• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.S. Sizing Up Iran?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sardan said:
I'm opposed to dictatorships, undemocratic regimes and terrorists per se.

So of course Saudi Arabia will be next after Syria and Iran...

Unlikely, as we all know, as they are a client state of the US and and UK - SA is never mentioned during the usual frothing over 'undemocratic regimes', etc., even tho' that country has links to terrorism, is undemocratic, etc..

So calls for attacks on Iran and Syria are completely hypocritical - unless, of course, certain parties go after all regimes which are accused of such terrible things. If not, one has to draw the conclusion that what is really going on is an extension of the hegemony of those interested parties ;)
 
boynamedsue said:
"Terror" is any state, organisation or individual who prevents the aims of the US government or its client state Israel from being realised.

You big cynic. There are lots of governments that might oppose US interest, hell you could say France does, but they don't use bombings and attacks to pursue their ends. That is the difference. And the US (and UK) didn't go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq because of Israel.

boynamedsue said:
Iran has an unpleasant government and Syria has an extremely unpleasant government,

No argument there then.

boynamedsue said:
but neither of them have been such consistent and succesful supporters of terrorism as the USA.

Well This seems a little strong. The US have been responsible for some pretty dodgy things, mainly during the cold war but I'm not sure I would go as far as you do. How many Russian politicians (and civilians) were killed by US car bombs?

boynamedsue said:
In this particular confrontation both sides have atrocious leaderships, let's hope it doesn't boil over into a situation where civilians are at risk.

Well George W may be atrocious but he was elected in fair elections. The situation has already boiled over when Syria (if they were responsible) detonated a car bomb in Lebanon.

What gets me is that some people cannot see that these people (Iran and Syria) are pretty nasty pieces of work and that they have very little qualms about doing such things. It is good that someone (the US) opposes them.

The US may not have a clean sheet itself and it may not oppose every nasty regime (sudan anyone) but those two failings do not completely devalue the fact it is still good for the US to stand up to Iran and Syria.

Shit, I'd love a world without nuclear weapons but its too late for that. I'll settle for a world where regimes like Iran don't have nuclear weapons.
 
JerryB said:
Sardan said:
I'm opposed to dictatorships, undemocratic regimes and terrorists per se.

So of course Saudi Arabia will be next after Syria and Iran...

Unlikely, as we all know, as they are a client state of the US and and UK - SA is never mentioned during the usual frothing over 'undemocratic regimes', etc., even tho' that country has links to terrorism, is undemocratic, etc..

So calls for attacks on Iran and Syria are completely hypocritical - unless, of course, certain parties go after all regimes which are accused of such terrible things. If not, one has to draw the conclusion that what is really going on is an extension of the hegemony of those interested parties ;)

Well I doubt that they will be. Personally I am no friend of the Saudi regime. I also don't think they are a "client state", they are wealthy enough to choose their own allies. And they have chosen us. For the time being that is good as it may well assist us against even worse regimes. The US and UK should still be putting pressure on the Saudis to reform.

I'm with you until the last paragraph. You can't wage war against all regimes at once. I'm not sure if this is what you are suggesting. Is it an all or nothing fight of democratic regimes against non-democratic because most of the people I see saying the US should leave well alone would object to that as strongly if not more strongly than just the US waging war on Iraq.

So is it all or nothing? Attack all undemocratic regimes or none?

I think this is naive. By all means oppose all undemoctratic regimes and lobby for change but some of those regimes will be useful and will want to be our allies while others are threats to their people and others or up to some particular mischief with terrible consequences (building nuclear weapons). In those latter cases something ought to be done, oughtn't it?
 
I can just hear all those so caled innocent Iranian civilians saying "Dont blame me, its my government who is at fault"

Where have I heard this all before?
 
Sardan said:
boynamedsue said:
You big cynic. There are lots of governments that might oppose US interest, hell you could say France does, but they don't use bombings and attacks to pursue their ends. That is the difference. And the US (and UK) didn't go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq because of Israel.

A cynical view would be that Syria is next as it will save the delivery charges on the second hand military equipment destined for Isreal, after all it may be cheaper to flog it off than ship it home.
 
Homo Aves said:
I can just hear all those so caled innocent Iranian civilians saying "Dont blame me, its my government who is at fault"

Where have I heard this all before?
?
 
Sardan said:
boynamedsue said:
but neither of them have been such consistent and succesful supporters of terrorism as the USA.

Well This seems a little strong. The US have been responsible for some pretty dodgy things, mainly during the cold war but I'm not sure I would go as far as you do. How many Russian politicians (and civilians) were killed by US car bombs?

