Iran Scary! BOO! We Go War Now!

Did you know that Iran could produce a nuclear bomb within 16 days?

It's true!

And did you know that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, could launch a WMD attack on America in 45 minutes, and has extensive ties to the Al Qaeda network?

Ohh, right, nevermind.

Amid all this saber rattling and war planning, the NY Post's Ralph Peters (recently returned from his lovely vacation in the tropical hotspot known as Baghdad's Green Zone) wrote an article asking if Iran wants war, when the better question is why we want war. And badly, apparently. The Post received some letters in response. They printed three of them. The first is hard to decipher. It seems to be saying that anything less than full support for the President and his war(s) is tanamount to killing our troops. Or something. You can read it for yourself. The second two get the idea a little better-
#1-

When will enough be enough?

First, Bush misleads the American people into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and then leads our country into a war that clearly has no visible end in sight.

Now it is becoming obvious that he is laying the groundwork for a confrontation with Iran.

A pre-emptive strike against another small country could be devastating to our economy and cripple our foreign policy.

There is no doubt that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his strong words against the United States should be taken seriously, but we must remember that no one really wins a war and that we should only go to war as a last resort.

Diplomacy is the key to the world's future.

Brenden Hammerle
Springfield, Mass.

#2-

Peters' article makes an interesting conclusion: "We should make the conflict so devastating and painful that even our allies are stunned."

When people are unable to think and act rationally about a problem, it is tempting to lash out at the bad guys, but that's a road to destruction.

The Bush administration already has led us down this path with the conflict in Iraq, but when you engage in a pre-emptive strike, no matter the collateral damage, then you create enemies forever and disrupt the polity with unknown consequences.

If we want to start Armageddon to protect our national-security interests and our addiction to crude oil, then Peters is right.

If we want to solve problems without starting another conflict, his ideas better be put in the trash.

Mitch Pezdek
Ilion

If even if the readers of the far-right NY Post aren't fooled, maybe there is hope.

Still, while many on the internet are organizing to try and stop this, I wonder whether resistance is futile here (not that I mean we shouldn't try). Here's a scenario for example... The President pushes forward with war plans; he doesn't bother to ask for congressional approval. Congress, a significant enough of a majority having learned their lessons from Iraq, proactively pass a resolution expressively forbidding preemptive military action against Iran. The President, having already established a precedent for it on warrantless spying and torture and oversight requirements of the Patriot Act, insists that his inherent Article II powers as Commander-In-Chief cannot be trumped by a congressional law. He continues on to wage war in defiance of Congress and public disapproval.

That's a worst-case scenario, but Republicans have accepted that idea of unstoppable constitutional power. Perhaps this (and the thought of what a future President might do) should cause them to reconsider their support of such an extreme view of executive power.

Meanwhile, some Republicans try to paint Seymour Hersh's reporting as the problem here. And yet- the White House has still not actually denied his allegations. They've just settled for vague warnings about 'wild speculation' and assured us of their committment to 'diplomacy'. Again- they have not denied the substance of his report.

Nuclear war, here we come. This is why you don't elect an end-of-days Christian for President...



[PS- Don't believe the hype- Experts: Iran's Boast May Mean Little]