18 Comments so far

1. RichM February 19th, 2007 4:13 pm

   Blix is probably being naive here. The Bush admin probably came to a reasonable-sounding agreement with N Korea only to “clear the decks” — to get ready for Iran. They probably calculate that they’ll deal with N Korea later.

2. pbdenison February 19th, 2007 5:23 pm

   I have been worried about Bush and Iran for a long time. If he launches an attack without the approval of Congress, he should be impeached and removed from office. Also, that is a violation of the UN Charter, and he should be tried forf war crimes. Also, any government official who carries out his orders should be subject to impeachment.

3. Earthian February 19th, 2007 5:47 pm

   RichM and pbdenison have it right I think. Blix says this:

   “It is difficult to understand why, in the case of Iran, the suspension of the program for enrichment of uranium has been made a precondition for any talks in which such suspension is the main subject.”

   No, that is not difficult to understand: that precondition, which denies Iran’s “inalienable right” according to Article 4 of the NPT, is designed to prevent talks and eliminate the threat of a diplomatic solution.

   Bush and Cheney don’t want a win/win solution. They want a win/lose solution. I think they’ll get it, but not on the side they want.

   Earthian

4. fedupwithpolitics February 19th, 2007 5:51 pm

   Why not in Iran, too? Because the Bush administration has Israel and AIPAC, along with the remaining neocons, shouting for an attack on Iran. An attack which, by the way, was planned a long time ago.

5. amiable February 19th, 2007 6:36 pm

   I don’t know how we say this loudly enough: We Cannot Allow This Administration to Bully, Terrorize or Deceive Us into a War with Iran. The folly — and consequences — of that will make Iraq seem like a game.

   What are we going to do about this, people? What does it take to bring the citizens of this great democracy to their feet?

6. Jaded Prole February 19th, 2007 8:17 pm

   The necon thugs know that once they bomb Iran it’ll be “too late” to stop or say no and the Congress will not be able to do anything because Iran of course will fight back and the opportunist Dims will not want to look “weak on defense” in a selection year. The need to be removed from power pronto and Dims that refuse to move in that direction need to be put on notice.

7. iammyself February 19th, 2007 9:31 pm

   fedupwithpolitics,

   You got it!

   Also…the whole ruse about Iranian bombs being used against American GIs in Iraq is meant as an end-run around Congress. No debate or approval necessary (not that Congress has the guts to) ’cause it’s just an extension of the same war!

   Man, you gotta give these motherf___ers credit for knowing how to twist the Constitution, the traitors!

8. Robert Settgast February 19th, 2007 9:55 pm

   WAR RESOLUTION

   All Too Relevant Quote: How is the World Ruled, & how do wars start?—
   Diplomats tell lies to journalists, & then believe what they read.
   (Karl Kraus, Austrian Press,1874-1936)

   Even with our limited information on this war, it is all to evident that our legislators erred when they granted this unlearned and arrogant administration the authority to embark on and perpetuate this disastrous misadventure.

   The weapons inspectors were there and we had contained Saddam. The resulting “civil war” and chaos had been predicted by many informed experts, and should have been obvious–but their advice was ignored. One can only imagine the extent of disaster if Saddam had unleashed some biological, chemical, or primitive nuclear weapons on our troops during the invasion.

   After nearly four years, the only rational option left now is for congress to seize the war powers from the president–and then pursue a logical course to conclude this misadventure. This would include not only recognition of the recent advisory commissions recommendations (which the administration ignored) but also curbing profiteering, promoting measures for energy conservation and global warming mitigation to reduce our dependance on their oil–and regain some worldwide trust.

   The alternative is to permit continuation of this disastrous quagmire, while risking a war with Iran and destabilization of the entire area– and further damaging our international stature.

   Robert Settgast
   San Rafael, CA

9. mark February 20th, 2007 1:44 am

   #
   pbdenison February 19th, 2007 5:23 pm

   I have been worried about Bush and Iran for a long time. If he launches an attack without the approval of Congress, he should be impeached and removed from office. Also, that is a violation of the UN Charter, and he should be tried forf war crimes. Also, any government official who carries out his orders should be subject to impeachment.”

   You’re letting the lies that led to the invasion of Iraq slide huh?

   Bush should have been removed from office more than two years ago. The question you should be asking yourself - if you’re American and of the peaceful mind - is why have you let him be? Why have you just sat around and let this happen? Where is your conscience? Why haven’t you acted sooner? Why aren’t you living protest instead of just giving it lip-service?

10. towanda February 20th, 2007 9:34 am

    In answer to pbdenison’s excellent questions, I am guessing that there are two primary reasons for our collective acquiescense: complacency and alienation from one another - both intended outcomes of our “democracy,” aka greed-driven consumerist culture.

    We literally cannot help it; the mostly well-educated middle-to- upper class protestors are too prosperous, too comfortable, to effectively revolt. We like to argue, to debate, and to feel morally superior, but do we really want to sacrifice our comfortable lifestyles to an actual revolution? History tells us that in revoltions, people get attacked, and people get hurt. People die. Can’t we just pack a picnic lunch, make a speech and sing a few songs instead?

    Agree with her or not, like her or not, Cindy Sheehan had the right idea in Crawford, Texas. She was not afraid to risk everything for her beliefs. And for a few minutes at least, there seemed to be some kind of unification going on out there.

