Becuase Everything Else Sucks

John Bolton’s Logic: We Must Attack Iran to “Win” in Iraq

By Manila Ryce
Published Thursday, May 8th, 2008, 3:41 am
Filed under: Human Rights, Videos: Political, World: Asia, Videos: News, War, Terrorism, Videos, Society/Culture, World Issues, US Politics

As previously stated in regards to Hillary Clinton’s nuclear warmongering, threatening a non-aggressive nation, like Iran, with military action is a war crime in itself. According to the UN Charter, which is a treaty of the United States, such a statement is a crime against peace. Then again, John Bolton has never been a fan of the UN so why the fuck should he care?

The usual bullshit allegations of nukes, training camps, terrorist funding, etc, are irresponsibly tossed around by Bolton and Fox without a shred of evidence to support the claims. If you’ve managed to make it through all that without tossing your cookies, just wait until the end when the Walrus excitedly proclaims that Israel would be “delighted” to wage illegal acts of war against Iran with our help. What do you get a bunch of mass-murdering fuckheads who have everything for their anniversary? World War III!

Now lets just suspend reality and reason by assuming that Bolton’s claims are true. So what? We are the aggressors, and aggressors have no rights. None. Occupation is illegal, so further war can only be legally justified by those fighting against our aggression.

American foreign policy is terrorism, and it requires a tremendous amount of hypocrisy and blatant lying to defend. You can not argue that it’s just for the US to declare war on Iran for supporting Iraqi resistance unless you also argue that the Soviet Union should have declared war on the United States for supporting the mujahideen resistance during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

3 Responses to “John Bolton’s Logic: We Must Attack Iran to “Win” in Iraq”

  1. On the Kucinich.US forum, I’ve been doing major batle of wills with a neo-rightist, who espouses JUST this position. Now I know where he’s getting this stuff! What they do is completely poo-poo ionternational law. They don’t believe that it has any bearing on the USA and it’s illegal wars of aggression.

    Thanks for posting this– FOX news is completely complicit in a campaign of disinformation that has justified and promoted illegal acts of aggression, and should be itself indicted in war-crimes tribunals.

    The USA needs to retreat back behind its borders and address its own problems, and stop this horrible terrorism across the globe. Iraqi oil in no US oil! Iranian Oil is not US oil! Venezuela’s oil is not US oil! There is nothing ‘national security’ about the middle east as far as the USA is concerned. The problems are regional, not global, and wehave absolutely no business setting foot in the region whatsoever.

  2. I didn’t even watch the whole thing, makes me sick to my stomach

    BULLSHIT BOLTON!!! Take your damm mustache and wipe your neo-con pandering base’s A$$.

  3. Here’s the ridiculousness of Bolton’s chicken hawk position that goes beyond the usual moral and ethical arguments that get repeated so much on this site:

    It’s a simple question: “how?”

    You ask any neo-con this simple question and, if they happen to have the brain power to string words together, you will be inundated with bullshit.

    Let’s forget about the “occupation is illegal” angle for a moment. In fact, let’s pretend that the neocons are absolutely right about everything regarding our foreign policy. So now it’s time to invade Iran, the question is how? The US military is stretched beyond capacity, and has missed its recruitment quota for the 2nd straight year. Bottom line, we don’t have enough troops to hold Iraq AND invade Iran successfully. So HOW can we do this? A draft is the only solution to this, but then the president would lose his all volunteer army, and therefore the ability to mire it in any foreign debacle he wishes, which of course would bode ill for his plans for Iran. In other words, the neocons would Still be understaffed for their next invasion.

    Also, the current occupation of Iraq costs us about $500 billion annually. With the deficit swelling and with the value of the dollar shrinking, HOW can we afford another foreign war? Blaming the Democrats, the liberals, and the Mexicans can only work for so long, after all.

    And finally, regarding the main argument for invasion of Iran, that “Iran is training and arming the rebels in Iraq, as well as building a nuclear arsenal,” the question is HOW? Not how rebels can be supplied or how nuclear weapons can be developed, but rather HOW do you know this is happening? According to every UN report, there has not yet been a single shred of evidence to support an Iranian Nuclear Armament program, nor has there been any conclusive link established between the Iranian government and the Iraqi Rebellion. So HOW, when every other credible international source has reached one conclusion, have you NeoCon Chicken Hawk Wackjobs reached a completely different one?

    Look, I’m no Pacifist. I believe that war and violence are sometimes necessary, and nations as well as individuals should be prepared for it at anytime. But I have no illusions about it either. War is hell. It is costly and damaging, even to the victor. There is always collateral damage. Always. So if there must be war, it goddamn better be for the right reasons. You know, things like a clear and present danger, self defense, imminent attack, that sort of thing. Iran does not fit any of these. They may not like us, (hell who could blame them?) but they pose no threat to the US, has never attacked us, and there is no evidence at that they have any sort of plans otherwise.

    If I’m mistaken, I’d really like to know HOW.

Leave a Reply

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>