[Peace-discuss] Announcement of Main Event/Iran focus

[Barbara kessel]

good point, Stuart. Barbara

On 8/28/07, Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:52:09PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> > Here's a draft of the publicity for tonight's meeting that we discussed
> > Sunday. A minimally formatted copy is attached. Comments welcome. --CGE
>
> What would you think of mentioning (even with a link) the Robert Baer
> article in Time, the one that you and JFP have each mentioned recently?
>       http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1654188,00.html
> You point out below that both political parties are explicitly
> "leaving all options on the table", and that's very good --
> just pushing to get more D-labeled people in power isn't sufficient.
> But "options", even immoral and illegal ones, could be raised as just
> a way to intimidate an opponent.  It worries me much more to hear
> from Baer, who as an ex-CIA officer is in a position to know,
> that people now in government who'd be carrying them out
> think that those options are liable to be taken.
> His article closes with:
>
>     Strengthening the Administration's case for a strike on Iran,
>     there's a belief among neo-cons that the IRGC is the one obstacle
>     to a democratic and friendly Iran. They believe that if we were
>     to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years
>     war with Iran over. It's another neo-con delusion, but still it
>     informs White House thinking.
>
>     And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran
>     unifies Iranians behind the regime?  An Administration official told me
>     it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this
>     Administration. There will be an attack on Iran."
>
> *That* worries me.  Maybe it will worry other readers too.
> Is there room to work some of this in?
>
>    Stuart
>
> > ===========================================
> >
> > DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN -- NO ATTACK ON IRAN
> > JOIN AWARE (THE ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT) ON SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1:
> > DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S THREATENED ATTACK ON IRAN
> >
> > "Many people think that an offensive by Washington would be foolish because
> > the Americans can hardly cope with Iraq. How are they going to attack a
> > country that is twice as big and has double the number of inhabitants? But
> > ... Washington's objective is not to invade and occupy Iran. The central
> > purpose is to eliminate it as an obstacle to controlling the resources of
> > Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. And, to achieve that, it is not
> > necessary to invade the country. It is enough to destroy its military
> > capacity, aerial and naval, something that the armed forces of the United
> > States and its few allies can achieve in some week of selective bombardment
> > ... In reply, Iran can unleash a nightmare for the Americans in Iraq. But
> > the sacrifice of additional ... soldiers in Baghdad is not something that
> > is going to stop the ... the Bush-Cheney duo ... [and] the American people
> > ... will be faced with a fait accompli." --Alenjandro Nadal, "Blitzkrieg
> > Against Iran: Bush and Cheney's Twisted Logic," La Jornada, Mexico,
> > April 4, 2007
> >
> >       --In mid-July the Senate voted 97-0 for an amendment written by Senator
> > Joseph Lieberman that states that "the murder [by Iran] of members of the
> > United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an
> > intolerable act against the United States."
> >       --Vice President Cheney's national security advisor John Hanna considers
> > 2007 "the year of Iran" -- a U.S. assault on Iran is "a real possibility"
> > this year; asked about the opposition of the Congress and the American
> > people to escalation in and beyond Iraq, Cheney replied, "It won't stop
> > us."
> >       --Iran "is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear
> > weapon," said President Bush; in fact, Iran has repeatedly said that its
> > nuclear program is for civilian purposes.
> >       --"All options are on the table," said Bush, when asked about the use of
> > force against Iran on Israeli TV.
> >       --"No option can be taken off the table" in regard to attacking Iran, said
> > Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
> >       --"We need to keep all options on the table," said Democratic presidential
> > candidate John Edwards.
> >       --"No option, including military action, is off the table ... having a
> > radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse [than]
> > launching some missile strikes into Iran," said Democratic presidential
> > candidate Barack Obama, who has introduced a bill on divestment from Iran
> > that even the Bush administration has tried to stop.
> >       --"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and
> > over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the
> > propaganda," said Bush.
> >
> > THE DEMONSTRATION WILL TAKE PLACE ON SATURDAY FROM 2:00 TO 4:00PM
> > AT THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN AND NEIL STREETS IN CHAMPAIGN.
> >
> > SIGNS WILL BE PROVIDED -- OR BRING YOUR OWN -- ABOUT
> > PREVENTING A U.S. ATTACK ON IRAN, AS WELL AS
> >       --Ending the war in Afghanistan
> >       --Complete withdrawal from Iraq
> >       --Impeachment of Bush and Cheney
> >       --Ending repression of the Palestinians, etc.
> >
> > <http://anti-war.net/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>