?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Fighting Back Against Madness and Evil - Synchronicity swirls and other foolishness

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> my rpg writing site

August 31st, 2007


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
01:40 am - Fighting Back Against Madness and Evil
I've been hearing about this for some time, but it looks like the monsters that rules the White House are finally trying to seriously push for a war with Iran, presumably more than anything else to attempt to recapture the backing of the American people for the Republican party, or at least to distract people for the next year or so. I don't think they'll manage to start this war, but I'm also far from certain about this. If it happens, the feelings expressed here remain true, there is only one just and right side in such a war, and it wouldn't be the US. However, we need to stop this madness and evil before it starts.


code

Current Mood: angryangry

(15 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:pompe
Date:August 31st, 2007 09:21 am (UTC)
(Link)
Ah, so _that's_ why People predict Economical Turmoil in the coming month.

Seriously, your leaders can't be that stupid, can they? From a purely logistical view, I mean, are there any forces left to use and any people left to volunteer?
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:August 31st, 2007 09:32 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think at least some of the people in power assume their god will help them, while the rest don't care as long as they can make a large amount of money in war profiteering and help their allies win the next election. Given that these are the same people who quite literally expected the Iraqi people to welcome US troops with open arms, expecting sense or reason from the current US administration is an utterly lost cause.

Not only aren't there anything remotely resembling a sufficient number of troops, but unlike Iraq, Iran actually has a functional and semi-modern military, and there would be an actual and protracted war, unlike the brief war followed by a horrible rebellion in Iraq. I've heard rumors that the people in power might decide to make this conquest "easier" by using nuclear weapons, which is deeply horrifying from a moral, military, economic, political, and pretty much every other possible PoV. Sadly, that doesn't mean it won't happen.
[User Picture]
From:pompe
Date:August 31st, 2007 09:42 am (UTC)
(Link)
Plus, Iran has three times the people and a tougher terrain.

Perhaps what is planned is some joint Israeli-US "surgical" strike followed by a seriously uneasy Time of Threats, wherein your leaders can point to an - obviously - angry Iranian state and hammer home "we bombed their nuclear factories in the name of peace, now they plot evil revenge" and work up "we-must-stick-together-loyally-because-the-islamists-threaten-us" rhetoric with more ease.
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:August 31st, 2007 09:49 am (UTC)
(Link)
I would hope the Israeli government is not quite so suicidally foolish, but I'm also far from willing to bet on that fact. OTOH, I can also see them encouraging the US to make this effort, while making certain not to be directly involved. If such an attack happened, and Israel was directly involved, it would be an even more popular target for retaliation than the US.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:August 31st, 2007 11:28 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I make a fair number of political posts and after a bit of considerations, I've decided I have absolutely no interest in seeing reactionary war-mongering in my journal. Please refrain from commenting on my political posts in the future.
[User Picture]
From:mindstalk
Date:September 1st, 2007 05:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Was that Jordan? Over there you "support the enemy".
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:September 1st, 2007 07:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It was indeed. I just looked over on his site and I must say that I'm exceptionally amused. And also, oddly he thinks I'm female.
[User Picture]
From:thiebes
Date:August 31st, 2007 02:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks for posting. I've just been informed the sob-u-sob number is no longer working. So there is new code which you can grab at the same place. Here's the new banner:


code
[User Picture]
From:talonstrike
Date:August 31st, 2007 05:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm even more worried that the current administration will use such a conflict to retain power beyond the allotted two terms by declaring martial law.
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:August 31st, 2007 06:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think that would be an absolutely certain way to insure both impeachment proceedings being started in Congress and a possible revolt by the military.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:talonstrike
Date:September 1st, 2007 12:01 am (UTC)
(Link)
During a time of war a president may declare a state of emergency and remain in office beyond the expiration of his term. It's a temporary measure (i.e NOT a third term) designed to protect the well-being of the country, but easily abused.
[User Picture]
From:mindstalk
Date:September 1st, 2007 05:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
AFAIK the US Constitution has no such provisions. I'd note that we had elections on schedule not just during WWII, but in the middle of the Civil War. Well, near the end for Lincoln, but AFAIK the mid-term Congressional elections went on as normal (minus the seceding states, of course.) Yep:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_1862

So, they could try, but the precedents are rather poor.
From:roundrockjoe
Date:September 2nd, 2007 12:46 am (UTC)

Found your journal from one of your detractors

(Link)
But you say, "...there is only one just and right side in such a war..."

Typically, there are no just and right sides in such a war.

-joe
[User Picture]
From:heron61
Date:September 2nd, 2007 02:22 am (UTC)

Re: Found your journal from one of your detractors

(Link)
I saw that post, and am deeply amused to have caused so much of a stir among such people.

While Iran is far from a model of tolerance or democracy, or anyplace I would remotely wish to live, it is nevertheless a democratically elected state that is quite literally no threat to the United States. Yes, the leaders (and many residents) utterly loathe the US, but that feeling has it roots in decades of bad US foreign policy, starting with supporting the Shah of Iran. Attacking it is wrong and if the US attacks Iran, I'll be flying an Iranian flag in front of my dwelling and will be encouraging everyone else I know to do the same. However, I very much hope that Congress will at least stop this latest vile and idiotic venture.
From:roundrockjoe
Date:September 2nd, 2007 02:41 am (UTC)

Re: Found your journal from one of your detractors

(Link)
I disagree that Iran is "literally no threat" to the United States. With or without nuclear weapons, they could close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's oil supplies flow. They could fly a kamikazee jet into an aircraft carrier. They could invade Iraq and kill American soldiers. They could stop producing oil.

They are an insufficient threat to justify bombing or invasion--especially when it is well within possibility that we could woo the populace away from the Mullahs with patience, diplomacy and restraint.

Your certainly free to fly whatever flag you wish, but I think that would be more provocative than effective in changing policy. And changing policy will be what matters most in whether or not Iranian children are killed.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com