Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Political Activism: Impeach Dick Cheney


IMPEACH DICK CHENEY - SIGN HERE

3 comments:

Bob Hoeppner said...

I think Kucinich is stronger on articles 1 and 2 than he is on article 3, particularly when he states there's "no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States". It does appear that American troops have been killed from some Iraqi insurgents equipped with Iranian material.

Frankly, if Amahdinejad hadn't denied the Holocaust and threatened to wipe Israel off the map, there would be a weaker case for preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons. As it stands, even France is threatening Iran.

Someday the suitcase device will go off in Manhattan and people will demand to know why the government didn't protect them. I mean, you know, the people who are left.

It would be preferable to prevent a nuclear Iran in a way least likely to alienate those Iranians who are sympathetic to the West. But that may not be possible.

Stacy said...

It also does appear that American troops have been killed by weapons supplied by the US army. The alleged Iranian weapons held up to the press were actually American made weapons and the general said that the Iranians somehow had sold Iraqis American made weapons. Under international law, this is not justification to invade another country.

And re: Amahdi-nejad threatening to wipe Israel off the map, this is very well discredited allegation by now. He did not say that. He said that one day Zionism (not the country Israel) would be wiped from the pages of history. Like communism had been wiped from history he said.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad is as about as powerful as a US senator relative to the power structure of Iran. And lord knows the US has many kooky Senators who have said all sorts of crazy things, none of which under international law would be a legitimate excuse for hostile action. The media in US focusing on his words is like the rest of the world ignoring everything Bush says and just reporting on what Senator Ted Kennedy says.

Iran is a real country with real cities and real academics. It is not a devastated country like Iraq was. It is completely ridiculous to think that you can just wipe out another country without any legitimate threat.

Iran by the way is party to the Non Proliferation Treaty and is abiding by the terms of that. They have a right under this Treaty to develop nuclear energy technology. India as a non signatory to this treaty has no right to develop nuclear energy or power and yet it has and the US has signed a deal to transfer further nuclear technology. But by your measure, it is India that should be invaded, not Iran which has not developed a bomb as has India.

It's very old fashioned colonialist thought to think that you must destroy these irrational people in order to enlighten these resource rich people.

Bob Hoeppner said...

I wish stacy had cited the source on the weapons thing. I know we sold technology, including diesel submarines to Iran when I was in the Navy, so I'm not ruling it out, but I haven't seen it reported.

I think there is some dispute about Ahmadinejad's "wipe off the map" statement. Wikipedia reporta: On October 26, 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech at a conference in Tehran entitled "World Without Zionism". According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to it as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world", that needed to be "wiped from the map."

The article cites several sources. Besides, since Zionism postulates a Jewish state, it is sophistry to say that wiping Zionism off the map is not the same as wiping Israel off the map. Also, his skeptical remarks about the Holocaust only serve to support the "I'm a nut job" aroma of him and those in power who support him.

Ahmadinejad's title is President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, not just a member of their parliament. What he says has symbolic value for us, Iranians, and other Muslims.

There is hypocrisy in all of this, some of which stacy points out. Israel, for instance, is supposed to have nuclear capability, but that issue rarely comes up. There is also irony. Iran originally started its nuclear program in the '50's as part of the American "Atoms For Peace" program. Also, liberals who are against nuclear power being developed in this country seem all for it being developed in Iran, which seems inconsistent to me. I mean, where is the "No Nukes" movement when it comes to Iran?

I'd prefer not to attack Iran. It reinforces to the Muslim on the street that we're all about invading Islamic countries. And I'm willing to consider that we are being hyped fear. And I don't know if a possible bomb is the more plausible issue, or that of nuclear contamination. As Wikipedia reports in the article "Nuclear program of Iran":
The IAEA reported November 10, 2003,[30] that "it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored."