The administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is set on a course that leads directly to a third world war. And a third world war leads almost inevitably to most of us dying horrible deaths. And we're not talking about it.
The White House has made clear it is seriously considering attacking Iran with massive bombing aimed at destroying the nation's military and changing its government. Iran will certainly retaliate. If attacked, and possibly even if not attacked, Israel will join in the fighting. The resistance in Iraq will intensify dramatically. Controlling the oil of Iran and Iraq will be out of the question short of thorough genocide. Anti-American furor will sweep the Muslim world. The nuclear nation of Pakistan will be a prime target for an Islamic revolution.
If we don't have a world war on our hands immediately, one will be very hard to avoid. We will have taught every nation, again, that the only path to safety is acquisition of nuclear weapons. We will have isolated the United States from most of the world, including many of our traditional allies. Terrorist attacks against American targets will come, and the United States will retaliate, again, not with law enforcement but with additional aggressive warfare.
If the United States attacks Iran, we will be openly at war with the world in a nuclear age. If the thought isn't terrifying, something's wrong with our ability to fear. Our politics is almost always driven in the wrong direction by fear of the wrong things. I'd love for once to see fear knock some sense into us.
The founders of the United States feared these moments for us. To protect us, they gave Congress the sole power to declare war. The current Congress, building on the misdeeds of others in recent decades, has given up its power. In fact, we've reached the point where Congress cannot easily take it back. Were Congress to declare with a veto-proof majority that Bush must not bomb Iran, is anyone sure Bush would listen?
Back at the start of this Congress, eight months ago, some of
the new committee chairs from the progressive caucus spoke on a panel
organized by the Institute for Policy Studies. Congressman John
Conyers, the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said on
this occasion that he would take up the impeachment of Bush and Cheney
if they attacked Iran. Congressman Dennis Kucinich at the time was
saying the same thing. He has since introduced articles of impeachment
against Cheney (H Res 333) that include the charge of threatening
aggressive war against Iran (which happens to be a crime). Currently 20
Congress Members support H Res 333, but none of them with any sense of
urgency. None of them are lobbying their colleagues to sign on or to
introduce their own articles of impeachment. Nobody in Congress, and
certainly not the leadership, is pushing hard for impeachment as the
means to prevent an attack on Iran.
But impeachment is the only
leverage the Congress has over an outlaw executive branch. Conyers
recently said that he opposes impeachment because he carries the
Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other, and he uses the
calculator to tell himself he doesn't "have the votes" to pass
impeachment. Of course, by that argument, he should take his name off
his bill for single-payer health care, his bill for slavery
reparations, etc. But, more importantly, an impeachment effort can
serve a purpose short of successfully impeaching anyone. A serious
movement to impeach Gonzales helped show him the door. A serious
movement to impeach Bush and Cheney is the only way Congress can deter
an attack on Iran or end the prolonged attack on Iraq. If articles of
impeachment had 100 cosponsors, Bush and Cheney would understand that
attacking Iran would move that number to 218.
Has Bush even told
the Congressional leadership of his plans to attack Iran? If he has
not, will they have the decency to feel indignation? And will they do
so BEFORE the bombing? If he has told them, then Congressional leaders
have a duty to the citizens of this nation to immediately expose and
oppose such plans. Congress exists to determine our nation's course of
action, not to be informed of it. Any member of Congress who has been
informed of new plans for illegal war and not spoken out should be
tried as an accomplice in war crimes.
As the White House
continues to leak news of its likely attack on Iran, our demand must be
for impeachment now, not after the slaughter when we have all been made
less safe than ever. And we must not get caught up in the nonsense
questions in the media over exactly who lied about exactly how many
nuclear facilities in Iran. If possessing some particular number of
nuclear reactors, or for that matter nuclear bombs, justified other
nations in launching aggressive war, then any nation would be justified
in attacking the United States. Nothing, in fact, can justify a war of
aggression, legally or morally, because such a war is certain to be
worse than whatever might be found to try to justify it.
We
cannot, of course, be certain at this point that Bush and Cheney will
attack Iran. Whether they do or not, the task of Congress remains the
same: impeach these dictators and end the occupation of Iraq. But if
our nation continues on this path of unchecked executive power and
military aggression, the path of Afghanistan and Guantanamo and Iraq,
then expanded war is inevitable, and that means war that eventually
hits the United States. The clearest I can possibly frame our situation
is as a choice between one word and another. We are unlikely to get
neither or both. We are likely to get one or the other. Impeach or die.
I have gone through your site which was written by David Swanson.Here he took the example of "America and Iraq(n).If the world war 3 start then no people live on this earth Islamic countries has to get realize and should stop.Because only the problem is that terrorism terriests are cameing from Islamic countries.However nice article written by David Swanson.Very recently i visited one site which closely relates to your site it's all about world war
1
September 04, 2007
a guest: Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich
Everything is in the title Mr previous guest. It all depends on your point of view. There is only one certainty : Both parts are responsible for what's going on.
my god ! what is up with you sitting ducks ? david swanson is correct and it is not an exageration !when will you realize that all extemists ours and theirs are pieced from the same suit.if you are not an extremist, than you are an average citizen of america or afganistan or iraq or iran.and you and i have everything to lose by pointing out petty differences and not focusing on the real enemy of ALL !!the rulers all around this world that contol the weapons of war and the economics and the resources that any common man or woman -ANYWHERE,will need to live... WAKE UP YOU THICK-SKULLED BASTARDS....now what are we gonna do about it,i wish i knew......i am a bastard,too....because i do not know how to fix it...
be at war. Neither China nor Russia will join in (perhaps by established agreement as far as China). England will not be at war; European Union not; Japan not; Canada not; Mexico not; most of Africa not; South America not; etc not. The United States will continue to be at war and Israel may actively join. Reaction may be world wide but will not be directed world wide. Rather it will be focused. Iran will be the last invasion made by the U.S. because China and Russia will insist upon lines drawn across which further invasions threaten their economic securities. This does not mean the U.S. will not respond to 'invitations' by certain regimes to help quell the 'terrorist' rebellions in their countries. Nations will not seek nuclear weaponry for defense. That only results in an excuse for being attacked. They will, however, seek mutual defense alliances with countries big enough to make attacks on them untenable. The bigger players will divide up the world further into their spheres of 'influence'.
A nuclear scenario exist only if Israel is being overrun. It will not be the U.S. that uses them.
Assuming there is a legal basis for impeachment, impeachment is irrelevant because both parties want the same thing. How does one know that? One just has to take off the blinders and look at the results. Not only have no actions been taken to stop anything, laws have been passed virtually unanimously that have only strengthened the pathway of presidential power and action taken in the 'war' on terror.
Impeachment is not going to happen. To suggest that 'die' is the mandated alternative is not accurate. Life will continue for most, though death will certainly visit the innocent more frequently then the guilty. History will, as it does, repeat itself.
unconcerned....you are right about one thing,history certainly does repeat itself...and you and all others who remain 'unconcerned'play no small part in the repetition.you seem to have neatly packaged up your views,to fit into your small world....
A definition is presumed that is not mandated by usage. From answers.com: 'Not anxious or apprehensive; unworried.' That analysis is done without anxiety or apprehensive is a trait that allows room for logical analysis and that is the methodology this unconcerned american employs as best able. My posts state observations or disagreement about content, not about the authors. My posts tend to make predictions that time will allow review for accuracy. My posts are as best able 'packaged neatly' for purposes of discussion. My posts do fit in a 'small world' but in that small world context has changed and changes constantly (with great assistance from the like of Arthur Silber, Chris Floyd, Chris Hallquist, Juan Cole, etc). My posts also fit the stated requirements written just above the space provided for 'Website' as are all posts. To allow a post that blames the author of another post for 'no small part' in the ongoing repetition of the acts of war and empire building is not consistent with those stated requirements. This unconcerned american suggests to all concerned that during attempts to be analytical that the concerned set aside the emotions and look to see what is written. To project blame is a nonsequitor.
Interestingly enough for additional comment is what the allowance of the post of the blamer suggests about the AFP: First, that my other post were viewed by the AFP from the context of 'unconcerned' provided by the blamer. That they were still posted is noteworthy accomplishment for the AFP. Second, that the AFP apparently has grown weary enough of my name to allow a public rebuke. A less noteworthy accomplish for the AFP.
Having now become concerned over the content of the blamer's post, the AFP's posting of that comment, and the ability to track this once unconcerned american down through nominal internet skills, perhaps running away is the safest thing to do. On the other hand, if the government is as capable of reading as the blamer and the AFP are, perhaps they think this concerned american is 'on their side' How ironic...
Hear ye, Hear ye! Am I the only one who thinks that gentlemen such as "Unconcerned Amerikan" have completely lost all everything it means to be American? Our nation has been hijacked by cretins of the worst sort! These pathetic neo-cowards have done nothing but destroy the foundations by which America has achieved all of it's greatness. Is it too far fetched to simply say the truth? It is without cause to alarm others of these malfeasence? The founding fathers warned us against exactly what is happening, and you are unconcerned? The obvious goal of this admin has been to destroy the U.S.A.. Think about it, what have they done to promote the acceptance of America towards other religions (founding feature)...nothing. What have they done to calm the nation of Islams' concerns...nothing. What have they done to secure our borders to make sure only those with good intent enter...nothing. Enron, and Halliburton are the obvious positions of this Admin regarding the economy. Pure self interest. That's it. I could go into civil liberties, politizing the DoJ, anywhere you turn these neo-cowards have driven their arm elbow deep into our orifice! But everybody is fine. Nobody cares. We'll all be "raptured away" the morons say. I'm obviously fed up with all of you apathetic fools! If you are a homophobe, it's the first sign of being a homo. If you say it's "both sides of the isle" it is obvious that you are partly to blame for the nations current state and you are just saving face. Those who continue to support the nitwit in the office or the repigs that will eventually start WW3 really need to take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves, has it been worth your own pride to destroy the only safe haven the world has ever known?
8
September 07, 2007
a guest: oob
so, if congress do go ahead with milertary action against Iran, will it happen while bush is in office?
life to short to go war whats the point there are not going to listen if that do i will not be going to war i know that one
10
September 14, 2007
MeAgain: Time Passes 10/17/07
from the article: "We will have taught every nation, again, that the only path to safety is acquisition of nuclear weapons." from the Unconcerned American: "Nations will not seek nuclear weaponry for defense. That only results in an excuse for being attacked. They will, however, seek mutual defense alliances with countries big enough to make attacks on them untenable. The bigger players will divide up the world further into their spheres of 'influence'. "
MeAgainAgain 12/14/07: "My posts tend to make predictions that time will allow review for accuracy."
from: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IL15Ad01.html "China Petroleum Corporation, better known as the Sinopec Group, signed a contract with the Iranian Oil Ministry for the development of the Yadavaran oil and gas fields in southwestern Iran." I still hold that an attack on Iran is possible. Insane, but possible. Impeachment as a tool for stopping it? Not insane, just not possible. Demos are giving GW everything he wants without even a fight, i.e a vote to stop the funding to either losing war effort. Fear of the threat of veto or fear of the threat of filibuster ring out as the reasons. Fear of threats. How ironic is that.
12
December 14, 2007
kookiimonster: cant be stopped
it cant be stopped if they decided to start a WWIII. what are we supposed to do. by helping and fighting we are just taking more soilders and possibly killing more men then neccessary. i think that we shouldnt go to war-2 world wars is enough!!!
13
January 24, 2008
wallowamountainman: exploring the past of the AFP
I came across World War III.
There was potential for a good debate...sidetracked of course by the name callers.
I am gonna check out the author's future/past posts to see if anything has change.
14
February 07, 2008
wallowamountainman :): ...
Well, Swanson... "Impeach or Die" ? Hmmmm...times almost up and there seems to be no wind in the sails of impeachment. Guess that just leaves...well, the hyperbole.
15
September 14, 2008
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Writings 
The White House has made clear it is seriously considering attacking Iran with massive bombing aimed at destroying the nation's military and changing its government. Iran will certainly retaliate. If attacked, and possibly even if not attacked, Israel will join in the fighting. The resistance in Iraq will intensify dramatically. Controlling the oil of Iran and Iraq will be out of the question short of thorough genocide. Anti-American furor will sweep the Muslim world. The nuclear nation of Pakistan will be a prime target for an Islamic revolution. 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
