As if tensions weren’t already high enough in the Persian Gulf. Now comes news that Israel is planning a preemptive attack on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities using nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

Needless to say this would be an absolute disaster for the entire region and beyond. Iran would have to respond and America would then come to the aid of Israel. There is no way Israel would make such a move without full consultation with Washington beforehand.

By replacing General John Abizaid as head of Central Command for the Middle East region with a naval officer, Admiral William Fallon, Bush might be planning for the use of the naval assets he already has in place in the Persian Gulf. These warships are likely to be more useful for an attack on Iran than putting down an insurgency in Iraq. It would seem then that the preparations have been made. The Democrats have already said they don’t want more troops sent to Iraq and they could potentially block further funding for Bush’s war. However, are they likely to make such a bold move? When it comes to Iran, some Democrats seem just as belligerent as the Republicans. Bush may get the funding he needs to bolster troop levels in Iraq more easily if he can convince Congress that Israel is in danger.

3 Comments »

From International Socialist

The pro-war left often claims that the anti-war movement is not really anti-war, but for the other side. This is because many in the anti-war movement vocally support the right of people in occupied countries to defend themselves. Most of us are not pacifists. The historically determined capacity for organised killing cannot be undone overnight. The best that can be said is that we may eventually abolish those social structures that generate and direct the use of such violence, and in the meantime restrain the agents of it as far as is we realistically can. A little realism suggests that such restraints will themselves often take the form of violence, and this is fundamentally what characterises the Iraqi resistance, the resistance of Aristide’s followers to the multilateral destruction of Haitian democracy, and the Lebanese resistance to the recent failed Israeli invasion.

Are we not supposed to notice that when, for instance, Saddam Hussein was raping, killing, imprisoning and torturing Iraqis, resistance was deemed entirely legitimate, and yet when the present dictators of Iraq do the same, resistance is derided by the pro-war left? Is it supposed to escape our attention that the pro-war left in fact favour pacifism for the weak and militarism for the strong?

Worse than that, they generally assume violence is only permissible when perpetrated by a colonial power. Slaughtering insurgents is ok. Being an insurgent is not. Some of these same people also look to America as a wonderful example of what to be, forgetting that it too was founded by violent revolution.

The pro-war left also includes those who, before the war, said let the sanctions work, assuming I guess, that allowing babies to die from malnutrition and lack of medical supplies was somehow an ethical response. Ditto for those who wanted a UN force to replace the US in Iraq, hoping this would give it an sheen of respectability. At heart, the pro-war left sees nothing wrong with the US invading other countries, they just want the slaughter to be better hidden and not as obvious.

Then there’s the Anti-war Lite folks who cosy up to the Democratic Party in hopes of influencing it or, more probably, becoming apparatchiks within it. This would be the same Democratic Party that overwhelmingly supported the Bush War. Hell yes it’s a class thing. The ruling class wanted a war and they got it. Now they can’t get out.

Only the insane want war and violence. Peaceful resolution of conflict is always best. Most causalities of war are civilian who got caught in the cross-fire. They are the ones who suffer the most. But a people, any people, should always have the right to fight back against what they see as oppression. After all, that’s how the US was founded.

No Comments »

March 17 is the 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 march on the Pentagon and the 4th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.

This March 17, there will be a March on the Pentagon as well as multiple protests elsewhere. Be there. Let’s continue to build a people’s movement and bring the troops home now.

8 Comments »

John Robb says

We put in a pellet stove earlier this year. It’s working great. It’s heating a 5,000 sf home for $7 a day to 70 degrees. Sorry about the carbon, but the cost reduction and the ability to diversify our energy sources more than outweighs it.

Pellet stoves look a bit like wood-burning stoves but actually are quite high-tech and extremely efficient, with little smoke. The pellets are made from biomass leftovers of wheat, corn, and wood processing and are widely available from pellet mills. The stoves have electric fans to draw in air, which is then heated and blown back out. They are thermostatically controlled, with the pellets being fed in as needed from the hopper. You can even fit them in where existing fireplaces are.

Hometips explains how they work.

Among the many vendors are PelletStove.com and JamestownPelletStove.com.

2 Comments »