News

PA council opposes 'preemptive action' in Iran

Palo Alto Iranians turn out to support City Council resolution opposing attack based on an 'unconfirmed threat'

Warning of the experiences of Japanese Americans during World War II, Palo Altan Mitra Varza urged the City Council to oppose a preemptive invasion of Iran Monday night.

"This is not some far off land that's being affected. This is affecting you here in Palo Alto," Varza said.

On a 6-3 vote, the council passed the resolution calling for the U.S. government "to refrain from any preemptive action in dealing with any unconfirmed threat" and to use peaceful methods to resolve issues with Iran.

Vice Mayor Larry Klein and council members John Barton and Bern Beecham voted against the resolution because it is beyond Palo Alto's jurisdiction, but Councilwoman Dena Mossar, who usually opposes such actions, shifted her position to support the resolution.

Varza was one of a handful of Iranian Americans who waited for more than three hours to address the council.

Vahid Naraghi, also a Palo Alto resident, said he is a high-tech engineer and a veteran of the earlier war between Iran and Iraq.

"It is your job to raise your voice to show to the world that it's not being done under your name," Naraghi said.

And 22-year resident Abtin Assadi said he's always been proud of Palo Alto's progressive politics.

"This is important for many reasons to send a loud message to an administration that has used war as a prime tool of foreign policy," Assadi said.

Several members of the activist group, the Raging Grannies also attended the meeting, but several left early, saying it was past their bedtimes.

Council members LaDoris Cordell, Judy Kleinberg and Peter Drekmeier authored the resolution.

Kleinberg said she is not supporting the resolution lightly and that in some cases "the policy of preemption may have validity." But she said she went back and read a resolution several years ago opposing such a preemptive strike against Iraq and "it's a sad statement to say that everything in that resolution has come true."

Mossar said she is shifting her position in this case because of the experience in Iraq and the saying that "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Not so fast
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 11, 2007 at 7:24 am

I see that Yoriko voted with the majority on this one. Why waste time dealing with PA related issues when you can discuss Iran.
i hope our "dedicated" council members have gotten this out of their system and will focus a little bit on PA issues, but only if they have the time and are not traveling far and wide to tell people how we do things here.
I am sure that the Congress and the White House were up until the wee hours of the night awaiting the vote by the PA City Council.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Terry
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2007 at 7:45 am

How much time was spent on this issue?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2007 at 7:49 am

It is time to file a criminal complaint against the council for misfeasance.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 11, 2007 at 9:32 am

Mossar is quoted, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."
That's exactly what she voted for--to appease Iran and standby while that major sponsor of evil in the world develops nuclear weapons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tim
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 11, 2007 at 9:34 am

Please RUN the city, NOT the country!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sandi
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Dec 11, 2007 at 9:47 am

The city council members are dealing with the foreign policy; it is an insult to congresswoman "Anna G Eshoo" responsibility. She is the house representative of 14th district of California. Are you telling voters don't vote for Anna G. Eshoo next term?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 11, 2007 at 9:48 am

It's odd that the "Iranian Americans" urged the council to oppose action against the radical anti-American Iranian regime. If they are really concerned about suffering the same fate of Japanese Americans after Japan attacked us, they should argue for preventing Iran from attaching us with nuclear weapons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Revisionists-Ignore-History
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2007 at 10:47 am

> Warning of the experiences of Japanese Americans
> during World War II, Palo Altan Mitra Varza urged the
> City Council to oppose a preemptive invasion of Iran
> Monday night.

About 30% of the so-called "Japanese Americans" who were incarcerated during WWII were, in fact, Japanese citizens. The Roosevelt Administration had no idea whether the Japanese born in this country would be loyal, or not, so a decision had to be made--for better or worse--as to how to deal with having so many potentially non-loyal people on its Pacific coast.

The woman known to most as "Tokyo Rose" was actually a US citizen, who was in Japan at the time war commenced between the US and Japan. Rather than refuse to cooperate with the Japanese officials, she committed treason and became "the voice of Japan". Love of country meant little to this woman of Japanese ancestry.

If the Japanese had attacked the US mainland, it was a very real possibility that the Japanese military units would have been able to enlist Japanese citizens and Japanese-speaking Americans to aid their military efforts. While the probability of an invasion was remote, it was of sufficient worry early in the war to justify some action on the part of the Roosevelt Administration.

If Iran were to attack the US with nuclear weapons, or provide weapons to terrorists who used them against the US or our allies, the Administration in power would be forced to deal with this situation all over again.

Historical revisionists (or the Blame America First crowd) always manage to ignore the evil that was facing the US when epic decisions have to be made.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:01 am

Revisionists-Ignore-History-- Try to get your facts straight regarding Tokyo Rose:

Web Link
Web Link

What about Italy and Germany? weren;t the Germans planning to eventually invade the US? Who knows what those italian-americans and german-americans would have done.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Revisionists-Ignore-History
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:11 am

> Try to get your facts

And what facts presented about TR were in error?

As to the Germans and Italians .. many of these were also incarcerated during WWII, although not as much has been made of this as with the Japanese.

There were no significant German/Italian populations in concentrations on the East Coast that were similar to the Japanese on the West Coast. The German-American Bund gave the appearance of strong pro-German tendencies, but once the War commenced, seemed to dissolve.

Yes, the Germans were planning to invade the US (or at least that was Hitler's long range goals). Given the high engagement of the German Army in Europe at the time, it would have taken years before any serious invasion could have been a possibility.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:18 am

Revisionists-Ignore-History;

Well there was no "Tokyo Rose".

From the links I posted:

"Tokyo Rose is something of an urban legend -- a fictional person cobbled together from scraps of real history. There's no proof that such a woman existed, although one woman was convicted of treason as Tokyo Rose.

