War With Iran?

   I get occasional emails from groups such as MoveOn.org wanting me to sign a petition for various causes and some of them are worth signing.

Here is one that just came and I think that action is needed.

          * * * *

Last Tuesday, a second US aircraft carrier arrived in the Sea of Oman off the southern coast of Iran¹ giving a whole new meaning to the term "escalation." The Bush administration is hell-bent on sending 48,000 more troops to Iraq against the wishes of most Americans, but now it seems like they might not stop there.

While the war in Iraq grows worse by the day, the White House seems to be turning its sights toward neighboring Iran which could escalate the current conflict into a regional one. This reckless move comes despite the fact that most experts believe diplomacy is the way to go with Iran.

President Bush is out of control, and Congress needs to step in immediately to rein him in. Please sign this petition to Congress asking that they require the president seek their authorization before taking military action in Iran. Clicking here will add your name to the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/noescalationiniran/o.pl?id=9937-7980468-sDcr1b&t=3

The President claimed that Iran is aiding the Iraqi insurgency, but analysts continue to cast doubt on the evidence. Even General Peter Pace of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has questioned the claims that the Iranian government is directly involved.² After all, we are already in a war founded on disproved claims of WMDs.

But the reporting of this news is just the latest. Already we have two aircraft carriers in the region—unprecedented outside of war—and Patriot missiles have been deployed. Neither of these will help to protect our troops in Iraq where most of the fighting is on the ground.

One thing is clear—military action in Iran would further endanger our troops in Iraq and threaten to destabilize the entire Middle East. It could even prop up the Iranian president who is quickly losing popularity in his own country.

We have options: Experts say that sanctions and diplomacy can work. They just worked with North Korea, where we reached a deal last week for them to disarm. And we owe it to our troops to use all of our resources before sending them into harm's way. UN sanctions just went into effect late last week, and the UN Security Council is meeting again today to discuss options. We need to give this process a chance to work before provoking a regional conflict.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has provided some much needed leadership on this:

It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any, any use of force against is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.³

Please also support General Wesley Clark and Iraq veterans who have also mounted a petition against war with Iran, just announced today at:

http://www.StopIranWar.com

General Wesley Clark helped them launch their effort with these words:

War with Iran is not the answer now. We must work with our allies, talk with Iran, and use all diplomatic, political, and economic options at our disposal. Military force in Iran is not the solution.

 

Technorati tags: War Authority, Iran, Hillary Clinton, Gen.Wesley Clark

 

Can A Nation Be Held Responsible For Crimes Against Humanity?

   Today's question from Al Jazeera concerns crime against humanity.

Monday, 26 February 2007

In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice has said that the 1995 massacre of nearly 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica was genocide, but that Serbia, as a nation,was not responsible. Send us your views.

          * * * *                                                                                It is interesting that this occurred after the U.S. got involved. If the U.S. government has not committed genocide, then the act probably cannot be done. The U.S. has used its military, influence, and money to dominate most of the world. Some people get rich off this chaos, at a safe distance of course. The first objective is keeping the U.S. dollar as the currency for oil. This forces other nations to give the U.S. interest free loans which can be used for (1) the war on drugs in the U.S., (2) the war on drugs that has been exported abroad, (3) the supposed war on terrorism to divide, conquer and rule the World, (4) maintaining U.S. dollars as the oil currency, (5) Paying the Industrial War Complex, and (6) keeping the right politicians in office. This is about money. Bosnian was just collateral damage.

Jack, Houston, USA

          * * * *

This is utter drivel, of course Serbia as a country is responsible for this massacre, how can it not be. Why are karadic and miladic the two main players of this horror war still at large, who is shielding them and why.It should not take mor than ten years to bring them to justice or preferrably get rid of them for good. To me the so called 'world court' wants to get its act together, in its present form it is useless. This ruling is an insult to the poor people who died and their greiving families.

Roberto, Girvan, United Kingdom

          * * * *

After all 650,000 victims are far more than 8,000 victims so we could speak about a genocide also as a result of the Iraqi occupation!

Tomppa, Nr Helsinki, Finland

          * * * *

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were genocides, horrible horrible crimes against humanity, and the people were dancing in the streets of New York as millions were dying. That's genocide and please don't post any rubbish about that kind of genocide being the only way to end a war. If the US had to pay that kind of price, we would never hear the end of it. Let's consider how many lives have been taken in the aftermath of 9/11, and how many innocent Iraqis have paid with their lives to satisfy some kind of insane US agenda.

Evie, Montreal, Canada

          * * * *

Saddam had this many executed and buried in mass graves on many occasions. Killed this many in one day with mustard gas. Yet most comments on this site praise him as a hero. I guess it's ok for the killing to go on, as long as the muslims are doing it against each other or against the Christians or Jews (or Hindus, or Buddhists, etc).

LeotheIsaurian, Detroit, USA

          * * * *

Serbians/Serbia would not be held responsible for genocide (8,000 Muslims) because all who were killed were Muslims, so what...Do you think anyone will be held responsible for the (present) killing of Muslims elsewhere too? I have my doubts.

Sohail Gill, , Pakistan

 

Technorati tags: Bosnia, Muslims, Serbians, Genocide, U.S., Iraqis