Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

What a War on Iran Might Look Like [photo essay]

By Nina Berman, AlterNet. Posted October 4, 2007.


Photos of the aftermath of Israel's air strikes on Lebanon give an idea of what a war on Iran might look like.
Advertisement

The Lebanon War of 2006 between Israel and Hezbollah lasted 34 days, and according to veteran war correspondent Scott Anderson, author of Double Blind, was noteworthy for its "sheer senselessness." AlterNet and multimedia co-sponsor BAGnewsNotes are pleased to host the above slideshow of images from Double Blind by photographer Paolo Pellegrin and an interview with author Scott Anderson, conducted by AlterNet's Nina Berman.

Nina Berman: In 34 days last summer, the Israeli Defense Forces lay waste to a large swath of Lebanon. Thousands of rocket attacks, more than 3 million cluster bombs, over 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed, and despite all the destruction and a small number of Israeli casualties, the general consensus, George Bush notwithstanding, is that Hezbollah, the intended target, emerged stronger than ever.

You've covered many conflicts around the world. What can you tell us about the Israel-Hezbollah war, and why it was waged??

Scott Anderson: Everyone has different theories. Hezbollah did this cross-border raid, killed three soldiers and captured a few. The Israeli army went in pursuit, walked into an ambush and lost five more. By the end of that day, the Israeli air force was already bombing. Most people think the Israelis were looking for a pretext to do what they did, and they found it in the cross-border raid..

Berman What was the U.S. involvement in the war?

Anderson: As in most everything that has to do with Israel, there was a complete carte blanche. Certainly from my vantage point, the most shameful aspect of American policy was to rush cluster bombs to Israel near the end of the war.

So in the last days of the war, the Israeli air force just littered the countryside with these cluster bombs. (Note: The Israeli Defense Forces dropped an estimated 3 million bombs over an area half the size of Rhode Island. About 1 million did not explode.) Civilians in Lebanon continue to die from these bombs. Obviously the major blame lies with the Bush administration, but the Democrats all just lined up, which supports this view in the Muslim world that they can never get a break with the American government.

Berman: Some people have said that the Lebanon war was a dress rehearsal for Iran. Do you support that view, and why should the American public be interested?

Anderson: I don't know if this was a dress rehearsal for Iran. But if you support the idea that we have to go in and take out Iran's nuclear facility and believe that it's going to be a clean war with pinpoint strikes, then you need to take a look, because really it's going to look an awful lot like Lebanon.

Berman: In the complex algebra of the Middle East, it seems that Israel, and now the United States, in attacking its enemy, ends up emboldening them, or creating conditions of such misery that make the rise of more hardline elements inevitable. What was accomplished by this war?

Anderson: The Israelis had this idea that they were going to move in and really pound the infrastructure throughout Lebanon, but they so overplayed their hand. They just took a hammer to the entire country. It had the political effect of making all of Lebanon feeling that they were under attack and rallying political support behind Hezbollah. On a military level it was a disaster for Israel. Hezbollah gave them a great fight, maybe the best they've ever had.

Berman: For the Lebanese, this was a war that began with little warning, spread rapidly and horrifically, and ended without resolution. Can you explain the book's title, Double Blind?

Anderson: I've covered war for a long time, and I think you operate on a covenant that you can gauge things coming, and the really creepy thing is that you didn't see Hezbollah. So the fighters on the ground were invisible. And the Israelis were doing it all by air. You see the F16s flying away, and they're dropping bigger bombs, but by the time you hear them overhead, the bomb has already dropped.

Paolo (Pellegrin, the photographer) and I had this experience where a drone missile exploded next to our car, about 25 feet away. You hear nothing. It's not like in the movies. It just explodes. It could come at the next second.

Berman: So the anxiety is constant? There are no safe moments or places for the civilian population?

Anderson: That's right.

To purchase Double Blind directly from the publisher, visit Trolley Books.

For more information about the Lebanon war, visit Human Rights Watch.