Dodgy? Mate, I'd say that was a bit of an understatement.

The US funded terrorists in Chile prior to the CIA backed overthrow of Salvador Allende (an elected leader who was replaced with a 20 year, US backed dictatorship)

Support for anti-communist terrorists in Colombia and Italy.

It paid for a proxy army of terrorists in Nicaragua. a country which, counter to US propoganda was both Socialist AND democratic.

It supported and likely funded the recent coup attempt in Venezuela, and I would be surprised if the CIA isn't involved with anti-Chavez terrorists there.

It supports Cuban exile groups who use terrorist tactics.

In Angola and Mozambique the U.S funded 30 years of civil war, along with its ally, apartheid South Africa.

In Panama the U.S ran a school for torturers which spread barbarity to every country in the Americas except Canada, Costa Rica and Cuba (hmmmm, all Cs :shock: )

In Afghanistan the US funded and trained Osama Bin Laden and other elements which would later coalless as the Taliban.

That's just off the top of my head, and excludes state terrorism by US clients. Perhaps if americans were more aware of this litany of shameful behaviour they wouldn't ask why terrorists attack them. Sozkids, it's your government's fault.
 
boynamedsue said:
Sardan said:
boynamedsue said:
but neither of them have been such consistent and succesful supporters of terrorism as the USA.

Well This seems a little strong. The US have been responsible for some pretty dodgy things, mainly during the cold war but I'm not sure I would go as far as you do. How many Russian politicians (and civilians) were killed by US car bombs?

Dodgy? Mate, I'd say that was a bit of an understatement.

The US funded terrorists in Chile prior to the CIA backed overthrow of Salvador Allende (an elected leader who was replaced with a 20 year, US backed dictatorship)

Support for anti-communist terrorists in Colombia and Italy.

It paid for a proxy army of terrorists in Nicaragua. a country which, counter to US propoganda was both Socialist AND democratic.

It supported and likely funded the recent coup attempt in Venezuela, and I would be surprised if the CIA isn't involved with anti-Chavez terrorists there.

It supports Cuban exile groups who use terrorist tactics.

In Angola and Mozambique the U.S funded 30 years of civil war, along with its ally, apartheid South Africa.

In Panama the U.S ran a school for torturers which spread barbarity to every country in the Americas except Canada, Costa Rica and Cuba (hmmmm, all Cs :shock: )

In Afghanistan the US funded and trained Osama Bin Laden and other elements which would later coalless as the Taliban.

That's just off the top of my head, and excludes state terrorism by US clients. Perhaps if americans were more aware of this litany of shameful behaviour they wouldn't ask why terrorists attack them. Sozkids, it's your government's fault.

Okay not a good list. I'm not going to try and deal with the ones I can (in Afghanistan for example the US wasn't opposing a democratically elected government - still they picked some pretty terrible allies) because that is not my point.

Do any of those things mean that:
1. Iran and Syria (et al) aren't bad regimes;
2. Iran and Syria are bad but we should bury our head in the sand; or
3. the US is wrong to oppose them.

I'm not tryingto judge the US on what it has (or hasn't done) on other issues just on whether or not it is right to oppose Syria and Iran.

Now the other issues are important, deserve publicising and should be dealt with BUT on their own merits rather than as a reason why something else is wrong.
 
Sardan said:
Okay not a good list. I'm not going to try and deal with the ones I can (in Afghanistan for example the US wasn't opposing a democratically elected government - still they picked some pretty terrible allies) because that is not my point.

Do any of those things mean that:
1. Iran and Syria (et al) aren't bad regimes;
2. Iran and Syria are bad but we should bury our head in the sand; or
3. the US is wrong to oppose them.

I'm not tryingto judge the US on what it has (or hasn't done) on other issues just on whether or not it is right to oppose Syria and Iran.

Now the other issues are important, deserve publicising and should be dealt with BUT on their own merits rather than as a reason why something else is wrong.

Who died and left the US as the world police force, I suspect enough countries could make a case for attacking the US to restore correct government or for Regime change.
 
That's my point Sardan. Whenever another confrontation errupts we are expected to forget the US's actions in the past. "OK mistakes have been made, but now these guy's are the baddies and we must face them down."

Americans seem to believe that their version of democracy is the be all and end all of political development. An Iranian may think the same, they too have a democracy limited to one end of the political spectrum, limited in their case not by money but by religious criteria.

America is not "good" merely because it's constitution enshrines it's citizen's liberties (in an incredibly narrow, civic interpretation of liberty). Its actions cause bloodshed throughout the world, and it is judged by them. It may be that any given attack by the US is not only violent but right. But given it's actions have been violent and wrong so many times in the past no-one in the rest of the world will ever give the US the benefit of the doubt again. It will count the bodies and seethe.

