Recently our government claimed that Iranian ships had threatened U.S. naval ships stationed in the Straight of Hormuz. President Bush was quick to tell Iran (and the rest of the world) that they should be prepared for retaliation, should we feel threatened or attacked.
Now the Iranian government [has] released tapes quite different from the story our government claimed transpired, [indicating] no threats, just routine conversation … .
Is it plausible that the Iranian government edited the conversations … ? Sure. But it is just as conceivable that our government lied in [order] to plead their case for long-held aggression towards Iran.
Do you recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led the United States full swing into military action in Vietnam? In August 1964, [President Lyndon Baines Johnson ordered an] attack on North Vietnamese ships after claiming that we had been attacked first, [although] the captain of the USS Maddox [had] pointed out that conditions at sea made it impossible for him to say without a doubt that we had been attacked and recommended an investigation during daylight hours to obtain solid evidence before we retaliated.
LBJ did not listen. In fact, this gave him the opportunity that he had been looking for … to ask Congress for authorization to expand military action in Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was LBJ’s blank check, along with later administrations’, to do whatever they saw fit in Vietnam—regardless of terrible policy, large numbers of casualties etc.
I would argue that the current administration is looking for their next blank check. All they need is a good story to scare people, and … we will find ourselves walking down a familiar road—likely with the same consequences and the same terrible outcome.
Why you should care? Well, there’s an election coming up, silly! It’s the most important election of my life and yours (unless you were alive in the ‘60s). You must educate yourself on where the candidates stand on issues in the Middle East—what their game plan is to get us out of this quagmire … . We should not be and are not the world police. It’s time we stop acting as though we have the solutions to everyone’s problems—that it’s our way or the war path.
— Shanna Jensen
Swannanoa
clinton, edwards & obama would all have us retain our military complexes across the world. regarding iraq, they’re all for limited withdrawal only. so good luck finding a genuine candidate to support if you really want to end this culture of empire.
I believe that the comment made by the previous person is quite uneducated. You may want to read up on your candidates a bit and then present your opinion. Obama has never supported the war, Edwards has stated that he would pull all troops as soon as possible, and Clinton who is a bit hesitant still would like to pull the troops but is very worried about the condition in which the country is left.
oh my god, you called me uneducated.
First off, John Edwards. Yes, he HAS stated what you said, and he has also stated otherwise. He’s a flip-flopper. And I’ve been on his mailing list and paying GREAT attention to him for the last year. First he says he’ll take us out of Iraq entirely, then he adds a caveat that he’ll leave some troops there. And has he pledged to take our military presence out of anywhere else in the world?
Obama has never supported the war, except monetarily. And he, like i said, would HAVE US RETAIN OUR MILITARY COMPLEXES ACROSS THE WORLD. And he would NOT have us withdraw all of our troops from Iraq. So he obviously supports of presence there, to some degree. And your comment that he has never supported the war is sadly missing the point, like so many.
And Clinton is a joke.
All 3 of them have claimed that they would “pull our troops”. But the sad irony is that they’re ONLY referring to combat troops – they’d ALL leave about half of current troops level inside Iraq for potentially generations to come. So how can democrats be so naive as to believe that these candidates are really for “change”. C’mon, that’s all we’ve ever heard, yet when hard-pressed for details, all we’re seeing is status-quo.
So, Great Point that is obviously uneducated about your candidates actual positions (rather than their rhetoric) – tell me that i’m factually wrong. and prove it. Because to me, it seems like your the uneducated person who believes everything they read at first glance.
Or are you for an American Empire with military bases in about 130 nations? Because I’m against it. These 3 democrats are for it. And that nobody calls them on it is pathetic.
Too bad Kucinich is out, he at least was honest. Which is why I respect Ron Paul – he’s telling his side honestly, even if it’s a bit conservative. At least he’s consistent (and outspokenly against our acting as an Empire).
Prove to me your candidate is against the war. Prove it.
Awh Heck, I’ll prove it for your.
Obama – he’ll only remove our combat troops, or so he says. it’ll take 16 months. and at the end if it, we’ll still have troops there to watch over diplomats, our military personnel, and more importantly, to fight Al Qaeda. How we’ll fight them without combat troops around I don’t know, but this coming from his IraqFactSheet on his website. Which also let’s us know that he has no interest in cutting the size of our military, but rather “Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.” Sure, he won’t add new permanent military bases, but I don’t see him closing any either. So far, I see him as a poser. He’s said the very least he’s had to in order to appear to be against our Militarism, while relying on his one vote against the war to weigh against his continual financial support of it.
Edwards – same as Obama. “We must show the Iraqis that we are serious about leaving by actually starting to leave, with an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within nine to ten months”. Yet by “complete withdrawal” he only means “combat troops”, which doesn’t even mean “all combat troops”, even though he certainly says exactly that over and over. The man talks out of both sides of his mouth. One side says “no more combat missions, period, by 2009”, and the other talks about our needs to keep a presence to be ready to help flush out Al Qaeda (just like Obama!)
Clinton – oh my gosh. She’s for “Phased Redeployment”. and of course she’ll “order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.”
So am I uneducated, or just not Naive? I’m only drawing quotes from their own websites. But they reveal a nasty trend – let’s tell the gullible democrats that we’re for ‘withdrawal’, yet keep redefining what it means. And let’s keep voting for the war budgets in the meanwhile.
Ooohhh!…..I also love Kucinich, but sadly he is way to left for this country and would never get elected. The truth is that all politicians are dirty liars when it comes down to it and we are all screwed. Ron Paul is a bit conservative and we will find if he is elected that he is a liar just like the rest of them. I hate war and always will. Really…Who can you trust to run this country? The answer is none of them. You must vote! That I know and people that don’t are irresponsible. So I guess that we just make an educated vote and we all have to deal with it. I appreciate your comment to my comment. Ha Ha
Like the above article states “We should not be and are not the world police. It’s time we stop acting as though we have the solutions to everyone’s problems—that it’s our way or the war path.”
I have no faith that any candidate will truly stop sticking there nose in on other countries business and the troops, many of who are my friends will continue to tour, suffer, and die.
Thanx
I think Shana Jenson is a creative genious. Would love to hear more from her.