|
Edited on Sat Feb-10-07 03:22 PM by 0rganism
for 3 simple reasons:
1) it will be politically imprudent to mount any directed opposition, as the attack will come in the wake of "startling new discoveries of Iranian terrorist activities and nuclear arms proliferation"
2) there is currently no constitutional mechanism for doing so, and we don't have enough principled people in congress to get even a non-binding resolution voicing mild criticisms of current policies through the senate, let alone bring the hammer down in a legally-proscriptive manner on the executive branch
3) in the absence of political and legal solutions, that leaves the apolitical and illegal: revolutions, tax resistance, general strikes, refusal to mobilize by the military, and so on. however, in the wake of the intense propaganda campaign that necessarily precedes the strikes against Iran, relatively few Americans will see the Iranian people as being worth sacrificing life or liberty to protect
There will be protests as usual. People will march in the streets and have public peace vigils as usual. Occasional riots will erupt, and be suppressed as usual by the police as usual. Bush will ignore, as usual. Democracy, as we like to call it, or business as usual.
The best time to stop bush was in November 2000. We had a second chance in 2004. Now there's no stopping him whatsoever; he's the decider until he leaves office.
"The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|