Absolute MUST READ regarding attacks on IRAN

[txaslftist]

Rank Ignorance Reigns
by Paul Craig Roberts

In keeping with its established role as purveyor of disinformation, Fox "News" talking head Brit Hume misreported Fox’s own poll. On "Special Report" (January 26) Hume said that 51% of Americans "would now support" air strikes on Iran. What the poll found is that if diplomacy fails, 51% would support air strikes.

Can we be optimistic and assume that the American public would not regard an orchestrated failure by the Bush administration as a true diplomatic failure? Alas, we cannot expect too much from a population in thrall to disinformation.

The "evidence" that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons consists of mere assertion by members of the Bush administration and the neoconservative media. Iran says it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found no evidence of a weapons program.

Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Under the treaty, signatories have the right to develop nuclear energy. All they are required to do is to make reports to the IAEA and keep their facilities open to inspection. Iran complies with these requirements.

There is no Iranian "defiance." When news media report "defiance," they purvey disinformation. The "seals" on Iranian nuclear facilities were placed there voluntarily by the Iranians while they attempted to resolve the false charges brought by the Bush administration.

The "Iran crisis" is entirely the product of the Bush administration’s determination to deprive Iran of its rights as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. It is one more demonstration of President Bush’s belief that his policies are not constrained by fact, law and international treaties.

Despite the clear and unambiguous facts, the Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll reports that 60% of Republicans, 41% of Independents, and 36% of Democrats support using air strikes and ground troops against Iran in order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This poll indicates an appalling extent of ignorance and misinformation among the American public. The Bush administration will take advantage of this ignorance to initiate another war in the Middle East.

A majority of Americans have now been deceived twice on the same issue. Just as there was no evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. There is nothing but unproven assertions, assertions, moreover, that are contradicted by the evidence that does exist. Americans, it would appear, are so eager for wars that they welcome being fooled into them.

-more at www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts145.html

[OneBlueSky]

1. seems that Americans are both ill-informed AND gullible . . .

to think that they'll fall for the same bullshit again just blows the mind . . .

as His Shrubbery said, "Fool me once . . . um . . . er . . . we won't be fooled again" . . .

[sarcasmo]

2. Kick and Nom #3 for Dictator 43 wanting to start WWIII.

[SupplyConcerns]

6. Gotta love how casual that sounds

What else can you say by now?

[necso]

3. Strong piece. /nt

[pinklefoot]

4. I'm glad that I'm part of the 49%

[Strelnikov_]

5. The Sheeple Are Being Duped Again

Newt Gingrich said that the Iranian "dictatorship" is "too dangerous to leave it in charge of one of the world’s largest supplies of oil."

- Newt admits the real reason.

Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda must be marveling at the rank stupidity of the American people. Maybe Fox "News" only pretends to be the Ministry of War Propaganda for the Bush administration and is in the employ of al Qaeda instead.

- Couldn't agree more. Traitors all.

[slay]

7. After how BushCo tricked people about Iraq - this should scare EVERYONE

I've said it before and I'll say it again - those BushCo bastards are horrible, horrible people. :scared:

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. The leaked US national intelligence estimate on Iran said they were

many years away from being able to build nuclear bombs. Links to this and more here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1983449&mesg_id=1984089

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. Iran is scheduled to open its Euro-based oil bourse this spring.

Naturally, the world oil barons can't allow that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5650584&mesg_id=5651316

[teryang]

13. That's exactly the problem

The dollar will take a dive.

How could a negotiated settlement concerning enriched nuclear fuel resolve that problem? Maybe there won't be a resolution. This is why a $15 risk premium is built into crude prices and gold has taken off.

If there is a war, the dollar will take a dive. If there isn't a war, the dollar will take a dive.

I was trying to think of an alternative outcome which would avoid either situation. Law of excluded middle and all that. I guess a Russian compromise could make the international dollar dive resulting from the (euro) bourse more gradual than the dive that would take place from a diastrous strike on Iran. Maybe the Russians could force Iran to pay in dollars for the service.

[katty]

16. That is why MARCH is the cut off date they keep yammering about

[Karenina]

20. Cartoons, anyone?

Swat that hornets' nest yet again, the call in the exterminator. ;-)

[CanOfWhoopAss]

10. 51%?? Sounds like a mandate to me. If only it weren't fuzzy math! nt

[LiberalAndProud]

11. It's inevitable then.

We will wage new wars. How will we do this without drafting new soldiers?

Our treasury is bankrupt and our soldiers are weary. Have the majority of us been fooled again?

51%- I think that's a lie.
(but I can't prove it.)

[teryang]

14. They might be thinking of the Balkan bombing campaigns

...as an example. I don't think it is on point. But they might give it a try. The Serbs didn't really try to project power outside their area. They were really stressed by the bloodshed and the loss of modern infrastructure services caused by the bombings, electricity, fresh food, etc. No Ho Chi Minh trail there. I think that a bombing strategy would inevitably focus on urban areas, after attacks on nuclear facilities reaps retaliation. Typically, these bombing strategies are unsuccessful. The capital of Serbia was uniquely susceptible to such an attack. Would Tehran yield?

Iran has already prepared an unconventional battle plan similar in nature to Saddams. In addition they have some projection capability, economic, military and unconventional. It will be less of a cakewalk than the "cakewalk" but that will not stop the chest beating and patriot bombast when it goes off. It will be "mission accomplished" all over with all kinds of sanctimonious bullshit until the reverse slaughter begins.

[cliss]

17. Would Teheran yield?

Hard to tell. I think this government is young, a little bit inexperienced in Hard-Core Global Chess.

But they do know their strength. They have surely talked to people like Hugo Chavez, who once told about his predecessor, a previous leader of Venezuela, "I couldn't believe how he was caving to the United States. He just didn't realize that we held all the cards".

I would say Ahmadiejad has some very good advisors. They're sharp, and they're tough. They know who's really holding all 4 aces....plus 4 kings. But I've seen them fold, too. Last October, there was a showdown at the UN about a vote against Iran.

The US was pressuring countries like crazy to vote against Iran. India finally succumbed. Iran was furious at them for doing that. The next day, they called and said they were going to halt their natural gas shipments. India was shocked, upset. They said they had been coerced by US pressure.

Within a day or 2, the shipments continued. So Iran caved there.

Last week, there was talk about Iran pulling all of its deposits out of European banks, probably to banks in Singapore. Did they do it? I'm not sure.

So they waver sometimes, but only because they're unsure of themselves. They still know who has the real power.

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. Any old Western movie, or docu about Napoleon or the Eastern Front

Would tell Tehran how to proceed (or rather, exactly how far to retreat before retaliating in force) in a ground war against an already strained American force invading Iran.

More to the point, let's not forget that before we softened up Iraq for over a decade, we had no permanent bases in the area that Saddam could bomb. He would have had to bomb Saudi Arabia, the "defender of Islam".

Whereas we are now bogged down in fortified bases in an occupied country, 1/3 of which would be happy to get rid of us and another 1/3 of which (the vast, boggy, Vietnamesque south, filled with people who are far more willing to die for religion than most Iranians) is allied directly to Iran. I'd expect the primary trouble in a ground invasion, even if it stopped short of the Zagros, would be a rearguard explosion of Shiite guerrilla activity comparable to April 2004.

And Iran presumably has better weapons tech today, courtesy of Russia and China, than the second-hand Soviet crap Saddam had. We could easily wipe them out in an aerial blitz, but the Zagros forms a natural barrier to ground forces movement and Iran is already heavily fortified against an attack from that direction.

The problem is we can't just blitz them like we did the Serbs, because they have the ability (and willingness) to retaliate against nearby US ground forces occupying a hostile, Iran-allied country.

[apple_ridge]

12. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.

[katty]

15. Same Pro attack Propaganda they used before Iraq-predictable

[doublethink]

18. Check this out ..... Khuzestian .....

"If the US military is on the breaking point from trying to deal with an insurgency drawn from 5 million people, how can Bush send ground troops into vastly larger Iran with a population of 70 million people?" -snip-

Look at the maps I posted on this thread here of Khuzestian Iran ......... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x188370#188574

Point being the part of land these Bush cronies actually have to invade and control is actually only about 1/4 the size of IRAQ in order to control 90% of Irans Oil. As to the other 70 million Iranians maybe being a bit pissed by this ..... sadly U.S. air power will be used to keep them at bay. Is Bush crazy enough to try and pull this off? We shall see. Peace.

note: Heard Rumsfield state today that 'our troops in Iraq are now battle-hardened' .... took that as ready for another war. :crazy: