by heathlander, Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 04:46:10 PM EST
Everyone, it seems, is talking about the upcoming invasion of Iran. Mark Cliffe, chief economist at the ING Group, argues that,
"Financial markets are assuming that an Israeli and/or US attack on Iran is unlikely. However, bellicose rhetoric from Israel and an imminent build-up of US forces in the Gulf suggest that they could be in for a shock,"
while the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, has warned that a U.S. attack on Iran is a "50/50 proposition".
by heathlander, Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 04:24:48 PM EST
Last year, the Israel waged a brutal aggressive war against Lebanon, killing over 1,000 civilians, roughly a third of them children. According to the Lebanese Higher Relief Council, another 4,054 people were injured and 970,000 were internally displaced - Amnesty International put the number at over a million. Amnestyconcluded that the "evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage".
by Tom Rinaldo, Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 04:22:04 PM EST
He might as well have been singing John Lennon's old anthem. Last night, while sitting in the rabid FOX's den, Wes Clark said this to Bill O'Reilly:
"What's wrong with this scenario? You talk with Iran, you hold them at bay. One way or another, somehow, western influence seeps into Iran and the people of Iran decide that there's a better way of living, than being under the Ayatollahs. Isn't that a better approach than saying we're going to have to go to war with Iran, definitely?"
Clark didn't promise that we could all live happily ever after if we tried that approach. No, all he was saying was give peace a chance. Peace with Iran, it seems, has become a controversial proposition. Our war with Iraq, it seems, now makes war with Iran almost inevitable. Here is a headline from today's New York Times:
"To Counter Iran's Role in Iraq, Bush Moves Beyond Diplomacy"
When it comes to diplomacy it appears Bush moves faster than the eye can see. The story starts as follows:
by heathlander, Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:52:19 PM EST
On Thursday, U.S. troops, backed by helicopters, raided an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil. The soldiers "detained" six workers and "confiscated" documents and computers. This is, perhaps, the first instance of direct U.S. military action against Iran in years, and so represents a significant escalation in what can only be described as the slow, steady march to war.
by heathlander, Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 07:13:42 AM EST
This is a thought experiment. Both Israel and the United States have been openly advocating and planning for the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons for some time now. This is preventive war, and is illegal under international law. According to a high-level 2004 UN panel, unilateral force is only justified in the event of an "armed attack" or if a "threatened armed attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate". For an action to qualify as `preemptive' (as opposed to the uncontroversially illegal `preventive'), it must be in response to"incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent". Now, it is obvious that no such evidence exists in the case of Iran. Thus, any use of force aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capacity would be preventive, not preemptive, and would thus be illegal.