Voting Republican in November is voting to wage nuclear war...

[whistle]

<snip>
Voting against nuclear war with Iran
By Jorge Hirsch

10/16/06 "Information Clearing House " -- -- The outcome of the November election is likely to determine whether or not the US goes to war with Iran before President Bush leaves office. For multiple reasons recounted below such war will with very high probability include the US use of tactical nuclear weapons. In casting or not casting a vote in November, each of us will contribute to determine events of potential consequences immensely larger than local taxes, illegal immigration or even the Iraq war. Crossing the nuclear threshold in a war against Iran will trigger a chain reaction that in weeks, years or decades could lead with high probability to global nuclear war and widespread destruction of life on the planet.
<.....>

On November 7th, 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats will be contested. There are many reasons why even Republicans may wish that one or both Houses are won by Democrats, and the prospect of nuclear war should be a dominant one.

The President can legally order the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstance without asking Congress. However, Congress could block the authority of the President to order the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon countries by passing legislation under Article I, Sect. 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution to "make rules for the government and regulation" of the Armed Forces. If Congress passed such a law (see an example for a bill here), it would in practice also impede a conventional attack on Iran. Congress may also find other ways to derail a presidential push towards using nuclear weapons, for example by demanding that the Administration publicly discloses plans or preparatory moves such as deployment of nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf. Which Congress is more likely to do this, a Republican or a Democratic one?

Only Democratic congressmembers, however weakly, have questioned the wisdom of the new US nuclear weapons policies <1>, <2>, <3>. Not a single Republican in Congress has, nor have they questioned the fact that the nuclear option against Iran is "on the table". This is not to say that Republican candidates would necessarily approve of the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, in fact many if not most are likely to oppose it. And some Democratic candidates may be more hawkish than Republicans in regard to Iran <1>, <2>, <3>. However, the principle of "party discipline" applies to both Republicans and Democrats. And the administration that is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran is Republican.

No matter how wise, moral, resolute, and independent of Bush a Republican candidate appears to be, when push comes to shove he/she is more likely than not to vote the party line. In the current Congress, as reported by the non-partisan Hill Monitor website, Republican senators voted for the White House position 92.57% of the time, Democratic senators only 54.56%. In the House, the respective numbers are 88.50% and 40.99%. On the October 2002 vote requested by the White House authorizing the Iraq attack, a single Republican senator opposed it, versus 21 Democrats; in the House, only 6 Republicans opposed it, versus 126 Democrats.

A US attack on Iran will lead to the US use of nuclear weapons and will be disastrous for America. It is the path that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, with the advice of Kissinger <1>, <2>, are hell-bent on pursuing. A military takeover of government is not likely, and military refusal to carry out immoral orders is uncertain at best. Congress has a role to play, perhaps the most important one in its history, and a Republican Congress is likely to rubberstamp any White House plan on Iran. Voting Republican in November is voting to wage nuclear war. <More>

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15318.htm

[Alacrat]

1. I agree with this, except

IMO NK will be first, and if things keep going like they are, they will start it. NK said today, they would start a war if sanctions weren't lifted, or something like that(I read it here), and it would start it in SK. Unless the future Democratic congress changes the U.S. stance toward NK, which IMO they wouldn't do, we may be in a nuke war regardless of the election outcome. I hope Lil' Kim finds some sense,and also if war happens, I hope Iran doesn't do anything to provoke military action there, which I could see them doing, ie.. something towards Israel. Unfortunately this admin has caused such an uproar in the world, there may be no way to reverse the course we are on. I feel better with a Democratic congress, who I would have confidence in, and believe they would be strong, but only go to war if it were absolutely necessary, and an absolute last resort, not for a power trip, or blood lust. They would, I think, back action toward Iran if they attacked Israel, and NK if they attacked SK. Bush may get his war, and be supported at the same time. If the above happened how could we avoid it? I mean this as a serious question, because I think it is a real possibility. Can a Democratic congress change things, avoid a war, and at the same time, have the American public still believe we are strong and tough enough against threats, so it doesn't destroy us in 08?

[whistle]

2. Perhaps, but the Bush focus remains in Iraq, Iran or even Syria or

...Lebanon. I think Bush would cave to Kim's request for one-on-one negotiations before a nuclear exchange ever takes place there. Bolton can right out and said that if N Korea stops further nuclear weapons development, they can have it all and more, meaning aid, food, a blank check. But, the middle east with it's oil remains the prize that the neocons want and they will use low yield nuclear bombs to get that prize.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. Every Bit As Ridiculous A Fear Tactic As Theirs. I'm Ashamed Of This Meme

We have more than enough honest reality to run on than to have to use cheap fear tactic tricks like they do.