The Bush administration is using the turmoil in occupied Iraq to manufacture reasons to ignore diplomacy, as they did before the Iraq war, in order to ‘shock and awe’ bomb Iran. If the Neocons are seeking regime change then they may also be considering an invasion into Iran by our sorely neglected soldiers and marines.
I’m greatly concerned that given the Bush administration's abysmal track record on world diplomacy any war like action in Iran will blow up in their faces bringing great harm not only to the innocent men, women, and children in Iran but also to our nation.
I worry about Russia’s closeness to Iran; they are joined by the Caspian Sea and they have sent defensive missiles to Iran. Will they be drawn into this war?
Saudi citizens are sending money in the millions to the Sunnis of Iraq. Will they be drawn into the war?
Will they be igniting the spark, similar to the flash that lit WW One, which causes nations to divvy up sides for another world war?
Will the world view us as the aggressors and retaliate economically if not militarily against our interests?
Are we saying its okay for Saudi citizens to support their Sunni side but it’s not okay for Iranian citizens to do the same for the Shiite side?
Are we just using questionable evidence of Iranian involvement, at whatever level, as an excuse for war with Iran?
Are we now picking a side?
Will it be the Sunnis?
If we align with the Sunnis are we unwittingly siding with those tolerant to supportive of Al-Qaeda? It seems we may be doing exactly that.
Are we seeking support from both Saudi Arabia and radical elements among the Sunnis, loyal to Al Qaeda, for an attack against Iran?
Are we doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia?
Are we going to attempt to replay the old Iran-Iraq war? It sure seems we may be heading in that general direction.
Where is the national debate?
Where is the congressional authorization?
Where is the Bush administration credibility on intelligence leading to military adventurism?
NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.
I worry about this powerful and arrogant man being in such a weak position politically. All the issues were arguing about, the corruption investigations, bringing the troops home from Iraq and even his very low approval rating will all be on the back burner once he decides to attack Iran. I truly hope he’s facing strong pentagon resistance but he has managed to squeeze two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf.
I feel depressed about the whole thing. It all sounds so much like what we heard before the Iraq War.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
I’m greatly concerned that given the Bush administration's abysmal track record on world diplomacy any war like action in Iran will blow up in their faces bringing great harm not only to the innocent men, women, and children in Iran but also to our nation.
I worry about Russia’s closeness to Iran; they are joined by the Caspian Sea and they have sent defensive missiles to Iran. Will they be drawn into this war?
Saudi citizens are sending money in the millions to the Sunnis of Iraq. Will they be drawn into the war?
Will they be igniting the spark, similar to the flash that lit WW One, which causes nations to divvy up sides for another world war?
Will the world view us as the aggressors and retaliate economically if not militarily against our interests?
Are we saying its okay for Saudi citizens to support their Sunni side but it’s not okay for Iranian citizens to do the same for the Shiite side?
Are we just using questionable evidence of Iranian involvement, at whatever level, as an excuse for war with Iran?
Are we now picking a side?
Will it be the Sunnis?
If we align with the Sunnis are we unwittingly siding with those tolerant to supportive of Al-Qaeda? It seems we may be doing exactly that.
Are we seeking support from both Saudi Arabia and radical elements among the Sunnis, loyal to Al Qaeda, for an attack against Iran?
Are we doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia?
Are we going to attempt to replay the old Iran-Iraq war? It sure seems we may be heading in that general direction.
Where is the national debate?
Where is the congressional authorization?
Where is the Bush administration credibility on intelligence leading to military adventurism?
NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.
I worry about this powerful and arrogant man being in such a weak position politically. All the issues were arguing about, the corruption investigations, bringing the troops home from Iraq and even his very low approval rating will all be on the back burner once he decides to attack Iran. I truly hope he’s facing strong pentagon resistance but he has managed to squeeze two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf.
I feel depressed about the whole thing. It all sounds so much like what we heard before the Iraq War.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstein
Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunni insurgents
Updated 12/8/2006 7:29 AM ET
CAIRO (AP) — Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
More…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm
THE REDIRECTION
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
A STRATEGIC SHIFT
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
More…
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh
.
Hersh: U.S. Funds Being Secretly Funneled To Violent Al Qaeda-Linked Groups
New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.
More…
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda
Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunni insurgents
Updated 12/8/2006 7:29 AM ET
CAIRO (AP) — Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
More…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm
THE REDIRECTION
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
A STRATEGIC SHIFT
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
More…
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh
.
Hersh: U.S. Funds Being Secretly Funneled To Violent Al Qaeda-Linked Groups
New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.
More…
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda
US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents
John ByrnePublished: Sunday June 10, 2007
The U.S. military has confirmed that it is arming Sunni insurgent factions to try to contain al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, according to a report in Monday's New York Times by veteran Iraq correspondent John Burns.
"With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past."
more...
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_confirms_it_arming_Sunni
.
Not only would it be a very bad idea to attack Iran using nuclear bunker busters would compound the damage.
Please watch…..
Not only would it be a very bad idea to attack Iran using nuclear bunker busters would compound the damage.
Please watch…..
Union of Concerned Scientist
The Nuclear Bunker Buster animation
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html
and this…..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-uQmEcs2Fgg
and read this…..
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Medical Consequences of a Nuclear Attack on Iran
http://www.psr.org/site/PageServer?pagename=security_main_iranfactsheet
Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran
· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'
Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."
more...
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'
Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."
more...
More recently I have come to see the need for the method of nonviolence in international relations. Although I was not yet convinced of its efficacy in conflicts between nations, I felt that while war could never be a positive good, it could serve as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force. War, horrible as it is, might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system. But now I believe that the potential destructiveness of modern weapons totally rules out the possibility of war ever again achieving a negative good. If we assume that mankind has a right to survive then we must find an alternative to war and destruction. "Don't ever let anyone pull you so low as to hate them. We must use the weapon of love. We must have the compassion and understanding for those who hate us. We must realize so many people are taught to hate us that they are not totally responsible for their hate. But we stand in life at midnight; we are always on the threshold of a new dawn."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
