Skip to main content

All the reasons for not attacking Iran......

Thankfully, there are some sober thinking people in the USA who see the horrendous consequences of any attack on Iran - let alone questioning the justification to do so.     This op-ed piece "Not Another War!" from the daily camera in Boulder, Colorado, puts things into context perfectly.

"Do the people of the United States really want perpetual warfare? Just as we are struggling to extricate ourselves from cruel, expensive, and unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our country is hurtling towards another even more disastrous conflagration, this time with Iran. Iran is not a small, backward, or feeble country. It has over 78 million people (ranking 18th among nations), is 71 percent urban, and enjoys a life expectancy of over 70 years. Iranians are 84 percent literate, 1.8 million attend universities (60 percent are women), and they have a GDP per capita of over $12,000.

Although Iran (formerly called Persia) has not made a serious attack on another country for at least 200 years, it does possess a formidable military with over half a million regular armed forces and some three million combat capable reserves. It also deploys short and medium range missiles, and has developed "swarming tactics" by which numerous small fast boats neutralize technologically superior naval forces. After suffering a surprise attack by Iraq in 1980, Iran showed it could recover quickly from initial defeat and repulse a better-armed enemy. Although large numbers of Iranians despise the current government, a gratuitous attack on the motherland would surely provoke a unified and determined nationalist response. It would also guarantee Iran the sympathy and support of Islamic and Third World people everywhere.

All this indicates that an attack upon Iran would be anything but a cakewalk. A recent historian of modern Iran (Professor Ervand Abrahamian) concludes that such aggression "could easily escalate into a catastrophe on the magnitude of Europe's Thirty Years War."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as

Climate change: Well-organised hoax?

There are still some - all too sadly people with a voice who are listened to - who assert that climate change is a hoax. Try telling that to the people of Colorado who recently experienced horrendous bushfires, or the people of Croatia suffering with endless days of temps of 40 degrees (and not much less than 30 at night time) some 8-10 degrees above the norm. Bill McKibben, take up the issue of whether climate change is a hoax, on The Daily Beast : Please don’t sweat the 2,132 new high temperature marks in June—remember, climate change is a hoax. The first to figure this out was Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who in fact called it “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” apparently topping even the staged moon landing. But others have been catching on. Speaker of the House John Boehner pointed out that the idea that carbon dioxide is “harmful to the environment is almost comical.” The always cautious Mitt Romney scoffed at any damage too: “Scientists will fig