Skip to main content

More Aircraft carrier groups and combat brigades are being positioned to engage the Iranian military: U.S. troops quitely surge into Middle East.  I am very concerned that history will repeat itself as two ruling classes slip slide their countries into war.

Should this happen the death toll will be staggering, and this time it won't be foreigners taking the vast majority of casualties.  The Iranian military is much more capable of inflicting heavy losses to the U.S. Navy and any invading ground forces: Iran's missile assets may constrain US threat response.

In addition, peoples economic welfare will be under grave threat due to skyrocketing oil prices (Roughly 40% of the world's oil passes through the Persian Gulf) and even more crushing debt to destroy our future and fund the American war machine.

We can not let this happen!

This war with Iran has been ramping up in fits and starts for quite some time.  The latest assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and the build up of troops U.S. troops to fight Iranians is a major and perhaps one of the last steps towards all out war.

Officials said the deployments are not meant to suggest a buildup to war, but rather are intended as a quick-reaction and contingency force in case a military crisis erupts in the standoff with Tehran over its suspected nuclear weapons program.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/...

The American ruling class is a group of lying, murderous thieves who must not be trusted.  Even if their intentions were true, which they are not, these actions will be perceived by the Iranians as yet another hostile move to major fighting and will be reacted to as such.

Iran wouldn't be the end either, an invasion of Iran would be enough to draw serious attention from the Chinese and Russian ruling classes, bringing the U.S. Government much closer to violent conflict with these countries.

The U.S. Government is clawing for Iran because it knows it will never be able to invade that country if it has nuclear weapons and it believes it must control all major oil resources to reserve fuel for America and choke off China and any other rivals.

This mercantilist view inevitably leads to war, destruction and loss of wealth for all but the few parasites who are feeding from the machine.

We have the power to stop it because the American ruling class relies on our obedience of cooperation to fuel their greed and bloodlust.  Simply making your voices heard loud and clear in opposition to this new bloody adventure contributes to the movement to end war and all the destruction it brings.

Only Abolition of the Empire and War will save us and all the peoples of the world from these growing conflagrations.

Tags

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

  •  US Empire? American Ruling Class? Control Oil?? (21+ / 0-)

     
    Well, you don't post often, but when you do it's crap.

    BTW: we are out of Iraq. Maybe post a followup to this: How Many Democrats Believe We're Leaving Iraq in 2011?. It's up to you, sure..

     

    Liberals see George Orwell's 1984 as a cautionary tale. Conservatives see it as a blueprint.

    by DiegoUK on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 03:28:14 PM PST

  •  Iran is well aware that this is the standard... (17+ / 0-)

    response of the US to threats to close the strait of Hormuz.

    Strait of Hormuz: Danger waters

    Welcome to an edgy world where a single incident at an energy "chokepoint" could set a region aflame... ..

    American leaders have long viewed the strait as a strategic fixture in their global plans that must be defended at any cost. It was an outlook first voiced by president Jimmy Carter in January 1980..

    The American response, he insisted, must be unequivocal: any attempt by a hostile power to block the waterway would henceforth be viewed as "an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America" and "repelled by any means necessary, including military force"...

    Much has changed in the Gulf region since Carter issued his famous decree, known since as the Carter Doctrine, and established the US Central Command (CENTCOM) to guard the strait - but not Washington’s determination to ensure the unhindered flow of oil there. Indeed, Obama has made it clear that...there would be no reduction in the command’s air and naval presence in the greater Gulf area...

    Iran is fully aware of this Doctrine, and has been since 1980, so, by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, Iran is knowingly provoking exactly the response they are getting.

  •  Well I for one agree (6+ / 0-)

    I agree this is very dangerous.  And it's not just Iran this time.  I believe China has stated that if the US attacks Iran, it will be like declaring WWIII against China.

    Let's just hope it's saber rattling.  

    re: above.
    And no we're not really out of Iraq. I believe the US still has the world's largest Embassy in Baghdad.  Something around 15,000 employees there.  Also untold thousands of security people to guard these employees.

    We've still got a very large presence in Iraq.

    •  Given their track record (3+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Cliss, Claudius Bombarnac, Ecclesiastaverbs
      Hidden by:
      leevank

      I think the American Ruling Class is on an absolute rampage.  They are clearly unstable and their threats seem very real to me.

      We can only hope it is merely sabre rattling.

    •  Proof? (8+ / 0-)
      I believe China has stated that if the US attacks Iran, it will be like declaring WWIII against China.
    •  Interesting picture you're painting there. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DiegoUK, Bmeis, bear83

      I can see it now:  15,000 clerks and analysts strapping on body armor, picking up an M4 and screaming chaaarrrrgggeeee!!!! as they huff and puff toward the border.

      I really don't know which is worse, your delusions regarding American military power or your total cluelessness regarding American military power.

      Hope your sock enjoys its brief stay here.

      "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.." - John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961. We are the 99%.

      by IndieGuy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 04:32:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cliss is correct - Iraq is not over (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zinger99
        Freethought San Marcos: Lessons we should have learned from the Iraq War

        By one measure–the announcement by President Obama that the War in Iraq is over–that war has finally come to an end. But it remains to be seen how long that country will be destabilized, dysfunctional, and at war with itself, after the phony, deceptive, and precipitous actions the George W. Bush administration took nearly nine years ago when it introduced “shock and awe” as a simple war, a virtual cakewalk for the mighty US. In light of what we know now (and should have known then), it is difficult to see that war as the “success” President Obama called it.

        At least 2 million Iraqis have been displaced within their own country, and another 3 million elsewhere–a total of 20% of the country. Some reputable demographers have estimated that over a million Iraqi civilians were killed during the war, along with over 4,400 US service men and women. Inexplicably, the US will maintain an embassy in Iraq, the largest in the world, with 15,000 people in it; pay nearly 10,000 mercenaries to continue operating in Iraq; and maintain an unknown number of drones, which will fly out of Iraq to wherever they are deemed useful to US control in the region. And we have not yet fully accounted for the atrocities our military committed, nor have those Americans responsible for authorizing torture been brought to justice.
        ...
        Historian Andrew Bacevich provided recently a slightly different view: “. . . a Churchillian verdict on the war might read thusly: Seldom in the course of human history have so many sacrificed so dearly to achieve so little.” The people of the United States have become, in large part, adherents of both imperialism and a view of exceptionalism which holds that the US has the right to tell the world what to do in the name of furthering democracy and American interests. What this view actually furthers is economic dominance through military might.
        ...
        It is time for the American people to find and follow our own moral compasses and say that we will never again be led down the path of grotesque violence that creates its own kind of terror for both those we kill and those we pay to do the killing. But I fear that most Americans will not find their moral compasses. It is too convenient to ignore morality and legality when what we want most is to win and show the world who is boss.

        •  Apples and oranges. (0+ / 0-)

          You're answering a question that wasn't asked.

          "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.." - John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961. We are the 99%.

          by IndieGuy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 06:25:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was responding to YOUR post responding to (0+ / 0-)
            Cliss:

            re: above.
            And no we're not really out of Iraq. I believe the US still has the world's largest Embassy in Baghdad.  Something around 15,000 employees there.  Also untold thousands of security people to guard these employees.

            We've still got a very large presence in Iraq.

            IndieGuy:

            15,000 clerks and analysts strapping on body armor, picking up an M4 and screaming chaaarrrrgggeeee!!!!

            "Inexplicably, the US will maintain an embassy in Iraq, the largest in the world, with 15,000 people in it; pay nearly 10,000 mercenaries to continue operating in Iraq; and maintain an unknown number of drones, which will fly out of Iraq to wherever they are deemed useful to US control in the region."

            IndieGuy:

            I really don't know which is worse, your delusions regarding American military power or your total cluelessness regarding American military power.

            "The people of the United States have become, in large part, adherents of both imperialism and a view of exceptionalism which holds that the US has the right to tell the world what to do in the name of furthering democracy and American interests. What this view actually furthers is economic dominance through military might."

            Maybe my post was too nuanced?

    •  No one how has any say so in the matter anyways (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dougymi
      •  exactly... badboybilly kristol wastes a lot of (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizenx, DiegoUK, AnnetteK, bear83

        urine wetting his diapers about it, but he and his ilk have exactly 0 credibility with the administration.  As it should be.

        A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

        by dougymi on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 03:59:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're right. The Iranians warmongering threats (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizenx

        have placed us in a catch-22.

        What'd the devil give you for your soul, Tommy? He taught me to play this guitar REAL good. Oh son, for that you gave up your everlastin' soul? Well, I wuddn' usin' it.

        by ZedMont on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 04:03:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Could support a 'Libya' type dissident assistance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster

       
      I'd rather not, but if anything had to happen then that is the action I would support.

      I would not support invading Iran and I do not believe there is any chance Obama would ever declare war on them.

       

      Liberals see George Orwell's 1984 as a cautionary tale. Conservatives see it as a blueprint.

      by DiegoUK on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 03:41:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What do you think will result from fighting? (0+ / 0-)

      Assassinating scientists, fostering insurgent groups and making serious threats?  If an overt conflict between Iran, Israel or the U.S. occurs, invasion will be the result.

      •  Why would invasion result? I have not heard any (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bear83, erush1345

        of the military talking heads or any politicians advocate invasion.

        •  Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf (0+ / 0-)

          Would erupt with fighting in the event of overt combat between Iranian and U.S. forces.  The conflict would escalate, not simply de-escalate.  The U.S. Government would quickly perceive the only way to end the conflict would be ground forces entering Iran.

          •  No. The United States will not commit ground (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DiegoUK, Bmeis, bear83

            troops to Iran.  Political suicide.  If the Iranians close the strait,
            there will be some bombing with minimal effect.  The rest of the world depending on oil through the strait will warn Iran that they will join the bombing unless they back off, and they will back off.

            However, that's not going to happen, because Iran will back off before any hostilities occur.  They talk like Hugo Chavez, but they're not that stupid.

            What'd the devil give you for your soul, Tommy? He taught me to play this guitar REAL good. Oh son, for that you gave up your everlastin' soul? Well, I wuddn' usin' it.

            by ZedMont on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 04:08:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ground troops? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DiegoUK

            Never. Gonna. Happen.

            Between Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military has learned it's lesson. If it was ever necessary, almost everything that really needs to be done can be done with missiles, drones, and aircraft. The rest can be done by paying local rebels on the ground.

    •  Of course the US won't invade Iran. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      protectspice, erush1345

      It will be a "kinetic military action" with several hundred thousand "sorties" using B2's, drones and cruise missiles.

    •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Claudius Bombarnac

      No one is talking?

      The US has no plans or options for invadinng Iran?

      Why is no one talking about this possibility?

      H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

      by Knarfc on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 05:17:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We are going to invade Iran w/ 15,000 troops (9+ / 0-)

    stationed in Kuwait?

    I think it might be time to fire some generals.

  •  Just To Be Clear, If You Believe (5+ / 0-)

    Wired's Danger Room, and I do, I kind of question this story. I question it even more since the only person we have on the record in the SF Gate article is named "official."

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 03:45:55 PM PST

  •  Ruling class (7+ / 0-)
    The American ruling class is a group of lying, murderous thieves who must not be trusted.
    The U.S. Government is clawing for Iran because it knows it will never be able to invade that country if it has nuclear weapons and it believes it must control all major oil resources to reserve fuel for America and choke off China and any other rivals.

    So you're saying that President Obama is a lying, murderous thief who wants to control all major oil resources?  Or are you referring to somebody else who has the final decision on military matters?

  •  There's reason to be concerned (9+ / 0-)

    but, this diary is drawing a lot of conclusions with no evidence.

    A man, a plan, a canal, Panama

    by Karl Rover on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 03:53:37 PM PST

    •  Maybe it's an Iranian sock puppet? About to HR it (0+ / 0-)

       
      I keep reading 'Only Abolition of the Empire' and getting closer and closer to clicking the HR..

       

      Liberals see George Orwell's 1984 as a cautionary tale. Conservatives see it as a blueprint.

      by DiegoUK on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 03:57:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is as silly a piece of writing as I have ever (15+ / 0-)

    seen around here.  But if it makes you feel better, post away.  After all, O'Reilly has also touted a mythological war, the one on Christmas and has made a ton of money on it to boot.

    "I cannot live without books" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

    by Susan Grigsby on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 03:57:13 PM PST

  •  Operation “Austere Challenge 12” cancelled (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ecclesiastaverbs

    For those who don't know what that operation was:

    Israeli and US troops gear up for major missile defense drill after Iran maneuvers
    By Associated Press, Published: January 5

    The drill is called “Austere Challenge 12” and is designed to improve defense systems and cooperation between the U.S. and Israeli forces. It follows a 10-day Iranian naval exercise near the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
    ...
    Both Israeli and U.S. officials said the exercise would be the largest-ever joint drill by the two countries.
    ...
    The Israeli military spokesman did not give a date for the drill Thursday, but a senior military official said it would be in the next few weeks. He said it would be the biggest missile defense drill ever held. He was speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.

    Joint U.S.-Israel military exercise postponed
    JERUSALEM | Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:33pm EST

    (Reuters) - The United States and Israel have postponed an upcoming joint military exercise until later in the year, but sources in both countries denied on Sunday that the move was taken to avoid further escalating tensions with Iran.

    The air-defense drill, named "Austere Challenge 12," is expected to be the largest exercise between the two allies, who regularly hold joint military maneuvers.

    The Pentagon said it was scheduled for the spring, but now would take place in the second half of 2012.
    ...
    In a November 30 interview with Reuters, Dempsey said he did not know whether Israel would alert the United States ahead of time if it decided to take unilateral military action against Iran. He also acknowledged differences in perspective between the United States and Israel over the best way to handle Iran and its nuclear program.


    •  Cancelled? Or postponed? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DiegoUK

      By the way I think you may be up against the copyright limit of three  paragraphs.

      H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

      by Knarfc on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 05:23:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Postponed. I originally was going to use a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Knarfc

        different link that used "cancelled". The link I supplied here has worded it in a more "diplomatic" manner so as not to arouse the ire of some of the posters to this diary.

        By the way I think you may be up against the copyright limit of three  paragraphs.

        I very much doubt that anyone can make a case that my post violated fair use in this circumstance.

  •  Iran (8+ / 0-)

    is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. By threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz, they are in violation of Article 37 and 38 of the treaty, and as such can be considered an act of war.

    The U.S. Government is clawing for Iran because it knows it will never be able to invade that country if it has nuclear weapons and it believes it must control all major oil resources to reserve fuel for America and choke off China and any other rivals.

    There is no credible evidence that the US wants to invade Iran and absolutely zero evidence that the US wants to control all major resources to reserve fuel (whatever that means).

    •  Neither Iran nor the US have ratified the treaty (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt

      therefore neither is constrained by it.

      United States non-ratification of the UNCLOS

      Debate

      In the United States there has been vigorous debate over the ratification of the treaty, with criticism coming mainly from political conservatives who consider involvement in some international organizations and treaties as detrimental to U.S. national interests. A group of Republican senators, led by Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, has blocked American ratification of the Convention, claiming that it would impinge on U.S. sovereignty.

      •  If Iran is not constrained by it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, DiegoUK

        maybe that's why the US Navy feels a need to put other constraints on Iran, such as the obvious threat of retaliation if Iran seeks to close the Srait.

        The Strait is international waters - it does not belong to any one country.

        •  The Strait is not international waters (0+ / 0-)

          One side is within 12 miles of Iran and the other within 12 miles of Oman/UAE.

          The Laws of the Sea allows international traffic through the straight in a timely and straight forward manner. There are restrictions with Naval ships that the US routinely breaks.

          I see the drums of war are starting to pound against Iran (again) so I will leave you with this.

          Tomgram: Pepe Escobar, Sinking the Petrodollar in the Persian Gulf

          These days, with a crisis atmosphere growing in the Persian Gulf, a little history lesson about the U.S. and Iran might be just what the doctor ordered.  Here, then, are a few high- (or low-) lights from their relationship over the last half-century-plus:
          ...
          So call it an unblemished record of a kind not easy to find.  In more than 50 years, America’s leaders have never made a move in Iran (or near it) that didn’t lead to unexpected and unpleasant blowback.  Now, another administration in Washington, after years of what can only be called a covert war against Iran, is preparing yet another set of clever maneuvers -- this time sanctions against Iran’s central bank meant to cripple the country’s oil industry and crack open the economy followed by no one knows what.

          And honestly, I mean, really, given past history, what could possibly go wrong?  Regime change in Iran?  It’s bound to be a slam dunk and if you don’t believe it, check out Pepe Escobar, that fabulous peripatetic reporter for Asia Times and TomDispatch regular.  Tom

              The Myth of “Isolated” Iran
              Following the Money in the Iran Crisis

              By Pepe Escobar

      •  so since Iran has not signed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DiegoUK

        the treaty they're legally permitted to block all other nation's traffic through the straits?

        I think you need to be more specific about your conclusions here.

  •  There's an awful lot of warmongering in the MSM, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DiegoUK, bear83, angry marmot

    accompanied by an awful lot of hype.

    I don't think the Obama admin. has the slightest interest in attacking Iran, notwithstanding the never-ending, and rather stupid, threats and bellicose assurances being made by some of the clowns among the would-be GOP nominees - especially the loud-mouth chickenhawks who got deferements when some of us progressives actually served in VM.

    In fact, I'm starting to think that not only does the Obama admin. not have the slightest interest in attacking Iran, it's also playing a very subtle game to keep the psychos in Israel from going overboard and trying to manipulate us and drag us into a war.

    Take a look at this article in today's Haaretz:

    'Israel and U.S. postpone massive defense drill in fear of escalation with Iran'.
    Israeli defense officials tell Channel 2 that Washington wants to avoid causing further tensions in region after various foreign reports of U.S. and Israeli preparations for strike on Iran.

    Read the rest for yourselves:

    http://www.haaretz.com/...

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 03:58:52 PM PST

  •  Iran's Military (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zinger99, Claudius Bombarnac

    Is nowhere near as strong as ours, but as you point out it would be much more bloody than anything the US has experienced in decades.

    I think perhaps that we (Americans) are in the Gulf to A) just make sure the oil flows freely as it does now, and B) to keep ISRAEL from striking Iran.

    For Obama to involve us in Iran would most likely provoke the wrath of the whole region and lead to a surge of jihadism against the united states. Iraq had been bombed into oblivion for years under Clinton, so Iraq was already there for us to take.

    Well fuck, Iran is full of not-bombed cities and a not-bombed military equipped with modern military gear (mostly). It would be such a debacle that Obama would NOT be reelected.

    And also to all the commentators here denying that America is an Empire: get fucking real. Enhanced interrogation? I guess we never did torture anyone huh?

    •  I've stopped following you for uprating this crap (6+ / 0-)

       
      I can't follow anyone who is willing to uprate crap like this asshat is putting out. It's more than sick.

       

      Liberals see George Orwell's 1984 as a cautionary tale. Conservatives see it as a blueprint.

      by DiegoUK on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 04:38:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's not really crap (4+ / 0-)

        I mean yeah, he's sweeping in his statements to the point of error some times but what is crap? I don't see him calling for Iran to bomb Israel or anything like that.

        In fact pointing out that America's version of imperialism is killing lots of people all over the world and that there exists almost an entirely separate, secret parallel society (national security state) are not bad things. Obama once opposed those things too.

        If you think that he's blaming the US for Iran's threat on oil flow well shit it's not like this is happening in a vacuum: this is a latest in a back and forth between America's interests in the region and Iran's. As far as I am concerned we are there now to keep Israel from bombing the hell out of Iran and we're just using belligerent rhetoric to appease conservatives.

        I think you are overreacting.

  •  my spagetti sauce recipe (14+ / 0-)

    I start with a heavy sauce pan, and heat up olive oil. In it I throw half a dozen or so garlic cloves, coarsely cut. I let those saute for a few minutes until they start to turn brown. Don't let them get too dark!

    Next, I take three cans of san marzano tomatoes, one crushed, one diced, and one pureed. I add a tablespoon or so of salt. I add the tomatoes to the saucepan (removing the tomatoes from the cans, of course) and lower the fire and let it boil down to about 2/3 of the original volume. Stir occasionally. In the summer, I add fresh oregano stems and leaves, removing the stems when the sauce is done.

    Makes terrific sauce.

    If those of us on the left who are so proud of our liberal stances and activism fail to champion the cause of Native Americans we are deficient. --- Denise Oliver Velez

    by Bill in MD on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 04:38:52 PM PST

    •  Isn't letting the garlic start turning brown (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DiegoUK

      The point at which they start to be bitter? Shouldn't they cook so that they kind of disappear into the olive oil?

      Are San Marzano tomatoes nationally available. I don't think I've seen them in either store that I shop at.

  •  Horace Boothroyd III did you intend to rec this?? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345

     
    Have you read what this asshat is saying and do you really support it?

     

    Liberals see George Orwell's 1984 as a cautionary tale. Conservatives see it as a blueprint.

    by DiegoUK on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 04:43:01 PM PST

  •  Here is some news from the LA Times (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AnnetteK, DiegoUK

    that appears relevant:

    REPORTING FROM JERUSALEM -- The United States and Israel agreed to postpone a large joint military exercise from this spring to late in the year to avoid aggravating an already tense regional situation driven by conflicts with Iran, Israeli media reported Sunday.

    U.S., Israel postpone military exercise amid tension with Iran

    What it all means I can't say.

    H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

    by Knarfc on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 05:13:37 PM PST

  •  This is over the top. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, KenBee

    Most certainly the developing situation is dangerous but the hyperbole does not make a persuasive argument to most people.

    No tip. No rec. No HR.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 08:02:51 PM PST

  •  This commentary is ridiculous on many levels (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, DiegoUK

    The US is not seeking war with Iran, but is well within its rights to defend US interests and those of its allies in the region. A strong US force is a deterrance.

    And if by chance Iran seeks to close the Straits of Hormuz, I give the Iranian 'Navy' about 30 minutes before it is sitting on the bottom of the Gulf.

    After all, the 3rd largest fleet of F-16s in the world belongs to the Saudis, and after Iran's attempt to murder the Saudi ambassador to the US, I don't think the Saudis will have much patience for Iranian misbehavior in the Gulf.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site