During World War II, American soldiers dubbed the female broadcasters on Japanese radio, "Tokyo Rose." It was a name invented by the soldiers -- U.S. government research never found evidence of a person named Tokyo Rose in radio programs anywhere in the Pacific. The voice of Tokyo Rose was said to have taunted Allied forces during the war, hurting"


and

"The name is associated with Iva Toguri D'Aquino (born Ikuko Toguri, July 4, 1916, Los Angeles, California - died September 26, 2006, Chicago, Illinois). A U.S. citizen by birth who was visiting relatives including a sick aunt in Japan at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, she was unable to leave after the start of hostilities. She refused to renounce her American citizenship and was subsequently treated as an enemy alien and refused a war ration card.[1] "A tiger does not change its stripes" is a quote attributed to her.[1]. To support herself she took work at the Japanese radio show The Zero Hour[2] as a transcriber and later as an on air announcer named "Ann" (for "Announcer") and later "Orphan Ann".[1] Her producer was an Australian Army officer, Major Charles Cousens, who had pre-war broadcast experience and had been captured at the fall of Singapore. Cousens had been tortured and coerced to work on radio broadcasts,[1] as had his assistants, U.S. Army Captain Wallace "Ted" Ince and a Philippine Army Lieutenant, Normando Ildefonso "Norman" Reyes. Toguri had previously risked her life smuggling food into the nearby Prisoner of War (POW) camp where Cousens and Ince were held, gaining the inmates' trust.[1] Toguri would host a total of 340 broadcasts of The Zero Hour.[1]

After she indicated her refusal to broadcast anti-American propaganda, Toguri was assured by both of them that they would not write scripts having her say anything against the United States.[1] After the war, she was investigated and released when the FBI and the U.S. Army's Counter Intelligence Corps found no evidence against her. "Tokyo Rose" was actually a legend generated by allied military personnel for the amalgam of female broadcasters working for the Japanese government.[1] At no time did Toguri call herself "Tokyo Rose" during the war. Further, true to the word of the two prisoners of war that Toguri worked under, no anti-Allied propaganda was found in her broadcasts.[1] However, upon her request to return to the United States to have her child born on American soil,[1] the influential gossip columnist and radio host Walter Winchell lobbied against her. She was brought to the U.S., where she was charged and subsequently convicted of treason.[2] Prior to her being brought back to the U.S. for trial, her baby was born, but died shortly after.[1]

In 1949, D'Aquino was convicted of one of eight counts of treason by the U.S. government.[3] She was given a sentence of 10 years and a $10,000 fine. Her attorney, Wayne Collins, citing the gross unfairness of it, called the verdict "Guilty without evidence".[1] After six years, she was released and moved to Chicago, Illinois, where Chicago Tribune reporter Ron Yates identified her. Yates later went on to discover that Kenkichi Oki and George Mitsushio, who delivered the most damaging testimony, lied under oath.[3] They stated they had been threatened by the FBI and U.S. occupation police and told what to say and what not to say just hours before the trial.[3] On January 19, 1977, she was pardoned by U.S. President Gerald Ford, who also restored her citizenship.[4]"


As I said get your facts straight and try reading the links yourself


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Revisionists-Ignore-History
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:29 am

> As I said get your facts straight and
> try reading the links yourself

As presented:

US Citizen
Japanese Ancestry
In Japan at Beginning of War
Worked with Japanese to Demoralize US troops.
Tried for Treason at End of war.

What facts presented in original posting are significantly different that those above?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:45 am


Revisionists-Ignore-History:

"After she indicated her refusal to broadcast anti-American propaganda, Toguri was assured by both of them that they would not write scripts having her say anything against the United States.[1] After the war, she was investigated and released when the FBI and the U.S. Army's Counter Intelligence Corps found no evidence against her. "


and

"Toguri had previously risked her life smuggling food into the nearby Prisoner of War (POW) camp where Cousens and Ince were held, gaining the inmates' trust.[1] "

and

"Yates later went on to discover that Kenkichi Oki and George Mitsushio, who delivered the most damaging testimony, lied under oath.[3] They stated they had been threatened by the FBI and U.S. occupation police and told what to say and what not to say just hours before the trial.[3] On January 19, 1977, she was pardoned by U.S. President Gerald Ford, who also restored her citizenship.[4]""


and

"The U.S. government stacked the deck against Toguri and her meager defense, and the judge later admitted he was prejudiced against her from the start. Toguri was found guilty of only one of the eight treason charges -- "That she did speak into a microphone concerning the loss of ships." She was sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined $10,000. Because she was a model prisoner, Toguri was released early in 1956, although she was served with a deportation order which took two years to fight.

In 1976, the TV news show 60 Minutes told the Tokyo Rose story from Toguri's point of view. This led to a full pardon for Toguri from President Gerald Ford in 1977. "


Don;t cherry pick "facts". So she was one out of how many?
How many Japanese-americans in the US were convicted of aiding the Japanese government during WWII?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 11, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Thank you councilmembers Klein, Barton, and Beecham for showing common sense and wishing to get back to appropriate city council business. Thank you for serving on the council.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Granny Ruth
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Congratulations to the brave City Council members who stepped into the international arena. As Council member Judy Kleinberg commented last night, "We are not wasting time on this issue as some will surely comment. We stay late and address EVERY issue of importance to Palo Alto".
Members of the Raging Grannies Action League (7 of us) were present. A few left early for Granny bedtime, that is for sure! But our 4 remaining Grannies were pleased to be there to support the speakers from the community (including two Grannies) and hear the vote.
For those who post here to say that this is not a Palo Alto issue, did you know that $200 million of money from Palo Alto has gone to the war so far? This was the figure quoted by several of the Council members last night.
One of the Iranian-Americans present told us as we celebrated the yes vote afterwards that he was so excited to see democracy in action in this his adopted country. These good folks left a repressive regime to enjoy the freedoms or expression we have in the US. It was clearly a moving experience for him and all present. To anyone who would "dis" these new citizens: Grannies are here to remind you that America was built on the backs of immigrants who came to this country for a better life, that includes nearly everyone's ancestors.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Revisionists-Ignore-History
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2007 at 12:31 pm

> After she indicated her refusal to broadcast
> anti-American propaganda, Toguri was assured
> by both of them that they would not write
> scripts having her say anything against the
> United States.[1]

And did the Japanese Authorities keep their word?

And you would have us believe that she did did not see that the Japanese were lying to her? The bottom line here is that she should have refused to have anything to do with the Japanese propaganda effort--even if it cost her life.

> After the war, she was investigated and released
> when the FBI and the U.S. Army's Counter Intelligence Corps
> found no evidence against her. "

If the point is she did not write the scripts--that is true. However, she did read them most effectively over the air!

