This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0133_01C73EE0.59527100
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
War With Iran Is Likely - And Response
posted January 22, 2007
President Bush's national televised address on Iraq on Jan. 10,
alongside several recent developments, indicate that the administration is
seriously considering war with Iran. During his speech, Bush made the
starkest accusations yet against Iran, alleging that it was "providing
material support for attacks on American troops."
The following recent events have led to widespread suspicions that a
US/Israeli attack on Iran is imminent:
Additional aircraft carriers deployed to the Persian Gulf.
US Patriot missiles just deployed to the Persian Gulf.
F16 fighter planes just deployed to the Incirlik base in Turkey.
The F-16's can deliver B61-11 nuclear bunker busters.
Increased number of US nuclear submarines in Persian Gulf.
Admiral Fallon named Centcom commander.
Israeli pilots training for Iran bombing mission.
Increased provocations against Iran, including the arrest of Iranian
diplomats in Iraq.
Bush has described his plans to send Patriot-missile defense systems
to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to protect US allies. The
deployment of the Patriot missiles can be explained in light of a US plan
to attack Iran.
Last year, Iran signaled to the GCC states that it would retaliate
against the Arab sheikhdoms if the US attacked Iran using bases in the GCC
countries.
Following an attack by the U.S. or Israel, Iran's most likely weapon
would be ballistic missiles - the very same weapon that the Patriots are
designed to strike. A first step towards going to war with Iran is
therefore to provide the GCC states with protection against potential
Iranian retaliation.
The increasingly confrontational pose struck by the US is in direct
opposition to one of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group,
which called for the start of a dialogue with Iran and Syria in an effort
to extricate the US from Iraq.
In his speech, Bush outright rejected the group's recommendations.
Rather than talking to Iran and Syria, Bush virtually declared war on
these states.
Bush said: "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll
interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out
and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our
enemies in Iraq."
Asked whether that meant US troops could be sent across the Iranian
border, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that option was on the
table. "We have to recognize that Iran is engaging in activities that
endanger our troops."
However, there is nothing in the October 2002 "Congressional Joint
Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against
Iraq" that gives the President authority to invade yet another country.
(In fact, Congress could hasten the conclusion of this war by rescinding
their authorization in a move similar to what occurred just prior to the
end of the Vietnam debacle.)
A U.S. attack upon Iran mostly likely would involve the use of
"bunker buster" nuclear weapons, directed at purported underground nuclear
processing facilitates. Each of these weapons is estimated to be
approximately 1/3 as potent as those dropped on Japan at the end of World
War 2.
In order to stop an immanent U.S. nuclear attack upon Iran, Congress
should pass a law making a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation in the
absence of Congressional authorization illegal.
Congress knows full well what this President is capable of doing. If
it does not act, Congress would be condoning Bush's planned attack on
Iran. We have a small window of opportunity in which to persuade our
Representatives to prevent a nuclear crime against humanity.
Matthew Hine
* * *
George Bush refuses to dialogue with Iran and Syria over Iraq.
Arguably, his position is based on belief that reality consists of two
irreducible opposing elements: good vs. evil/bad, right vs. wrong, spirit
vs. flesh, kingdom of light vs. kingdom of darkness. It's biblical. It's
Plato.
Had the Platonist Saul/Paul not dialogued with the pagan Gentile
world, Constantine would not have become a Christian, and Western
history--ours--would be radically different.
Paul vehemently disagreed with Jesus' family who headed the
Jerusalem, Jewish church. It refused to have anything to do--like
meet--with Gentiles. It saw the Way dualistically: us vs. them. It died
out in the first century A.D.
Winston Churchill said "Better to jaw, jaw than to war, war."
Dualism, but with reason.
Mr. Bush, that book you avowedly revere admonishes "Come now, let us
reason together." Churchill and Isaiah knew something you need to learn.
Jack Reeves
Rutledge, Ga.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_100207.asp
------=_NextPart_000_0133_01C73EE0.59527100
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="dot_clear.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://www.chattanoogan.com/site_images/dot_clear.gif
R0lGODlhAQABAJEAAAAAAP///////wAAACH5BAEAAAIALAAAAAABAAEAAAICVAEAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_0133_01C73EE0.59527100--
.
|
