Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

President's reasons to invade Iran are weak

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:00 pm

In August 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to prepare a plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States (including) large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons … not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

Rep. Ron Paul from Texas, who is currently considering a presidential candidacy, expressed concern "that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."

If America invades Iran, the escalation of war would dwarf the current situation, where we are primarily fighting a minority Sunni insurgency. The Shiite government, which we have installed, armed and trained, is pro-Iranian. The Shiite militia leadership has promised its American-trained forces would attack America if it invades Iran. Iraq's new parliament is aligned with Tehran. It is dominated by the United Iraqi Alliance, which includes the Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), whose headquarters are in Iran. It also includes the Dawa Party, whose leadership visited Tehran in January 2006, and whose military engaged the U.S. Marines for three weeks at Najaf, in November 2004.

President Bush's intelligence on Iran's "here we go again" nuclear weapons program was obtained from a guerrilla group called the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), translated "People's Mujahideen (fighting force)." MEK was created in 1965 under Soviet-sponsorship, by Marxist revolution ideology. MEK participated in attacks on the Shah of Iran, aligned itself with Khomeini, and participated in the Iran hostage-taking, before it was expelled from Iran. MEK was welcomed in Baghdad, participated in the Iran-Iraq war. Today, MEK is postured to benefit from a regime-change in Iran.

I don't see any reason for United States' presence in the Persian Gulf, except for escorts through the Strait of Hormuz; and I don't believe President Bush's non-corroborated intelligence.

Daniel Hutchins

Acampo

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

3 comments:

  • posted at 3:44 am on Mon, May 7, 2007.

    Posts:

    citizen: At least get it right. I'm a conservative, and you could't possibly offend me. If you got the story right, I'd listen. As it is, I recommend you express yourself in Berkeley or Arcata. For your information, these are cities in California.

     
  • posted at 3:54 pm on Thu, May 3, 2007.

    Posts:

    citizen: This is not your house to ask me to leave. I do not leave because this is my country.

     
  • posted at 5:07 am on Tue, May 1, 2007.

    Posts:

    Politics aside, an actual invasion of Iran is a non starter. We simply do not have the manpower to do the job while we remain bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire. Whats worse, our incompetent Commander in Chief has allowed our military's combat readiness status to degrade to its lowest level in decades.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 2 hours ago by Josh Morgan.

article: Fireworks shatter calm in Lodi

I could really care less if fireworks are no longer available in the future but I also realize that several local non-profits are very depe…

More...

Posted 3 hours ago by Todd Cronin.

article: Letter: Please return stolen scooter ba…

Nice touch pulling on the heart-strings there jasam......

More...

Posted 3 hours ago by Todd Cronin.

article: Fireworks shatter calm in Lodi

What better way to celebrate the birth of a nation then by blowing up a small part of it and bothering/offending your neighbors at the sam…

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Treacy Elliott.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

BTW. I never said that those sites were conservative or conspiracy websites. I never mentioned them at all in any of my posts.

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

The old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. With that in mind, I searched through Google images to find evidence of this cla…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists