Congress’ unanimous vote to nuke Iran: What is going on in America today is equivalent to the following fictitious news story: Jan. 31, 2007: By unanimous vote, the two Houses of Congress passed today a joint ‘‘sense of Congress’‘ resolution directing President Bush to ‘‘launch nuclear strikes against any non-nuclear-weapon state that undertakes military programs or operations that threaten US interests or those of allies and friends.’‘

Manufacturing consent for war:

US says its has proof Iran is interfering in Iraq: The United States said it had proof of Iran’s interference in Iraq, promising soon to publish details of Iranian networks in its strife-torn neighboring country.

okay, I know it’s not in the least bit funny, but this statement in the article seriously cracked me up…

The text of the resolution emphasizes the importance ascribed by Congress to launch strikes as soon as possible, to “demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD

Bush OKs Killing Iranians in Iraq

Stop The Iran War Before It Starts: President Bush seems to be hellbent on making war with Iran. The passage of time is, in effect, the enemy of his Administration’s goals and objectives. By buying the time required to fully study the issues pertaining to Iran, and by forestalling the possibility of immediate pre-emptive action through budgetary restrictions, Congress may very well spare America, and the world, another tragedy like Iraq.

Iran Attack – Secret War Plans Against Iran Revealed: Video: Scarborough Repeats Lies Regarding Iran’s President and Pimps A War With Iran. Click to view.

It is only Americans who haven’t caught on.

Methinks this is bullshit. Every conservative I know has a hard-on to zap some hajjis (or whatever soldier’s epithet they’re using today) in Tehran, and every liberal I know is talking about how bad it is. I think most Americans know very well what their government is about to do; they either support it or think that bitching about it is going to accomplish something about it. Roberts doesn’t even cite some bullshit Gallup poll in his assertion that somehow Americans are just totally ignorant of what everybody else seems to know. It’s baseless, and not borne out by anything I’ve seen. When the Tomahawks start to fly, I’m not expecting anybody to jump out of their chairs going, “what the fuck? we’re bombing who? Why didn’t anybody tell me?”

I share his outrage, but this article is crap. Fox has been running little but talking heads baying for Iranian blood for weeks now. Maybe there are a few of us that don’t know, but they’re probably hiding under a rock in Appalachia or something. But it’s probably more comfortable for Roberts to believe that Americans are simply uninformed; better that than admitting that they hear the war drums just fine, and simply don’t give much of a shit.

damn… you merikans.

such a cornucopia of characters you got there.

perhaps someone slipped something cajun into that melting pot.

Setting Up the Next U.S.-Israeli Target (Iran) For Another ‘‘Supreme International Crime:‘’ Still digesting their recent and ongoing aggressions in the Middle East, the Bush and Israeli regimes now threaten to attack Iran. As these warrior states cast their long shadow across the region, they find themselves aided and abetted by the Security Council, the other major powers, parties of the opposition, and the media.

How America’s Conflict with Iran Will Begin: Translated By Mutasem Sinnokrot “The first open signs of an American collision with Iran will occur in Iraq, after the liquidation of the major [Shiite] militias and paramilitaries allied with them.”

In deference to Snark’s assessment of the situation, I’ll grant you that anybody who’d be surprised by an attack on Iran is living under a rock somewhere. Many feel helpless, but I think the disconnect that Roberts is driving at is that people who are vocal about Iraq see the issues as seperate.

They don’t make the Afghanistan and Iraq as a prelude to taking Iran connection.

It’d make them far too uncomfortable to consider how September 11th fits into the scheme of things.

The disconnect also keeps alive the false hope that we’ll simply bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and that’ll be that. Once the Iranians have been taught their lesson, we’ll just pack up our toys and bring home the troops.

Nobody is willing to acknowledge that this action could precipitate WWIII. If that doesn’t do the trick, then it’ll be time for dealing the crushing blow to the regime in the DPRK, or a declaration of independence by Taiwan.

This feeling of American benevolence, that we are only doing what needs to be done is uniquely American and isn’t a sentiment shared by most of the rest of the world.

Sometimes no Peace,

“promising soon to publish details of Iranian networks in its strife-torn neighboring country.”

haha i love when they promise things like this! I’m sure it will come out right after Iraq’s WMD proof….

Fox has been running little but talking heads baying for Iranian blood for weeks now.

What are Fox’s ratings by the way? Less than 5 million (I may be wrong). Is that the critical mass of nutjobs needed to propel a nation of 300 million into neocon warmongering?

It’s bullshit to blame Fox for the compliance and cowardice of the NBCs/ABCs of this world, who have more viewers, are generally more trusted, and reach far deeper into the American mainstream than Fox ever could. Fox can witter on malignantly about liberal bias and assault the patriotism of Olbermann et al as much as they want, but it has no real effect. What really stymies the mass media aren’t right-wing attack dogs, but the submissive attitude they take before their advertisers and politicians.

Nobody is willing to acknowledge that this action could precipitate WWIII.

I’m not going to deny that, but I remember all the “this could plunge the entire world into war” predictions when Israel started bombing Lebanon, too – so I, personally, am just going to see what happens. There are a lot of possibilities and a lot of analyses.

What are Fox’s ratings by the way? Less than 5 million (I may be wrong). Is that the critical mass of nutjobs needed to propel a nation of 300 million into neocon warmongering?

I think you’re drastically lowballing it – it’s a very popular channel. I don’t know what the ratings are and don’t have much time to check on it, but there are plenty of viewers – and not all of them nutjobs, either, I may add.

It’s bullshit to blame Fox for the compliance and cowardice of the NBCs/ABCs of this world, who have more viewers, are generally more trusted, and reach far deeper into the American mainstream than Fox ever could.

The point was more that there has been a shitload of discussion of impending war with Iran on the major news networks, not that Fox was responsible for the drums.

Many feel helpless, but I think the disconnect that Roberts is driving at is that people who are vocal about Iraq see the issues as seperate.

Well, read this. It’s essentially the thesis statement of the article:

Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush’s planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven’t caught on.

Maybe Roberts did mean what you say, but if he did he’s a piss-poor writer. The most readily apparent meaning of his words is that Americans are literally unaware of impending attack on Iran, and if he meant anything else it’s not clear. If his true meaning is what you interpret to be, I find it hard to believe that he wouldn’t have stated that explicitly.

The ratings are fairly low from what I can make out.

From mediabistro this week, referring to ratings during Bush’s SOTU:

FNC averaged 4,560,000 viewers this year, down from 6.4 million in 2006, 5.9 million in 2005, 5.1 million in 2004, 5.8 million in 2003, and 5 million in 2002. In 2001, FNC averaged 2.2 million.

Fox has been on a down-curve since mid 2005, but was admittedly the best rated cable news channel. When Bush isn’t blabbering away, Fox seems to average about 900,000 viewers during the day and 1.5 million in the evening.

Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush’s planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven’t caught on.

Snark, I agree with your critique of this paragraph as the core of the article and it does fall short of making a clear and valid point.

Even Roberts lends credence to the fairy tale that the war in Iraq and war with Iran are separate issues.

They are not. This entire scheme had regional implications from the onset and the goal has been regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran since the very first days of this admistration.

Remember April 1st, 2001. No panic, it was only a test.

I’m equally certain Pakistan is somewhere on the short list as well, when and if the Pakistani population tire of their military dictatorship bowing to the will of the U.S.

Pakistan does have ballistic missiles capable of threatening U.S. forces in the region and they have demonstrated their nuclear capability with next to no international outcry.

The neocons are playing it slow, ratcheting up the expense and the casualties gradually so that people come to accept the continuous sacrifice and don’t think the consequences of the escalation through to acknowledge that this conflict for control of the oil in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Basin is going to end with conflict between the U.S. and China. The world’s #1 and #2 oil importers.

I am affiliated with a local Peace & Justice group and even within this group of college professors and community activists there is a seemingly conscious effort to not connect the dots regarding energy, global environmental alarmism and the U.S. policy of military aggression aimed at control of the global economic system.

People seem to be of the opinion that we can change reality by virtue of protest and voting out the warmongers.

They want universal health care, something done about global warming, a higher minimum wage and an end to poverty generally, stop the cutting of forests, no new nuclear plants and an end to unsustainable corporate agricultural practices and finally lower prices at WalMart.

People generally want their cake and to eat it too.

To do any, let alone all these things our leadership has little choice but to continue to steal away the resources of other nations, even if it leads to global war.

Our national treasury is empty. We consume more than we produce. Our remaining asset is our military preeminence.

We have allowed ourselves to be painted into this corner and have little choice now but to fight, as well as endure the many sacrifices of global war to eventually make our way out of it.

I’m not going to deny that, but I remember all the “this could plunge the entire world into war” predictions when Israel started bombing Lebanon, too – so I, personally, am just going to see what happens. There are a lot of possibilities and a lot of analyses.

have to say I reside in pretty much the same camp… although I’d have to add that the notion of embarking upon all out global nuclear warfare does bring with it certain inhibitions for actually going down that road. perhaps that’s actually presented something of an annoyance or pesky obstacle for some. Low yield tactical nukes might be just the ticket in solving that problem. Some might see this as an attenuation of current capabilities. I mean it’s not really nuclear war.. is it ? Others, such as myself, might view this as a sneaky way of upping the stakes. An ingenious method of taking yet another step towards assured mutual destruction without freaking the minions out to horribly. Frog in a pot kinda deal. I mean after awhile, when the dust settles it’ll all go back to business as usual, right.

Low yield tactical nukes might be just the ticket in solving that problem.

Once this threshold is crossed then it becomes time to refamiliarize yourselves with the “neutron” nuclear weapons of the 1980’s.

Most experts are nearly certain that this is the nuclear weapon of choice of the Israeli nuclear arsenal.

No devastated cities. Just a prolonged flash in the sky and casualties, a great many casualties. Not even much dust to settle. Once the dead are buried, the living fill the void.

Per capita, even the nation victimized by such an attack becomes richer, especially if the educated and the elite are forwarned and able to evacuate prior to the onset of the slaughter. How many rich folks died in New Orleans?

Demand destruction without the need to completely rebuild afterward.

People seem to be of the opinion that we can change reality by virtue of protest and voting out the warmongers.

Funny that.

Warmongers aren’t as mongery when out of office.

But the problem is warmongerism, not the individual, interchangeable warmongers.

i recall clinton bombed a few counties, oh yeah lbj, yeah who voted for iraq again?

But the problem is warmongerism, not the individual, interchangeable warmongers.

Exactly. So long as our primary investments are in militarism, the solutions to the problems we confront will be solved by destruction, not positive action.

The times gave rise to George Bush, George Bush did not give rise to these times.

Decades of capital investment into vast nuclear arsenals, a dozen aircraft carrier taskforces, ballistic missile defensive systems and a strategic air command with truly global reach have resulted in a situation where the only tools in our box are now weapons and their use has resulted in a national loss of international stature never before witnessed in American history.

As the “world’s policeman” we can no longer even insure the peace, but instead survive by shaking down our subordinates.

It will be our undoing.

Sometimes no Peace,