more quakers... less neocons
et tu, Cheney?
Mine is up. Is there a link to the rest of the blogswarm?
no. Just tag it blogswarm no war with Iran or some such the word blogswarm 9/11 should catch it for people. participating is more than linking in these quickly arranged deals. xoxo
John Woolman rocks.
But mom, I really meant to attack Iran in 2003. I don't think it's fair that you don't let me do it now.
Actually, I don't think he CAN attack Iran.... out of Schlitz.
John Woolman Information
I agree, partly, with Ghost Dansing. This would be an attack on Iran, not war with Iran--just as there has been an American invasion of Iraq by the U.S.(aided by other Western countries) not war with Iraq, except that now all kinds of soldiers of one kind or another have gone to Iraq, to fight back against the invasion of that country, that reportedly had nothing to do with 9/11 (unlike Saudi Arabia, that has not been invaded by Western countries).
You may have partly misconstrued by comment. I don't think Dubya has enough military force available to attack Iran.While Dubya would LOVE to make war on Iran, I don't think he can do it physically.... and there are a lot of political restraints as well.
I say we drop the entire administration off, right in the middle of the war zone.
My 9/11/07 piece touched on the Iran angle as well. although that was only part of it. Sigh. How insane does someone have to be to want that?
My concern about Iran is fueled by the media's report that the Pentagon has already drawn up a map of all the places in Iran (and the number is very high) they plan to bomb, and that the plan is not whether to bomb that country, but when. In the 1980s, a man who had been an anti-draft counsellor for high school boys, during the War in Vietnam, told me this: investors can make a lot of money by investing in munitions companies during wars. Bullets and bombs are not recyclable. As Leona Helmsley later said, Only small people pay taxes. This terrible war is being funded by taxpayers dollars, at great cost to their own country.
I'll add that it's SOP for the Pentagon to have military plans drawn up for all sorts of contigencies, including attacking Iran, so that itself isn't alarming (well, umm). However, the normal process is on a cycle of 5 years or something. I would not be surprised if with Iran it got fast-tracked or the order went down to do specific, urgent planning. I'd like more details on what's been going on. Leak, anyone?If Hersh and others are right, the main and only real resistance to Mad Cheney and the Neocons wanting to revisit their greatest debacle in Iran is resistance in the military. Even Broder-esque "centrist" Dem hawks such as Anne-Marie Slaughter fear that Bush will attack soon or right before leaving office. It's really disturbing that basic sanity seems so foreign to the Bushies.
The "Leak" about the Pentagon's plan to bomb Iran is in the mainstream media (such as CBC radio news, Canada, about a week or so ago--CBC is like PBS). So, I googled it. I found a newspaper article from Scotland, May/07, stating that the Pentagon has mapped out 400 strategic sites in Iran for to bomb. That doesn't sound like a "what if" plan to me., That's a "when" plan. Today, an email from Sojourners (liberal, evangelical, active group for peace and justice) states that the general's speech makes it clear that war with Iran is now inevitable, as to the Bush administration's and the Pentagon's plans. I still say it isn't war "with" Iran, it's war "against" Iran, just as the invasion of Iraq (who had nothing to do with 9/11) by the U.S. was not a mutual action of war. It was action by the U.S. and any other countries (such as Britain) that supported this war of aggression. No more blood for oil. Not theirs, not ours.
I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!