I remember very clearly the daily fearmongering led by FOX as they cheered for war with Iraq. The 24/7 images, sound effects, yelling and threatening were an ever-present drumbeat for war. We had to invade, and we had to invade now.. anyone who didn't see that was a traitor. They viciously attacked those of us who worked to get out the truth.
You'd think that with the complete failure in Iraq, those days would be behind us. Sadly, you'd be wrong.
FOX wants war with Iran.
It's almost too ridiculous to believe, but it's shockingly real. We've already compiled over 4 hours of FOX footage... the same images, sound effects, yelling and threatening that led the U.S. to invade Iraq is happening right now to sell a war with Iran. They are saying the exact same things!!
Here is the video evidence, side-by-side with what they said about Iraq.
This time is different though. We're prepared, and we have the means to alert people to what FOX is doing. Everyone has seen the terrible tragedy and the awful price paid by so many Iraqis and Americans. We know this is coming, and we can stop it.
It was about this time in the lead-up to the Iraq war when the other TV networks started following FOX's lead. As CNN's Christiane Amanpour says in the video, they were intimidated by FOX into cheerleading for the Iraq war.
WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN.
This is a critical moment, and we must send a message to the major television networks urging them to ask tough questions, be skeptical, and tell us what is really happening. They must not follow FOX down the road to another war.
We've put together an open letter to the networks. Will you sign it?
August 26, 2007
Fox Attacks! Iran
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
What do you think of Paul Craig Roberts' argument on attacking Iran?
(Namely that the neocons have looked at the Iraq quagmire and at Israel's Lebanon debacle, and decided that Islamism can only be defeated with nuclear weapons. Bringing Iran into the war, and thus threatening the US army in Iraq with imminent annihilation, will provide the pretext for nuclear attacks.)
I just looked at two of his essays, at counterpunch and antiwar.com. I agree with his general anti-neocon sentiment, but disagree with his argument that the US will nuke Iran any time soon. There are several problems with them pursuing that strategy:
* Too little time left. Bush is not going to be "President-for-Life" as some of his supporters hope, and his term expires too soon to get the support he needs to start a major war like this.
* Nuking Iran would prolly guarantee an electoral victory for the Democrats. Only if he thought the Republican candidate was guaranteed victory and personally signed off on Bush starting the war would this strategy "work." But I think starting a war anytime before the election would be hugely counterproductive for the Republicans. No incoming President would want a freshly started war hung around his neck like an albatross.
* Antiwar sentiment is already high with only 3600 deaths or so. Iran would not be the "cakewalk" the neocons would like to believe. Iran has a much larger population than Iraq and the insurgency there would make Iran like a meat grinder. Antiwar sentiment would skyrocket.
* The military's not ready for another huge war to fight. The draft would need to be implemented (there are already rumors about this). Instituting the draft would turn the teenagers/college students against the war overnight as they would be the ones heading off to Iran. Once again, antiwar sentiment would skyrocket.
* Other countries want Iranian oil. I suspect if the US seriously threatens Iran, that other nuclear powers (e.g., Russia) may bring out the "MAD" option (mutually assured destruction). Nuking Iran may cause a broader nuclear war.
Gotta run; I may get back to this later, insha'allah.
Iran would not be the "cakewalk" the neocons would like to believe.
?????
It would be a cakewalk once you're using nukes (unless other nuclear powers intervene, as per your point 4).
It would be a cakewalk once you're using nukes...
I disagree. Unless your sole purpose is to loft a couple of nukes over to Iran and do nothing else militarily (stirring up the hornet's nest), then that would be a cakewalk. But what the neocons seem to suggest is to invade Iran militarily, just as it was done in Iraq. Putting "boots on the ground." Even with a couple of cities nuked, the occupation of Iran would be a nightmare militarily. Iraq is only 26% of the size (in sq. km) of Iran; it has only 42% of Iran's population. Iran has 65 million people to control, compared to Iraq's 27 million. And after you've nuked a couple of cities, that's going to pacify the country so there will be no insurgency? That's why I say that Iran would not be the cakewalk that the neocons would like to believe.
One other thought...
The estimated population for South Vietnam was 19 million; yet the US had over half a million troops stationed in the country. Iraq has 27 million people, but it's long been said that there are far too few troops in Iraq to quell the insurgency (hence, "the surge"). Now, the neocons want to invade a country that has over 2x the population of Iraq, in addition to all the troop commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere? Using the Armed Forces that are almost up to the breaking point already? Yeah, that's no cakewalk.
Even with a couple of cities nuked, the occupation of Iran would be a nightmare militarily.
I was assuming the use of dozens of nukes to systematically depopulate Iran.
Holding down a hostile population: HARD
Depopulating a country with nukes: EASY
George: True, but I just can't see this administration, as bad as it use, using dozens of nukes on Iran.
The Obama administration will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons (sounds a little like the Bush/Cheney administration everyone was so adamantly apposed to!). If he does not take them out, Israel will. It may start WWIII. So, in the mean time, Bebakhshid,
شما میتونید کمکم کنید؟
Do you know any good web sites that will help me learn Farsi?
فارسی من بد است
@ Ronald: Regarding Farsi, sorry to say, I don't. I know there's some software (both for purchase and for free) that can help one learn, but I don't know how good or bad the quality is.
Post a Comment