Next In Line: Iran

First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now the media and
warmongers are after Iran -- it is pretty easy to see what
is going on. Unfortunately if Afghanistan and Iraq are
any indication we can expect the Canadian media
including CBC to be beating the war drums very soon.
Possibly if everyone in North America would turn off
their tv sets and cancel their daily paper subscriptions
they may break free from the disinformation campaign
and restore some peace to a world being destroyed by
corporate elites and neocon religous fanatics.

You bet, actually we've been hearing these warnings, very similar to the pre-war in Iraq, since last year. It started with the Iran has the capabilities to make nuclear weapons, Syria was another...watch and see; unless the American people stand up against this, the sky's the limit. Literally!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

I assumethey'll wait until after the election. Bush or Kerry will both attack Iran...Bush will be the only one to admit it, though.

If the U.S. wants to dig its own grave, go ahead. Just leave us out of it. Oh yeah--please no more NAFTA when that happens.

Watching Global News tonight it was easy to tell that they are priming the masses for an attack on Iran. They laid down the 'facts' and how Iraq will fall prey to Iran if the US doesn't attack soon.

It is disturbing to see our media once again just trumpet the official message. Has the media already forgotten 'weapons of mass destruction' or do they want you to forget?

Roy

<blockquote>If the U.S. wants to dig its own grave, go ahead. Just leave us out of it.</blockquote> <P>Out of the question. Bill Graham wants in so badly, he is using every issue of principle he can think of to guarantee Canada's place in the front lines this time. <P>For instance, the issue of the openness of the Kazemi trial is certainly a valid one. Iran has one of the worst records in the world when it comes to press freedom. See <a href="http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=8247">Reporters without borders.</a> But the argument rings hollow coming as it does just as the Government of Canada is refusing to allow public testimony on the matters of most urgent public concern in the Maher Arar case. BTW, the Iranian who was tried in the Kazemi case has been described as a "secret agent", so the national security argument apples in the Iranian case no less than in the Canadian one. Pick your sham. There's plenty to go around. <P>Graham was not one of the Liberals who spoke out against invading Iraq. Kim Campbell has a more enlightened view of that subject than Graham. He is using the Kazemi case to prepare Canadian support for an American action against Iran. Before the election? Irrational as that might seem, Mr. Bush's army has a reputation for being trigger happy. That comes directly from their boss who is not what anyone would call a cautious man.

Hi earthling. I agree about what the Liberal agenda is, but won't it be hard for them to push it through in a minority, or will they wait and hope for a majority next time? Obviously, with conservative help they could push it through, but wouldn't that expose them to the public for what they really are? Remember, the Liberals care more about winning elections than fighting wars. The Canadian public was asleep in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, but not anymore......wouldn't the Liberals be digging their own graves if they helped the U.S. wage another unnecessay war in the Middle East? The U.S. has little credibility, so why are you so sure they'd do it?

Ah yeah, Global, aka AsperNet. They've got an agenda that they aren't even trying to disguise. They're almost as bad as the Toronto Sun (the "We Love Bush" fanclub).

The invasion of Iran is a no-brainer--it's right there in black-and-white in the PNAC documents. They've already got their puppet Iraq "president" threatening to attack anyone stirring up "insurgents" in Iraq--you could see this coming. Iraq is the staging ground for a full-on middle-eastern invasion.

Only this time, there ARE WMDs...Iran has 'em and isn't afraid to use 'em.

You want to know who has the nukes in that region. Its not covered up, everyone knows; Israel, India, Pakistan. To justify war in Iran based on wmd's is to justify a war in all these countries.

Paul Martin wouldn't have any trouble getting this passed, the Cons would be on his side all the way.

That's what they wanted in the first place.


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

What a ridiculous poll! Do you think Iran had anything to do with 9/11? How the hell is anyone suppose to know? It's not like every American citizen has access to that kind of foreign intelligence. On what basis do so many people think Iran is connected? Iran has not been involved in terrorist attacks directly against the US since the mid-90s. But it seems the US doesn't need evidence anymore when they wish to invade a country. Top counter-terrorism advisors told the Bush White House repeatedly that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, but they decided to occupy it anyway, you know, just in case. Iran is just another nation that the United States has a bone to pick with.

---
Zachary Whalen

-If you ignore government, government will ignore you.

I can't think of anything worse than allowing the American people to decide thier Empire's course of action when it comes to foreign affairs, or in their case I should say foreign wars. It's depressing to see the Pentagon controlling foreign policy (see Seven Aircraft Carries Head Towards China), but talk about the blind leading the blind!!!

I met an American a few months ago. He asked me where I was from, with that "I'm not sure if he's American or Canadian look on his face". I told him I was from Canada, he asked me where and I said Ontario. He asked me where is that? I said, um well do you know where Nigara Falls is, or New York for that matter? He said he had no idea as far as American geography went, let a lone Canadian. Oh, and by the way, he was a grad student. I won't say the name of the university, because I honestly don't know, but in his case I don't think I'd want to know. Wouldn't it be strange if in the future he became and senator or congressman? Wouldn't surprise me!

But, this is what I mean. They can't point out New York on a map, and we're expecting them to decide wether or not Iran was involved in the 9/11 attacks? Many couldn't find Iran on a map!!!

That's giving far too much power for irresponsible people who don't deserve to have it. But given the current state of world affairs that would be nothing new, no would it?

I have a question. I've been out of Canada for a year now, I listen to my Aussie and British friends complain about their countries close involvement with the Americans and the war on Terror (ie. Iraq). I get high marks for being a Canadian, but I'm wondering, and I can't imagine that people back home would jump an "Attack Iran band wagon" given the recent disaster that continues to unfold in Iraq? What's the mood back home? The internet can provide me with a lot of information here, but not that kind.

Cheers from somewhere in China...

<P>Good list of crucial questions. I would just add two: where would the troops come from (either Canadian or US)? and what about the large, relatively progressive population which is in eclipse right now in Iran because they refused to participate in the last election as a protest? <P>Bush is now actively trying to decide what to do about his lost credibility and, generally speaking, is a man with no patience for subtleties. Last week, we had trial balloons about the possiblity of calling off the election. Maybe a fresh, new war in Iran would do the trick. <P>The generals who provided him with moderate advice--Zinni, Shinseki, etc--are gone. The EU, the IAEA and others in the UN have expressed concern about Iran's nuclear program. I suspect Bush and possibly even Powell imagine a better chance for international support in some kind of action against Iran than anywhere else. Unfortunately, Bush really "knows" only one kind of action--and that as an outsider. PNAC and the Israel first crowd would like nothing better than to take down Iran. Iran threatens Israel as the only regional nuclear weapons state, and the neo-con idea has long been to redraw the whole map of the Middle East, not just Iraq. <P>Fortunately, Graham has now been replaced by Pettigrew as Foreign Affairs Minister. We can expect at least a slight change in tone from Graham's stiff-necked belligerence. Graham is a Liberal hawk who was trying to see if he could use a good, bi-partisan cause to whip up an upsurge of anti-Iranian fear and bloodlust. The CBC went along for the ride. Apparently so did Global. That's no surprise. <P>Fortunately, Canadians were too busy with the Calgary Stampede--and pumping the water out of the street and keeping the forest fires away from town--to worry much about Iran. That is a reasonable position to take. Certainly, Iran has a terrible record on human rights and press freedom. They have a style of democracy that integrates religion and politics in a way that would be pleasing only to a few of our most right-wing evangelical Christians. <P>On the other hand, they have regional, but not global, ambitions. Their army is not deployed in dozens of countries around the world. They don't try to dictate trading terms to countries a hemiphere away. They don't meddle in elections on other continents. They have not embraced overkill as a principle of their foreign policy. <P>Like many Muslims, they do take pride in their system of justice. But the Kazemi assassination and the way it has been handled in court says clearly that something is being hidden. There is something to be ashamed of. That's not justice. It's not religion. It's not culture. The Iranian government should be encouraged to rise above the murderous corruption that produced the gratuitous killing in the first place and that is now scrambling to cover it up. I wonder if Pettigrew is up to the task.

I think everyone is missing the point... This just confirms my theory on Bush's foreign policy. Bomb any country that begins with a vowel. So Saudi Arabia is safe, but I would be worried if I lived in Ecuador. This is also why they won't go after North Korea!

Considering that, the 9/11 commision was a sham from start to finish, and that there was no proper investigation carried out before shipping the evidence off to landfills and foriegn steel mills, I would like to know why you intelligent people think you know who was responsible for the attacks?

When the survivors families started to get national coverage of the discrepancies they wanted the commission to deal with, Richard Clarke resigns and pumps out a book which is instantly hailed as a bestseller in the land of "your either for us or your against us". Nobody bats an eye or comments on the incongruity. They've classified damn near every piece of 9/11 evidence as top secret but they let the chiefs of one of their intelligence organizations publish a tell all book. To quote Sigourney Weaver "Did IQs suddenly drop sharply"?

Your letting them, (PNAC), set the agenda when you discuss whether Iran was involved with Al Qaida or Al Capone. Their intention is to divert attention. We,(the 'white countries'including Israel), are the ones with the weapons of mass destruction, we need to be concerned with us not them!