapons came from, yes, my dear uncle, with technicalogical assistance from that other great humanitarian state, Germany (and who better to help with gassing civilians?). I'm referring to the Iran-Iraq war, in case it's not clear.
But then there are the strange cases of amnesia about all the countries (or neighbors, or whatever euphemism you care to use) who my uncle has invaded. I seem to remember being in the military in the late 60s and early 70s. Somewhere between 2 and 4 million people died as a result of what I took part in on behalf of my uncle.
Dow chemical, another humanitarian organization, got a commision from my uncle's caporegime (aka defense department) because it seems the that some people in Vietnam (another neighbor? big neighborhood, no?) were taking the napalm that got sprayed/splattered/dropped onto their persons and where removing it with their hands, causing significant burns. But that wasn't enough pain or injury. So Dow gets a commission to make a napalm that would stick better, so it would burn right through people.
And please. Those of you comparing Hitler and Stalin, please explain to me why those two were at war with each other? Why did 20 million people in the Soviet Union die fighting Hitler? Wouldn't it have been easier to capitulate and be done with Stalin? Take another look at that figure -- 20 million. That's what, 50 times as many Americans that died in WW2?
My post is more than a bit rambling. But then, there's so much lunacy that passes for intelligent thought in this country, witness Bill O'Reilly. I'm sure some of what's being posted here plays well at the Hoover Institute. How much of it is true?
Posted by Thomas, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Draw the Line thank you for the advice.
I am not going to risk my life fighting for the closed minded people that post here or for the viewer hungry media. What I am going to be fighting for is a democracy in the Middle East and I am going to be protecting is what everyone in this country takes for granite, which is the American constitution and Bill of Rights.I hope that in 50 years people will realize what happened and why, then I will look back and be the happiest man knowing that I stuck my neck out to get that outcome.