The really ugly part about * attacking Iran, is that if he does it,

[rzemanfl]

even I will have to hope ReichAmerika wins. No choice about it, I want my children and grandchildren to live.

On edit-in this instance I guess "wins" is irrelevant, but you can bet we will all have to "support the troops." This was an asinine post.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Wins?

Honey, if Fuckface does that, everyone loses.

[TAPat]

2. Amen, Brother. nt

[rzemanfl]

5. I know that, I guess I mean loses less than the other guys. Fuck,

I don't know what I mean. I guess I mean we won't be cheering for the Iranian anti-aircraft gunners, even if crypto-fascist holy rollers from the Air Force academy are flying the planes.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. No cheering at all, my friend ........

If we do anything to Iran, the consequences we'll suffer - over there - will be so sudden and dire, there will be only time and space for silent shock and horror.

[rzemanfl]

10. How did this end up under "editorials?" My mistake. n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. It's Saturday

You get in these moods..........

[whosinpower]

9. I agree

There are very few "winners" in war. I hate it - war that is. It will be the downfall of civilization as we know it.

I have to think that Bush is either very stupid or very smart. My simple thinking on the matter of Iran - is that he should be trying very hard to naturalize the situation - to get Iran to work WITH the US to stabilize the middle east and quell the ever rising civil war in Iraq. He isn't doing the obvious thing - so maybe I am being very stupid and he is very smart....so smart, even I cannot see the benefit of his policies. However, his past bunglings are so atrocious, so hideously stupid - that I can only deduct.....Bush is dumb - really really dumb....and that my friend is where it gets scary - because he is in charge of an arsonal that can destroy the planet.

Then again - I also think that this recent line of sabre rattling is just what the oil barons asked for - more instability to drive prices further - to further line their pockets with money. Sad really - money can't buy life once its dead.

[ClintonTyree]

15. You need rest if you're suddenly thinking Bush is "very smart".

No offense but this man is the worst President ever. Get some rest, things will look better after a good night's sleep. ;)

[uppityperson]

3. What does "win" mean?

I want my children and grandchildren to not have to be fighting the kids that this will affect.

[CJCRANE]

4. What's your definition of "win"?

Who's winning in Iraq? Who's winning in the War on Terror?

[rzemanfl]

7. See edit, this was a stupid post. Nobody would "win" read "win"

as we don't all get killed. Sorry I posted this.

[Shipwack]

8. *sigh* Sometimes the price of winning is too high...

Does the phrase "Pyhrric victory" ring a bell? A war that starts with Iran -might- be "winnable" (depending on your definition; it can be argued that we "won" in Vietnam...), but that might require nuking that country, several arab states, and a former ally or two.

I would much rather have my children grow up in a humbled former super power than a world ruled by a "Pax America" controlled by big business and/or a christian theocracy.

I would even go so far to say that a devastated US might be better than that scenario... If we refuse to be the shining light, we might at least serve as the horrible example.

On edit: That's ok, everyone posts things occaisionally that don't make good sense on reflection... Sorry if I came down on you too harshly.

[GreenPoet64]

12. Reminds me of the line from War Games . . .

1983 movie with Matthew Broderick:

"Strange game . . . the only winning move is not to play."

Listen to the prophetic-like warning: http://161.58.5.90/wargames/not2play.wav

[MADem]

13. The ugly part is that my old ass is back in uniform

Especially if, despite protestations, we end up doing the sea-air-land horseshit. Garrr-onnnn-teeeeeed. I know that region....

And I am thinking I won't be lonely, because such an action could touch off a powderkeg that goes boom from Pakistan on down, and we could end up in WWIII, so we'll all be in uniform, bitching.

I really thought we'd gotten past that shit, but every time we have a World War that will end World Wars, we sit on our human asses for a bit and then have another one.

And that crazyass monkey in the WH just seems to LOVE the idea of being FDR on a bicycle without a brain.....

[unblock]

14. on the contrary, a win would be even worse than a defeat

few things are more dangerous than the neo-cons getting anything that can actually appear to be a "success".

this would keep them in power, guarantee them enough support to continue their takeover of the middle east, and ensure that the entire world hates us for centuries.

at best, their plan may yield an extra 20 years of control of oil (and the benefits of THAT will flow primarily to a few rich executives, not to americans as a whole).

it's not worth it.

much as i hate to say it, america needs the neo-cons to suffer a clear military defeat. hopefully, what's happened in iraq is enough of a defeat. but if they go into iran, and especially with nukes, it would be a disaster if that strategy was viewed as a victory in any sense of the word.

let's hope it doesn't come to that, and let's hope that any defeat is as painless as can be.

[niyad]

16. I know that you said that upon reflection, this was an asinine post. but,

for anybody who might be lurking out there, harboring the strange delusion that there could be any sort of "winner" in such a conflict, reflect on the last lines of the only intelligent thing philip wylie ever wrote, called "triumph"- about the third world war. at the very end, a small group of americans (who had been living in a very serious bomb shelter deep inside a mountain) are rescued by a ship from the new zealand navy (new zealand being one of the few countries that wasn't blown to molten glass during the conflict). All through the book, there are horrific descriptions of the death and destruction that are taking place, things that gave me nightmares when I read it at age 12, living under the shadow of NORAD. The leader of the group is talking to the captain, and asks, "by the way,who won the war?" The captain replies, "we did-not that it matters"

THAT was the moment I became a pacifist.

[DavidDvorkin]

17. If the Fuehrer does decide to invade Poland

I'll have to hope that he wins, and I'll have to support the troops.

Well, no. For the sake of America, we'll have to hope that America loses, just as a true patriot in Germany in the 1930s would have hoped for Germany's defeat in what was coming.