    If all the different factions of the peace movement would set aside their differences and pull together, shouting the same message with one voice instead of ten thousand, maybe there would be a chance of being heard. In a true democracy, majority rules. It’s time to step up and behave like a true democracy.

11. corvo February 20th, 2007 10:24 am

    Blix and El Baradei both helped Bush make the case for war with Iraq–even if they were too clueless to realize it. They’re now part of the Great Trash Heap of History. Who cares what they say? Bush and his fellow thugs certainly don’t; and we have better voices on our side already.

12. sdemetri February 20th, 2007 10:43 am

    I wouldn’t write off Blix or El Baradei wholesale. They are international diplomats, and move about in a world most of us know little about.

    The juggernaut that is the US Administration once in motion is not an easy thing to turn back. Both men have spoken out publically at the insanity of military action against Iran. Wasn’t it El Baradei that called the idea “cracked?” For the administration, the colonization of the Middle East with bases and a military presence is too big a fish to lose for them to be dissuaded. The oil prize too important to the US economy. The mantra “our way of life is in jeopardy” is very real, but not because of “Islamofascists” and their terrorist acts as much as our dependence on middle eastern oil.

    Bush’s “long war” will certainly become just that with an attack on Iran. Write every representative you can find an address for demanding a negotiated settlement to the Iran “problem.” These machivelian despots in Washington care little for what happens to us common folk, here or in Iran. They have bigger plans on their minds.

13. greener74 February 20th, 2007 5:22 pm

    I think that Bush and his NeoCon crew are cornered and have few options left to them. The conflict that they believe is inevitable with Iran over control of Central Asian oil resourses must just come sooner. Facing down Iran was the primary mission of invading Iraq. Mission soon to be accomplished. Short of impeachment and removal from office I don’t think America has many options either.

14. solon February 20th, 2007 6:00 pm

    I disagree with Corvo. Hans Blix was inspecting, and with the cooperation of Saddam Hussein. Thje Bush crowd was filling the media with claims that Blix was too palsy walsy with Saddam. Why? It wasn’t true. They were infuriated that he wasn’t finding WMDs, and not giving them the excuse to go to war. If Bush had waited for Blix to finish the inspection, guess what? No excuse to invade. Don’t blame Blix.

15. Com_n_sense February 20th, 2007 8:25 pm

    Does the Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell?

    This is what might happen. An attack on one of the many ships, false or otherwise, would be all that would be needed to initiate an attack.

    The aftermath would be staggering. Immediately gas would shoot to $8 a gallon. Our economy would come to a screeching halt. There would be a good possibility China and Russia along with nearly every other nation would rise against us. Especially if numb-nuts uses nukes. Martial Law would be declared and those that don’t fall in line will fill the 800 detention camps that Halliburton has built across this nation.

    If we do nothing else we need to stop this from happening.

16. rlaing February 21st, 2007 4:24 pm

    The emotional side of me would sure like to believe that there are some things so depraved or awful that the human animal will simply shrink from doing them, but the rational side of me, the one that can read, says ‘Sorry, but no.’

    The Bushies have the means and they have the opportunity for war with Iran. If they have motive as well, and political motives abound, then the crime will very likely go forward–what is to stop it?

    The Democrats? Puh-lease. They’re too busy polishing their own anti-Iranian credentials, pushing an ‘Airline Passenger’s Bill of Rights’ or whatever, and debating toothless resolutions to have time for a little thing like stopping Bush from expanding the war. I doubt very much that they want to.

    The Military? The politicians will simply replace the officers who think it’s madness with ones who’ll do as they’re told–no shortage of them.

    The People? They haven’t had real political power for years now. The sound and fury of American Democracy simply makes it hard for them to see that this institution no longer responds to the controls. Should they ever notice this, and reach for the power of the angry mob instead, I suspect they’ll quickly discover that they already live in a police state.

    The consequences? Well, the crime has to be committed before any of those will be felt, and who will feel them? Not George Bush and his well-to-do friends, that much I think is certain.

    The only open question to my mind is: nukes, or not?

    So far, nuclear weapons have only been used the one time, against an already beaten enemy, on defenseless civilians, and in the context of only one country in the world having them. Pretty safe, at least for those with the firecrackers.

    The big difference they’ve made since then is that war can no longer indefinitely escalate without serious risks of extinction, and in fact wars have steadily shrunk in scale since then. Myself, I think this is rather a good thing, but there are those among America’s strategical thinkers who are disinclined to that view. For a long time, they’ve been bothered by the paradox of such a potent weapon rendering them less able to use force, and have sought ways around this (to them) unfortunate situation.

    So the question before us is this: can there be such a thing as a limited nuclear war?

    I very much want to be wrong, but this hateful voice keeps whispering in my ear that the monkey is about to let his curiousity get the better of him.

17. corvo February 21st, 2007 9:54 pm

    sdemetri admonishes us to realize that people like Blix and El Baradei “are international diplomats, and move about in a world most of us know little about.” I think we know enough about the International Country Club they move about in to know that it’s a country club where actions have no consequences, as long as they’re actions in service to the powerful.

    solon seems to forget, or not to want to know, that the only peeps we heard from Blix before the light show began over Baghdad were condemnations of the Iraqi government for not asking “How high”? when he shouted “Jump!”

    Honestly, it’s remarkable–and saddening–that even at this late date there are people willing to make excuses for neocon flunkies like Blix and El Baradei.

18. bnpituposyto December 12th, 2007 9:02 am

    titwycuxyzyte…

    exwyrotexywy…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)