> In 1976, the TV news show 60 Minutes told the Tokyo Rose
> story from Toguri's point of view. This led to a full
> pardon for Toguri from President Gerald Ford in 1977.

And this is the very point about "Revisionists Ignore History"! All a criminal, or a traitor, has to do is get someone in the media to tell your point-of-view and now you are no longer guilty of a crime, or in this case, TREASON!

Ford's pardon in no way changes the facts. Lots of people get pardoned--just look at what happened in the trailing days of the Clinton Administration (particularly when money changes hands).

Particularly galling about Ford's pardon was that it became an insult to every man/woman/child who was involved in the national defense of our country during WWII.

> Don;t cherry pick "facts".

Didn't!

> So she was one out of how many?

This is an incomplete sentence. Care to be more specific?

> How many Japanese-americans in the US were convicted
> of aiding the Japanese government during WWII?

Well, given that most of the Japanese-Americans were incarcerated for the country's protection, the answer to this question is none (that come to mind, anyway). However, the counter-factual question of how many would have been convicted of espionage had the incarceration not occurred is open for debate.

One aspect of this situation that frequently does not get much attention is that the Japanese/Japanese-Americans on Hawaii were not incarcerated. Given that the island was difficult to approach other than by water, the US government decided not to incarcerate these people. There is an interesting story in the NYT, published during the first week after 12.07.41, about a Japanese pilot who crashed on one of the smaller islands not too far from the Pearl Harbor, having been hit by anti-aircraft fire. The pilot rallied the local Japanese population to attack Americans and went on a bit of a rampage which what can be best called "a mob". Eventually a National Guard element was called to the scene, where a young Japanese-American Army officer shot the Japanese pilot and put and end to the "insurrection". Given that some of the Japanese (Hawaii was an American "possession" at that time) were clearly willing to become "insurgents", the problem in the early days of WWII for the Administration was-- "who to trust"? Americans living on Hawaii later reported that they were very scared of the Japanese residents for a long time after 12.07.41.

While the number of these incidents was very small, they did occur.

The whole idea of incarceration of the Japanese was "preemption" of a possible fifth column that could have been of considerable size here in California. There was little time to make decisions, and not very good intelligence on the part of the US Government at the time. There were no interstate highways, leaving only trains and local/state roads to convey men/materials to the West Coast for defense, should it have come to that.

Which returns us to the matter of whether the US should engage in preemptive strikes against countries possibly building nuclear weapons to use against us.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 11, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Granny Ruth, did you check the credentials of the "Iranian Americans"? If they came here to escape "a repressive regime to enjoy the freedoms or expression" why are they now supporting this Iranian regime which deplores and fights our freedom of expression?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 11, 2007 at 1:30 pm

"to refrain from any preemptive action in dealing with any unconfirmed threat."

I happen to agree with those who say that the council should not get invovled in these things, but it has, so I will just attempt to argue about the resolution, itself.

What, exactly, does "unconfirmed" mean? Does Hans Blix, for example, need to "confirm" that Iraq did not have a serious atomic bomb program (even though it did, and poor Hans couldn't detect it), in order to establish that reality is "unconfirmed"? Does the CIA estimate about Iran, from several months ago, which stated that Iran has an ongoing nuclear bomb program "confirm" that we should go to preemptive war? Or does the most recent CIA finding that Iran does not have an ongoing program confirm "unconfirmed"? Do we, automatically, need to wait for a mushroom cloud, in New York Harbor, to make the case? Our PA council seems to know the answer. But which is it?

Judy Kleinberg says that the failed council resoultion opposing attacking Iraq was completely true. Really? Perhaps she would like to publish that resolution, so that the rest of us can derive our own conclusions. Saddam is dead, Iraq is emerging as a reletively free democratic state in one of the most hositle anti-democratic regions of the world, Al Qaeda is on the run and the U.S. invasion that brought this about is relatively low cost (blood and treasure). Churchill and FDR would not have had a hiccup about this affair. Perhaps Judy knows more about foreign policy than those two guys...ya think?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wow
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 11, 2007 at 2:50 pm

What an incredible waste of time. I hope the new council will only take up issues that are actually under its purview.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by james
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 11, 2007 at 3:21 pm

So many blood hungry people. This can not be the Palo Alto, I know. The only groups I know who want us to make another mistake like Iraq (pushing to bomb Iran) are fascists like Lieberman, Lieberman west (Lantos and Feinstein) and the Cheney's contractors gang.
Surprisingly, the only politicians with enough b$$lS to stand against these fascists are bay area elected women (Feinstein no included)

KUDO TO Palo Alto for making a stance against what will be US' worst foreign policy ever.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2007 at 4:21 pm

The raging grannies need to direct their rage to the threat, not to their protectors. I suspect if their house was on fire they would blame the fire fightrs for water damage. Perhaps they just need a man. If one can be found with appropriate standards.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by How much time
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Dec 11, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Would someone please attend the next city council meeting and ask how much time was spent discussing this resolution?

How much was spent in city resources? Was there any research done by staff or were the council members just winging it? Did they do their duty to educate themselves fully before issuing pronouncements?

If they just winged it - they are guilty of not putting in the time to fully educate themselves.

If they spent large amounts educating themselves - they are guilty of wasting city resources.

Of course you know where this is going - the members of the city council are so smart (they read the NY Times, after all), that they don't need to spend any time further educating themselves in order to make pronouncements like this.

How many of them do you think even read the government report? How many of them do you think even know who authored the report?

The important thing in liberal circles is not truth. It is just not breaking from the orthodoxy of your fellow libs. Same goes for global warming. Despite the evidence that the world has gotten colder since 1981, that the Antartic ice shelf is growing and that many scientists have questioned whether humans have any appreciable effect on global warming or cooling - not one single liberal will stand up and question whether we should take another look.

To question the orthodoxy is tantamount to getting tossed from the church of liberalism.

In this center of science, the lack of interest in examining facts before making up your mind and issuing pronouncements is staggering.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Granny Ruth
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2007 at 5:04 pm

See you later at Safeway, Walter.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2007 at 5:11 pm

While I respect the individual city councilor's right to an opinion on international matters, I did not see any candidate's views being used as an election forerunner in the latest or previous elections. Therefore, I would appreciate the city council not taking any of their elected time on this issue. Regardless whether I agree or differ with their opinions, as a city we require our council to focus on city matters not international matters. If we did want them to comment on international matters, then we should know their opinions on that topic before the election so we can choose whether or not we agree with them before we choose to vote for them. Since that has not happened, there is no way that they can speak for the people of Palo Alto on this matter. So, in other words, they have spoken for themselves, not for us, and any opinion they come out with is their own opinions not ours.

