[WCUSP] Fw: Tidbits for Feb. 19, 2007

[Libby or Mort Frank]

I feel the need to send rebuttals to the article I forwarded a couple of 
days ago, "American Preparations for Invading Iran Are Complete."   They do 
make sense to me.  I'll try to be more careful in what I send.  Libby


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <moderator at PORTSIDE.ORG>
To: <PORTSIDE at LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:31 PM
Subject: Tidbits for Feb. 19, 2007




> From: jnack
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007
> Re American Preparations for Invading Iran Are Complete
>
> Dear Portside Editors:
>
> The headline of Dan Plesch's article is clearly false.
> Preparations for an invasion of Iran are certainly not
> complete.  This would involve troop movements on a
> scale that has certainly not occurred.  Plesch's
> article provides no evidence of troop movements on a
> scale required for a ground invasion, which would have
> to include massive amounts of armor.
>
> This is not to downplay the Bush administrations
> planning for a potiential military action or even an
> eventual invasion.  They are putting into place the
> kind of military infrastructure that would support an
> invasion.  Nor should one downplay the U.S.'s already
> active interventions against Iran, including low level
> military operations.
>
> The movement of troops and armor for an invasion of
> Iran would doubtlessly require months.  Preparation of
> U. S. public, and countries allied to the U. S., would
> probably take months longer than that.  Plesch's
> assertion that the U. S. would first invade and then
> tell the world is without merit.  There is not one
> significant example where such an invasion on the scale
> required has ever occurred, and it is illogical.
>
> U. S. threats, including military threats, against Iran
> are very real.  A bombing campaign is a real threat and
> it could be initiated on relatively short notice using
> the kinds of preparations Plesch's article details.
> However, an invasion of Iran is not imminent, and
> Plesch is unduly alarmist in this regard.
>
> One must ask the question, why would a magazine such as
> The New Statesman publish such an alarmist article?
> Could it be that they are setting up those against such
> a new war to feel placated if an invasion of Iran
> doesn't occur, while the occupations of Iraq and
> Afghanistan continue to drag on?
>
> Jonathan Nack Oakland, CA
>
> ===
> 6.
> From: Melonie Magruder
> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:54:18 -0800
> RE: DAN PLESCH'S American preparations for invading
> Iran are complete
>
> In no way do I support any of Bush's foreign policy and
> I believe he has made an unprecedented mess of Iraq and
> that he relishes the idea of taking Iran. But I also
> know that certain physical realities do not permit Bush
> to launch his strike on Iran "any day" now, as Mr.
> Plesch seems to be contending.
>
> One: He doesn't have the troops. Two: He doesn't have
> the money. Three: He barely has a minority in Congress
> supporting him (notwithstanding the cowardly vote by
> Republicans in the Senate yesterday) Four: He only has
> about 25% of the American public in any way behind him.
>
> Those numbers are too overwhelming for the likes of
> even W and Cheney.
>
> Yet, Mr. Plesch encourages us to believe that a
> unilateral invasion of Iran will be a fait accompli by
> Tuesday. Where does Mr. Plesch get his information?
> Anonymous "British Military Sources?" A little more
> sourcing, please.
>
> Melonie Magruder
>
> ===
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Portside aims to provide material of interest
> to people on the left that will help them to
> interpret the world and to change it.
>
> Submit via email: moderator at portside.org
> Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
> Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
> Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
> Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
> Account assistance: portside.org/contact
> Search the archives: portside.org/archive
>