I'm sorry if this comes across as an anti-american rant, but Americans need to realise that just because something is done in a certain way in America, it isn't necessarily right.
 
Entia non multi said:
Who died and left the US as the world police force,

Ah here we go, your argument has nothing to do with Syria or Iran just a general distaste for the US.

[It does amaze me how the left can be so anti-american it forces itself into all kinds of funny positions such as defending Saddam Hussein or inviting radical Islamic clerics to the London Assembly. Still I suppose that is similiar to the US finding itself supporting those same people when the USSR was their enemy. ;) ]

No one made the US policeman except the US (and the inability of the Un to actually do anything useful).

I agree there are legitimacy issues but when the burglars are tooling themselves up I'd rather have a policeman of some description than none at all.

Entia non multi said:
I suspect enough countries could make a case for attacking the US to restore correct government or for Regime change.

Correct government eh? You are right a barbaric democracy of whatever political or religious persuasion has just as much legitimacy as a democratic governemnt. Don't you just love moral relativism?
 
boynamedsue said:
That's my point Sardan. Whenever another confrontation errupts we are expected to forget the US's actions in the past. "OK mistakes have been made, but now these guy's are the baddies and we must face them down."

Americans seem to believe that their version of democracy is the be all and end all of political development. An Iranian may think the same, they too have a democracy limited to one end of the political spectrum, limited in their case not by money but by religious criteria.

America is not "good" merely because it's constitution enshrines it's citizen's liberties (in an incredibly narrow, civic interpretation of liberty). Its actions cause bloodshed throughout the world, and it is judged by them. It may be that any given attack by the US is not only violent but right. But given it's actions have been violent and wrong so many times in the past no-one in the rest of the world will ever give the US the benefit of the doubt again. It will count the bodies and seethe.

I'm sorry if this comes across as an anti-american rant, but Americans need to realise that just because something is done in a certain way in America, it isn't necessarily right.

Hey I agree with a lot of that. However I think that calling Iran a democracy is a little bit too much. The Israelis have a very different system (they use party lists I bleieve) from the US system, hell so do we, but this isn't argument about flavours of democracy.

This is an argument about a country that has an oppressive illiberal (by any measure, US or otherwise) government that is unaccountable to its people and the world and wants to develop nuclear weapons and another which wants to terrorise and dominate its neighbours and destabilise the region.

I don't think you should forget America's past actions but linking them to their current actions just makes you sound anti-american (itself not an issue). Criticising their current actions not on their own merit but on the merit of other things is not a criticism of their current actions at all.

So what should be done? Should america stand by while Iran builds nukes and Syria blows up the lebanon? What should be done and who should do it?
 
Sardan said:
No one made the US policeman except the US (and the inability of the UN to actually do anything useful).

I agree there are legitimacy issues but when the burglars are tooling themselves up I'd rather have a policeman of some description than none at all.

Entia non multi said:
I suspect enough countries could make a case for attacking the US to restore correct government or for Regime change.

Correct government eh? You are right a barbaric democracy of whatever political or religious persuasion has just as much legitimacy as a democratic government. Don't you just love moral relativism?

Moral relativism is required, after all WASP politics and the US idea of Democracy are not the only possible form, infarct the US democratic system with The electoral colleges is less democratic than the UK system which it could be argued is less democratic than any form of proportional representation.

Sardan I may be incorrect but the Baathist partys are independant of each other and the same name is only due to the fact that the two countries share a language, the old UK Social Democratic Party, was not in anyway linked to the US Democratic party but both have similar names.

The UN would work if countries gave it a chance after all turning up to a debate orin the case of the UN a negotiation with a concrete list of demands will result in failure.
 
Yes, at least in classical times you were allowed to critise democracy. (and they had a much more effective one than ours ever could be)

And you could see the Persians good points, -even though they `were` an all too real threat.

What threat `is` Iran to us anyway? They sell better caviar than the ruskies do?
 
Sardan, if a pattern of bloody actions in foreign countries were detected in the foreign policy of Iran, all of these actions plausibly based on maintaining in power those who support Iranian interests, would you judge Iran's next foreign adventure without reference to (very) recent history?

Also, do you know why the Iranians hate the US?
 
boynamedsue said:
Also, do you know why the Iranians hate the US?