This photo series is underwritten, in part, by the popular progressive blog BAGnewsNotes. Authored by psychologist Michael Shaw, BAGnewsNotes is dedicated to the daily visual analysis of political news images. In addition, the site features and promotes original photojournalism. Besides "The BAG," Shaw also writes a blog feature for The Huffington Post called "Reading The Pictures," and an online column for American Photo magazine.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: slideshow, double blind, iran, civilian death, airstrikes, hezbollah, israel, lebanon

Nina Berman is a photographer and the author of Purple Hearts: Back From Iraq.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
3 million?
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Oct 4, 2007 12:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cluster bombs are quite large and have hundreds of little bombs in them. Does the author mean that, say, 10,000 bombs were dropped, each of which had 300 smaller bombs in them?


'Scuse my ignorance.

Really - if the US and Iran could just more more honest about going to war with each other (instead of using Israel and Lebanon as proxies), it might have saved a helluva lot of trouble in Israel and Lebanon last year. I must say - I was watching the news reports last year while peeping through my fingers - Lebanon is a nice place and it was so sad to see such devastation happening all over again...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Which is entirely different... Posted by: justaguy
What goes around
Posted by: vox persona on Oct 4, 2007 12:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If W is stupid enough to attack Iran, our Iraq fiasco will seem like our invasion of Grenada by comparison. If we continue to let our 'king of fierce continents' draw us into acting like a belligerent empire, we will reap the whirlwind. He has already bankrupted our treasury, borrows $3,000 per second borrowed from China to pay for his war (I hope history calls it the 'Bush War'), and now our dollar is in free fall. Already, get this, the Canadian dollar is worth more than the US dollar. We ain't seen nuthin yet, especially if we attack Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What goes around Posted by: Sushi
» Bloody hell Kimmie Posted by: IPF
A similarity and a difference
Posted by: akai ringo on Oct 4, 2007 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What emerges for me from this piece is an important similarity and an important difference between the Lebanon and Iran. The similarity can be found in the words that that the attack made the Lebanese feel that "all Lebanon was under attack". The piece makes it abundantly clear that any talk of "surgical strikes" is an absolute nonsense, and the almost certain result will be to make all Iranians feel that the whole of Iran is under attack. The important difference, it seems to me, and I'm still not sure that the American people as a whole have grasped this, is that Iran is infinitely more capable than the Lebanon of retaliating, and there can surely be little doubt that this retaliation will be directed against the American people as a whole. This is NOT wishful thinking, simply a clear statement of fact. After all;, the attack willl be directed by a democratically elected President in the name of the American people, however many individual Americans disagree with him.
I hope, rather selfishly I admit, that living as I do in the outskirts of Tokyo, my immediate vicinity doesn't rate very highly as a target for retaliation, but I wouldn't feel able to say the same if I were living anywhere in the U.S., or indeed, if Bush does succeed in getting U.K. Prime Minister Brown to go along with him, anywhere in the U.K. The consequences will be visited on the American people. The solution is in their hands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tis Is Nuts! (part 1)
Posted by: ldasteelworker on Oct 4, 2007 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909 )

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater - by Wayne Madsen

Global Research ( http://www.globalresearch.ca ), September 27, 2007 - Wayne Madsen Report


B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran, Not For Decommissioning: Airforce Refused

Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater - by Wayne Madsen, Sept. 24, 2007
Author's website: ( http://www.waynemadsenreport.com )

WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.

Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force
and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons.

The Washington Post story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration. WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles
was, and may still be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE.

Just as this report was being prepared, Newsweek reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's recently-departed Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, told a small group of advisers some months ago that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack on the Iranian nuclear
site at Natanz. Cheney reasoned that after an Iranian retaliatory strike, the United States would have ample reasons to launch its own massive attack on Iran. However, plans for Israel to attack Iran directly were altered to an Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria.

WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel's attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. The neo-conservative propaganda onslaught was to cite the cooperation of the George Bush's three remaining "Axis of Evil" states -- Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- to justify a sustained Israeli attack on Syria and a massive U.S. military attack on Iran. (continues...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 2 months Posted by: Iconoclast421
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Predict the Future
Posted by: US Citizen on Oct 4, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States will not know how many people they have murdered when and if they drop bombs on Iran. The news media will conveniently ignore it. The Administration will downplay this part of the story, and insist that all the people who were killed were terrorists and insurgents anyway. The military will claim that the casualties were very light because of the pinpoint accuracy of their missile guidance systems today. Then, several weeks later, Alternet will publish stories about the thousands of people dead and wounded in the bombings. Bottom line, the United States will have murdered more people in just minutes than Bin Laden is responsible for in his entire life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Touching Slideshow
Posted by: Aussie4891 on Oct 4, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lebanon is still reeling from the war last year and the political fallout it caused.

It was a stressful month, especially the first 2 weeks for the family, our mother had only just arrived their on her holiday when the war broke out, our village is south of Beirut so she was blocked off as pretty much anything that moved on the freeway was in danger.

Eventually they made it to Beirut through the mountains to get evacuated 2 weeks in, what usually would of been a 15 minute trip took 6 hours.

Hopefully a war with Iran can be avoided, that would mean far too much destruction for the region and none would be safe, it would be stupid for Israel to make such a move and expect to come out unscathed. The last thing the regions people need is more war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the above article is true...
Posted by: ldasteelworker on Oct 4, 2007 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the above article is true, cluster bombs will be the least of our worries!

And if it is accurate, then Thank God some people in our military and intelligence communities have got some decent thought processes and moral values in sticking to their sworn duties and don't just blindly follow orders!

The problem of course is what if Iran actually does pose a threat?

But how could anyone alive with even an ounce of analytical thought processes believe anything coming out of the Bush/Cheney Administration after Iraq and the WMD smoke and mirrors that got us into the fiasco we now face?

If the Bush/Cheney Administration attacks Iran without the United States Congress' and United Nations' approval like they did Iraq, then they and anyone else directly involved needs to immediately be arrested and charged with High Crimes and Treason against the people of the United States of America!

If any nuclear weapons are currently deployed in theater they must be immediately recalled to prevent the possibility of them falling into the wrong hands -- let alone the possibility of their use by the United States or in any further Crimes Against Humanity...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Clock is Ticking
Posted by: Urstrly on Oct 4, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having failed to even entertain articles of impeachment against Bush & Co. for lying about the reasons to launch a pre-emptive war in Iraq, are Congressional Democrats going to idly by while the same gang invades Iran? It looks as though they are to me. And I take Clinton's vote branding Iran for terrorism as tacit approval. (Obama ducked.)

Why is not one leading candidate willing to renounce our imperialist foreign policy? The top three Dems all say that the US will still be in Iraq at the end of their first term. No one likes to admit defeat, but there is no victory for us in these conflicts, as this slide show makes visible, only pain and suffering, and (off screen) oil. If the Democrats don't get it together, voters are going to fall for the first Republican who promises to get us out of Iraq. Remember Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam? We were still there when he resigned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» why you say defeat? Posted by: Iconoclast421
Reply
Posted by: US Citizen on Oct 4, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh the Administration will use the Congressional vote for labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurd as terrorists as implicit approval for their brutal bombing. Once again most of the Democrats played along. One would have thought that by this time most Democrats would not be listening to Joe Lieberman, but such is not the case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One sided war????
Posted by: rocketman on Oct 4, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
war is hell, unfortunately for the author, there are two side to each war.. you can show German cities after the devestation of the bombing but then you have to show the concentraion camps, and the hvoc brought about by Hitler..

you can show Lebanon but then you have to show the terror brought about by Hezbollah by bombing Israeli schools etc..

one sided pictorials like this add nothing to the discussion. All war alooks alike in pictures..on both sides of the conflict!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One sided war???? Posted by: InsertNameHere
» RE: One sided war???? Posted by: rocketman
» The facts deny it. Posted by: justaguy
» RE: One sided war???? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: One sided war???? Posted by: rocketman
» Rocketman = Concern troll!! Posted by: justaguy
» RE: ocketman = Concern troll!! Posted by: rocketman
REALITY CHECK
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 4, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that our illustrious leaders have given the entire world reasons to hate us, maybe we should look at those pictures a second time and try to think of a reason why that can't be us. Bush lives in a make believe place, I don't. It isn't possible to piss of so many people and not expect consequences, not limited to a falling dollar and oil prices. If 2 or 3 of our enemies decide to be friends we're in trouble. Our leaders are out of control and reckless. This is about us. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ALITY CHECK Posted by: cacky
Moral conclusion
Posted by: Michka on Oct 4, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the message which is lost in all these pictures of devastation to Lebanon is that Israel lost that war.

Lebanon, with the help of the Islamic Republic of Iran will rebuild the country, but the myth of Israel's invincibility is gone.

Put some of the picture of Israeli soldiers leaving Lebanon in tears. I think that is the message American people need to hear; Bombing Iran has a price you can not afford.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The war with Iran may not be as imminent as we think....
Posted by: Raj on Oct 4, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found some hope in reading this letter from Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. -- maybe some of you will too:

From: http://thepatriots.us

Read Bobs Letter to the Pentagon Sept. 13, 2007

Duty, Honor, Country 2007

An Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Serving and Protecting Our Nation

By Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., National Commander, The Patriots

Dear Comrades in Arms,

You are facing challenges in 2007 that we of previous generations never dreamed of. I'm just an old fighter pilot (101 combat missions in Vietnam , F-4 Phantom, Phu Cat, 1969-1970) who's now a disabled veteran with terminal cancer from Agent Orange. Our mailing list (over 22,000) includes veterans from all branches of the service, all political parties, and all parts of the political spectrum. We are Republicans and Democrats, Greens and Libertarians, Constitutionists and Reformers, and a good many Independents. What unites us is our desire for a government that (1) follows the Constitution, (2) honors the truth, and (3) serves the people.

We see our government going down the wrong path, all too often ignoring military advice, and heading us toward great danger. And we look to you who still serve as the best hope for protecting our nation from disaster.

We see the current Iraq War as having been unnecessary, entered into under false pretenses, and horribly mismanaged by the civilian authorities. Thousands of our brave troops have been needlessly sacrificed in a futile attempt at occupation of a hostile land. Many more thousands have suffered wounds which will change their lives forever. Tens of thousands have severe psychological problems because of what they have seen and what they have done. Potentially hundreds of thousands could be poisoned by depleted uranium, with symptoms appearing years later, just as happened to us exposed to Agent Orange. The military services are depleted and demoralized. The VA system is under-funded and overwhelmed. The National Guard and Reserves have been subjected to tour after tour, disrupting lives for even the lucky ones who return intact. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been destroyed, homes have been foreclosed, and children have been estranged. And for what? We have lost allies, made new enemies, and created thousands of new terrorists, further endangering the American people.

But you know all this. I'm sure you also see the enormous danger in a possible attack on Iran , possibly with nuclear weapons. Such an event, seriously contemplated by the Cheney faction of the Bush administration, would make enemies of Russia and China and turn us into the number one rogue nation on earth. The effect on our long-term national security would be devastating.

Some of us had hoped that the new Democratic Congress would end the occupation of Iraq and take firm steps to prevent an attack on Iran, perhaps by impeaching Bush and Cheney. These hopes have been dashed. The lily-livered Democrats have caved in, turning their backs on those few (like Congressman Jack Murtha) who understand the situation. Many of us have personally walked the halls of Congress, to no avail.

This is where you come in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War with Iran cont'd.....
Posted by: Raj on Oct 4, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We know that many of you share our concern and our determination to protect our republic from an arrogant, out-of-control, imperial presidency and a compliant, namby-pamby Congress (both of which are unduly influenced by the oil companies and other big-money interests). We know that you (like us) wouldn't have pursued a military career unless you were idealistic and devoted to our nation and its people. (None of us do it for the pay and working conditions!) But we also recognize that you may not see how you can influence these events. We in the military have always had a historic subservience to civilian authority.

