What to do about Iran
The problem with Congress being unwilling to say and then act on the idea that the President, Vice President, and others in the Executive have "bad intentions" is similar to the problem that journalists have when they are both trying to be critical of the politicians they write about and be friends with them. It's hard to work congenially with someone you think might be a mass murderer or at least some of the world's most powerful criminals.
Congress has to work with people who believe they are doing righteous things, but do things that others have good reason to consider evil. So, some Congressperson could say their opponents are evil in the various ways their critics claim, and thereafter find it socially awkward or otherwise impossible to work with them. Or, they could deny to some greater or less degree the claims and the evidence against them.
The more Bush invades to steal valuables and kill objectors and the more he shreds the Constitution in order to shut people up at home, the more work Congress will have to make themselves smile and go along, just so the basic work of government can continue.
I guess the idea is, they have to deny the obvious or the controversial, because more serious problems having to do with the functioning of our government will develop if they start to act on these claims.
A Congress divided on these kinds of issues cannot function, more or less.
Here's my other thought about slavery: Do you think that the Civil War could have been prevented by impeaching anybody? Would anyone have thought that the problem of slavery could have been dealt with by impeaching Lincoln out of the White House, or if a Democratic advocate of slavery had been "elected," in the way that Bush was "elected," could we have avoided bloodshed through some kind of legal proceeding?
I wonder. It would have been a great thing for the whole issue to have been settled by lawyers, but I believe that this is just magical thinking. There was too much invested and too many issues for a trial to resolve.
In the same way, I don't think we can stop the United States from its practice of "home invasions" to steal valuables and kill any objectors through impeachment.
It is magical thinking to suppose that a Congress that went along with the home invasions of Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on, (see Blum for a fuller list,) is going to change its mind enough to indict and punish one of their own.
This is not to say that we cannot stop the United States from invading people's homes. Nor am I advocating bloodshed and civil war. I just think we're not going to get it done by something as simple as a trial.
I am so depressed.
Given the fact that I think the Bush administration is committing war crimes all over, and gutting the Constitution to save itself from its critics at home, the question arises, given all of this is true, what we should do about it.
I argued against many others that the effort to try and get Congress to impeach the President and the Vice President would be futile. This Congress will not go against one of their own, even if the country was being lead down a clear path to its destruction. There are just too many factors that would make the acknowledgemant of our reality impossible. Instead, I expect Congress as well as much of the country to sink deeper into denial.
However, there are those who may see the problem and entertain certain other options. I said I did not advocate bloodshed or civil war as any kind of solution. I said I didn't think impeachment was a realistic solution.
Some people believe that the military is in a position to save us. So, for example, here,
http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/3393/58/
and here,
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=453&pst=670366
I found a writer talking about a supposed attempt by "U.S. Military" personel to arrest the Vice President while he was in his plane in Australia.
The "report" begins,
"Russian FSB sources are reporting today that an attempt by Special Forces Troops of the United States Military to arrest the American Vice President Cheney shortly after boarding his official plane in Australia has resulted in at least 3 dead and an unknown number of wounded.
These reports state that the United States Air Force, which is in control of the American Vice Presidents plane, sent an 'urgent' flash message shortly after takeoff from Sydney, Australia alerting their US Pacific Command Forces through the United States Worldwide Military Command and Control System (WWMCCS) network, and which is monitored by Russian Military Forces, of the deaths aboard the plane and requesting 'orders'.
At the sealed off Sydney airport where the attempt by US Military Forces to arrest the American Vice President occurred the Australian media is reporting: "Mr Cheney's Boeing 757 was delayed temporarily at Sydney Airport this morning for an unknown reason. As it stood still, revving its engines to make its initial advance towards the runway, it suddenly powered down.
The main door opened and the mobile stairwell then immediately returned to the plane, but it was waved off by security personnel. The plane then proceeded to the runway and took off, en route to the United States."
US media reports are stating that there was a generator problem on the Vice President's plane and that it was making a planned fueling stop in Singapore, but which the American White House is denying was diverted.
The concern of the American Military Generals regarding their Vice President stems from his plans to attack Iran, and which in an unprecedented move many of these Top United States Generals have threatened a mass resignation, and as we can read as reported by Britain's Sunday Times News Service in their article titled "US generals 'will quit' if Bush orders Iran attack", and which says: "Some of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
"There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran," a source with close ties to British intelligence said. "There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible...." (It continues)
I found several websites carrying this story. The ones allowing comments questioned the source of this story. Many thought the story had no credibility because it did not cite sources. Some believe that the author is a Russian disinformation source.
That said, would we be any better off if the U.S. Military duked it out for the soul of our country? As I don't think an impeachment would settle any of the profoundly screwed up issues, surely a military coup would not.
Suppose this report is just a way of creeping us out. Still, we would want to think about whether we would want this Administration dealt with by sending Special Forces after them. This would itself be insane.
I can imagine someone saying, "...but we live in insane times." What if the U.S. Military was asked to drop 300 to 1,000 nukes on Iran. Suppose it was not well understood whether the Iranians could rely on the Russians or Chinese to stand with them. Should the Joint Chiefs follow orders, or refuse?
Isn't this the position we are being asked to consider? Or am I getting worked up over nothing?
Your essay appears to be more concerned with, rather or not, to impeach this insane prez in the Oval Office.
Although, I am not as astute on politics as most of the bloggers on this board, I do know that Iran was seen as a major threat to the U.S. once their puppet Shah was overthrown and became a militant religious regime. But I also read that the U.S. was partly responsible for putting the Ayatollahs in power.
Until 1979, Iran did not appear to be the major threat that we hear about today. So, the question in everybody's mind should be - why now?
Based on what is known today, the simple conclusion is that America's ONLY ally, Israel, sees Iran as a huge obstacle in its path to greater glory. They want to usurp the land in Iran and Syria and reclaim it (in their deluded minds) as part of Eretz Israel.
The only way for Israel to achieve its long-term goal is for the U.S. to become involved and do the dirty work for them, which is exactly what is unfolding on the world stage.
If there was any common sense in Washington, which there isn't, America would cease and desist on Israel's behalf, make them sign the NPT and respect Iran's desire to defend itself from belligerent neighbors. But rather than taking a simplistic approach to this problem, the U.S. is damned and determined to wage nuclear war against a nation that is no threat to us for the sake of Zionist money and power.
Only the truth can deter the coming conflict and it should be obvious that the politicians in Washington haven't the guts to speak it.
"If there was any common sense in Washington, which there isn't, America would cease and desist on Israel's behalf"
The Zionists have the US by its balls, its to do with money.
America is not real, it is owned by Zionists of various shades, it has no sovreignty in the sense that 'Americans' have power over policy. They have no power. America is used as a front for Zionists interests and objectives...this is done through the money system and the financial control of the predominantly Zionist bankers.
Bankers dictate policy, America simply complies, wars acheieve many objectives for bankers and Zionists. Profit through the Military Industrial Complex, destruction of property and infrastructure which can be re-built for a profit by banking interests, and the gaining of control of 'foreign' enemies and their resources.
Banking creates money, this money has to be 'invested'...it cannot just sit there otherwise the investors will demand 'interest' and bankers will not be able to pay it. Bankers have to put the money to work. It is put to work in creating a War industry so that more money can be made from war. This cannot go on indefinetly, the time will arrive when only a few billionares will rule the world with a iron fist.
But, first you said: "It would have been a great thing for the whole issue to have been settled by lawyers"
Let's get one thing straight from the outset - LAWYERS ARE THE PROBLEM.
They're the ones who have gotten us into the catastrophe that we face today.
Every evil that has come forth from our government has been facilitated by a diabolical lawyer who has justified this action and transformed it from what it is - PURE EVIL - to what it has become -PERFECTLY LEGAL.
As for whether a military coup is the answer - I think not. We don't need to replace one dictator for another.
The Rule of Law is crucial for civilization, but in order for it to work properly, i.e., to protect and preserve human rights and individual liberty, THE LAWS MUST BE JUST.
For this we need massive education campaign - which we are attempting, one person at a time - and we need to expose criminals and hypocrits wherever they are.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
When I said that I only wished our problems could be solved by lawyers, I only meant that our problem with this President is so severe, that a civil war or bloodshed is possible, though undesirable, and that we might think that a non-violent process carried on by lawyers, or bureaucrats, should seem better.
Whether you think lawyers are a force for good or not, I think most people would think that if issues could be resolved, then lawyers would be better than any military option.
The issue for me has been how to resolve the issues we face with this President, with Israel, with Iran, and so forth, without resorting to force in various ways.
qrswave thinks the issue can be resolved by teaching people one person at a time, if need be. My concern is with what we should be teaching people. What is the argument that you need to make and to whom?
I think the argument has to be about how the ends and means of life, that is, what our goals in life should be and how we should best achieve those goals. For me, it's either about personal survival, which I take to be the President's view, or an effort to resolve conflict so that we all can survive and avoid suffering. The argument has to be addressed to the people with power so they can be persuaded to "see the error of their ways" so to speak.
Whatever argument we make has to go to the Joint Chiefs, Politicos like the President or VP, the guys with power, to make them "see the light".
You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
When I talk about educating people, I mean educating people who otherwise have values, but are merely uninformed.
I am not talking about "persuading" ruthless individuals, bent on murder and theft, who know damn well what they're doing.
They must be impeached or otherwise forced out of office by mass public outcry and replaced by normal individuals who have the general welfare at heart.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
Just who here thinks that American collapse will never happen over this war? If the times were calm China would not be shooting Space guns at satellites. Push too far and EVERY nasty thing you could think up is going to splatter the crap eaters to dust. This will not be a Region limited thing. If the gun goes off look out for that fallout thing.
http://www.ki4u.com/kfm.htm
First you take D.C. Then you take New York.
to qrswave,
I hear you saying it's hopeless to try to reason with the guys who have been screwing around. To put it simply, they've been carrying on a series of home invasions in order to steal valuables, and they've been gutting the laws so they can avoid retribution at home.
However, the perps have a large percentage of people and institutions who would support them in anything they do. At least until the perps have caused obvious irreparable harm. I do not know when the German people turned against their Nazi government, but I suspect it was only after ground troops made it over the German border.
In our case, we are able to start a thermonuclear war that will destroy everything before we'll get to see the whites of anyone's eyes.
I have suspected that this scenario is the expected if not hoped for end to the second act for some of these perps. They imagine, I fear, that the third act is all about the righteous being taken up bodily into heaven without having to die like the "unrighteous" rest of us. I fear this because this kind of salvation for them explains why so many of them do not seem all that concerned about the destruction of the United States.
I argued in my piece that impeachment is not going to happen. I said it was magical thinking, lunacy, to imagine that a trial was going to save us. I was talking about lawyers, but I meant that expecting a trial with lawyers is a crazy expectation. Can you imagine the Civil War prevented by an impeachment. I cannot. And, since I think our country is divided in the same way now over things like Iraq, etc, we should not expect any kind of trial to take place or to be helpful.
How are we going to persuade the guys with their fingers on the bomb buttons to step back from the football?