Americans Surprised By Iranian-Russian Military Cooperation Against US

Iran: The US Wants To Provide Disorder

The US seems to long for the days of the Cold War -- not the peace, but the opportunity deploy military forces without an open, hot war. The US may have the chance to pick up where it left off and engage Russian combat forces.

* * *Russia

The United States, if it continues expanding this illegal war of aggression in Iraq into Iraq may find itself engaged in direct combat with the one enemy America never got around to openly engaging.

Despite winning the Cold War, the Americans appear to long for a military confrontation with a former adversary. Russia may be weak, but it is not isolated; rather, it's on the moral and legal high ground and has many allies willing to stand up to the United States' abuse of power.

* * *

Expanding Instability

US loses the public relations war on democracy

Ref One of the arguments behind democracy and American involvement around the globe was the so-called stabilizing elements of democracy. Unspun got it right: The US is bringing instability to show how great democracy is. [gag at the US, not at unspun]

___ What happens when a stabilizing force is unable to show the opposing forces are destabilising -- does the US have the right to create instability as an excuse to offer a solution?

___ What happens when, in creating an excuse to inject US ground troops to provide this so-called stability for democracy, the US creates more instability than had the tyranny been left alone?

Putin had an interesting point -- the US is a source of instability.

What's going on with Iran is a simple case of the enemy refusing to cooperate. Shocking [snark].

* * *

"All the Iranians have to do . . . " -- This is exactly why the Iranians aren't responding.

Absurdly, because the Iranians aren't going to take the bait, the US wants to increase the pressure Until Iran does respond.

This is hardly anything the US can point to as a stabilizing force of democracy.

* * *

Small problem:

___ What happens, in the name of bringing stability, the US -- as it did with Iraq -- bring more instability?

___ How can the US claim that democracy is a better system when the fruit of that democracy brings disorder?

___ who is the US to talk about the theoretical benefits of democracy when the real results are disasters: Failed plans, imprudent leadership, instability?

* * *

An imprudent leadership, using non-sense information about Iranian IED support in Iraq, is repeating the errors of the Iraq campaign. Just as the US failed to plan with Iraq, it's likely the same imprudent planning-leadership is at work with the US invasion of Iran.

Which bring us back to the rude reality of Iraq: The goals were changed; now the US is saying its actions are making a mess of things -- so let's add more troops to make more of a mess: "We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable!"Ref ]

* * *<

I don't care why the US is trying to provoke a war with Iran. It's absurd to expand the original illegal warfare in Iraq to another nation.

___ Where does this stop?

___ Where is Congress?

___ Give me one reason why American citizens should be required to support this illegal war of aggression and war crimes?

___ What are the lawyers in DC thinking?

___ Do the lawyers comprehend the Nuremberg precedents apply: Lawyers were lawfully prosecuted and executed for failing to prevent illegal warfare.

* * *

The US system of governance has broken. Despite war crimes in Iraq, the US leadership is assenting to non-sense to expand illegal warfare.

The US government cannot credibly claim anything as it relates to the illegal war of aggression.

This momentum is not sustainable. Putin has given fair warning he's going to use lawful use of combat forces to oppose the American war of aggression.

Putin may like Bush, but he didn't rule out stopping what Congress refuses, but should stop.