Couldn't possibly be due to an ill conceived attempt to keep the pro US Shah in power?? after all the Shining White Knight USA would never ever mess around in a sovereign countries government. :rofl:
 
Sardan said:
I'm with you until the last paragraph. You can't wage war against all regimes at once. I'm not sure if this is what you are suggesting. Is it an all or nothing fight of democratic regimes against non-democratic because most of the people I see saying the US should leave well alone would object to that as strongly if not more strongly than just the US waging war on Iraq.

So is it all or nothing? Attack all undemocratic regimes or none?

I think this is naive. By all means oppose all undemoctratic regimes and lobby for change but some of those regimes will be useful and will want to be our allies while others are threats to their people and others or up to some particular mischief with terrible consequences (building nuclear weapons). In those latter cases something ought to be done, oughtn't it?

My point was that the US and UK (or anyone else) cannot claim to decry the abhorrance of Syria and Iran for being opressive regimes, etc. - with a possible eye to taking military action - without being hypocritical. They turn a blind eye to client regimes who have just as bad a record - Saudi Arabia, for example. They also cannot really be said to be opposing any states because of a possible nuclear capability whilst they make no moves to curb those possessed by their client states (i.e. Israel, Pakistan).

As I've said before, if we're to take the current US stance against nuclear weapons proliferation as a good thing, it must be consistent. Either the US opposes all proliferation - and makes sure that Israel gets rid of it's nuclear capability - or it's policies will seem firmly rooted in it's own particular wants in any part of the world. Just because Israel is a democracy, it dosn't mean that it's a good thing that it has nuclear weapons. If the major nuclear powers really want to tackle proliferation, they must ensure that there is a wholesale ban right across the board. It's not good enough to let some states have such weapons whilst others are not - particularly if they're claiming to have world or regional safety in mind.

The main problem is that the current US stance seems to have more of a basis in what the US wants to do in the Middle East, rather than being some sort of vanguard for world peace. Unless it adopts a consistent approach, it's always going to be seen as simply extending it's own aims, focusing on it's own bugbears more than anything else.
 
Entia non multi said:
Couldn't possibly be due to an ill conceived attempt to keep the pro US Shah in power?? after all the Shining White Knight USA would never ever mess around in a sovereign countries government. :rofl:

You should go on mastermind, or Fox as a fair and balanced viewpoint...
 
entia - not sure what any of that has to do with the discussion. Democracies come in different flavours as do totalitarian regimes. Does that mean democracy = totalitarian regime?

Boynamedsue - You have a good point on that. I have little doubt that America acts in a self-interested way but i believe America's self interest is more in line with mine than Iran's

I'm not sure why Iranians do hate the US. Why do you think?
 
boynamedsue said:
Entia non multi said:
Couldn't possibly be due to an ill conceived attempt to keep the pro US Shah in power?? after all the Shining White Knight USA would never ever mess around in a sovereign countries government. :rofl:

You should go on mastermind, or Fox as a fair and balanced viewpoint...

That's why (many) Iranians hate the USA.

This is what I mean about the relevance of recent US policy. Because the US backed a despicable oil-rich regime, right to the end, Iranian revolutionaries supported terrorists opposed to the US.

It is hard to forgive and forget when you have been tortured by US trained torturers and your friends and relatives have been murdered by US trained death squads.
 
guess i should confess that i do have a soft spot for Iran having travelled through the country and found the locals friendly and the souks unspoilt (i.e. the prices where low as American Tourists can't go)
 
I know of several people who have been (one lived there for a while) and they liked the place too.

Its also hosted a few big international science conferences latley.
 
"There are lots of governments that might oppose US interest, hell you could say France does, but they don't use bombings and attacks to pursue their ends. "

You are joking, I assume?
Rainbow Warrior ring any bells??
 
"How many Russian politicians (and civilians) were killed by US car bombs? "

You tell me. Certainly plenty of Russians were killed in Afghanistan by US weapons.
But mainly it's things like Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicararagua and places like that which bother people about US foreign policy.

Oh, and about how many civilians would you say died in Panama, as a result of the operation to capture one allegedly CIA-backed drug baron called Noriega?
 
"The Israelis have a very different system (they use party lists I bleieve) from the US system, hell so do we, but this isn't argument about flavours of democracy. "

So the lack of Palestinian representation in the knesset is just a "flavour of democracy"?
 
"Should america stand by while Iran builds nukes and Syria blows up the lebanon?"

Well, it stood by while Israel built nukes and blew up the Lebannon.
Have you forgotten the Sabra and Shatila massacres in which between 700 and 3500 people were killed (and for which many would like to see Sharon tried for war crimes)?

And don't ever confuse anti-Bush (or anti-Reagan) with being anti-US.
America is in the best position to do the greatest good to the world, which is eactly why it is so unacceptable to fail.
 
