Petitioning the Government for a Prevention of Grievances
Don't want a pre-emptive war with Iran? Go sign this petition! See what good it does!
Comments to "Petitioning the Government for a Prevention of Grievances":
ed | October 2, 2007, 11:43am | #
Because we want to display your signatures publicly and do not want spam machines to sign the petition, we require that you log in first to access the petition. In order to log in, you must register. Once you are logged in, please click here to sign the new petition. If you see a message that says "access denied" that means you are not logged in.Thank you, Mrs. Crabapple.
May I go to the restroom, please?
Tobycat | October 2, 2007, 12:27pm | #
Commonly known as slacktivism. The real purpose is to get people on their mailing lists for trading.Seeing as Iran is actively engaged in attacking and killing US troops, I'm not sure how any expansion of the current hostilities between Iran and the US can be called "pre-emptive".
Lamar | October 2, 2007, 1:02pm | #
"Seeing as Iran is actively engaged in attacking and killing US troops, I'm not sure how any expansion of the current hostilities between Iran and the US can be called 'pre-emptive'"Because Iran is no threat to the U.S. and our troops shouldn't be doing cross-border raids into Iran?
Steven | October 2, 2007, 1:04pm | #
There is a chance that Iran could be a threat in the future. We have a right to pre-emptively attack any and all countries that might theoretically pose a risk to the US at some point in the future. We should attack Iran and all the middle east with nuclear weapons and kill all of them because of 911.saharvey | October 2, 2007, 1:05pm | #
"Because Iran is no threat to the U.S. and our troops shouldn't be doing cross-border raids into Iran?"What evidence do you have that they are?
gaijin | October 2, 2007, 1:09pm | #
What evidence do you have that they are?Umm, it's in these satellite photos...right next to the WMD stashes and the nucular bomb factory...don't you beleive me?
Lamar | October 2, 2007, 1:09pm | #
Here you go. Indeed, given the rhetoric that Bush believes, it would be odd if they weren't.NAL | October 2, 2007, 1:10pm | #
Because Iran is no threat to the U.S. and our troops shouldn't be doing cross-border raids into Iran?But Iran is a direct threat to our troops right now. They're supplying the "insurgents" and providing many of the said insurgents. That makes it not "pre-emptive". Personally, I don't want to see the U.S. attack Iran, but if we do, it will be justified, IMO.
Lamar | October 2, 2007, 1:11pm | #
"But Iran is a direct threat to our troops right now."What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you own dictionaries? This, by definition, is an indirect threat.
gaijin | October 2, 2007, 1:17pm | #
Is the neocon kool-aid back in fashion again?When you spend your time in an echo chamber, fashion trends tend to stick around...that and the fact that the neocons are insane...they'll keep trying the same thing over and over thinking it will get a different result...next try, Iran.
joe | October 2, 2007, 1:18pm | #
Oh, Lamar.We can have semantic arguments about "direct" and "imminent" and other scary-sounding words AFTER the civilian casualty count reaches the five digits.
Again.
Wolfokrisfeld | October 2, 2007, 1:27pm | #
It's Iran that really has WMDs. A little bird told me so. Once we get them, peace, love & understanding will break out all through the Middle East.Randolph Carter | October 2, 2007, 1:29pm | #
Haha I had this discussion 3 months ago with a friend of mine, predicting war with Iran is on the way. He said, "no way, they can't just push another war through. People learned something from Iraq." People learning things from policy mistakes? Pshaw.Haha, I say again, cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!
Did the Soviets have a prima facie case for preemptive war against the US when we were supplying the Afghan resistance?
Did Iran have a case for preemptive war against us when we were supplying Iraq?
Illiterate J | October 2, 2007, 1:46pm | #
Did Iran have a case for preemptive war against us when we were supplying Iraq?Did Iraq have a case for preemptive war against us when we were supplying Iran?
James | October 2, 2007, 1:58pm | #
The Sons of LeviathanRobert Higgs identified the Leviathan as an opportunistic beast, using crises — real or manufactured — to expand its realm, to slither its tentacles into the remaining halls where large amounts of liberty are found. Any national or international event can be spun into the need for more government, more interventions, and more intrusions of its slimy appendages.
Crises never seem to arise often enough for those wanting more power. Therefore, government will manufacture events, or spin the innocuous or unrelated incident into a crisis, whenever it desires more of the people's liberty. What occurs at the national level also occurs at the local level as the sons of the Leviathan seek their own bits of power, the tidbits dropped from the mouth of the great beast.
One of the worst parts of these things is the use of the term "preemptive" to mean: "We MUST attack this country because it MAY be able to attack us now or in the future" rather than: "We MUST attack this country because an attack from them is GOING to happen in X timeframe based on Y intelligence." Of course, if they used the latter definition, we wouldn't get to attack anybody, now would we?
BTW, the term for the former would not be "preemptive" but "unprovoked".
Terrified Aresen | October 2, 2007, 2:22pm | #
As a Canadian, I would like to point out that the Mexicans have attacked you more recently than we have.0|-
NeoconPenguin | October 2, 2007, 2:28pm | #
As a Canadian, I would like to point out that the Mexicans have attacked you more recently than we have.Well, I have it on good authority that there are numerous nuculur missle silos in Canada! Although these silos are manned by US soldiers, I say this still represents an unacceptable risk!
Rattlesnake Jake | October 2, 2007, 2:33pm | #
"But Iran is a direct threat to our troops right now. They're supplying the "insurgents" and providing many of the said insurgents. That makes it not "pre-emptive". Personally, I don't want to see the U.S. attack Iran, but if we do, it will be justified, IMO."Why is the Bush Administration only beating the war drums for Iran? Saudi Arabia is also supplying insurgents. It's obviously an excuse to attack Iran. Could Israel have anything to do with this or is it just more nation building by this Administration?
Iran is threatening our efforts to establish a stable client state, Rattlesnake Jake.
Rattlesnake Jake | October 2, 2007, 2:53pm | #
"Iran is threatening our efforts to establish a stable client state"Is that in our interest to militarily promote the establishment of stable client states or is free trade a better method for establishing better relations with countries?
Scott | October 2, 2007, 3:35pm | #
Seeing as Iran is actively engaged in attacking and killing US troopsAh, the Samizdata crowd is back in full warblogging mode. The world is back as it should be. Military socialists like RCD believe as all socialists do; any failed govt program (such as the war in Iraq) can be fixed by expanding it.
The funny part of all this warmongering is that the government of Iraq, which the U.S. supports, is pro-Iran. The Iraqi government says that Iran is helping. But that inconvienient fact doesn't stop Bush from claiming that Iran is trying to undermine the (again, pro-Iran) Iraqi government.
Colonel_Angus | October 2, 2007, 5:32pm | #
"Did Iran have a case for preemptive war against us when we were supplying Iraq?Did Iran have a case for preemptive war against us when we were supplying Iraq?
Did Iraq have a case for preemptive war against us when we were supplying Iran?"
Why the hell were we supplying them in the first place? That's my tax money giving achmed a free gun. If he gets one then I should get one too.
Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | October 2, 2007, 5:51pm | #
So a pre-emptive war based on admittedly false information is being used to justify another pre-emptive war...man, if I weren't an American I'd be terrified of the US by now.Well, I guess the leaders of Myanmar don't need to worry, since we'd never invade a country just to liberate its people and install democracy...
Underzog | October 2, 2007, 11:36pm | #
Strike Iran!We don't need a nut like Armani Dinner jacket getting the bomb. You arrogant ones smugly think he'll just bomb Israel, but if you paid attention to the painting behind his world against zionism speech, it was the U.S. that was smashed on the floor. Not the ...zionist entity. See in the picture? Note which country is cracked like an eggshell in this picture. It's not Israel
It must've been a big dissapointment for you Ernst Rhoem wannabes to see the hated zionist entity smash Syria's attempt to build their own nuke reactor.
Do you want to blame the Jews for this war? You can blame and hate me. I don't care!
Golly gee.... Why don't Jews just lay down and die so Libertarians can be happy?
Have war with Iran and liberate the young Persians!
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
Seamus | October 3, 2007, 11:08am | #
But Iran is a direct threat to our troops right now. They're supplying the "insurgents" and providing many of the said insurgents. That makes it not "pre-emptive".You mean the way the United States was a direct threat to Soviet troops back in the 1980s, when we were supplying the "insurgents" there? I guess that if Chernenko had launched missiles on Washington (and on all our ICBM silos) to send us a message to back off, that therefore would not have been pre-emptive.