Skip to main content

Lt Col Jeff Latas, Congressional candidate for AZ-08 stated in a news release that we may be on the verge of World War if we attack Iran and we would be the villain. He states that he actually worked on the system currently being planned in the attack which is a small yield nuclear weapon. Col Latas is a retired USAF officer who spent 4 years in the pentagon and also had a son who was medically evacuated from Iraq after he relapsed with leukemia.

From azcongresswatch.com:

Jeff Latas released a statement last night:
`This is a very serious situation that looks eerily similar to what we saw in Iraq only three and a half years ago," Latas said. `We need to give diplomacy a chance. Any military action at this point will fan the flames of hatred across the Islamic world. World opinion has already shifted from viewing Americans with sympathy and respect to viewing us
as cavalier bullies.
Any military action against Iran could push us into the next World War. If a nuclear option is used, the United States will be viewed in similar light as 1930's Germany, and this nation will be facing a dismal future. I for one will not stand idle and watch this great nation be misled, once again, into a military fiasco. I deplore the thought of my country contributing to global instability, and I deplore the thought of Americans becoming the targets of further global hostility.
An attack on Iran, especially one that could be nuclear, will harm the United States more than we have ever seen. We are now in a new arms race, and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is now threatened because the United States government is turning towards a course of extreme violence versus diplomacy."

This is one individual that we should stand behind. He has the experience, dedication, conviction. Facing any of the Republicans in this race, he is the winner. People of Southern Arizona need to know this, let's help him out.

Originally posted to Jeff Latas on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 08:36 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Latas is a serious man. (24+ / 0-)

    I believe he would not say this lightly, or to score a point in the polls. He should be listened to.

    •  I diaried this in '05, two weeks ago, yesterday.. (12+ / 0-)

      And - darn it - I just couldn't get on the recommended list.

      •  Well, yesterday's got some attention anyway. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SallyCat

        I think that is a tricky time of day to really get much attention. Convinced timing determines a lot, even though I never post at the best times either.

        People are starting to go off the rails with the Iran thing today. "Iran has enriched uranium," etc.

        •  Hysteria is a counterproductive condition (10+ / 0-)
          But understandable, given Bush's predisposition to making the "facts" fit the policy and the widespread distribution of the trumped up case to go to war with Iraq.  Americans understand now that Bush is a liar with objectives not readily known to them.  Americans understand now that Bush is not working for their better interests, but merely playing on their fear to use their resources to further his goals.  Americans understand, again through the examples provided by the war in Iraq and the the Katrina aftermath, that Bush is more than willing to let them die in pursuit of his agenda.

          I often rail against our people for being unreasonably fearful of terrorism and bird flu and gays and immigrants.  But I will not criticize anyone for being reasonably fearful of the person in the White House who can with a single act determine the future of us all.  We should be going off the rails, and not because Iran has uranium, but because an insale person is holding us all hostage.

          As soon as the government approves it, its no longer immoral.

          by lapin on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:10:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  insale? (0+ / 0-)

            I meant "insane."

            As soon as the government approves it, its no longer immoral.

            by lapin on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:16:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  and overhyped hysteria at that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            myrealname

            There is no WWIII without Russia or China. The Iranians don't have many options, they could promise to sell their oil only to Russia and China, which was a likely result anyway. Such a trade agreement would be oil for military hardware, which would keep the economic development of Iran years behind, and set up Iran as a cold war surrogate, nothing anyone really wants to see.
            Certainly Europe is vulnerable, and Bush doesn't care about that, or his global war on terror would have been there in Madrid, and London before Al Qaeda hit. Bush has failed to stop all three major terrorist attacks against Europe and the United States. Three strikes law should apply.
            Will Bush screw up again, no reason to doubt it. Will the Russians and Chinese take his measure, and simply rearm Iran, better than before, while they draw precious oil out of the region? That's probably what the other two major powers are hoping for.
             

            "...in the future everything is chrome. Sponge Bob Square Pants

            by agent double o soul on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:45:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  If we nuke Iran? Try when.... (7+ / 0-)

    AP:  Iran Has Enriched Uranium

    http://news.yahoo.com/...

    This being one of two conditions that Bush said would prompt the US to use nukes.  How far does radiation drift, once some country starts nuking here?  Is South America safe?

  •  Agreed, Jeff's The Only One (7+ / 0-)

    Jeff Latas IS the only one who will stand a chance against the Republicans.  In fact, he'll not only stand a chance, he'll be the winner!  We need to get our netroots behind him.  www.jefflatas.com

  •  Crazy...I just heard this same thing on NPR! (4+ / 0-)

    Scary true!

  •  Jeff is right, this is nothing to joke about... (15+ / 0-)

    These people running our nation are nut cases. We gotta get them out of there.

    Oddly, Carl Sheeler, who is running for Senate in Delaware and is a U.S. Marine Corps combat & staff officer, just emailed me about the same thing:

    This madmasn is going to put us on a course of a regional war and the draft and tanking our economy in the process.  No wonder he is gutting the middle class and making the military look like the only option for the poor.

    Wake up America.

    It is scary when military men who know what they are talking about speak in such terms.

  •  While I am happy to hear that SOMEONE is (13+ / 0-)

    speaking up and out on this insane issue of nuking Iran, I HAVE TO WONDER...where the hell are the rest of our 'leaders' on this issue?

    Are they going to leave for their 'recess' with their fingers in their ears and singing 'lalalalalalala' all the way home?

    If any ask why we died, tell them because our fathers lied. Kipling

    by trinityfly on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:38:42 AM PDT

  •  Germany Didn't Have ICBMs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greeseyparrot, N0MAN1968

    ...with much bigger warheads than anyone is talking about using on Iran. With all due respect to all concerned, the actions supposedly under consideration are just wrong, irrespective of consequences to us. Consequences which I can't believe would include world war against us.

    However, the economic and cultural consequences against the US were this to occur would, I think, be catastrophic.

    9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

    by NewDirection on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:41:40 AM PDT

    •  WW != total nuclear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder

      WWIII goes like this:

      The US hits Iran with very small, targetted nukes.

      Iran hits the US and what are left of our allies with a variety of "terror" strikes.

      Iraq goes to all-out civil war, with Syrian, Iranian, Saudi and Turkish troops entering to play a part.

      The citizenry of our former allies blames us for Iran's strikes against them.

      India and Pakistan go to the edge of a nuclear exchange, perhaps over it.

      China takes Taiwan while we're distracted.

      Various former Soviet republics contest each other's territory and their own leadership.

      African conflicts multiply.

      &c.

      Anyway ... you can have the equivalent of WWI or II without having it expand into the use of the vast bulk of the atomic arsenals. The myth of the Cold War was that those arsenals precluded world-wide conventional war. But that only worked while the world was divided into too absolutely-allied blocks, which doesn't pertain any more. When NATO dissolves after the US attack on Iran, the last bit of that old deterrent structure will be gone forever.

  •  This is good. But why ... (16+ / 0-)

    ...aren't we hearing from more Democrats who are ALREADY in Congress?

    Instead, at least on some levels, they agree with Mistah Bush, as witness this remark from Senator Clinton at a speech at Princeton in January:

    I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran — that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

    And this enigmatic remark by Howard Dean:

    Secondly, under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

    •  I don't like Hillary at all. (9+ / 0-)

      She, to me, demonstrates all the WORST qualities. Not only is she a parrot for the disastrous foreign policy decisions, but she's also a harsh nanny-state government-hand-on-everyone sort.

      And a political opportunist as well.

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" - Sinclair Lewis

      by Loboguara on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:59:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hope to meet with Ms. Hillary during the recess (0+ / 0-)

      Another reason not to vote for her.  

      •  Hillary (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ducktape, SallyCat

        In her defense, she is a brilliant politician.  She definately is not a liberal.  She plays a very good balancing act.  I do not understand the hatred for this woman as she is someone that could pull this country together.  I'm not sure I want her as President, but there is no reason to hate her as much as the Rethugs hate her.  This could be a good reason to get behind her as you mention her name in the Rethug area and they panic.

        The shrub needs to be pulled he is terrifying

        by libbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:31:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  For the record ... (7+ / 0-)

          ...I don't hate Senator Clinton. On some issues, I agree with her 100%. But I've got whonking big problems with her foreign policy views.

        •  Why ? She has disappointed me a lot. (0+ / 0-)

          I guess it is easier to be really angry with someone who has disappointed you so much, and that's what Hillary has done. It's not that I would have to agree with her on everything, it's more how she operates.

          I thought she would be a straightforward person as a Senator, speaking truth, not worrying about the fallout, but she seems just the opposite. She is always the politician before making her position known and that is just not admirable. One sadly cannot trust her.

        •  'someone that could pull this country together'? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hornito, Sharon Jumper

          are you joking? she's one of the most polarizing politician in the country.

          "Go fuck yourself." -Vice President Dick Cheney

          by sadair on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 12:44:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Be serious libbie ... (0+ / 0-)

          Hillary "...could pull the country together."?

          Do you know how the vast majority of Repuglians feel about Hillary? Well, according to what I've seen and heard, I would venture to say approx. 90% hate her. Add in the many Dem, like myself, who don't care for her, and you probably have a majority of the nation that is against her becoming president.

          So how does this "pull the country together"? Looks to me, that if for some miracle she got elected, like it would rip it apart further. We need someone who can heal this nation, rid it of the radical Repuglians, and get us back on track. That person, is NOT Hillary Clinton, in my opinion.

          "Without full Public Campaign Financing for every election, we are all pissing in the wind, and our efforts to save our democracy will be for naught."

          by Hornito on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:42:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It occurs to me (0+ / 0-)

            that she is "Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't."  How in God's name could it rip us further apart?  "W" has done more harm to this country in the name of Christ than Satan.  I believe that Hillary deserves a chance to prove that she can pull this country together and if not her than someone else.  But this country is now so polarized that almost anyone with a mind can do a betterjob than the Shrub.

            The shrub needs to be pulled he is terrifying

            by libbie on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 09:04:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Your on the mark... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greeseyparrot, Sharon Jumper

      John Nichols wrote an excellent article this month called "When will the Democrats stops supporting Bush" you can to the link from

      http://www.antiwar.com

      I don't understand why leading Democrats are still in the Bush camp on military agression against Iran. Dialog will prevent us from sending the world into a tailspin. And leading Democrats are not advocating that. Why?

      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. - Thomas Jefferson

      by american pastoral on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:45:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As I wrote in another diary... (0+ / 0-)

      The only Dems who would support an Iran attack, are those who are fully under the thumb of AIPAC/JINSA, et al, and their numbers, unfortunately, are many. One only has to look at the votes on some of the pro-war/military/Israel bills over the last few years, to discern the Dems who will be lining up to support this.

         I will state right now, for the record, that as a long-standing and active (registered in 1965) Dem, I swear a blood oath to go after (politically) ANY Dem who supports ANY further military adventures being promulgated (now, or in the future) by the Bush regime. To me, it would be tantamount to treason. As it is, many congressional Dems have much to be ashamed of regarding their support of Bush and his neocons, but my limit for forgiveness has been surpassed.

         I will not rest, until any Dem (or Republican) who supports further Bush junta military adventures is run from office, and humiliated for their betrayal and treason.

      "Without full Public Campaign Financing for every election, we are all pissing in the wind, and our efforts to save our democracy will be for naught."

      by Hornito on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:35:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Words to the Wise (14+ / 0-)

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

    If you ever get a chance read Jared Diamond's theory about why, despite the odds, there don't seem to be any other civilizations out there capable of making interstellar contact.  One explanation is that the period of time between when a civiliation becomes technologically able to make such contact and the time it annihilates itself is just too short for several such civilization's commications to exist at the same time.

    Maybe.  Maybe not.  Food for thought.

    If you want something other than the obvious to happen - you've got to do something other than the obvious...Douglas Adams

    by trillian on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:50:18 AM PDT

    •  Aagh! (4+ / 0-)

      Wow, as if this current speculation isn't depressing enough!

      Part of me doesn't want to think that it's possible for us to become, um, "newkewlarly" involved in Iran, but the other part of me feels a sick sinking sensation in knowing that Bush is capable of just about anything.  

      I think I'm going to run away and join the clueless minions...it would be easier than thinking about this.

    •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

      That is part of Frank Drake's equation

      N = R x f<sub>p</sub> x n<sub>e</sub> x f<sub>l</sub> x f<sub>i</sub> x f<sub>c</sub> x L

      The last two variables are f<sub>c</sub>, the fraction of intelligent life that can and will communicate, and L, the lifespan of such civilizations.

      Carl Sagan spent a good part of an episode of his famous series Cosmos explaining the equation and his tempered pessimism about the value for L on Earth.

      Anyways, not knocking Diamond, just thought old Frank should get a plug.

      Why did the President choose to break the law?

      by Olds88 on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 12:01:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who cares about human life in the middle east... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida

    As long as we protect the unborn children at home.

  •  Meanwhile in CD-8 (0+ / 0-)

    One of the candidates today is having an Ice Cream social to announce her fundraising efforts.

    Yep, she is serious about this country!

    Jeff is the only one addressing these issues on a realistic level.  We need him and people like him in congress.

    Let's grow some balls Democrats!

    by NCC1701 on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:58:00 AM PDT

  •  If he nukes Iran... (0+ / 0-)

    Will THAT be it for the American people?

    Is the only thing that will get these people out actually be a mass of hundreds of thousands of "we the people" with rifles storming the White House to take it back?

    I really do wonder, sometimes.

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" - Sinclair Lewis

    by Loboguara on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:58:14 AM PDT

  •  My new question... (4+ / 0-)

    ...when do we meet in front of the WH to shut down the FedGov Ukraine style?

    We should have done it in 2000...2003...2004.

    We see on the news a lone guy climbing the fence. Dumb, no effect. We see on the news (sometimes) Cindy and a few hundred or a thousand people. Honorable, inspiring...and no effect.

    The reason the Ukrainian Orange Revolution worked is because a political leader stood there and said "Rally to me!"

    Gore? Are you listening? It's long overdue.

    [ Anyone who thinks my bark is worse than my bite, has never seen me bite. ] -6.63 | -5.38

    by dj angst on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:58:50 AM PDT

  •  Latas... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisVoter, gatorcog

    is not Nostradamus for this prediction. In a sane world this would be a dog bites man story. How many rational people need to come out and say "This is just about the worst idea in the world!" for anyone to listen? It's so sad that we're even having this debate.

    The only people Jesus didn't tolerate were self-righteous hypocrites.

    by Jawis on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:02:33 AM PDT

    •  I would say (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hornito, SallyCat, occams hatchet

      given his credentials, he one of the best to predict an outcome in this situation. He does have knowledge of the weapons thought to be in the planning and a vast amount of time in the region and a very sound common sense of worldly matters.

      What happens in Pima County with bitting dogs is that they are automatically put to death.

      •  I meant no... (0+ / 0-)

        slight to Latas. I know he is knowledgable and credentialed. My point is that nuking Iran is obviously an idiotic move. It doesn't take someone with Latas's credentials to realize that. The idea of nuking Iran is so crazy that it shouldn't even be debated. It's really sad that all these people need to come out and tell the administration that this is an awful idea.

        The only people Jesus didn't tolerate were self-righteous hypocrites.

        by Jawis on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:31:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The rub (7+ / 0-)

    We need to give diplomacy a chance.

    The rub of course is that diplomacy will never have a chance as long as Bush is president.  First, Bush isn't interested in and has no skills related to diplomacy.  And second, even if Bush had a change of heart (so to speak), he has no credibility, so his efforts at diplomacy would be doomed to failure.

    You're either with Bush or you're with the Constitution.

    by Matt Jordan on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:03:16 AM PDT

  •  I Don't Know (0+ / 0-)

    Don't you think the rest of the world would fall to their knees in obeisance to our Great Power after such a strike?

    "We need a war to show 'em that we can do it whenever we say we need a war." -- Fischerspooner

    by bink on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:06:14 AM PDT

  •  McClellan's response: (3+ / 0-)

    Tehran is "moving in the wrong direction," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. If it persists, the United States will discuss possible next steps with U.N. Security Council members...

    I doubt the U.N. is going to give Bush permission to nuke Iran.  So is this going to be Iraq in the UN all over again?  We've already made our minds up before going to the UN?

    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -- Galileo Galilei

    by Dittoz on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:07:09 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, and SO ARE WE, robot-scottie, so beam (0+ / 0-)

      me up and away from this insanity.

      I thought it was so funny when I heard him say that they were moving in the wrong direction! Where has he been? Has he heard about OUR polls?

  •  The union of concerned scientists (5+ / 0-)

    has a video demonstrating the stupidity of the nuclear bunker buster.  
    http://www.ucsusa.org/...
    Unfortunately * and ** will never see it, nor pay attention to anyone who says this is an incredibly dangeous thing to do.

  •  I could see many 'Murkans (0+ / 0-)

    Rallying to a WWIII-style nuclear war.  Picture them in front of their TeeVees, shouting obscenities, pumping their fists in the air, "YEAH!  Nuke those fuckin' sand niggers!  About time we turned those French to glass!  We RULE!  We are the most powerful nation to ever have existed on..."

    Suddenly, in a breadth of a second, a flash of light vaporizes the rednecks and their umbilical TVs.  Charred dirt remains.

    Almost makes you smile, until you realize nukes aren't selective for nationalistic lunkheads.

    -7.4, -5.9 | "Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government." -Thomas Jefferson

    by Subterranean on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:11:42 AM PDT

  •  I don't think they would dare! (0+ / 0-)

    I REALLY am skeptical that such an option would ever be used. The markets around the world would crash, and if there's one thing BushCo and supporters like more than war, it's money (making money while WAGING war is even better, but this is clearly a losing proposition for the ruling economic class.)

    So basically I think the economic repercussions are far too great.

    (This assumes that the asshole in chief is off the bottle and rational, however... both of which might be highly suspect at this point!)... so I guess you never know!

    No preset ideological agenda: http://www.studentsfordemocracy.org

    by TriMt7 on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:11:58 AM PDT

    •  Watch for excessive hedge fund... (0+ / 0-)
      activity, put and calls and that sort of arbitrage activity in the coming months...someone seemed to do similar with United and American Airlines stock pre-9/11.

      People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

      by rgilly on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:09:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They ignore the law of Unforeseen Consequences (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927

      Remember, they have this view that because they're in power, the laws don't apply to them.

      That includes the Law of Unintended and Unforeseen Consequences.

      Remember, they make their own reality, and "no one could have imagined" that everything wouldn't have gone perfectly, or that there would be an insurgency, or that the levees would break....

      Seriously, it makes me wonder if some other leaders around the world aren't looking at the US and wondering "how long can we let these children play with their nukes?"

  •  Jeff Latas (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, melvin, Blue in AZ

    Woohoo!  Something about Jeff at the top of the reclist!  I love it!

    Oh, and here is my Iran diary from my website, SmokeyMonkey.org.

  •  Maybe we're already there. (0+ / 0-)

    Future historians may very well look back and say that WWIII was already underway when Latas made his comments.

    Pick a date. Your guess is as good as mine, but you could argue that the run-up began in 1999 or even before.

  •  Hello! duh! (0+ / 0-)

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:16:13 AM PDT

  •  The next World War? Against who? (0+ / 0-)

    I agree going up against Iran is a bad idea, not only because of the risk to our armed forces but the potential collateral damage in the Middle East and Europe once Iran unleashes the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and Hizballah.  However, these repeated comments that engaging Iran militarily (with or without nukes) might lead to the next "world war" just doesn't make sense to me.

    Both World War I and World War II were "world wars" in large part because of the mutual defense agreements that required various countries to come to each other's aid.  As far as I know, the only countries Iran has such an agreement with are Syria and Azerbaijan.  And barring such an agreement, I don't see any of the European countries, Russia, China, or anyone else willing to go head-to-head with us over Iran as long as they don't see themselves in our crosshairs.

    "I ... do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC ..."

    by navygrad on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:17:39 AM PDT

    •  Okay, maybe Russia and China ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson

      Of course, the second after I posted the above comment I changed my search criteria slightly and found several blogs claiming that Iran also has mutual defense treaties with Russia and China.  I am trying to confirm this from more reputable news sources.

      "I ... do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC ..."

      by navygrad on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:20:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  While you are checking on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927

      mutual defense pacts, let us remember, once the bomb is used, it will be used again.  
      That is  not acceptable.

      •  Couldn't find anything credible ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bouwerie Boy

        re: Iran having a mutual defense pact with China or Russia.

        I really don't think Russia would intervene on Iran's behalf ... the potential blowback significantly outweights any (assuming there is any) advantage to doing so.

        While I don't profess to be an expert on Chinese foreign or military policy, according to the DOD 2003 Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China:

        In support of its overall national security objectives, China has embarked upon a force modernization program intended to diversify its options for use of force against potential targets such as Taiwan, the South China Sea and border defense, and to complicate United States intervention in a Taiwan Strait conflict.

        I think China's focus has always been, and probably will continue to be, regional.  So while I could see them continuing to supply Iran with arms (particularly missiles), I just don't see them going beyond that and risking us engaging them in a straight up military conflict over something other than Taiwan.  

        "I ... do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC ..."

        by navygrad on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:47:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NONE THE LESS, NUKING IRAN DESTROYS THE TACIT (0+ / 0-)

          INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT THAT NUKES ARE NOT TO BE USED.  EVER.  USING THEM IN THIS CASE OPENS THE DOOR.  COULD PAKISTAN AND INDIA BE FAR BEHIND?  Let us not split  hairs.

          •  I'm kind of new to blog comments (0+ / 0-)

            Am I being yelled at? OR DID YOU JUST FORGET TO TURN OFF CAPS LOCK? :)

            (I think this may be my first "snark.")

            "I ... do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC ..."

            by navygrad on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:49:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  There are several possibilities. Sometimes wars (0+ / 0-)

      unfold from events dynamically in ways not foreseen, not because of treaties.

      In this case, if the US nuked Iran, on any level, then as others have pointed out the whole middle east could errupt literally. The outrage would be so great that our troops in Afg and Iraq (& anywhere for that matter) would be put at great risk by people wanting to retaliate. Shiites in Iraq and Iran would vow new and worse jihads against us and we would have to "subdue" Iraq in order to vacate the country which we would probably be told to do by the Iraqi government.

      It's very likely that some mideast country would bomb Isreal to get back at us.

      Once Isreal was bombed and more terrorists came to the US to inflict damage, we would have something that qualified as a world war I do believe.

      What would our allies do? What would Britain do? They could be attacked as well just because they've been there with us in Iraq. So would they fight back? Would the US then attack the country who bombs Isreal? Would China and Russia believe that not exactly being our best friends they might have something to fear? What would N. Korea's crazy leader do?

      Would there be one country left on earth who thought that they could trust the US to remain the sole superpower, capable of dispensing responsible leadership? Would the US have even a shred of credibility?

      So it is plausible to think that WWIII could ensue from nuking Iraq.

  •  Not again! (0+ / 0-)

    The one good thing that might come out of the Iraq debacle is that fact that we wont be led so easily to war again in the forseeable future.  I am hoping the SCLM has awakened from their torpor and will do their duty this time.  

    Bush is the boy who cried wolf once too often.  

    Latas lays it on  the line.  He's got guts.  How about your rep or senator?  Not a peep on this from my Dem representative.  My senators (Missouri Repubs) are similarly silent.  They've got a two week Easter break.  I wonder what they are doing. Maybe trying to figure out how to distance themselves from the crazy nutballs in the White House.    

  •  Once Bush starts WWIII (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM

    and we play the badguys (as we will), when exactly can we then say the Rethugs are the Nazis and Bush is Hitler?

    Or has that become meaningless semantics now that Americans find themseles guilty in much the same way that the Germans were guilty? Do we as a nation now just say that WWII and Germany hold no lessons for the world... now that we as a culture are very much like them?

    I suspect so.

  •  Well boys... (0+ / 0-)
    we got three engines out, we got more holes in us than a horse trader's mule, the radio is gone and we're leaking fuel and if we was flying any lower why we'd need sleigh bells on this thing... but we got one little budge on those ayatollah-lovin' Hadjis. At this height why they might harpoon us but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar screen!

    People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

    by rgilly on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:36:45 AM PDT

  •  According to the neo-cons WW IV started on 9/11 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ducktape, Hornito

    Norman Podhoretz and othet neo-cons are way ahead of everybody else.  For them WW IV is being fought as we speak.

    They count the Cold War as WW III (whats one more WW between friends, hey?!)

    This from Commentary on Sep 2004

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:45:06 AM PDT

  •  Nuking Iran (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, GN1927, Blue in AZ

    This man is courageously saying things that most of the leading Democrats are afraid to say but that many of us  are thinking.   Let's get behind a Democrat with guts for a change!

  •  Aren't we already in it? s/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  All need to check Latas' web site (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blue in AZ, 1 phodog

    Jeff Latas for Congress

    He is a progressive thinker that makes sense. He believes we must end our dependancy on oil to end the insane foriegn policy in the Middle East.

  •  It's easy to see how a nuke strike (0+ / 0-)

    would foment protests around the world, leading to a storming of one or more bases that we have. Our troops fire on the rioters, and the snowball from hell is dislodged.

  •  Carl Sheeler (Rhode Island) asked me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poemless, GN1927

    to post this as he could not get into this diary.

    From Carl Sheeler, Fighting Dem Vet candidate for Senate in Rhode Island:

    Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:24:21 -0400 (EDT)
    From: "Carl Sheeler" <csheeler@bryant.edu>

    Iran, unlike Iraq, has not had a depleted military from the vestiges of Desert Storm.  Iran has received support from China, Russia and France.
    Assuming the world's most advanced countries opted to stay on the sidelines, do we believe that any support would be avaiable for any subsequent attack on the US?

    How could we say such an attack on our civilians was not justified beacuse we empowered our leaders to do nothing to prevent it from occuring?  The civilian casualities would be enormous there (Iran)...and what about blowback, as if our foreign and energy policies since the mid 1900's are not bad enough?

    How does this legitimately differ from invading Poland, Czechlosavkia and Austria?  The same saber-rattling applied as justification.  Let's
    say we can do it, because we can.  Does this result in "might makes right?"

    What then would prevent China from invading Taiwan and South Korea under similar pretenses?  Venezuela would seek Russian support to protect its borders and the whole option of preventive first strikes
    creates justification (remember Pearl Harbor?). How about a Sino-Russo pact if things get hairy?

    The point is right here, right now we will either watch in the manner German citizens did in the late 1930's and early 1940's as their young men are recruited for the "noble" cause or we will act with resolve sooner than later.  

    The alternative to this debacle is cut the BS and invest the tens or hundreds of billions needed to produce alternative energy instead of maintaining occupancy of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, which if one bothers to examine on a world map border each other and puts Russia in the unenviable position of spooling up its own military, nuclear arsenal and reformation of the former Soviet bloc.

    This is not a movie, this is a real take.  I warned a group of College Democrats at Brown in November that this could occur before 2010 and they looked at me like I went to public school, which I did.

    Being a veteran Marine with combat and staff planning experiences forces one to think of the world in pieces of a puzzle with "what if" planning.

    Now folks understand why I believe that post election 2006 and waiting till 2008 is way too late for Impeachment.  Further, putting the US in a battle footing has historic foundation in political motivation.  The public seldom changes its elected officials in time of war and it opens a third nightmare scenario where King George's toilet paper
    called our Constitution has its amendment removed permitting a third term in office.  I think it's time to restore the color coded alerts and declare that our country is at a red alert and the threat is from within.

    I welcome folks thoughts and input.

    Carl
    Sheeler for US Senate (D-RI)
    www.carlsheeler.com
    carl@carlsheeler.com

  •  I can say this for certainty (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, diplomatic, GN1927

    We nuke Iran and every Middle Eastern gov't even remotely sympathetic to the US will fall to Muslim extremists.  Turkey will pull out of NATO and probably occupy northern Iraq.  The WW3 ball will start rolling.

  •  his assertations seem very obvious (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, cobalt blue

    yet we do nothing.
    we are sleepwalking to our demise.
    I'm ready to march - any protests slated?

    any?

    We are the Left. They are the non-Left.

    by leftout on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:54:45 AM PDT

  •  One step to take for Iran (0+ / 0-)

    Iran knows the evil intention of Bush regarding "regime change" and bringing "Democracy to Iran via nuclear bombs" but I have not yet heard of one step he should probably take. He should get the old Arab League to sign a Mutual Defense Agreement with him, committing them to declare war upon anyone that interferes with their regimes and cultural hegemony. This may or may not deter Bush as he is a dry-drunk lunatic seeking a legacy as a great war hero.
     He is determined to stay his failing course and has no original ideas, except the very first, which was given to him by the neocons .. dominate the world to gain power, wealth, recognition and the ability to smirk and swagger.

  •  God wills it! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, Blue in AZ

    Bush has this messianic complex that distorts his view of reality. Don't think for a minute that he wouldn't use a tac-nuke. Jeff Latas is right on the money on this one, we need to get him into congress  along with other sane individuals who can keep this meglomaniac in check.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site