Bush declares solidarity with Europe on Iran
Diplomacy is first choice, he says, but force cannot be ruled out
On military action against Iran, U.S. President George Bush says "never ... say never."

President Bush said Friday that Iran is trying to use the United States’ refusal to join European talks over Tehran’s nuclear program as an excuse for not giving up uranium enrichment.

In interviews on the eve of a trip by the president to Europe, Bush stressed that the United States preferred diplomacy and did not want to use military action against Iran over the nuclear question.

“What they’re trying to do is kind of wiggle out. They’re trying to say, ‘Well, we won’t do anything because America is not involved.’ Well, America is involved. We’re in close consultation with our friends,” Bush said.

He was speaking to Germany’s ARD television, one of a series of interviews he gave Friday prior to a trip to Belgium, Germany and Slovakia next week.

The European Union, represented by France, Britain and Germany, has been trying to persuade Iran to scrap any nuclear weapons-related activities in return for economic incentives.

The United States has rejected European calls for the Bush administration to bolster the EU’s leverage by getting involved in the bargaining and offering incentives of its own for Iran to end uranium enrichment activities.

Washington wants Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions — which Tehran denies having — and comply with International Atomic Energy Agency obligations, stop support for terrorism and allow democratic reforms.

In the ARD interview, Bush insisted that he wants a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the problem and said any talk of a military attack is “just not the truth.”

“We want diplomacy to work, and I believe diplomacy can work so long as the Iranians don’t divide Europe and the United States. And the common goal is for them not to have a nuclear weapon,” Bush told Belgium’s VRT television channel.

'Never ... say never'
“First of all you never want a president to say never, but military action is certainly not, is never the president’s first choice,” Bush said, when asked if he could rule out military action against Iran.

“Diplomacy is always the president’s, or at least always my first choice and we’ve got a common goal, and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon,” he said in the interview taped in Washington and broadcast before his arrival in Brussels Sunday for summits with NATO and the EU.

Bush suggested there was no divergence between the policy of Washington and Europe on Iran and said they could succeed together in ensuring that Iran did not develop an atom bomb.

“We’ve got a common goal and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon ... I think if we continue to speak with one voice and not let them split us up and keep the pressure on, we can achieve the objective,” he said.

“I’m convinced again that if the Iranians hear us loud and clear and without any wavering, that they will make the rational decision,” Bush said in an interview with France 3 television.

Israel said Wednesday that Iran was just six months away from having the knowledge to build nuclear weapons.

European leaders are hoping to convince Bush to take a bigger role in the negotiations with Iran. Former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton, the European Commission’s ambassador to the United States, said this week the leaders’ goal is “getting the United States involved in a more committed way” in their talks with Iran.

Bush is expected to use his trip to try to soothe ruffled feathers after a first term in which he has been criticized in Europe for riding rough-shod over the views of European leaders, particularly France’s President Jacques Chirac.

Russia proceeds with aid for Iran reactor
His comments came amid debate over Iran's nuclear intentions. Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that he is convinced Iran does not intend to develop nuclear weapons and said he plans to visit the nation.

Putin, at a meeting with Iranian National Security Council chief Hasan Rohani, also said Russia would continue its nuclear cooperation with Iran. Moscow has helped Iran build a nuclear reactor, a project that has been heavily criticized by the United States which fears it could be used to help Tehran develop nuclear weapons.

"The latest steps from Iran confirm that Iran does not intend to produce nuclear weapons and we will continue to develop relations in all spheres, including the peaceful use of nuclear energy," Putin said.

"We hope that Iran will strictly adhere to all international agreements, in relation to Russia and the international community," he said, adding that he had accepted an invitation by Iran's leadership for him to visit the country.

Russia's nuclear chief is expected in Iran next week to sign a protocol on returning spent nuclear fuel to Russia, the only remaining obstacle to the launch of the Russian-built reactor. If the signing goes ahead as planned on Feb. 26, it would pave the way for the deliveries of Russian nuclear fuel for the Bushehr reactor, which is set to begin operating in early 2006.

The protocol is aimed at reducing concerns that Iran could reprocess spent nuclear fuel from the $800 million Bushehr reactor to extract plutonium, which could be used in nuclear weapons. Moscow says that having Iran ship spent nuclear fuel back to Russia, along with international monitoring, will make any such project impossible.

By Reuters and the Associated Press.

Web version here.
 
Greets

(one for the diary?)

SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, 'COOKED' JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS

By Mark Jensen

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
February 19, 2005

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100 Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for Peace of Pierce County.

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/

mal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top