See my essay We Are the Nazi Hordes

[tom_paine]

21. Actually, we already invaded "Poland", this will be the Low Countries

After our little Sitzkrieg.

Iraq was Poland, right down to the falsified provocation and the lying invasion.

Then Sitzkrieg.

Now comes the Low Countries (or Iran, for the Imperial Amerikan version ofthe Nazi equation).

[shenmue]

18. If he does it...

I'm taking a huge-ass oxygen tank and heading for the moon.

[GreenPoet64]

19. Can I go too? n/t

[Ian David]

20. On the other hand, he'll also blow-up their Halliburton office. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. Chief of State Grand Ayatollah Khamenei's Fatwa against nuclear weapons

Supreme Iranian leader – Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites.

Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:

link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html

Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons last August.

In the Iranian system the elected parliament and president have limited powers. By far the single most powerful person is Chief of State Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He has the final say. No other mullah, ayatollah or marja’a can override Ayatollah Khamanei’s fatwa. It is irrevocable. In addition to his political position--within the Shiite version of Islam he is what is known as a marja'a. Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is also a a marja'a. A fatwa is a final religious decision absolutely binding on all Shiites within that marja'a's domain. All fatwas issued by a maja'a are written down and publicly announced. They carry almost as much weight as sacred scripture.

This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran - link:

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm

Iran-Nuclear-Statement
Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes, a statement issued by the Islamic republic at the emergency meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) read here Tuesday evening.

The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons, it added.

The full text of the statement is as follows:
"Madam chair, colleagues,
"We meet when the world is remembering the atomic bombings of the civilians in Hiroshima (Aug 6) and Nagasaki (Aug 9) sixty years ago.

The savagery of the attack, the human suffering it caused, the scale of the civilian loss of life turning individuals, old and young, into ashes in a split second, and maiming indefinitely those who survived should never be removed from our memory. It is the most absurd manifestation of irony that the single state who caused this single nuclear catastrophe in a twin attack on our earth now has assumed the role of the prime preacher in the nuclear field while ever expanding its nuclear weapons capability.

"We as members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are proud to underline that none of the NPT members of the NAM rely on nuclear weapons in any way for their security. That is not the case of many other states, who either possess nuclear weapons or are member of nuclear-armed alliances and it is such states that have taken on the self-assigned role of denying Iran its legal rights under the NPT to access the peaceful uses of nuclear technology in conformity with the treaty's non-proliferation obligations.

"Indeed, it is not only Iran but also many members of NAM that are denied the peaceful uses of nuclear technology by some of the NPT nuclear-weapon states and their allies through the mechanisms of export controls and other denial arrangements. In 1995, they adopted the so-called "Iran clause" under which they agreed to deny nuclear technology to Iran in any circumstances.

"You can then understand, why Iran after being denied nuclear technology in violation of the NPT, had no other option but to rely on indigenous efforts with precaution on full transparency and we succeeded in developing our nuclear technology. Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes.

"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain. The leadership of Iran has pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT and has placed the entire scope of its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards and additional protocol, in addition to undertaking voluntary transparency measures with the agency that have even gone beyond the requirements of the agency's safeguard system.



http://www.dontattackiran.org

----------------------------------
Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state. (Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites.)

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Oversea Visitor]

23. US will LOSE

The world will suffer great casualty ..... but US will lose

Once that step is taken there is no turning back
Only 2 possible outcome
World lose or US win

Only one way US win
Use the 10,000 nukes

Only one way for using nuke
Mutually Assured Destruction

Only one possible outcome
US and many parts of the world become a mushroom cloud

Then we pick up the pieces and get on with life in a world totally contaminated for billions of years. Yes the human race will survive. That is the price of war.

So does it matter who win or lose fighting over this great PRIZE to inherit a world utterly destroyed for the sake of owning the world.

But does bush even think about it. Nah he look at the big stick he has and say "I win I got big stick. No one will be that crazy. They wont do it."
But bush you take the step. YOU JUST DID IT.

[DemoTex]

24. If Bu$h attacks Iran, we might just have to retreat from Iraq under fire.

If Bu$h attacks Iran, that state will probably unleash a shit-storm of Russian Sunburn cruise missiles (2.1 Mach) against the US Navy fleet in the relatively small and shallow Persian Gulf. Iran has Sunburn missiles deployed in the high grounds on the north and east coasts of the Persian Gulf (including coverage of the narrow Straits of Hormuz). Within hours of a US attack on Iran, many US warships could be sunk with thousands of US sailors dead. The US Navy fleets in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea would be of little use because the Sunburns would control the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranian Army (800,000 regulars) could invade SE Iraq and the Iranian Navy could blockade the water routes into that narrow strip around Basra. It would be Bu$h's Dien Bien Phu in compressed time.

Any US/Iran battle scenario is bad-to-the-bone, because WE CANNOT WIN AGAINST IRAN.. We are semi-fucked now just because of Bu$h's insane public comments. Al Qaeda, Hammas, Iran, Israel, Russia, the CIA, or even Halliburton could easily launch a "false flag" operation that could plunge us into Armageddon.

No, Bu$h must go. Sooner rather than later. The world must be re-assured that we do not condone the actions of Mr. Bu$h and his cabal of PNACers AND that we consider his actions as indicative of madness as the rest of the world does.

The wise OldLeftieLawyer said it best, "Honey, if Fuckface does that, everyone loses."


Baghdad 2007?

[Ghost Dog]

25. Hmm. Could anyone point to a Hi-res

of that photo, please?

:-(

[ShortnFiery]

26. The entire world LOSES if we nuke and/or bomb Iraq eom