I could say how dare they take this on for themselves, to speak on behalf of Palo Alto, for matters to which they weren't elected, but I expect if I did, I would be edited out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of South of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2007 at 5:22 pm

All right, Granny Ruth and Walter. Imagine the chemistry! Will Granny survive bayonette training? Will Walter lose his brain to Granny's socialism? Will opposites attract? Will they explode? Will Safeway survive?

Gotta luv it!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Brian
a resident of Los Altos
on Dec 11, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Congratulations to the city of Palo Alto for taking this position. And for those of you who keep talking about Iran's nuclear weapons, perhaps you have either not read the latest NIE report or continue to be brainwashed by the media, the Bush administration, and special interest groups. Or perhaps you think we accomplished our mission in Iraq?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by observing from afar
a resident of another community
on Dec 11, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Hmm...what as nutcase city!! You all should change your name to Peninsula Berkeley..


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marcos
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Why none of the writers above who are againt the resolution, did not bother to show up and speak at the council last night? It would have been helpful for the council members to see their constituency express their opinions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joan
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 11, 2007 at 7:58 pm



"Peace in our time" Hitler loved that line from the appeasers

I prefer peace through victory

Talk politely and carry a big stick. Trust and verify.

Helps me sleep better at night




 +   Like this comment
Posted by disgusted
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2007 at 7:59 pm

*Why none of the writers above who are againt the resolution,
*did not bother to show up and speak at the council last night?

Comrades Kleinberg, Drekmeier and Cordell are generally not interested in what the people of Palo Alto think.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2007 at 9:50 pm

I was in error refering above to "raging grannies" - the collective is "a gaggle of grannies". Since I am a great grandpa I don't mess with mere grannies. For 53 years, keeping one woman happy has occupied all my time. A pity the grannies don't have such comfort. Besides, I thought all grannies were Trader Joe's transplants from Co-op.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Be fair
a resident of another community
on Dec 11, 2007 at 10:48 pm

To those objecting the time the Palo Alto City Council spent on this resolution:

1. No other city matter was bumped, postponed or sacrificed at the meeting in favor of this resolution. The members of the city council were gracious enough to provide their own time to this matter.

2. As you read this email, Washington is syphoning your tax dollars into the war effort in Iraq. So far, the war in Iraq is estimated to have cost Palo Alto somewhere in the neighborhood of $200M. It is indeed within the purview of this and every other city council in the country to discuss whether their local resources are spent wisely by the people sitting in Washington.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Terry
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 12:17 am

Be Fair, that's a helpful point. How much time was actually spent on this matter?

While they may have "volunteered their time," we as citizens did not elect them to speak for us on these matters. If they want to speak as private citizens, that's fine. In addition, this seems like a bad precedent - is foreign policy, or just about anything, now fair game for council meetings, as long as they can get the mundane work of running a city out of the way?

I would prefer very much that the City Council did not speak for the city and all of us on matters of foreign policy. There's no need for it and dilutes the focus we need to have on running our city.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by AshamedAmerican
a resident of South of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 12:50 am

I feel ashamed reading some of the blood-thirsty comments here. I feel ashamed to be living among such people who talk and act very politely in public, but hiding behind internet, become horrific monsters worse than Al Qaida terrorists, demanding and promoting violence at scales that Bin Laden could only dream about! I feel so ashamed as an American to have fellow countrymen who think like that sitting at their pc's, but during the day, they look well-shaven, well-groomed, polite, tie and suit-wearing people who hold the door for you!

When did some of us become such monsters with conscience of an oyster advocating to bomb a sovereign nation with 5000 years of documented history, art, literature and culture, which has never attacked us, has never even threatened to attack us, and does not even have the means to attack us, and has not even attacked its own neighbors for more than 300 years!
I am sure these are just the ignorant minority in our beloved city who will some day wake up. But, meanwhile, I think the rest of us must make sure the three stooges who voted against this humane resolution on the council do not ever get elected to any office.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 2:53 am

Iran attacked sovereign US territory November 4, 1979. AshamedAmerican can leave anytime it wants to.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 7:31 am

Ashamed American : I pray to God every day that AlQaeda becomes the kind of monsters you see here on the internet. I would rather be "attacked" with words than be bombed and beheaded.

You are like the teacher at Paly who equated the monster who savagely attacked and raped the 17 year old girl a few weeks ago to the same "victim" status. After talking about how he and Burpee used to talk in the weight rooom, he dared to say "I think there are multiple victims here" or words to that effect. I wanted to throw up...

When that kind of relative morality enters a society, when a brutal rapist is put on the same plane as his victim, when posters who are angry that their city council doesn't stick to the job they were elected to do are "worse than" AlQaeda who beheads, bombs, executes, flogs, ( remember the woman just last week flogged and imprisoned for being raped???..oh yes, that was her fault, she dared to be alone in a car with an unrelated male and then dared to tell the world about her sentence, for which her flogging was promplty doubled)...When we have people who see these as morally and civilly equivalent, I worry greatly for the future of our country.

I don't want that kind of "tolerance". I want complete intolerance to anything which interferes with a person's innate right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Last I checked, the use of these words backed up by the willingness to fight and die for them is what keeps these innate rights in place.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by can't stop..perspective.
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 7:38 am

Ashamed American:

You must be kidding. Never threatened or attacked us? Speaking of oysters! You have been hiding in yours!

A CIVILIZATION, yes,but the PEOPLE of Iran have been held hostage for 30 years in a brutal dictatorship..the PEOPLE of Iran are crying for democracy. Have you not seen the news of the massive demonstrations that are happening in Universities? Do you have any idea the kind of courage these young folks have? They are in a regime where they are "disappeared" for speaking out! My God, whose side are you on? Their cry for freedom, or the Theocracy which opposes all freedom? It is Iran's OWN theocracy which is destroying its civilization, and its OWN people who are in desperate need of our support.

