[Marxism] Bolton: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new USpresident in office, especially if it's Obama
marvgandall at videotron.ca
Fri Jun 27 20:41:01 MDT 2008
> I am positively horrified by the position Marvin is taking. I am amazed he
> can go this far in minimizing and dismissing the quite serious and quite
> immediate threats against Iran.
> Marvin, how can you not be outraged by this deception.
> This is a war resolution pure and simple. To say that it is anything else
> self-deception turned deception of others.
> All of which generate a war danger which Marvin's attempts to accentuate
> positive and eliminate the negative serves in fact to cover up.
> I attach again the basic provisions of the resolution, noting simply that
> the supposed refusal to authorize "use of force" is consistent with, and
> contradictory to, the call for a naval blockade. And also to note that the
> words "if necessary" which Marvin introduced into his argument as though
> were in the resolution, nowhere appears in the call for a naval blockade.
What would you like me to say, Fred?
1. That it's a despicable resolution.
2. That it's the product of the Israel lobby.
3. That it's designed to step up the pressure on the Iranians.
4. That it's another example of the DP's capitulation to the Republicans'
"war on terror".
5. That the possibility of war can't be ruled out.
6. That if there is a war, it will likely involve the use of low-yield
nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear facilities.
I've said it. I'd be glad to refer you the material if you don't believe it.
But what you're really after is for me to concede your point that the
resolution is the smoking gun which proves that the decision to go to war
has already been made by the White House with the support of the Congress.
So you do what you learned to do at branch meetings to bring the bad comrade
into line: You get to your feet and you throw up your hands in mock horror
and express indignant shock and amazement at what you're hearing in order to
cue all of the other comrades about the heretical and malignant nature of
the views to which they're being exposed.
As to the blockade and my alleged misrepresentation of the resolution,
you've conflated, deliberately or not, those steps the resolution asks Bush
to take in accordance with his existing authority, and those steps calling
on him to "initiate an international effort" to impose a more complete
quarantine on Iran. The one is not the same as the other. In the first case,
the demand is for unilateral action; in the second, for more drastic
You've also distorted what I said about it. I said the resolution calls "for
Bush to impose additional economic and travel sanctions and to 'initiate an
international effort' to step up the 'economic, political, and diplomatic
pressure' , including, if necessary, by means of a naval blockade." The
words, if necessary, were mine - not the resolution's - and I did not
pretend otherwise. Quote marks surrounded the statements I lifted from the
document, and anything outside these were my own interpretation of it.
There's nothing here to suggest I used the words "if necessary... as though
it were in the resolution".
Alas, I suppose these overwrought exchanges will continue for so long as you
and Artesian continue to attach what is to my mind an exaggerated importance
to this document.
If the US goes to war with Iran, it will be for reasons which go far beyond
this Congressional resolution. While it is highly inflammatory - and should
be condemned ON THAT BASIS - it's not a binding war resolution, but, on more
careful examination, one which, in effect, "urges" the administration to
take actions which are already in the works and prohibits Bush from taking
more drastic measures without the prior consent of the Congress and the
support of other nations - the latter highly improbable since any land or
sea embargo would necessarily require the cooperation of China and Russia,
More information about the Marxism