Perhaps I can help with whatever wisdom I've gathered from age (I retired in 1978, so I am ancient indeed).

Our oath of office is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president? Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember). One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the DUTY to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were "only carrying out their orders."

The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the "highest law of the land," equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations charter and the Geneva Convention.

Based on the above, I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.

I know for a fact that in recent history (once under Nixon and once under Reagan), the military nuclear chain of command in the White House discussed these things and were prepared to refuse an order to "nuke Russia." In effect they took the (non-existent) "button" out of the hands of the President.. We were thus never quite as close to World War III as many feared, no matter how irrational any president might have become. They determined that the proper response to any such order was, "Why, sir?" Unless there was (in their words) a "damn good answer," nothing was going to happen.

I suggest that if you in this generation have not had such a discussion, perhaps it is time you do. In hindsight, it's too bad such a discussion did not take place prior to the preemptive "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad. Many of us at the time spoke out vehemently that such an attack would be an impeachable offense, a war crime against the people of Iraq, and treason against the United States of America. But our voices were drowned out and never reached the ears of the generals in 2003. I now regret that I never sent a letter such as this at that time, but depended on the corporate media to carry my message. I must not make that mistake again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» brother... Posted by: Raj
War with Iran cont'd..... (2)
Posted by: Raj on Oct 4, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also in hindsight, President Bush could be court-martialed for abuse of power as Commander-in-Chief. Vice President Cheney could probably be court-martialed for his performance as Acting Commander-in-Chief in the White House bunker the morning of September 11, 2001 .

We in the U.S. military would never consider a military coup, removing an elected president and installing one of our own. But following our oath of office, obeying the Nuremberg Principles, and preventing a rogue president from committing a war crime is not a military coup. If it requires the detention of executive branch officials, we will not impose a military dictatorship. We will let the Constitutional succession take place. This is what we are sworn to. This is protecting the Constitution, our highest obligation. In 2007, this is what is meant by "Duty, Honor, Country."

Thank you all for your service to this nation. May God bless America, and sustain us in this difficult time. And thanks for listening to the musings of an old junior officer.

Respectfully,

Robert M. Bowman, PhD, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
1494 Patriot Dr , Melbourne , FL 32940
home phone (321) 752-5955; cell (321) 258-0582

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you for your wisdom Posted by: Susan Kipping
» Hope...what a gift. Posted by: Susan Kipping
Maybe we've been appealing to the wrong people
Posted by: willymack on Oct 4, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe we should be talking to our military leaders instead of the rat bastards in the White House and our suckass "congress". If the article is correct we at least have SOME decent and honorable people in the armed forces. Maybe we could talk them into arresting and detaining (for trial) the murdering thugs responsible for the illegal carnage in Iraq. Maybe we could even talk them into incarcerating the bushies at Guantanamo. On second thought, maybe that last one is asking too much, but I'd really love to see it happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iran just might have a surprise or two...
Posted by: persian on Oct 4, 2007 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in store for invaders, much like what Israel faced in lebanon last summer. Iranian military leaders talk about asymathric defence doctrin, meaning bringing gas to $5.0 a gallon, deep econnomic recession in u.s and europe, flooding iraq and afghanistan with much more lethal weapons, shiite uprising in eastern oil province of saudi arabia and unleashing both syria and hizbollah on israel. The invasion of iran will give new life to islamic revolution that is running out of steam, much as saddam's invasion did in 1980. Iranians of all political and religious persuasion are united in their love of homeland, they will never accept a second class status of a client state like those morally bankrupt arab regimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hate war like the next guy...
Posted by: Frankstank on Oct 4, 2007 10:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But what if this is the way things are right now:

- Iran really is a threat
- the US is broke because it took on all the war burden, and other countries did not (and the US cheakily tried to export its war debt through the financial toxic waste of subprime loans)
- as an ex-CIA officer admitted today, the war against al Qaeda has been won and there just aren't many of them left now
- that the privatisation of the war, much decried by Naomi Klein, was actually just a very clever way of winning the war. And that instead of just one Bletchly Park, it spawned a thousand Bletchley Parks
- most have felt zero effect of this conflict, let alone made any sacrifice
- that the biggest mistake made was to fight the war in a nasty, partisan way. But then again, judging from the paralysis of the Democrats, maybe that was the only choice left?
- that there is in the end no clean way to fight a war. WWII was not clean, but it was the right thing to do

I am just asking this because sometimes I wonder from all the hyperbole on here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» YOU NEED TO ANALYZE BETTER Posted by: sofla100
» Thanks....and Sorry Posted by: Raj
» RE: I Agree Posted by: Raj
» RE: I Agree Posted by: MAD
» Simplistic indeed Posted by: IPF
Selective Use of Terror: Targeting the Civilian Population
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 4, 2007 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although it is never admitted, the goal of Israel in attacking Lebanon was to deliberately target civilian population centers. That way, Israel believed support for the Arab and Palestinian causes would diminish. The Arabs would be afraid of Israeli, or so it was believed.

This same logic is operating with USA war plans and Iran. We will be told that nuclear sites are the only ones being attacked. But, then plenty of "smart bombs" will just miss their targets. Many, as often happens, falling on school yards and hospitals.

It is the same old story over and over again. Now, the USA believes it is really the Iranian people that are the enemy. That they support their government, and hence they will be the target. This will never be admitted, but, truth be told, the USA believes it can terrorize the Iranian population into submission and into regime change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More insults? Posted by: IPF
» Are you 12? Posted by: justaguy
» No. I am not joking. Posted by: justaguy
Reality Check
Posted by: ray burchard on Oct 4, 2007 7:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is only my opinion, but let me first state that universal “Duality” is the controlling impetus that all things must comply to. (men/women), (black/white), (up/down) etc… with the interaction between the comprising principles creating a modality of either harmony or chaotic discourse.

Having said that, there are then two principle factions at play here, a static reality versus a dynamic reality.

ONE faction, a static cultural mindset locked in antiquation, personified by the tribal mentality of distrust and disrespect (human rights) expressed in the treatment of its own (gender and secular diversity) and that of other nations. Holding solid to the memory of past dominance and accomplishments in fields like, science and mathematics. Invoking religious resistance against the wave of universal change (evolution). Demonstrating a collection of individual wills, willing to forfeit their own life while taking others with themselves, rather than capitulate to change (evolution).

ANOTHER faction, as a representation of the dynamic “whole” of the rest of the progressing world, in and of itself representing change (evolution). A faction temporally lead by America’s military might, of which its conflicted governance is a work in progress, at the current and on going task of balancing its direction by conjugating the forces of fascism with that of socialism in the creation of a ameliorated form of capitalism.

Darwin’s natural selection within group mindsets just as within set mindsets. Not unlike the American Indian’s mindset, those who can adapt (change) will and those that can’t won’t.

This is not to say corporate America’s champions, Bush/Cheney initiated this plunder of Iraq for some noble cause, and its obvious corporate greed was their inspiration. But with dualities intertwined effect, “what goes around, comes around”, there can be silver lining effect, that is the coming together of cultures united against unbridled greed.

Now while I respect Iran’s president for the courage he demonstrated by coming into the lion’s lair, and the manner in which he presented himself here, the question I have to ask is can the world really trust the word of a nation whose mindset that sanctions the mentality behind suicide bombings with a possibility of a nuclear weapon.

Let me ask one unthinkable question, how would the 73% of us American’s look on Bush if the indiscriminate killing of innocents in Iraq subsides, and Iraq’s new governance principles actually start function in Iraq’s best interest as a “whole”, sooner or later its got to happen. Don’t push the pendulum of hate Bush so far that the inevitable backlash gives corporate America’s greed any breathing room.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 -