people in denial of the impending Iran attack are unwitting enablers

the more people say "it can't be done, its madness, they won't do it, with what army....etc", the easier it becomes to relegate this issue to the back burner, which plays directly into their hands.
IMHO, we need to forcefully point out the folly of such a move YET warn everyone in power against doing it.

As long as people stick their heads in the sand about it happening, guarantees it will not only happen, but that there will be no organized or credible opposition to it when it does.

IMHO.

till it spills over to Iran, which it already has but that a secret.

bombs don't kill people.

People WITH bombs kill people.

Or something like that.

It's not like we'll use GROUND TROOPS or anything...

:sarcasm:

Could it happen? Yes. Is it likely? No. That's my assessment - do you think I should act as if I share your assessment? Or what?

What exactly are you asking us to do?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

invade Iraq and destroy our army there in retaliation for any major bombing attack on Iran.

I haven't seen any reports on it, but the Iranian would be fools if they did not have several divisions within spitting distance of the border, on alert and ready to respond. Sure, we have a couple hundred thousand troops in country, including the mercs, but they are scattered clear from the border of Kuwait to Syria to Turkey with a big concentration in Bagdhad. If Iran sent a hundred thousand troops across the border there is no way we could stop them, short of using nukes.

We would wind up with pieces of the army fleeing into Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey, while Bagdhad turns into Bastogne.

All it would take is a major strike against the supposed 'terror training camps' in Iran where Shi'ite militias, you know, the ones that support the puppet government we put in place, are being trained and equipped for their fight against...us?...?

your snark is unnecessary. how about petitioning your representatives to avoid such action? or, you can just write trite rebukes on your computer.

I don't want to get to deep into this, but I was mostly responding in kind.

Bryant

they claimed the buildup was just "saber rattling". By not taking the threat seriously, nothing was done.

I'm using the term "unwitting enablers" because they did not intend for the invasion to happen, but rather since they did not take it seriously enough, it became tacit default permission.

Iran. I certainly wouldn't make any definitive statements one way or another; but I don't personally think it is all that soon.

That said I'm not keen on cutting off an opinion because of what might happen. I'd be similarly offended if someone posted something saying "We should all shut up about invading Iran because it makes us look like paranoid dopes."

Bryant

my point instead was that not taking the threat seriously enough will actually make it easier to happen. More of a "wake up, people", sort of thing.

. . .who say that about Iran now, but never doubted we were going to Iraq? Sort of deflates your point, doesn't it?
GAC

on the potentiality of war with Iran: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234

looking for cover on their Iraq disaster, economic mess, and corruption investigations and this may be their last opportunity to continue their despicable agenda before they are thrown out of political office. I didn't believe bushco would have the audacity to attack Iran, but psychopaths are always bound and determined to have it their irrational, insane way. I hope congress can stop THEM before THEY start World War III.

the neocons need to cover their ass, and we know they don't give a flying *&%# about casualties or unintended consequences

i dont know if it is going to happen or not. if bush is working on it or not. but after three years of thinking that is what bush is working on, i am now standing, watching to see. three years is a long time to declare something that hasnt happened yet.

turned out to be such a terrific clusterfuck. I think they expected Iraq to be settled before the 04 election, then start some shit with Iran so we couldn't 'change horses' while the attack on Iran was going on.

And I still think the 'surge' was only meant to put more boots on the ground to have them there for when Iran retaliates for the upcoming air and cruise missile strikes on the nuclear facilities and 'terror training camps' in Iran.

Just call me paranoid.

it will be no small thing to try and ram through more of their nonsense at this particular point in time.

they've morphed the Iraq war into a "generational" conflict ala korea.
I'm confused why you think their agenda is failing. from where I sit, they're getting every damn thing they wanted.

That's the official story anyway. From where I sit, that's not working too well. I don't see any widespread support for a broadening of the war into Iran at this point in time, but of course, that could change.

:shrug:

we should know to never believe their publicly stated agenda.

were attacking iran. BUT.... and this is the big buttttt, iraq didnt go as planned. even then i continued to feel they were posturing for attack. further i wont be surprised by all out war. i suspect and have heard that there are operations in iran as it is... but war declared on iran seems iffy, after this time, and results of iraq.

but to suggest a person isnt on the bandwagon of they are attacking iran any day now should not speak out i think, isnt so spot on

generally i just keep mouth shut on this. but have been thinking of things we declared way back when was going ot happen and it hasnt yet. not so much because bushco doesnt want it to happen. but cause the are such clusterfucks and incompetent they arent able to make it happen.

God damn martian sympathizers.

They look down their noses at us. They are insufferably arrogant.
Lee

:shrug:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/03/MN306918.DTL

On Wednesday, CNN didn't deny that it knew anything about the war's start date, but a network official, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said picking the 19th was merely a good guess. The official said CNN's reporters have a lot of good government contacts and various dates had been tossed around.

Other networks were also making guesses -- a source at CBS said the news department was convinced it was March 20 -- but those musings began roughly two weeks after CNN's "guess" and just before the war started. If your memory can rush back through the fog of war, you'll recall that on March 4, it was diplomacy -- or faltering diplomacy -- that dominated the headlines. It wasn't until more than a week later, when the British suddenly proposed March 17 as a drop-dead date for U.N. Security Council bickering and Iraqi compliance, that a start date was even imaginable.

After that, President Bush announced his now famous 48-hour deadline and, when the 48 hours ran out -- on Wednesday, March 19 -- war started.



War and Globalization
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&q=Hijacking+Catastrophe&total=29&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7


Hijacking Catastrophe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SltOy_F6ZII&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZaWh0cJPQ&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8S_vOZqJbE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GT7ti8LZ6A&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkOtqGNJ8qI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C02QHS0D44&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kBX00TR-aA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jghh00bn_DA&mode=related&search=


“Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.”


She's present in our country right now, just waiting to make her - to carry out her divine mission



http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/27/1454229

CHALMERS JOHNSON: Nemesis was the ancient Greek goddess of revenge, the punisher of hubris and arrogance in human beings. You may recall she is the one that led Narcissus to the pond and showed him his reflection, and he dove in and drowned. I chose the title, because it seems to me that she's present in our country right now, just waiting to make her -- to carry out her divine mission.

By the subtitle, I really do mean it. This is not just hype to sell books -- “The Last Days of the American Republic.” I’m here concerned with a very real, concrete problem in political analysis, namely that the political system of the United States today, history tells us, is one of the most unstable combinations there is -- that is, domestic democracy and foreign empire -- that the choices are stark. A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can't be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, like the old Roman Republic, it will lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship.

I’ve spent some time in the book talking about an alternative, namely that of the British Empire after World War II, in which it made the decision, not perfectly executed by any manner of means, but nonetheless made the decision to give up its empire in order to keep its democracy. It became apparent to the British quite late in the game that they could keep the jewel in their crown, India, only at the expense of administrative massacres, of which they had carried them out often in India. In the wake of the war against Nazism, which had just ended, it became, I think, obvious to the British that in order to retain their empire, they would have to become a tyranny, and they, therefore, I believe, properly chose, admirably chose to give up their empire.

As I say, they didn't do it perfectly. There were tremendous atavistic fallbacks in the 1950s in the Anglo, French, Israeli attack on Egypt; in the repression of the Kikuyu -- savage repression, really -- in Kenya; and then, of course, the most obvious and weird atavism of them all, Tony Blair and his enthusiasm for renewed British imperialism in Iraq. But nonetheless, it seems to me that the history of Britain is clear that it gave up its empire in order to remain a democracy. I believe this is something we should be discussing very hard in the United States.

Boy are you going to feel silly when they actually invade.

and give me details of this martian invasion.

Martian warships have been moving into the region for some time now.

The National Adult Literacy Survey represents 190 million U.S. adults over age sixteen with an average school attendance of 12.4 years. The survey is conducted by the Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey. It ranks adult Americans into five levels. Here is its 1993 analysis:

Forty-two million Americans over the age of sixteen can’t read. Some of this group can write their names on Social Security cards and fill in height, weight, and birth spaces on application forms.


Fifty million can recognize printed words on a fourth- and fifth-grade level. They cannot write simple messages or letters.


Fifty-five to sixty million are limited to sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade reading. A majority of this group could not figure out the price per ounce of peanut butter in a 20-ounce jar costing $1.99 when told they could round the answer off to a whole number.


Thirty million have ninth- and tenth-grade reading proficiency. This group (and all preceding) cannot understand a simplified written explanation of the procedures used by attorneys and judges in selecting juries.


About 3.5 percent of the 26,000-member sample demonstrated literacy skills adequate to do traditional college study, a level 30 percent of all U.S. high school students reached in 1940, and which 30 percent of secondary students in other developed countries can reach today. This last fact alone should warn you how misleading comparisons drawn from international student competitions really are, since the samples each country sends are small elite ones, unrepresentative of the entire student population. But behind the bogus superiority a real one is concealed.


Ninety-six and a half percent of the American population is mediocre to illiterate where deciphering print is concerned. This is no commentary on their intelligence, but without ability to take in primary information from print and to interpret it they are at the mercy of commentators who tell them what things mean. A The National Adult Literacy Survey represents 190 million U.S. adults over age sixteen with an average school attendance of 12.4 years. The survey is conducted by the Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey. It ranks adult Americans into five levels. Here is its 1993 analysis:

Forty-two million Americans over the age of sixteen can’t read. Some of this group can write their names on Social Security cards and fill in height, weight, and birth spaces on application forms.


Fifty million can recognize printed words on a fourth- and fifth-grade level. They cannot write simple messages or letters.


Fifty-five to sixty million are limited to sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade reading. A majority of this group could not figure out the price per ounce of peanut butter in a 20-ounce jar costing $1.99 when told they could round the answer off to a whole number.


Thirty million have ninth- and tenth-grade reading proficiency. This group (and all preceding) cannot understand a simplified written explanation of the procedures used by attorneys and judges in selecting juries.


About 3.5 percent of the 26,000-member sample demonstrated literacy skills adequate to do traditional college study, a level 30 percent of all U.S. high school students reached in 1940, and which 30 percent of secondary students in other developed countries can reach today. This last fact alone should warn you how misleading comparisons drawn from international student competitions really are, since the samples each country sends are small elite ones, unrepresentative of the entire student population. But behind the bogus superiority a real one is concealed.


Ninety-six and a half percent of the American population is mediocre to illiterate where deciphering print is concerned. This is no commentary on their intelligence, but without ability to take in primary information from print and to interpret it they are at the mercy of commentators who tell them what things mean. A working definition of immaturity might include an excessive need for other people to interpret information for us.

what did you think of the pending Iraq invasion

Weren't you just talking about literacy?

did you think he would do it? and maybe you should READ it


Do you have short term memory loss?

Which is indirect proof of the imminent martian invasion.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/03/MN306918.DTL

On Wednesday, CNN didn't deny that it knew anything about the war's start date, but a network official, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said picking the 19th was merely a good guess. The official said CNN's reporters have a lot of good government contacts and various dates had been tossed around.

Other networks were also making guesses -- a source at CBS said the news department was convinced it was March 20 -- but those musings began roughly two weeks after CNN's "guess" and just before the war started. If your memory can rush back through the fog of war, you'll recall that on March 4, it was diplomacy -- or faltering diplomacy -- that dominated the headlines. It wasn't until more than a week later, when the British suddenly proposed March 17 as a drop-dead date for U.N. Security Council bickering and Iraqi compliance, that a start date was even imaginable.

After that, President Bush announced his now famous 48-hour deadline and, when the 48 hours ran out -- on Wednesday, March 19 -- war started.



War and Globalization
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&q=Hijacking+Catastrophe&total=29&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7


Hijacking Catastrophe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SltOy_F6ZII&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZaWh0cJPQ&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8S_vOZqJbE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GT7ti8LZ6A&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkOtqGNJ8qI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C02QHS0D44&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kBX00TR-aA&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jghh00bn_DA&mode=related&search=


“Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.”


She's present in our country right now, just waiting to make her - to carry out her divine mission



http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/27/1454229

CHALMERS JOHNSON: Nemesis was the ancient Greek goddess of revenge, the punisher of hubris and arrogance in human beings. You may recall she is the one that led Narcissus to the pond and showed him his reflection, and he dove in and drowned. I chose the title, because it seems to me that she's present in our country right now, just waiting to make her -- to carry out her divine mission.

By the subtitle, I really do mean it. This is not just hype to sell books -- “The Last Days of the American Republic.” I’m here concerned with a very real, concrete problem in political analysis, namely that the political system of the United States today, history tells us, is one of the most unstable combinations there is -- that is, domestic democracy and foreign empire -- that the choices are stark. A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can't be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, like the old Roman Republic, it will lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship.

I’ve spent some time in the book talking about an alternative, namely that of the British Empire after World War II, in which it made the decision, not perfectly executed by any manner of means, but nonetheless made the decision to give up its empire in order to keep its democracy. It became apparent to the British quite late in the game that they could keep the jewel in their crown, India, only at the expense of administrative massacres, of which they had carried them out often in India. In the wake of the war against Nazism, which had just ended, it became, I think, obvious to the British that in order to retain their empire, they would have to become a tyranny, and they, therefore, I believe, properly chose, admirably chose to give up their empire.

As I say, they didn't do it perfectly. There were tremendous atavistic fallbacks in the 1950s in the Anglo, French, Israeli attack on Egypt; in the repression of the Kikuyu -- savage repression, really -- in Kenya; and then, of course, the most obvious and weird atavism of them all, Tony Blair and his enthusiasm for renewed British imperialism in Iraq. But nonetheless, it seems to me that the history of Britain is clear that it gave up its empire in order to remain a democracy. I believe this is something we should be discussing very hard in the United States.

Do you dismiss him too?

There hasn't been the effort justifying a war in Iran that was present before the war in Iraq. Further, it would be extremely difficult to get the sufficient support necessary to partake in such a mission unless Iran did something really stupid. There are too many people who are interested in the wellbeing of the Republican Party to attack Iran without garnering the support of a significant proportion of the population. It is fairly safe to say that, unless something unexpected happens in the region, an attack on Iran is not going to happen any time soon and is not going to happen without efforts to justify the war to the American public.

There's been plenty of stuff already "reported" to justify the war to the American public. And that will continue, did you happen to hear Lieberman?

in the world. Once you start to see a divergence then you want to start getting worried.

There are not a sufficient number of Republican politicians speaking for a war with Iran. There are not enough Republican voters advocating a war with Iran. There is a reoccurring theme of the appropriate public statements preceding most wars that has yet to occur making it so at the very least there is no reason to expect such a war to be imminent. Combining this with the discontent towards that Iraq war and a shortage of troops makes the prospects of a war with Iran unlikely. You might be right; but, I believe, you would be right by chance and not based on an objective analysis of the situation at hand.

Regardless, I'm sure we can agree to hope that I am right. The situation in the Middle East is bad enough right now. We don't need to add flames to the fire.

this is a perfect example: by ridiculing, belittling and marginalizing the discussion, you tacitly enable it to happen when it does.
Only by taking this deadly seriously can we prevent it. As long as snarky, dismissive comments are made, it relegates the importance and discourages anyone from taking any action.

when we invade Iran, I will not be able to sleep because of what they have done, but at least I won't be losing sleep because I minimalized the threat.

How about you?

Where I heard that before?

Don

I'm saying not taking it seriously enough creates an atmosphere where it can happen and not be prepared for.

In that way, not seeing the gravity of the threat can actually, IMHO, make the eventuality more probable.

I'm speaking to the dynamic of how this administration spin machine works, and how we can be unwitting pawns of it.

:)

hence the term "unwitting", not sure how much clearer I can make that.
However, even though you're not intentionally creating the situation, your lack of concern enables the situation to continue without being taken seriously, and checked before it happens.

Its like if you say your house will never burn down, so you ignore the smoke detectors or don't install them. So when it DOES burn down, you're unprepared.

well, there is no perfect analogy, I guess.

Lieberman wants to be the first GI-Joe on that beach!

We're At War With Somalia?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1026383




http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01082007.html

Neoconservatives have called for World War IV against Islam. In Commentary magazine Norman Podhoretz called for the cultural genocide of Islamic peoples. The war is already opened on four fronts: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iran.

The Bush administration has used its Ethiopian proxies to overthrow the Somalian Muslims who overthrew the warlords who drove the US from Somalia. The US Navy and US intelligence are actively engaged with the Ethiopian troops in efforts to hunt down and capture or kill the Somalian Muslims. US Embasy spokesman Robert Kerr in Nairobi said that the US has the right to pursue Somalia's Islamists as part of the war on terror.

For at least a year the Bush administration has been fomenting and financing terrorist groups within Iran. Seymour Hersh and former CIA officials have exposed the Bush administration's support of ethnic-minority groups within Iran that are on the US State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Last April US Representative Dennis Kucinich wrote a detailed letter to President Bush about US interference in Iran's internal affairs. He received no reply.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=949535



It seems to me they're doing the same thing now with Iran?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1112798&mesg_id=1112798


Cheney & co. pushing Iran arms to Taliban meme, but IT'S A LIE!

Iran-Arms-to-Taliban Gambit Rebuffed

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/12/1832 /

Cheney’s Iran-Arms-to-Taliban Gambit Rebuffed
by Gareth Porter

snip//

The line being pushed by the Cheney group in the administration that Iran is supplying the Taliban with arms appears to be based on a highly imaginative reading of some recent intelligence reporting on Iranian contacts with the Taliban. A source with access to that reporting, who insists on anonymity because he is not authorised to comment on the matter, told IPS that it indicates Iranian intelligence has had contacts with the top commanders of the Taliban’s inner Shura — the leadership council located in Kandahar.

However, the source also says these intelligence reports do not provide any specific evidence of an Iranian intention to give weapons to the Taliban.

The Cheney group is evidently arguing within the administration that the mere existence of contacts between Iranian intelligence and Taliban commanders, combined with the presence of arms or Iranian origin, is sufficient reason to conclude that Iran has changed its policy toward the Taliban.

That argument parallels a key assertion made by Cheney and other neoconservative officials in constructing the case for war against Iraq in 2002. They insisted that any contact between an official of the Iraqi government at any level and anyone in al Qaeda was sufficient proof of its support for al Qaeda terrorism.

Afghanistan specialist Seth Jones of the Rand Corporation, who visited Afghanistan most recently in early 2007, says some elements of the Iranian government may be involved in arms trafficking but that it is “very small-scale support” and that Iran does not want to strengthen the Taliban.

NATO commanders in Pakistan have long been aware that the Taliban has been dependent on Pakistan for its arms and ammunition. The Telegraph reported Sunday that a NATO report on a recent battle shows the Taliban fired an estimated 400,000 rounds of ammunition, 2,000 rocket-propelled grenades and 1,000 mortar shells and had stocked over one million rounds of ammunition, all of which came from Quetta, Pakistan during the spring months.

so this proves my point, actually.

the fear card. It's NOT inevitable that we bomb Iran. THEY need to prove it with facts, not talking wh heads.

nothing you or I or any of our Senators/congress critters can do will stop it. They don't give a fuck what any of us think--they've made that extremely clear.

Just kidding. I'm so damned pissed off I can't even see straight, (not that I do much anyway, (see)). TINFOIL ANYONE? We're running out, but we still have some.

The question is really which of the administration factions will win the battle over this issue. Cheney et al. want an invasion, but Gates does not.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061307J.shtml

Both Gates and McNeill denied flatly last week that there is any evidence linking Iranian authorities to those arms. Gates told a press conference on Jun. 4, "We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it's smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." Gates said that "some" of the arms in question might be going to Afghan drug smugglers.

The commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. McNeill, implied that the arms trafficking from Iran is being carried out by private interests. "hen you say weapons being provided by Iran, that would suggest there is some more formal entity involved in getting these weapons here," he told Jim Loney of Reuters June 5. "That's not my view at all."

Gates and McNeill are obviously aware of the link between arms entering Afghanistan from Iran and the flow of heroin from Afghanistan into Iran. It is well known that Afghan drug lords who command huge amounts of money have been able to penetrate the long and porous border with ease. They have undoubtedly been involved in buying arms in Iran with their drug proceeds for both themselves and the Taliban, which protects their drug routes. Smuggling is relatively easy because of the money available for bribery of border guards.

Another factor helping to explain the influx of arms from Iran, as noted by former Pakistani Ambassador to Afghanistan Rustam Shah Momand in an interview on Pakistan's GEO television Apr. 19, is that the Taliban now controls areas on the Iranian border for the first time. Momand said the Taliban, which is awash in money from the heroin exports to Iran, buys small quantities of weapons in Iran and smuggles them back into Afghanistan.

There have been at least a dozen times in the last few years when people have said that an attack on Iran was imminent, usually with a date attached. It never happened, and moving back the goalposts every time one of these predictions happens is reaching the point of almost parody.

It's not happening. Period. The only reason they continue to talk about Iran is as a convenient excuse for the clusterfuck that has happened in Iraq, and to try and whip up a little more fear to bolster their approval ratings. It's empty rhetoric.

But I wouldn't put it past Bush to start a bombing/missile campaign from those navy ships just before Christmas 2008...ESPECIALLY if a Democrat has been officially confirmed as the next President (by both the election results and the House certification).

They still need the "proof" to invade. They must be cooking it as we speak.
The issue is what can the people do about it? I dont think peaceful protests will work.