- Posted September 30, 2012 by
Watertown, New York
This iReport is part of an assignment:
- Republicans Want a Speaker Who Can Speak (Anything but the Truth) - McCarthy’s Truthful Gaffe on the Benghazi Special Committee
- Would Wyatt Earp Have Allowed a Sandy Hook or an Oregon? Mass Shootings To Continue Until We Do This
- Super Blood Moon Eclipse in Watertown, New York-September 27, 2015
- City Fireman May Have to Give Up Job If Elected to City Council Seat But GOP State Senate Staffer Will Not If He Wins? All 'Conflicts of Interests' Are Not Equal
- US Caused Refugee Crisis in Syria by Refusing to Accept a Russian Deal that Would Have Ended the War
Is It Again, 'Unpatriotic' To Speak Out Against War With Iran As It Was With Iraq?
As the Bush Administration made it's case for War with Iraq, many look back in retrospect and wish they had dug deeper, asked more questions, and found another way to stop Saddam Hussein.
$4000+ American lives were lost in the Iraq War. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis civilians lost their lives.
A trillion dollars and more was spent in this unnecessary war which caused our national debt to sky rocket.
We borrowed from China for this war, Conservatives.
Is it again, "Unpatriotic" to ask for diplomacy to be given more time?
Some will say, "Well, you're off on your numbers of civilians killed".
What difference does it make if it was 10,000 or 100,000 lives?
We could have made a difference had we asked tough questions.
Joe Wilson did. Valerie Plame was outed from the CIA because her husband disputed the claims that Iraq had sought yellow cake uranium.
Their lives were ruined.
A few reporters didn't buy the Bush Administration's claims which said if we didn't act, a mushroom cloud would be visible over the Middle East.
They too were ridiculed and given different assignments, far from where their opinions would matter.
I spoke out then. I didn't understand why Bush Sr. didn't finish it when he had the chance.
But as most Americans in that time, what reason did we have to doubt the Bush Administration's claims about Hussein.
Hind sight is always 20/20.
We see now, similar claims about the Iranian government and their nuclear program from Israel and the right wing in this country.
Iran has never attacked another nation. They have elections next year.
Have we fully weighed the Benefits and costs of a war with Iran?
Well, some have.
The following is an assessment by those that know about what we can expect if we strike Iran's nuclear program.
Read the report yourself at the following link.
" In addition to the financial costs of conducting military attacks against Iran,
which would be significant (particularly if the U.S. had to carry out thousands of sorties and if it had to return to the use of force periodically for years to come), there would likely be near-term costs associated with Iranian retaliation, through both direct and surrogate asymmetrical attacks. Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe, with problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out regional war.
Among the potential costs discussed in this paper are the following:
Direct Iranian retaliation against the U.S. back using force in order to avoid provoking a larger scale conflict, we believe that Iran would retaliate, costing American lives; damaging U.S. facilities in the region; and affecting
U.S. interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf, and elsewhere.
Iran would draw on its extensive conventional rocket capability and IRGC anti-ship missiles, small submarines, fast attack boats, and mine warfare in the Gulf.
Iran might attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, which could rattle global markets and cause a significant spike in oil prices (as well as blocking the main artery for export of Iran’s own oil).
Iranian strikes against Israel. Iran would hold Israel partly responsible for any
anti-missile and civilian defense programs are strong, sustained air strikes by Iran would result in casualties and damage to facilities, perhaps including the Israeli nuclear plants.
Indirect retaliation by Iran. Attacks by well-armed proxies such as Hezbollah
or Shiite militant groups in Iraq, as well as by Iran’s covert forces and the IRGC
Qods Force, could be even more damaging to U.S. and Israeli interests than direct Iranian retaliation. Such indirect retaliation could include the use of missiles and rockets by proxies as well as terrorist attacks and covert action, such as sabotage and assassination.
If Hezbollah were to make heavy use of the missiles and rockets it has deployed in southern Lebanon, that could expand the conflict, possibly leading to a regional war in the Levant.
A potential breakdown of hard-won global solidarity against Iran’s nuclear
In the absence of an international mandate or a multinational coalition, support for sanctions on materials sold to Iran that are now prohibited by sanctions could resume, as might the sale of materials that could be used for making a nuclear weapon.
Increased likelihood of Iran becoming a nuclear state.
While it's possible that aerial attacks could drive Iran to the negotiating table, we believe that military action probably would reduce the possibility of reaching a more permanent political resolution of concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, we believe that a U.S. attack on Iran would increase Iran’s motivation to build a bomb, because:
1) the Iranian leadership would become more convinced than ever that regime change is the goal of U.S. policy, and
2) building a bomb would be seen as a way to inhibit future attacks and redress the humiliation of being attacked.
Iran could also withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and end all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), leaving the international community with greatly reduced knowledge of Iran’s nuclear program.
Global political and economic instability, including disruptions in energy supply and security.
A U.S. and/or Israeli attack on Iran could introduce destabilizing political and economic forces in a region already experiencing major problems now. "
The Israeli debate on attacking Iran is over
Vanity Fair's article on Netanyahu
Too many lives are at stake. Americans are war weary..