But, as usual, the support for liberty will not come from our left, or from Europe, which holds ordered dictatorship in higher esteem than chaotic freedom.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by AshamedAmerican
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 10:10 am

can't stop:

That's exactly why we should not militarily intervene in Iran, because the first victim of any military attack would be the very democracy movement you want to support! The regime has already stepped up the crackdown on the dissent as the threat of war increases by the US. Any attack would serve to consolidate the power of the hardline elements in the regime and historically, when there is a foreign invader, Iranian people unite to defend their motherland, regardless of who rules the country. Look what happened during Iran-Iraq war in the 80's. Read some history for God's sake. "Those who don't learn from history, tend to repeat it."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 12, 2007 at 10:32 am

Our attack on Iran should remove the "hardline elements" along with the nuclear capabilities.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 12, 2007 at 10:48 am

Ashamed,

Libya and Iran (apparently) gave up their nuclear bomb programs in 2003, after we attacked Iraq. Libya, once on our terrorist state list, has now established full diplomatic relations with us. If the USA remains strong in Iraq, Iran will also come around, though it will take some years. If we go weak, like you want, Iran will start up it nuke program again.

North Korea was confronted by a strong US president (Bush), and it is showing signs of coming around.

If you want peace, prepare for war. It ususally works. If you prepare for peace, you will get war.

You should try to get over your shame. It is a bad way to lead one's life.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tony K
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 11:26 am

For those who believe that the City should not be involved because the Iran issue is not a "Palo Alto" issue, think again. First, Palo Alto's share of losses, in other words funds that it could have received from the Federal Government had there not been a war in Iraq, is approximately $200,000,000, (Two hundred million) so far. If there is another war, this time in Iran, then these costs escalate. There is no reason, when as citizens we have to pay for the costs of the war with money and with lives, that we should restrict our voices only to "Congress." Congress has even failed to investigate how on September 6, 2007, six nuclear weapons were flown by the US Air Force, across the US, in violation of law.

Furthermore, when money is spent on war, we as Palo Alto and US citizens pay for it by not being able to improve education, health, and the social security system. Those who believe a war is not a Palo Alto issue are grossly shortsighted.

There is no reason to restrict our voices only to Congress. This issue hit us in the pocketbook and for some in the most precious things they have, their loved ones. No one has the right to say that this issue should not have been brought up in the Palo Alto meeting. Finally, Palo Alto has a large Iranian born population.

Many of these residents have family members still in Iran, and as tax payers to the City and county, have every right to voice their concerns about a baseless and meritless war, driven only by the now embarrassed Neocons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joan
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 12, 2007 at 12:22 pm



French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned of a risk of a war with Iran if Israel considered its security seriously threatened by Tehran's nuclear drive in a magazine interview to be published Thursday.

Sarkozy also said he was ready to travel to Tehran to discuss a civilian nuclear partnership if the country steps up its cooperation with the UN atomic watchdog.

"The problem for us is not so much the risk that the Americans launch a military intervention, but that the Israelis consider their security to be truly threatened," Sarkozy told Le Nouvel Observateur.

"Everyone agrees on the fact that what the Iranians are doing has no civilian explanation," Sarkozy said, referring to Tehran's uranium enrichment work. "The only debate is about whether they will develop a military capacity in one or five years."

Israel considers Iran its number one enemy following repeated calls by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 12, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Aside from the fact that Palo Alto has never received $200M from the federal governemnt, for anything, over a five year period, the argument of such a theortetical loss ignores the opposite argument: What would be the cost of not going to war? Saddam would still be in power, and the MidEast would be doomed to perpetual agression from him. The UN would be massively corrupted with his kickbacks. Europe would be on his left hind tit. Neighboring countries would be insisting on US military support. WMD would be back, big time. Hand offs of WMD to Al Qaeda (enemey of my enemy is my friend) would casue the US to spend enormous sums on cat-and-mouse games. The American military would still be stationed in Saudi Arabia in order to enforce the 'no-fly zone'. Saddam would have a confident smile on his face, as he played off one player against another. The Iraqi people would never have a chance at dipping their fingers in puple ink.

It would be humorous to listen to leftist propaganda on Iraq, but for the fact that it would be immoral and disastorous to our national security to leave Saddam in power. The standard lefty refrain is, "Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but.... (fill in the blanks).

Saddam was not behind 9-11. I don't know any administration official who said he was. The issue was whether Saddam would take advantage of the Al Qaeda pipeline to slip some WMDs our way. Very serious issue. However, the ANSWER to the Al Qaeda threat is precisely to install a solid democratic state in the region. What better place to start than Iraq?

Our local council is a gathering of lightweights, so best to just smile, and move on.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by It's-A-Sick-Sick-Town
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 12, 2007 at 1:57 pm

> in other words funds that it could have received from the
> Federal Government had there not been a war in Iraq, is
> approximately $200,000,000,

This logic is simply INSANE! The Federal Government would NEVER have raised the spending limits of the Federal Budget by the amount that has been raised post-9/11 to give towns and cities money to the tune of $200M! This poster believes money goes on trees apparently! In order to "give Palo Alto $200M", it would have had to borrow that money, or raise taxes on someone. Given the how cost of borrowing money--why would the Federal Government commit to pay $400M to give Palo Alto $200M?

Given the incredibly low understanding of how the Federal Budget works--it's terrifying to know that these sorts of people as this poster have access to the voting booth!

This poster has also forgotten a very old American adage: "Millions for Defense, but not one cent for Tribute!"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tony K
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 2:35 pm

The statement that "Saddam was not behind 9-11. I don't know any administration official who said he was." says it all. All of the Neocon chicken hawks, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were caught in lies. Thank god for you tube where the video tapes are still available. There is a reason that aside from a small group of right wingers, such as the hypocritical Pat Robertson who has now endorsed the pro gay and pro abortion Rudy Guiliani, and the Chicken hawks, Bush and his Neocongang have no credibility.

The military, the ones who actually have to go to war and fight and give up their lives, do not want to go to war with Iran. These are people who have signed up for military duty and service, and to protect their country. Obviously "Its-A-Sick-Sick Town" never did. You just sit on the side line and perpetuate the hypothetical question "What would be the cost of not going to war?" Well my friend, the military, those who have put on the bullet proof vests and are dying everyday in another needless war, have answered that question. Iran does not pose a threat from Iran. You have no credibility, just like your president, to raise these questions.

As if the military was not enough, now the intelligence community has had it with the Bush regime and the Neocons as well. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Last time the intelligence community got burned by Bush-Cheney, Bush blamed the Iraq misinformation on the intellegince community. This time the intellegince community, all 16 organizations, rejected he Nowcon chiken hawks' and your hypothetical questions.

You state that the American military "would be stationed in Saudi Arabia", as if it were a bad thing. I got news for you. First, the military is still stationed in Saudi Arabia and a few other Gulf countries, in relative peace. Second, in addition to Saudi Arabia, we are now forced to be stationed in Iraq, and will be under constant attacks. This all because the chicken hawks could not find the WMDs they said existed.

Finally, since you are such an economic guru, why don't you explain how the deficit, the war costs, and the increase in oil price caused by war, have weakened the Dollar and how that is really good for all of us, not just the few hawks living in the Northern neighborhoods. Please explain to us how the funds used for war could not be used for education, global warming issues, and health care.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 2:58 pm

It must be a comfort to Iran to know that they need not defend against the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, Palo Alto branch, in addition to defending against the US military.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by It's-A-Sick-Sick-Town
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 12, 2007 at 3:04 pm

> The military, the ones who actually have to go to war and
> fight and give up their lives, do not want to go to war with Iran

And you know this how?

While no sane man wants to die unnecessarily--the Military serves the President and the American people before it serves itself.

> explain how the deficit, the war costs, and the increase in
> oil price caused by war, have weakened the Dolla

The actual cost of this war, while growing, is far less than we have borrowed for the entitlements of the "Great Society"--which has weakened the dollar far more over the decades than the Iraq War has.

> Please explain to us how the funds used for war could not be
> used for education, global warming issues, and health care

It would be insane to borrow money to pay for items such as "education" and "health care". If this War had not occurred, then these monies would not have been spent on anything. The government does not have a right to take as much of our money as it wants, for whatever it wants!

If we were to pull our military out of Europe, letting these folks begin to spend their own money for defense--maybe we might see a little "correction" between the Euro and the dollar.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joan
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 12, 2007 at 3:08 pm



Iran tested a newly-developed ballistic missile on the day of the Annapolis conference,AP reported wednesday


The Ashoura missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers and is capable of reaching Israel, US Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities, including Moscow, said the TV channel. AP 12/12/07

The clock is ticking




 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Joan: You are so right. But, reality has never had anything to with ideology for most people. 3,000 centrifuges, which have only one purpose, are openly known to be recently brought into Iran..but, don't worry, they are for peaceful purposes.

Did you see in the Financial Times...or was it the Wall Street Journal?..I forget..that the Opposition group in Iran is stating that yes, Iran DID stop building toward a nuclear program after we went into Iraq in 2003..but re-started it in 2004?( Probably when it saw our left wing doing everything it could to undermine our Iraq efforts).

What we don't understand here, ensconced in our comfortable, safe, democratic, freedom of speech world, is how the dictatorships of the world view our dissent, and how much damage it does to us.

The world is scratching its head over the recent NIE report...not one nation believes it, each nation subscribes either to the theory that the CIA has people actively working to undermine the President's (and Europe's) efforts to contain Iran, OR that the Intelligence community is simply inept.

In the Dictatorship worlds, either one is seen as permission to carry on with their goals, since there is no unity in the West.

Good job!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tony K
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 4:18 pm

There are numerous articles, from about a year ago that the military does not want to go to war in Iran. Just read this week's Time magazine and you and joan can catch up a little.

You and joan need to stop the scare tactics and encouraging other's to accept war. You should admit that you are only concerned about Israel and not the United States and that you are only towing Israel's party line. You are certainly not concerned about Russia.

But regardless, the US military and the intelligence community know all of what you know and then some, and neither one thinks going to war in Iran is in the United States (not Israel's) best interest.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by It's-A-Sick-Sick-Town
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 12, 2007 at 5:25 pm

> You should admit that you are only concerned about Israel
> and not the United States and that you are only towing
> Israel's party line.

Not at all!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 12, 2007 at 5:30 pm

"The statement that "Saddam was not behind 9-11. I don't know any administration official who said he was." says it all. All of the Neocon chicken hawks, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were caught in lies. Thank god for you tube where the video tapes are still available"

Tony K., please provide the links that demostrate that administration officials stated that Saddam was behind 9-11. Then provide links demonstrating that the administration lied about Iraq.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MK
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 12, 2007 at 5:51 pm

war supporters fail to see the longterm implications and consequences it brings. supporting war in the middle east hasn't led to anything beneficial for decades. Stop supporting Israel blindly and do the right thing! The Arabs, Iranians and Palestinians don't want war. Israeli zionists want to annex more land and don't want any regional power to get in their way. That's the only reason we took out Iraq/Afghanistan and the only reason they're pushing buttons about Iran.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Ashamed American: If someone is beating his dog in his home, and you are afraid to go into the home to stop him for fear of hurting the dog...isn't your thinking a little strange? It means never interfering to stop something wrong.

Evil happens when good people stand aside and do nothing.

I am not promoting war,nobody wants war, but taking it totally off the table as an option inevitably leads to war. You must be willing to back up your support with violence in a world with dictators who understand only violence and fear only loss of power. It is naive to believe that such people can be "talked to" and care about the good of their people.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by agree with Gary.
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm

BTW, I agree with Gary. Every time I hear someone claim that our Admin said that Saddam had something to do with 9-11, or that Bush et al "lied", I ask for a link. So far, no luck.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 13, 2007 at 4:25 am

If the US foreign policy is only to serve Israel, why have we been a protector and financial supporter of Palestine? A true friend of Israel would say shoot back when shot at.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Disagree with Gary
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2007 at 6:40 am

Gary and Agree with Gary:

Web Link

"WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland."


It is an issue of semantics--while Bush , Cheney and the rest of the gang in DC may not have directly said that Saddam was behind 9/11, they made numerous statements and let the people falsely connect the dots.

Our current administration's record on truthfullness is suspect at best


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 13, 2007 at 7:30 am

Disagree,

Thank you for pointing out the fact that the administration never said that Saddam was behind 9-11. The left continues to spew this lie.

The following paragraph from your link is a pretty fair take on the situation:

"The point, says Eric Larson, a senior policy analyst at RAND who specializes in public opinion and war, is that the US public understands what Hussein is all about - which includes his invasion of two countries and the use of biological and chemical agents. "He's expressed interest - and done more than that - in trying to develop a nuclear capability," says Mr. Larson. "In general, the public is rattled about this.... There's a jumble of attitudes in many Americans' minds, which fit together as a mosaic that [creates] a basic predisposition for military action against Saddam."

The main linkage between Saddam and Al Qaeda, that the administration made, was the possibility that Saddam might give some WMD to Al Qaeda to attack the USA, thus avoiding any fingerprints. That was a rational concern, one shared by various world leaders, including Tony Blair.

Saddam hated the US enough to try to assasinate its former president (Bush), the US was dampening his effectiveness with its no-fly zones, sanctions, support for the Kurds, etc. However, Saddam was doing what he does best: Slowly overcoming all opposition by using corruption and intimidation. His chemical and biological program was ready to go, although his nuclear program would take some time to get back on track. He made everyone believe he already had major stores of WMD...he got the blowback he deserved on that score.

If Iraq stablizes as a representative democratic state, it will be a major blow to Al Qaeda. Islamic fundamentalists hate the thought of democracy. There might also be stirrings for democratic power in neighboring states like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Iran. There is a lot on the line in Iraq. Bush understands this. His leftist opponents don't really care...they just hate Bush.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by AshamedAmerican
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 13, 2007 at 4:05 pm

perspective: You would be right if the world were as black and white as Bush and Cheney want us to believe it is ("you are either with us, or against us!"). But, the reality is very different. If you want to rid people from dictatorships, there are tens of them around the world who are probably even worse than the Iranian regime, why not go after them?! How about Hosni Mobarak in Egypt, or King Abdollah in Saudi or Musharraf in Pakistan?! You see, that logic will fail very quickly, doesn't it?! By all independent accounts, Iran, although far from an ideal democracy, has the most vibrant and pluralistic system in the ME, there are several parties competing for power, there are opposition newspapers, there are NGOs, there are student organizations, workers unions, etc. As much as Ahmadinejad is portrayed in the corporate US media as the sole dictator, he is just one element in the Iranian complex power structure who does not even have the final say on major policies. His party faced a crushing defeat in the last election for the Assembly of Experts which has the power to dismiss the Supreme Leader, and is predicted to face a similar defeat in the parliamentary elections set in March 2008. True, that Iranian constitution has major flaws, but so does many other constitutions around the world, including our own.
At least they have a constitutional system, and the rule of law for the most part. It was in the same system that in 1997 Iranians overwhelmingly elected a pro-western reformist, President Khatami, who promoted sweeping reforms in the social and cultural areas, but was roadblocked by the hardliners when he tried to reform the political system as well. My point is, let Iranians figure out for themselves what is best for them. They are capable of doing that as proven in their 5000 years of documented history. The international community must focus on human rights violations in Iran (and other countries) and hold their leaders accountable, while opening up trade and diplomatic relationship with them in order to have some leverage. Isolating Iran, will remove all the leverage, except military threat, which is counterproductive anyway. The more open Iranian society is to the west, the more the expectations of the people, and the more pressure on the government to heed their demands.
War and military strike have exactly the opposite effect, as the regime rallies support against the 'malicious' west which is bent to destroy the country, and as the result, gets stronger and can easily suppress any dissent. Just put aside your ideological bias for a moment and think about what I just said and judge for yourself whether it makes sense or not. Thank you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 13, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Ashamed,

From what I have heard, the Mullahs in Iran screen the candidates that are allowed to run for office. Is this your definition of consitutional democracy?

There was a joke, among college students in Iran, when US bombers were flying overhead to bomb Taliban positions in Afghanistan. The students said, "Drop the bombs here first!".

There is no perfect democracy, but Iran cannot, in any way, be put in the top 95%. Stalin had elections, too. It wasn't until Reagan stood up to the statist system, and challenged its very foundations, that the Soviet Union came crashing down. Bush is not in Reagan's zone, but he is trying. His main attribute is understanding the truth of the situation, then backing it up with his stubborness. Good for him (and us).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tony K
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 14, 2007 at 8:00 am

Gary:

This was Bush's statement in the State of the Union address. Go to youtube and do a search for "bush lies" or Rumsfeld or Cheney, etc. Bush tied Saddam to Alquida. Cheney stated that they had "pretty well confirmed" reports that AlQuida had meetings in Iraq. and on and on. All of the news reports are still available there.

Your statement that Bush only said that an Iraqi weapon could be used by Alquida is false. He even directly implied that Saddam was responsible for 911. I will paraphrase his statement, but he said that "prior to 911 no one thought that Saddam could attack the US." Second, your statement that:
"The main linkage between Saddam and Al Qaeda, that the administration made, was the possibility that Saddam might give some WMD to Al Qaeda to attack the USA, thus avoiding any fingerprints. That was a rational concern, one shared by various world leaders, including Tony Blair." This is also BS. There was much evidence that Saddam did not even like Alquida and the CIA and Bush knew that. Of course all of these statements was based upon the original untrue statement that Saddam had or was seeking WMDs.

Gary, please get your facts straight. People, both Americans and others, are dying when you get your facts wrong. Every day that one of our people dies in Iraq, we can thank you and Bush for continuing the farce.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tony K
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 14, 2007 at 8:19 am

Dear Walter: You stated that "If the US foreign policy is only to serve Israel, why have we been a protector and financial supporter of Palestine? A true friend of Israel would say shoot back when shot at."

The only reason the US funded and funds some Palestinian factions is only to use it as a incentive to get them to give up their land. It is a carrot and stick approach. Israel applies the stick. The US applies the carrot.

On the one hand the US funds almost all of Israel's military, and despite a UN resolution which the US supported, indicating that Israel should evacuate the occupied Palestinian land, Israel continues to build "settlements" in Palestinian territory. The US has always opposed this, but nevertheless continued to give at least $4B of out tax money every year to Israel. The Israel lobby in the US has a self interest in making sure the conflict continues. This is how they make their money.

Israel continues to dominate the Palestinian's everyday life on the Palestinian's own land. This is simply a carrot-stick strategy which has failed and will continue to fail. You noticed that as soon as the Palestinians voted for Hamas, the money stopped. Punishing the Palestinians for exercising their democracy.

Your statement that "shoot back when shot at" is also incorrect. Israel is not only occupying Palestinian land, but in fact they are building settlements on it. Meaning that Israel is putting their own citizen's in harms way and taking over other people's land. Would you not shoot if someone was taking over your property?? If you were really afraid of, for example lets say Mexicans, would you take over their land and start building your house on their land?

The collective media's propaganda is really working I guess.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by AshamedAmerican
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 14, 2007 at 10:20 am

Gary: I guess you didn't quite read or understand what I said. I didn't say that's the definition of constitutional democracy, I said relatively speaking, in the ME Iran has a more vibrant and open system than any of the countries in the region such as Saudi, Kuwait, Oman, U.A.E., Bahrain, Jordan, etc, which are all U.S. allies by the way! These friends of yours and Bush, do not have any kind of election to begin with, or a popular constitution for that matter! Some that have some superficial elections for powerless assemblies, don't allow women to vote! Please remove those biased glasses and see the reality as it is.
As for the Soviets, what brought them down at the end was not military threat or even Reagan's stubbornness, it was internal reform by a reform-minded leader, which is exactly how Iran should and will change eventually. A reckless military strike by the U.S. or anyone else, would defer that kind of change for decades.
We fought a bloody and useless war with Veitnam which cost us 58,000 soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars, and cost the Vietnamese more than a million people and total destruction of their country. Where are we now???!!! We are trading with them and having full diplomatic relations with the very same government! Don't you think that war was insane, for the lack of a better word?! How can you advocate another insane war knowing what happened to the previous ones? The logical conclusion is that only an insane politician and president would make such a grave mistake again.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 14, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Tony K.,

Guess I missed the exact quote that shows Bush saying that Saddam was behind 9-11. Could you please provide the exact link that provides that quote? I never heard it, and I am a pretty keen observer of the national political scene. However, maybe it slipped past my radar screen.

Ashamed,

Iran is a theocracy, not a democracy - elections mean next to nothing in such a state. I think even you would agree with that. So is Saudi Arabia, but of a somewhat milder version. If you have read what I have said, an Iraq that is reasonably democratic, will (possibly) force surrounding countries to open up their systems.

You need to come up to speed about the Cold War and the Soviet Union and Reagan. I suggest you read Peter Schweizer's book " Reagan's War". I think it will disabuse you of your current line of thinking, which is false.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joan
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 14, 2007 at 1:18 pm


The Iran regime declared war on us when they took the embassy and held

the staff hostage. Carters pathetic response emboldened the

islamists and the war has been building for 30 years.

We will win eventually as we did the cold war but if the appeasers get
power there will be horrific casualties in US cities and soil before the appeasers are thrown out and the patriots return.

Unfortunately the citizens reaction to the attacks on our cities and towns will call for martial law and internment and draconian measures against domestic and foreign enemies.Inevitable innocent people will get hurt but that is the cost of appeasement

Once the patriots are back in power and victory achieved we can continue to build the American civilization and impose a Pax Americana.

Meanwhile the situation in Iraq continues to improve according to the BBC --
Iraqi oil production is above the levels seen before the US-led invasion of the country in 2003, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA said Iraqi crude production is now running at 2.3 million barrels per day, compared with 1.9 million barrels at the start of this year. It puts the rise down to the improving security situation in Iraq, especially in the north of the country.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tony K.
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 14, 2007 at 6:05 pm


Gary:

Here are the exact quotes right from the horses mouth. Nothing like videos. As I said, it was te state of the union address.

Web Link

Joan:

I guess the US declared war in Iran when it toppled the democratically elected government of Mosadeq andthn installed the dictatorship of the Shah. No? Is the US really interested in demoracy?

So after the Iranians were deprived of their civil liberties by the CIA and had to endure 37 years of dictatorship, the Iranians take 50 hostages, BTW, not one of them killed or injured. And that is war?

If that is a measure of hatred and reason to go to war, then the Japnaese who had nuclear weapons droped on them should still be hating us.

Your pro Bush and Pro Israel bias is so palpable. You have to resort to historically "insignificant" events to justify war. You need more than that to ask ordinary people to sarcifice their children and loved ones.

Your example of improvement of the Iraq sitation is pathetic. Just as I thought. Your only worry is if the oil is flowing so we can make sure the price of gas stabalizes. Over $2,000,000 people displaced, hundreds of thousands killed,hundreds of thousands disabled, many thousand without parents. You can't bring these things back. How many Iraqis have been accepted into the US as refugees? 2,000.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 14, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Tony K.,

I truly hope that all Americans will look at the hatriot hit piece that you offered up. Here is the link, again, just to make it easier for everyone to see it:

Web Link

I will ask, one more time: Where and when did the Bush administration state that Saddam was behind 9-11? A sliced and diced propagands hit will not answer my question. Your problem, Tony K., is that you cannot answer it. Why? Becasue it doesn't exist.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joan
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 15, 2007 at 2:39 pm


Tony K

In international law Embassies are sovereign territory, attacking them is an act of war, the Iran regime therefore declared war by their attack--just like the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor as a matter of fact.

The Iranian people have a history of civilization--The Iranian regime is a death cult that idolizes the suicide bomber, again like the Japanese regime in WW 2 -thanks for pointing out the similarities in your post.

The production and fair sharing of oil revenues is the key to getting Iraq back on its feet--economics will trump ideology in the end.

My interest is America first. Whos side are you on?

Israel can take care of itself- the have 100 nuclear weapons and delayed strike capability by sea.

I would like to see the Palestinian situation resolved fairly on humanitarian grounds but it is not critical to American interests whether their is a one state or a two state solution--Israel clearly wants the latter.
Europe should take a more active role in that dispute its in their back yard like -Bosnia.

Gary thanks for the links


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Ray Rice and Domestic Violence
By Chandrama Anderson | 16 comments | 1,469 views

Company partners with Coupa Cafe to launch mobile payment app
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,469 views

For the Love of Pie
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,073 views

All Parking Permits Should Have a Fee
By Steve Levy | 9 comments | 842 views

Ten Steps to Get Started with Financial Aid
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 720 views