You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

They Wouldn't Really Attack Iran, Would They? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 01:55 AM
Original message
They Wouldn't Really Attack Iran, Would They?
Advertisements [?]
http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?articleid=9498

They wouldn't really attack Iran, would they?
By: Paul Street
2007-08-11

Remember the old neoconservative half-joke that "sacking Baghdad is fine but real men go to Tehran?" We are moving into the time when many Washington watchers have thought it possible and even likely that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would order an attack on Iran .

They wouldn't really do it, would they?

God knows there are a large number of reasons for a rational White House NOT to attack. United States and global public opinion is opposed to a U.S. assault on Iran. So are European and other leading and allied governments, the U.S. intelligence community and much of the nation's military leadership. According to a February 25th "London Times" report, "most senior commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a strike against Iran."

- snip -

United States troops are overstretched and have been badly bloodied in Iraq. The American Empire's strung-out, battered and mostly working-class soldiers are increasingly skeptical about Bush's military adventurism (3).

- snip -

While "Iran cannot (militarily) defend itself against U.S. attack," Noam Chomsky recently noted, "it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting ever more havoc in Iraq. "Some issue warnings that are more grave," Chomsky adds, noting British military historian Corelli Barnett's judgment that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War Tthree" (5).

- snip -

A military strike against Iran would be thoroughly illegal under international law and the U.S. Constitution. It would evoke horror and condemnation across the world, further tarnishing the United States' fading "moral credentials" (Bzrezinski), especially if it employs (as it likely would) "low yield" nuclear missiles that would (as a senior U.S. intelligence official told Seymour Hersh) produce "mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties and contamination over years"(7).

MUCH MORE, VERY GOOD ARTICLE, AT LINK

Veteran radical historian, journalist, and speaker Paul Street s a Left political commentator in Iowa City, IA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC