So DU, what do we do if the evil bastard invades Iran!!!???

as a third carrier group is heading out today and reports are that paetraeus is going to declare the iranian revolutionary guard enemy combatants... can WWIII be too far behind with the nuts in the whitehouse!! What will we do!?

:blush: :yoiks:

Cheney (the paranoid evil bastard) can be impeached. He's an elected official who swore an oath to defend the Constitution, and turned traitor.

I want a world for my kids and grandkids to grow up in

At least that's what some of our presidential candidates will do.

Then we can spend some time blaming the troops for taking orders and applaud the Democrats for being "poltically astute" with their long-term strategy of holding office. God forbid anyone risk their job ... let alone their life. That's for 'volunteers.'

hmm, seems to me the "troops" are under international obligations to refuse orders that are immoral, illegal, and unethical.

unless of course the troops are the equivalent of the SS.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

When you find a court (military or civilian) with jurisdiction that agrees the orders aren't legal, let me know.

The court martial of Army Lt. Ehren Watada begins near Tacoma, Washington on February 5, and he faces 6 years in federal prison for refusal to deploy. Shall we make some bets?

this board and elsewhere demand that soldiers stand up and go to prison for 6 years, that low-and middle-income ppl conduct lengthy work strikes and lose everything, but but but ...

When it comes to the privileged (and mostly rich) Congresspeople who, even if they lost the fight, would just go home to their posh neighborhoods, well! That's a different story! They have to make compromises to stay in office! They can't stick their necks out because someone might get mad at them! Impeachment is off the table! We can't defund the war, that might look bad on the front page of the NYT!

... and then say those already risking the most should "do more." Whether it's fat cats telling the working poor to "work harder" and "get trained" or the couch potatoes telling the "baby killers" to mutiny, it was the same forty years ago. The fact of the matter is that our nation can have no honor and will remain a nation of war criminals unless and until We The People risk life and limb and shed our own blood in the streets in non-violent civil disobedience to take back our own government.

"Let George do it" is how we got here. "Let George do it" is NOT a solution.

"THE FRENCH ARE PUSSIES"

"Today on CNN, victorious French troops marched into Washington D.C. to great fanfare and applause. After a short, two hour battle outside the capitol earlier today, American troops turned tail and ran, sparking a thunderous burst of laughter amidst the French troops"

:scared: I'm praying someone like John Warner takes a group of repukes to the WH and tells the SOB he's finished. He either stops what he's doing or they will recommend the House starts IMPEACHMENT proceedings.

There is always a certain house, in a certain southern state, that can command our incessant attention.

can't we evict this bum already (you know in the spirit of capitalism)?

bring your suntan lotion

And kiss our asses goodbye.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

If this sociopath decides to attack Iran there are options.

Our company - along w/ many in Silicon Valley (I am assuming) would STOP. This area is the bluest of the blue, but I'll lay odds the purples and many reds would also recognize the INSANITY.


For the second choice see my sig line.

I mean if I were going to attack America...New York is very populated and symbolic.

Then random daily demonstrations.
If there is no change, then move on to removing their propoganda mouthpieces.

Because if W can come up with some troops to invade Iran WITH, he obviously has godlike powers of control over time and space. I would suggest sacrificing a goat in his honor. Better yet, since DUers are more at risk of his wrath, make it a cow.

I don't know what's on his tiny little mind. Based on the carefully worded BS his people are putting out on the couple of news interviews I've seen, they're just daring Iran to start something, apparently in the rather stupid hope that this will somehow force Iran to stop backing Shiite IED attacks on the U.S. troops in Iraq. He seems to want to emulate Israel's recent tiff with Hezbollah, if they don't back down. A cordial exchange of missiles and bombs, in other words, followed by an edifying debate in the UN along the lines of "He started it!" "No, HE started it!"

Hey, George, Israel considers that one a massive failure! Hello! Killing masses of civilians in order to take out a few weapons systems is not an effective foreign policy! OY! Is this thing on?

Bush must have recently seen something on the History Channel for Kids about the Cuban missile crisis, and is pretending to be Kennedy backing down Kruschev. I wish someone would point out to him that Iran is not an island.

if U.S. air strikes turn out to be the first step in an actual invasion/occupation?

I can't see how an occupation of Iran will occur without the dreaded "D Word". The the proverbial sh*t will really hit the fan. But I've read some views on the net indicating that NeoCon supporters are already talking about how they believe an occupation of Iran will be much easier than the current occupation in Iraq--illustrating how those people are ideologically incapable of learning anything from even recent history. Iran is country with 3 times the population of Iraq, and despite the popularity of reforming the current regime, its support is easily wide and deep enough to cause far more grief to a U.S. occupation than the Sunni insurgents in Iraq have created. Then there's the fact that Iranians are generally very nationalistic. I doubt that even most of those who would like to see the current regime fall would be supportive of any nation invading their country--it seems likely that a significant number of them would be actively hostile to occupying forces.

How utterly insane it is that we even need to have this nearly identical debate again after all that's transpired in Iraq!

Congress must put a stop to Bush's ability to order any kind of military action against Iran without congressional approval. The American public has to understand the risks and possible consequences involved with an attack/occupation of Iran. So far all we hear is a constant drumbeat about the "imminent threat" from Iran.

I read somewhere that they were planning a Spring offensive in April. If they were planning solely to bomb Iran, then why worry about snow covered terrain? Unless there's more cloud cover over Iran at this time of year. I have a spooky feeling that they believe they've won Iraq (what with those yes-men generals in charge now) and will send troops into Iran. The junta doesn't care. If it goes balls up, they can always flee to their ranches in Paraguay and villas in Dubai.

When this happens I look for the entire Mideast to explode. Maybe not right away, but every country over there is just biding its time until they have us right where they want us. Moving into Iran brings us all one step closer to hell.

We need to amplify their voices on this. However powerless we might feel now, that is nothing compared to the situation we would be in after another war is started. Isn't that obvious from enough after what we have been through with Iraq? How many years has that war been going on already, even with all of our opposition to it?

We can do more immediately to stop the next war with Iran than we can do immediately to stop the current war in Iraq. I firmly believe that, but if we continue to treat our concern over pending conflict with Iran as a relative after thought to our focus on Iraq, I fear we will all need to be part of an anti-war movement for the next decade, at least.