Is war with Iran inevitable? I fear it is.

[LuckyTheDog]

We know a several things:

-- The American people do not want war with Iran.

-- The Congress does not want war with Iran.

-- Iran is very, very unlikely to start a war with the United States.

-- A war with Iran would be horribly, perhaps ruinously, expensive.

-- A war with Iran could draw in third parties capable of attacking the United States.

-- The chances of the United States successfully "nation building" Iran into an ally are slim to none.

Yet, despite all that, it's pretty obvious that our psycho president is determined to start a war with Iran.

Is this how a republic should operate? Shouldn't there -- at the very least -- be widespread popular support for a war before it is launched?

[blues90]

1. You would think so .

I really don't know anylonger . there was all this talk about attacking Iran not long ago on this forum . Then it suddenly went away .

Now it's back big time with hints from bush and Lieberman and a few others who continue to ramp this up .

I hope this never happens but now I don't know , I have begun to suspect the worse with these freaks in control .

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

2. Please remain optimistic

and vigilant.

Write your congressfolk and be clear-headed and passionate about this issue. As much as "they" are keeping up the war-drums rhetoric, we need to be equally dismissive. State to others "We are not going to war with Iran." And always use the prefix "lame duck" when referring to lame duck Bush.

And if the fuckwits Cheney and His (lame duck) Puppet attempt something rash, we march on Washington in the millions, as is our right and our responsibility.

[LuckyTheDog]

3. I have called Levin's office several times

I leave messages. Nobody there ever calls back.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

8. That's sad.

I write my senators and save the calls for just before legislation, when I'm expecting a response in the form of their yea or nay vote.

Sen Ron Wyden's office always responds to my letters--recently they've taken to addressing me as Dear Pete because I write so often. I'm not under the illusion that Ron himself is responding, but I am still confident that a person there took the time to respond about whatever issue I had. Wyden has a sterling progressive voting record (and attendance), but his vote is more often than not canceled out by his fellow Oregon senator.

Senator Smith's office has been more sporadic in their responses, and definitely more terse. But hey, they're Republicans, and my politics are pretty obvious.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. We need to do more work with the American people on this

Of course they don't "want" war with Iran, but they also are afraid of Iran, irrationally so but often fear is not rational. Iran may or may not become a long term adversary of the U.S., depending in good part on whether the U.S. is willing to negotiate in good faith about the full range of issues that currently cause tensions between us, but Iran does not fundementally threaten our National Security under either scenario, or that of a nuclear armed Israel either. Iran has never acted irrationally beyond it's national borders.

But framing counts for everything. If you flat our ask a large pool of people "should the United States attack Iran?" the answer would be a powerful "No". But if you ask them "Must Iran be prevented from getting nuclear weapons?" I supsect a solid majority would answer "Yes". An attack on Iran would be framed as action to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. All of the rest of it about Iran's actions inside Iraq etc. are meant to turn public opinion strongly against Iran in preparation for an attack on Iran. That won't be the excuse used. Nukes would be

[Purveyor]

5. I think it to be 75% to 25% that * will bomb them by April of next year. eom

[tjwash]

6. Is that a gut feeling?

Sorry...couldn't resist.

:hi:

[ozone_man]

7. Congress does not want war with Iran?

Then why did they vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment? We know what happened the last time they voted for sanctions and IWR against Iraq, so should have kept a watchful eye as this has unfolded. As with the IWR, there were about 22 or 23 Democrats who voted against it. The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. A majority is useless if they don't vote against enabling war.

The Democrats can try to claim that they were naive in the run up to the Iraq war, though we at DU know that is BS. But this time around, we are beyond naivety. It's a pattern. I recommend seeing a documentary "Why We Fight" to understand how the military industrial complex works.