In Tehran today:
hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets as they chanted "Death to America"which isn't a hollow threat.
And speaking of pro-Iranian "Death to America" protests, Washington State Senator Eric Oemig is among the organizers of a petition urging the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all U.S. military personnel to refuse orders to attack Iran.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 05, 2007 08:28 AM | Email ThisBut we can even forget about whether attacking Iran is something we should or should not do on the basis of international law, military, political or moral considerations.
DO WE EVEN HAVE A CREDIBLE PLAN TO "WIN" AGAINST IRAN, WHILE STAYING IN IRAQ THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS? DO WE HAVE A REASONABLE CHANCE OF DOING THIS? HOW MANY BILLIONS (OR TRILLIONS) WILL THIS COST US, AND HOW MANY LIVES?
Posted by: Richard Pope on October 5, 2007 08:32 AMThe Left doesn't want to acknowledge Iran. And so nothing will be done until something tragic happens. The Iranian government is based on Sharia. The Ayatollahs will lead them into Jihad against the West, whether we like it or not. When Iran fires the first shot and thousands are killed, suddenly then we will have the attention of the Left.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 5, 2007 09:05 AMWhere does this guy get off? Asking the military to commit insubordination and spend years in jail? Gee, what a cool dude. I wish I could have voted for him- NOT!!
And, Earth to Twilight Zone, Earth to Twilight Zone, calling Eric Oemig, there has been no order to attack Iran. I repeat (and I use the term repeat in the military sense), there has been no order to attack Iran.
It isn't that we are going to attack Iran immediately; I think the first strike will be against their nuke facilities that is being used for "peaceful" purposes. And, I don't think it will be the US that conducts those exercises. Get my drift, Mssr. Oemig? Please read a little and not the Daily Kos or DU.
Posted by: swatter on October 5, 2007 09:10 AMMcDermott's 10/2/07 speech on the floor of the House:
"Iran in the Crosshairs"
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp071002_2.shtml
A response to McDermott by conservative blogger Gary Gross:
"Nobody Said He Was The Brightest Bulb In The Drawer"
http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/nobody-said-he-was-the-brightest-bulb-in-the-drawer/
And my reply to McDermott, over on the SoundPolitics Public Blog:
"Iran moves towards war, but McDermott blames America"
http://soundpolitics.com/public/2007/10/iran_moves_towards_war_but_mcd.html
This is entirely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fault.
If I were in charge would have swapped him out with a body double while in NYC and then put our guy in power back there.
Iranians want mp3 players and Jones Cane Cola, not fundamentalism.
Posted by: John Bailo on October 5, 2007 09:48 AMIt's absolutely foolish when doing business there to think in terms of national boundaries when fighting a problem. You need to attack the problem where the problem lives.
Just as we really weren't at war with "all" of Iraq (since the North was pretty much on our side before the bullets flew) we also haven't occupied "all" of the problem areas of the region by attacking Iraq. Our military needs some freedom to be able to attack the root cause of problems - which is often times meddling from Iran - as well as the surface tensions if we're going to have success there.
The attitude of someone like the first poster on this thread is kind of silly really. You wouldn't tell a firefighter "go into the house and put out the fire in the bedroom and hallway but ignore the fire in the kitchen and upstairs." Likewise you can't tell the military "fight the guys to your left and in front but ignore the bullets coming from the right and behind you."
You can beat what's in front of you all day, but still lose if you're allowing someone to kick you in the butt all day without doing anything about it. It's not logical to ignore a group that is arming, training and acting in concert with your enemies during a battle.
How much should we invest in this conflict? How about enough to win? During WWII we had concurrent fronts on three continents. We can certainly fight in a single region. Our problem to date is we've been trying to fight based on ignoring the larger problem.
