WAR AGAINST IRAN WOULD BRING CATASTROPHE TO WORLD

Someone needs to talk some sense to George Bush and Condoleeza Rice about stopping their march toward war against Iran. Iranian president Ahmadinejad has left New York on his way back to Iran, and it seems that the U.S. is still determined to take action against Iran for its nuclear ambitions.

So far there is no poof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. It certainly has the legal right under the NPT to develop and enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But the U.S. through Bush, Cheney and Rice don't want to allow even that.

If the U.S. bombs Iran, it will be a catastrophe for world peace for the next 500 years. Someone needs to make sure Bush and his group see the consequences of their dangerous war-mongering. For example, what reaction would Iran take to an attack? I am sure that Iran would not just sit by and do nothing after a U.S attack. And how about the reaction of Muslims, especially Shiites? The animosity and loathing which a U.S. attack would foment would cause a world war on a scale never before seen, in which there would be world-wide guerrilla action against the might U.S. and its world-wide bases and personnel. And so far we have said nothing about the price of oil and what a huge spike would do to the U.S. economy.

But the number one reason why the U.S should not attack Iran is that it would be immoral and improper to do so. George Bush thinks he can get his way by military force, i.e., by tanks and bombs. He wants to force his outlook on Iranians and, if they refuse to accept his world "vision," then the hell with them, bomb them into submission. Has Bush, Cheney and Rice ever heard of international law and respect for each nation's sovereignty? I doubt it. We must stop this silly madness now.

REPUBLICANS TALK ABOUT "ENEMIES" AND "WAR" AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM

I caught about five minutes of the Republican debate today, but during those five minutes, I heard Mitt Romney talk about "our enemies" and Sam Brownback talk about a "war with Islamic fanatics."

First, as to Romney. Why must the United States have enemies? Take Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. Is he and/or the Venezuelan people enemies of the U.S. based on Mr. Chavez calling George Bush "Satan"? Surely that can't be a reason. Has Venezuela committed any aggression or hostile action towards the United States? The answer is obviously no, so that can't be the reason. So why does Mitt think Chavez and Venezuela are "enemies"?

Next Iran. Why should Americans consider the government of Iran to be a hostile regime or enemy? Because Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust did not exist? Obviously these words are nonsense, but would we go to war with Iran over these words? Would Bush and Cheney send missiles against Iran because of what Ahmadinejad said? How about nuclear weapons? Well, Bush just made a pact with India to supply nuclear materials to India, even though India was never a signer to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. India has nuclear weapons, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, so do China and Israel, as well as France and England. So is Iran an enemy because of its nuclear ambitions?

Second, Brownback says we are in a "war with Islamic fanatics." Why is that so? Because 19 Islamists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, committed suicide with American planes, resulting in the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians. This is not a war. This is a police action against those on the outer fringes of society who wish to make a point that they are against "decadent" Western values, especially as these values relate to women. Brownback is trying to fight criminals with a national army and air force. Brownback's tactics will never be successful. He is as deluded as Bush and Cheney in their zeal to mount a modern crusade.