« Why Punditry Sucks in 96 | Main | Harry At War »
February 22, 2007
Hell No, We Shouldn't Go!
It's sort of odd that no one has done this yet, but Campus Progress have a very good fact sheet on why we shouldn't attack Iran. Sadly, "because it's a #(*%&@!^# crazy idea" isn't explicitly mentioned. Indeed, as good a job as the fact sheet does demolishing the case for attacking Iran, it doesn't even engage with what a disaster such a war would actually be. We're gonna need another fact sheet.
February 22, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I find that I am often making the argument that Bush policy is "stupid" in one context or another. The thing is, this is not a persuasive argument among stupid people.
Attacking Iran is so insane on so many levels, that it would be difficult to express the manifold unwisdom of such a policy. But, if your entire understanding of security policy is watching episodes of "24" in random order, what hope is there, that reason will prevail?
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Feb 22, 2007 1:33:38 PM
Yeah, you're right...I mean, it's pretty articulate and well-researched and all but it's kind of...tepid.
In addition to talking about the catastrophic consequences of war with Iran, the other point I'd make is that even if we assume every single justification for an attack is absolutely correct, military action is just about 100% guaranteed not to resolve any of those issues. It wouldn't prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, and it would provide a pretty significant motivation to either start or escalate attacks on US soldiers and arms shipments to Shiite insurgents.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Feb 22, 2007 1:34:45 PM
The lynchpin of the need to deal with Iran is
1)their animosity toward thier neighbors including our ally, Israel coupled with
2)their stated and demostrated desire for nukular weapons technology.
The talking points of Campus Progress doesn't deal with the first and even acknowledges the second exists. They say without any cites that it's four years away, but who knows? Iran has hinted that it's much, much closer.
The question that is starkly not addressed is *IF* Iran is to acquire nukular weapons technology, is that OK with the American Left?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 22, 2007 1:41:11 PM
I feel like I'm trapped in some excruciating dream where I'm immobilized in some vehicle (or something), and see this huge tractor-trailer coming directly toward me - with death and destruction inevitably to follow on collision. Like in many dreams, I can't move or speak or scream, and the oncoming wreak keeps getting closer and closer.
I saw this dream turn into reality all through the 2002/2003 period, with Bush denying that war had been determined upon, but US propaganda and force buildup going forward. And society did nothing to stop it.
It is coming again.
I fear not just another war, but the steps that lead down the yellow brick road that turns our democratic republic into a totalitarian empire. History is replete with examples on how this occured, viewed retrospectively, so we don't have the excuse of saying 'who could have imagined'.....
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Feb 22, 2007 1:48:15 PM
Fred: The question that is starkly not addressed is *IF* Iran is to acquire nukular weapons technology, is that OK with the American Left?
Easy answer to predictable (from Fred) question:
Iran with nukes doesn't threaten the very existence of the US, and it is just fantasy to think it does.
Iran WILL get nuclear technology, war or no war. Is Iran with nukes worse than Pakistan or Russia or N. Korea or China? Or Brazil, or India? Or Israel?
Why won't mutual assured destruction work to prevent Iran with nukes from using them (as it worked with the Soviet Union)?
Is the potential loss of our economic leadership in the world due to our debtor status to China and Japan (and others) worth the consequences of attacking Iran? How will we pay the bills if those who lend us billions of dollars stop doing so. (There are now more Euros in circulation worldwide than the dollar).
How would we prevent the Persian Gulf oil business from becoming a target for a regional conflagration in the event of a war? Can we function without that oil, and the oil of other countries who will reject our preemptive war (Russia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Malaysia, et al?
How would we react if the Shia in control of Iraq's government(s) and militias decide to side with Iran against the US, shut off our supply lines and directly attack US bases in Iraq? (As they did last week)
War against Iran is folly. Ten times worse than the war against Iraq.
Negotiations and containment can handle whatever threat Iran poses.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Feb 22, 2007 2:04:57 PM
Are you saying the UN is a crock?
UN Security Council Issued Res. 1696 14-1 declaring that this is an important issue and demanding that Iran suspend their nukular program immediately.
Negotiations and containment can handle whatever threat Iran poses.
And if that fails?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 22, 2007 3:10:55 PM
You folks worry about the wrong things. The chances that Bush intends to attack Iran (no matter how much he'd like to) are small, have been small, and will remain small, for exactly the reasons you all keep pointing out, among others.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 22, 2007 3:56:52 PM
Hey Jimbo...Jimmy-boy, The "Jimster", Jimmy-crack-corn-and-I-don't-care.....
Do you think the UN is a crock?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 22, 2007 4:05:06 PM
No, freddie the fragile (shaking in his boots and pissing his pants about Iran), the UN is not a crock. But the UN Security Council will NOT declare that Iran should be attacked with military force, and a veto or no from several members awaits any attempt from the US to get such an authorization.
In fact, since China and Russia have major interests in Iran, they might be supplying stuff to Iran if we attack Iran.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Feb 22, 2007 5:06:46 PM
And, fragile freddie, just how would you like China converting part or all of their $1 trillion in T-bills to Euros?
China is paying for our Iraq war now because of their taking IOUs from the US for goods sold to us, so just how much more do you think they want to fund?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Feb 22, 2007 5:10:40 PM
And if that fails?
Then military action is still a bad idea, because a) it would have catastrophic consequences and b) it still wouldn't solve the problem.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Feb 22, 2007 5:26:08 PM
But the UN Security Council will NOT declare that Iran should be attacked with military force, and a veto or no from several members awaits any attempt from the US to get such an authorization.
Oh, Jimmy-boy....
The UN has only given authority to use force only twice in its entire existence. Why is their decision to use or not use force relevant?
Didn't you wait for the UN to do something about Rwanda? How'd that work out for you? For the millions of Rwandans murdered?
Are you now waiting for the UN to take action in Darfur? You can tell them to just hang on....the UN might do something before hundreds of thousands more are murdered.....or more than likely not.
Let's face it Jimmy. The UN is, indeed, a crock. It serves the interests of small dictators more than humanity.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 23, 2007 9:34:34 AM
Go serve another small dictator than the one in Washington, Fred.
For all those wanting to reduce America's "terror" you might consider what the current chasing of mirages in the desert is doing to deterrence and relations with ... tah-dah ! ... Russia. Truthdig has a little article ( well, o.k., 3 pages ) that should put all prudent souls on notice.
Posted by: opit | Feb 23, 2007 10:43:20 PM
While Opit's personal attack is acknowledged, he addressed none of the obvious failings of the UN.
Just keep marching to the drum of the UN and keep dreaming it's doing something useful.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 24, 2007 9:48:16 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: viagra prescription | Jun 28, 2007 12:36:02 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: viagra online | Jul 3, 2007 8:27:23 AM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: cialis discount | Jul 3, 2007 8:27:04 PM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: cialis cheap | Jul 3, 2007 11:16:05 PM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: cialis soft | Jul 4, 2007 1:22:26 AM
cheap@levitra.com
Posted by: order levitra | Jul 4, 2007 12:37:49 PM
sale@mp3.com
Posted by: Eagles download | Jul 4, 2007 4:34:43 PM
sale@mp3.com
Posted by: Coldplay download | Jul 4, 2007 6:53:17 PM
sale@mp3.com
Posted by: My Chemical Romance download | Jul 4, 2007 10:01:15 PM
sale@mp3.com
Posted by: Bob Seger download | Jul 4, 2007 11:39:40 PM
sale@mp3.com
Posted by: Iron Maiden download | Jul 5, 2007 3:06:15 AM