Putting out half the fuse on a powder keg is a waste of an effort. Not putting it out at all is also foolish as an explosion is sure to follow. It could be said that the smartest thing to do is just walk away from the powder keg, but we tried that and have found in the past that ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
We're already there. Let's finish the job instead of leaving it to our children.
While I seriously question the wisdom and practicality of attacking Iran, I also strongly disagree with the sentiments expressed in the petition that Stefan is talking about.
Even if a war with Iran were somehow illegal under some applicable law, this would not justify an individual soldier to refuse orders to participate in it. It is not a war crime for a soldier to fight righteously in an illegal war. The only orders a soldier can refuse would be to personally participate in war crimes themselves.
That is why Lt. Watada's court-martial defense is going to be legally insufficient -- he certainly wasn't being asked to personally commit war crimes. (Not to mention that Iraq does presently have a government that is inviting or at least allowing our military to be there.) Now, maybe Watada has a decent double jeopardy argument, but that remains to be seen.
But how do we attack Iran and actually win? And do we have enough strength to do it? Our military is about 1.4 million people right now on normal active duty. Plenty enough to defend our own territory, but not enough to invade and occupy too many other countries at the same time.
We had 2.2 million under Reagan 25 years ago, which is at least one million short of the present level, if you take population growth into account. Our reserve forces are proportionately smaller, and are being activated frequently for extended periods of time to fill the need for active strength.
Posted by: Richard Pope on October 5, 2007 10:04 AMWar and the aftermath will be messy for them, the US has had its fill in telling tribal leaders not to bludgeon each other.
We need to attack Iran to provide them with an incentive to stop screwing around with us, and to stop killing our people in Iraq.
We do not need to "defeat" everyone we attack. For example, in their recent air strikes, Israel didn't "defeat" Syria, and they did their thing in a single night.
Right now, Iran is killing our people for free. There has to be a cost attached to that, otherwise, what reason is there for Iran to stop?
Simple, really. We go in, we destroy every air asset these people have; we warn them that if they don't stop, we'll take out every bridge of any size. Then we segue into electrical grid.
That we are NOT doing this, emboldens our enemies who only respect strength, and who see our failure to act as a sign of weakness.
Right now, the question is this: what signal is sent to our enemies by doing nothing when we KNOW they are attacking us?
As for Watada, he should be shot, and for the same, relative reason.
What message is sent when we fail to prosecute scum like Watada under circumstances like these?
Posted by: Hinton on October 5, 2007 10:38 AMIf the US attacks Iran, oil prices and gas prices will soar in this country. And the Iranians will most likely counter by cutting off US supply lines into Iraq, devastating our military personnel in Iraq.
But hey, if FoxNews says so, it must be true. The important thing is that you have a 'Support Our Troops' magnet on your SUV.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on October 5, 2007 10:40 AMThe President of Iran is very unpopular with the average Iranian citizen. The "death to America" march is a staged event. The only way we could possibly unify the Iranian people with its leadership now is by giving them a common enemy in America.
Posted by: Splinter on October 5, 2007 10:43 AMFirst, he lies Toby Nixon out of a state senate seat by claiming to be a centrist who'll legislate from a bi-partisan perspective, then before his cab pulled away from an Olympia curb, he banged the impeachment drum.
Now he advocates ILLEGAL activity along with outfits like the National Lawyers' Guild, which was a communist front organization for decades. Reading the list of Oemig's fellow signatories is like taking a trip back into the 60's and ultra-fringe radical elements.
Oemig is a liar and a charlatan. I'll beat he's breating a sigh of relief over the Washington Supreme Court's recent opinion over politicians telling lies during election runs. His entire campaign strategy has now been legalized.
He's insulted my army and Marine sons once again. In the past, I've told him so face to face, yet he continues to do it. Now this!?!?!?!?!
Despicable!
Worst thing, though? I've the misfortune to live in the 45th Legislative District, or what should now be referred to as the Soviet of Northeast King County.
Shall we address each other as comrade?
Comrade Oemig...you suck!
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on October 5, 2007 10:46 AMAt least now we have a basis to discuss Iran calmly and intelligently.
I don't think the Iranian military is that threatening, but I also don't think that is the solution with Iran. The nukes will have to be destroyed, though.
With N. Korea, the Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans are engaged, albeit too quiet. Even those allies require us to carry the 'big stick'.
In Iran, the French are seeing the follies of liberalism and are seeing the value in confronting Iran; however, it seems the Germans like the fascist nature of Iran for some reason and the Russians are, well, the Russians.
Posted by: swatter on October 5, 2007 10:46 AMI do not believe anyone is going to attack Iran anytime soon. No one needs to...Iran will take care of itself. Nearly 40% of the Iranian population is pro-western. While they tolerate the mullahs, the secret police there are becoming as brutal as the SAVAK was under the Shah. Iranians are getting angry and they aren't about to let themselves get turned into atoms because some religious extremist thinks he can usher in the era of the 12th Mahdi.
Also, the majority of Iran's elite (and those who could afford it)have, for the last 25 years, been sending their kids out of country to go to school. These kids have been living all over Europe and even in the US. As they reach adulthood, many do not want to go back and those that do, don't like it there. Change is coming and it will happen internally.
Finally, as Iran goes nuclear, and they will, they will learn the policy of mutually assured destruction. It works.
And in a few months their ied facories will be up and running again. So then we have to occupy. Or maybe they will send troops into Iraw -- maybe at the invitation of the pro-Shiia government?? Leading to massive Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq?
Meanwhile this could undermine the govt. in Pakistan so we will have to occupy them too.
Then great: we will be ocupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.
This ensures enmity of the other 1.5 billoin moslems pretty much forever and will banrupt us.
and dick ouski... please tell us with your phd in supply side economics how Iran will stop selling oil to the US when they along with everyone sells on the world market?
Posted by: Andy on October 5, 2007 11:35 AMAre you implying the like us now?
Funny I don't see a bunch of angry muslims attacking the former soviet union for what they did in afganistan for a decade...why? Because those countries don't have a problem killing their enemies...interesting how Muslims get to be selective about who they hate and who is the devil.
If it weren't for our botched foreign policy they would all be hating us from a mass grave dug by soviet bull dozers. We could still send Rachel Corrie's family there to stand in front of them.
Posted by: Andy on October 5, 2007 11:42 AMI have a plan, let's chip in for a 1-way ticket for Oernig to address HIS people in Tehran. I'm sure Eric will immediately pacify them.
Perhaps in addition to the 1-way ticket, we ought to send along with Eric a POSTAGE PREPAID Box big enough for his head to fit in once they chop it off. Have it addressed to Move-On.org.
Obviously, some here are much more concerned about the price of oil then they are the lives of our troops.
Concerning one's self with the price of oil doesn't work for this simple reason: If we do not provide any incentive for Iran to knock it off, eventually, they will implement every aspect of the concerns already expressed by the terrorist supporters in these responses. They will cause the price to skyrocket ANYWAY. They will cause our supply to be cut or eliminated ANYWAY. It's just a matter of when.
If we do this now, the lives of some American soldiers in Iraq who would otherwise be killed or wounded could be saved.
As for Muslims hating us more, I don't give a damn, as long as they respect us. And as each day goes by, they respect us less and less, and they're helping to kill more and more of us.
The time is long since past to act to put an end to Iranian interference; and I fail to note any viable suggestions from anyone to get Iran to keep out of our business any other way.
And take your Fox references and jam them up your ass.
Posted by: Hinton on October 5, 2007 12:27 PMhopefully when iran attacks us with their missles, they will be so kind as to provide the coordinates so that our missiles may intercept them.
Posted by: dinesh on October 5, 2007 12:45 PMWhat is your basis for believing the Iranians will "respect us" if we bomb them? It seems to me that we would only be giving Ahmadinejad ammunition to rally the Iranian population.
With most of Ahmadinejad's support coming from poor rural parts of Iran... and even that is fading... it seems like a 'conservative' approach to the problem would be to focus more troops on shutting down the Iranian border, keep the diplomatic pressure on for continuing and increasing sanctions, and solicit help from others in the region that have a vested interest in preventing an expanded Iranian power.
It's not about oil, although those on the far left try to make it about oil.
We're not there to affect the price of oil, we're not there to take away Iraqi oil, we're not there to force the Iraqis to divide up their oil revenue in some particular way.
Of course, some upside-down thinkers on the left misunderstand this. Many on the far left favor arrogant ultimatums and warnings on the Iraqi government.
Some Democrats, some antiwar activists, and some far left extremists feel that weaknesses and mistakes of the Iraqi government are good excuses for us to surrender and avoid the challenges of the war with Islamic fascist terrorism.
While they are comfortable with placing demands on and presenting ultimatums to our Iraqi allies, these same leftists are queasy and hesitant to in anyway upset our Iranian and Syrian enemies. Why do they oppose some demands, deadlines, warnings, and ultimatums directed at the Iranian dictatorship?
Also (back to oil) some Democrats, some antiwar activists, and some far left extremists feel that the price of oil, and control over the supply of oil, etc., are good excuses for us to surrender and avoid the challenges of the war with Islamic fascist terrorism.
I say, "no surrender for oil!"
Posted by: Steve Beren on October 5, 2007 12:54 PM
There is plenty of room to debate the wisdom of the war in Iraq, or potential war with Iran. There should however be no room for encouraging unlawful behavior.
The Honorable Sen Oemig should be charged with sedition.
Posted by: Serf in the land of Queen Christine on October 5, 2007 01:18 PMBtw, 45th Legislative District, please take note what your state senator is doing. He has seemed to have lost his mind ever since being elected.
Posted by: Michele on October 5, 2007 01:31 PMIs America Today the France of Yesterday?
His point is that France had a chance to avoid their fate prior to WWII had they confronted Hitler before he was fully armed...just as the left does not want us to confront Iran before they have a nuke. And then in 1938, Chamberlain returned from Munich with his agreement with Hitler and was lauded by all sides. Peace in our time, indeed...
Posted by: Bill H on October 5, 2007 01:36 PMWhat will be the definition of "Attack Iran"? Who gets to make the determination of the definition? Who makes the pre-determination of what type of attack is legal or illegal?
Is a single airstike an "illegal" attack? Cruise missiles? Blockade? Invasion? How about if we just send a sternly worded message - would some with hypersensitive emotions consider that an "attack"?
Consitutionally, what was illegal about the Iraq war? Is it because Congress did not issue the specific words, "We Declare War On..."?
If so, why were ANY Democratic Senators and Congress Critters that voted for the AUMF re-elected (2002, 2004, 2006)? If they violated their Constitutional duties, why were they retained in power?
Of course, with the ABSOLUTE position that we should only respond AFTER being attacked, these people are in effect saying that we they would prefer to see hundreds to thousands of their countrymen die before they would be willing to consider doing something.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 5, 2007 02:10 PMSnort.
And just how do you think they'd manage to do that? By utilizing 5th-column elements here? Such as yourself?
Iran declared war on us in 1979. The fact we still haven't responded - and continue to play pussyfoot - simply emboldens them.
Posted by: jimg on October 5, 2007 02:28 PMYou think invading their country is going to scare them? Really? You think that?
The people doing the suicide bombings wear death as a badge of courage. Some of them have been so brainwashed so as to believe that suicide is noble. That it honors their family. The American military is built on the assumption that if someone points a gun at you, you'll surrender rather than be killed. The assumption being that you value your life. However, the extremists value death. They relish the chance to die. Thankfully, American soldiers value their lives.
Attacking Iran is just going to quickly multiply the number of people committing suicide bombings, just like we've done in Iraq. The military brass have turned Iraq into a terrorist training academy. And Dick Cheney and the British are trading arms with the Saudis to escalate it all.
See: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/060707Floyd.shtml
Slush funds, oil sheikhs, prostitutes, Swiss banks, kickbacks, blackmail, bagmen, arms deals, war plans, climbdowns, big lies and Dick Cheney - it's a scandal that has it all: corruption and cowardice at the highest levels, a festering canker at the very heart of world politics, where the War on Terror meets the slaughter in Iraq. Yet chances are you've never heard about it - even though it happened just a few days ago. The fog of war profiteering, it seems, is just as thick as the fog of war.
I read that whole article and missed Dick Cheney's name... could you point it out?
It seems to detail BAE (a British firm) dealing with prince Bandar (a Saudi national).
This has exactly what to do with Iran?
Posted by: Aaron on October 5, 2007 03:22 PMI have no desire to be liked by people who preach death because ones religion, race, nationality. If this were 1939 you pansies would be complaining about Germany and Japan not liking America.
Posted by: Andy on October 5, 2007 03:42 PMI repeat: they are KILLING us. They CANNOT DO THAT FOR FREE.
Doing NOTHING is ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG STRATEGY.
The choices as I see them, are these: we can take your apparently preferred method of doing nothing, with the effect of our troops continuing to get killed or wounded because of Iranian interference; or we can provide them with serious reasons NOT to do that.
Closing the border effectively would require thousands of ADDITIONAL troops, just like attempting to close OUR borders would require thousands of additional troops.
Where are they going to come from?
We do NOT have the boots on the ground available to close the border. What we DO have is the capability with air forces to make it so expensive for Iran to kill our troops that they would, actually, stop the practice.
Inaction supports Iran. Action supports the troops. And I'm for action in this matter.
No one forces Iran to interfere. That is their choice. And as long as we do NOTHING to force them to pay the price, there's no particular reason for them to stop... and no particular reason for them to end their practice of killing our people.
They are KILLING US. And it's time to stop them. Waiting around and hoping they stop on their own? When has that EVER worked? Anywhere?
Posted by: Hinton on October 5, 2007 04:10 PMBoronski's solution is to hide from the nasty bombers so they can wreck havoc on us on their schedule. We don't want to make them mad now, do we?
Israel needs our support, PI. Do you routinely toss out your own loyal friends at the first sign of trouble? I don't.
Posted by: swatter on October 5, 2007 04:14 PM"Israel needs our support, PI. Do you routinely toss out your own loyal friends at the first sign of trouble? I don't."
If the Israelis are our friends, why did they shoot up one of our ships in the '67 war. Oh yeah, that was an "accident." Why did they send Kevin Pollard to spy on us? Why do we give them billions each year? Hmmmm....they're not sounding like "friends" to me.
Israel has had way, way, way too much influence on America. There's a lobby that tilting our foreign policy to Israel's will and politicians are too cowardly to call attention to the 500 pound gorilla in the room. I've had enough. If Israel can't stand on its own two feet without US support, then so be it. Something tells me, however, that the Israeli's can take care fo themselves (after more than 60 years of total US support!) without us.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on October 5, 2007 04:29 PMWhy you ask
1. IF we find reserves of oil equal to What is in the Middle east and develop it the price of oil will drop.
2. This will cut billions of dollars from IRAN and our friendly Terrorist funding South American Country. Both countries in the next 5 years will be using more oil than they produce. So they can not take all this money to fund terrorists and in South Americas case fund overthrow of neighbors so they can start drilling oil to keep them solvent and further fund more groups to take over more countries.
3. This will cause the collapse of two enemies at once with no lose of life. Except Terrorists trying to get across the border from Iran to Iraq.
4. THis will also cause Russia to stop its war antics of overflights into our air space or European air space. They will be losing a lot of money.
See easy to win that battle because IRAN is barely holding unto power. People started rioting when the price of gas doubled in IRAN. I think they are up to $.50 a gallon. They dont have the taxes as we have here so it is a little cheaper.
But to do this you have to make it so no court is allowed to hinder the drilling for oil. And one way to keep these items out of the court is make it a National Security issue. Which is what it really is. Those who prevent drilling for oil want us to give money to terrorists. Because it is our money that funds them because we buy oil from that part of the world.
But unfortunately this will never happen. The left will prevent this from happening. They want us to be a third world power. And get advice from Castro, or any other leader that is anti American. Because we want them to like us. Where by they want to destroy us because it is our countries wealth and prosperity that causes unrest in their lands. How can you run a country when people point to the good life in the US and demand the same thing for themselves. You just have to kill more people to keep them in line. And you Leftists know that this is the truth though you would rather ignore it.
Posted by: David Anfinrud on October 5, 2007 04:59 PMIraq and Afghanistan are just sideshows to the main event that should be the de-Islamification of Iran. This does not mean banning Islam in Iran, which is unnecessary and probably impossible, but it does mean prohibiting it from being mandated as the state religion. The connection between mosque and state must be sundered permanently.
It must be stated clearly that militant Islam and the United States cannot co-exist on this planet, the reasons why and the course that must be undertaken: war with Iran. Obviously, George Bush is not the person to take on this responsibility.
The following link makes it clear what we must do:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp
Posted by: Bill K. on October 5, 2007 11:30 PMthe people I'm REALLY disappointed in are those who ELECTED this leftist twit;
asleep at the wheel? too busy to see to whom you threw your keys and control? the local voter in Oemig's district is the real problem; chimps with ballots could do better; shame on you & your district;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 6, 2007 12:38 AMBelieve me--the Pentagon and the IDF have several coordinated plans to remove the nuclear threat in Iran, none of which will require ground troops. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it will take another major terror strike to advance one.
I couldn't care less if we 'scared' them. That's not the point. The point is - as Hinton pointed out - that we are already at war with Iran. And we should be responding to their attacks.
And we should've started responding to their attacks in 1979. If we had the balls to do something then, there's the very real possibility none of what we're having to do in the ME now would be necessary.
The fact you don't recognize that - coupled with your fervered belief that somehow Iran is some sort of power that we should fear - simply points out your ignorance on the whole issue.
"Oh, no, Bluto. We shouldn't do anything. We might make them mad."
You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
Posted by: jimg on October 6, 2007 08:37 AMThe American military is built on the assumption that if someone points a gun at you, you'll surrender rather than be killed.
Are you that effing stupid? Are you?
No, you shoot the bastard before they shoot you.
But thank you for pointing out just where you stand on any conflict. Surrender first.
Posted by: jimg on October 6, 2007 08:40 AMThanks for the Fox News poll from the Faux News Network.
So who exactly who is the 'war on terror' against?
Are we just going to invade every country we feel like at will? And wouldn't it be a good idea if we had few more that 130,000 worn out soldiers who have been forced onto 4 tours of duty to do it with?
And define what 'winning' the 'war on terror' means. When will we know we've won??
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on October 6, 2007 05:50 PMThe war on terror is a Bushism and will have no more meaning and after Jan. 2009 it probably will not exist. Surely, someone can come up with a better name of it, like the war against Radical Islam imperialism. Noone has delved into what it would look like to win this war, because frankly - this is a type of war that the modern world has not seen. The closest thing it could be likened to is a crusade. We have been losing the PR war and will continue to do so as long as the current administration is in office and most likely well beyond that, if the Democrats win in '08.
Posted by: KS on October 6, 2007 06:27 PMGet an elected position (9th or so the charm)then spew or bark, you have little credibility as is.
Borrowed dick-
You are an idiot, clearly.
Posted by: Danno on October 6, 2007 07:22 PM