A Taxpayer Protest Against A Global War

The Nation: If Bush Goes To War With Iran, Americans Should Deny Him The Money He Needs

(The Nation)  This column was written by Chris Hedges.

---

I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran. I realize this is a desperate and perhaps futile gesture. But an attack on Iran - which appears increasingly likely before the coming presidential election - will unleash a regional conflict of catastrophic proportions. This war, and especially Iranian retaliatory strikes on American targets, will be used to silence domestic dissent and abolish what is left of our civil liberties. It will solidify the slow-motion coup d'état that has been under way since the 9/11 attacks. It could mean the death of the Republic.

Let us hope sanity prevails. But sanity is a rare commodity in a White House that has twisted Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution into a policy of permanent war with nefarious aims - to intimidate and destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, to create permanent instability and fear and to strip citizens of their constitutional rights.

A war with Iran is doomed. It will be no more successful than the Israeli air strikes on Lebanon in 2006, which failed to break Hezbollah and united most Lebanese behind that militant group. The Israeli bombing did not pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen when we begin to pound a country of 65 million people whose land mass is three times the size of France?

Once you begin an air campaign it is only a matter of time before you have to put troops on the ground or accept defeat, as the Israelis had to do in Lebanon. And if we begin dropping bunker busters and cruise missiles on Iran, this is the choice that must be faced: either send U.S. forces into Iran to fight a protracted and futile guerrilla war, or walk away in humiliation.

But more ominous, an attack on Iran will ignite the Middle East. The loss of Iranian oil, coupled with possible Silkworm missile attacks by Iran against oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, could send the price of oil soaring to somewhere around $200 a barrel. The effect on the domestic and world economy will be devastating, very possibly triggering a global depression. The Middle East has two-thirds of the world's proven petroleum reserves and nearly half its natural gas. A disruption in the supply will be felt immediately.

This attack will be interpreted by many Shiites in the Middle East as a religious war. The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia (heavily concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern Province), the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey could turn in rage on us and our dwindling allies. We could see a combination of increased terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and widespread sabotage of oil production in the Persian Gulf. Iraq, as bad as it looks now, will become a death pit for U.S. troops. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which has so far not joined the insurgency, has strong ties to Iran. It could begin full-scale guerrilla resistance, possibly uniting for the first time with Sunnis against the occupation. Iran, in retaliation, will fire its missiles, some with a range of 1,100 miles, at U.S. installations, including Baghdad's Green Zone. Expect substantial casualties, especially with Iranian agents and their Iraqi allies calling in precise coordinates. Iranian missiles could be launched at Israel. The Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20 percent of the world's oil supply, will become treacherous, perhaps unnavigable. Chinese-supplied antiship missiles, mines and coastal artillery, along with speedboats packed with explosives and suicide bombers, will target U.S. shipping, along with Saudi oil production and oil export centers.

Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, closely allied with Iran, may in solidarity fire rockets into northern Israel. Israel, already struck by missiles from Tehran, could then carry out retaliatory raids against both Lebanon and Iran. Pakistan, with its huge Shiite minority, will become even more unstable. Unrest could result in the overthrow of the already weakened Pervez Musharraf and usher Islamic radicals into power. Pakistan, rather than Iran, would then become the first radical Islamic state to possess a nuclear weapon. The neat little war with Iran, which many Democrats do not oppose, has the potential to ignite an inferno.

George W. Bush has shredded, violated or absented America from its obligations under international law. He has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons and defied the Geneva Conventions and human rights law in the treatment of detainees. Most egregious, he launched an illegal war in Iraq based on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public. He seeks to do the same in Iran.

This President is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known as the "crime of aggression." And if we as citizens do not hold him accountable for this crime, if we do not actively defy this government, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that will have terrifying consequences. For a world without treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. This new order will undo five decades of international cooperation - largely put in place by the United States - and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. We must as citizens make sacrifices to defend a world where diplomacy, broad cooperation and the law are respected. If we allow these international legal systems to unravel, we will destroy the possibility of cooperation between nation-states, including our closest allies.

The strongest institutional barrier standing between us and a war with Iran is being mounted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Adm. William Fallon, head of the Central Command; and Gen. George Casey, the Army's new chief of staff. These three men have informed Bush and Congress that the military is too depleted to take on another conflict and may not be able to contain or cope effectively with a regional conflagration resulting from strikes on Iran. This line of defense, however, is tenuous. Not only can Gates, Fallon and Casey easily be replaced but a provocation by Iran could be used by war propagandists here to stoke a public clamor for revenge.

A country that exists in a state of permanent war cannot exist as a democracy. Our long row of candles is being snuffed out. We may soon be in darkness. Any resistance, however symbolic, is essential. There are ways to resist without being jailed. If you owe money on your federal tax return, refuse to pay some or all of it, should Bush attack Iran. If you have a telephone, do not pay the 3 percent excise tax. If you do not owe federal taxes, reduce what is withheld by claiming at least one additional allowance on your W-4 form - and write to the IRS to explain the reasons for your protest. Many of the details and their legal ramifications are available on the War Resisters League's website.

I will put the taxes I owe in an escrow account. I will go to court to challenge the legality of the war. Maybe a courageous judge will rule that the Constitution has been usurped and the government is guilty of what the postwar Nuremberg tribunal defined as a criminal war of aggression. Maybe not. I do not know. But I do know this: I have friends in Tehran, Gaza, Beirut, Baghdad, Jerusalem and Cairo. They will endure far greater suffering and deprivation. I want to be able, once the slaughter is over, to at least earn the right to ask for their forgiveness.

[libsluvsuvs]

does this give me an option not to fund SEVERAL loopy liberal projects??

[the74blaster]

I''''m sorry, guys ! I''''m REALLY TRYING to understand your defense of Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons, but it just doesn''''t come together for me unless I accept the fact that when the neo-cons put together a package of FEAR for all takers, you folks bought it!

Posted by Quatrops

Quatrops, have you not been in a situation where your pride has got in the way of admitting a mistake. I mean it has to be really embarrassing to to say how great Bushs presidency was going to be compared to Clintons and then live through the events of the last 7 years.

Some of my relatives who supported Bush are ashamed of it and will probably vote democrat to show the GOP whos boss.

As far as Iran goes, If Bush wants a war lets force him to open a bagel stand in Tehran to start the fund raising to pay for it.

[quatrops]

Noloyalisti says it is cowardly for us to attack unarmed civilians, and bomb people from 20,000 feet who did nothing to us. I guess most of us would agree, although the circumstances are rarely that simple, and noloyalisti doesn''t make it clear just what his point was.

It''s equally unclear, or more so (at least, to me), what robisch was trying to say in his response, "You mean unlike 9/11 where fanatics killed 3000 people in one fell swoop."

What the **** does THAT mean? That one cowardly act deserves another in response? That we let any enemy set the standards for our behavior?

Why is it so hard for so many to see that Bush is a failure? Zoopster now says it was all Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz''s fault. Who appointed Rumsfeld zoopster? Who kept him on for months after even Republican senatorial support was gone?

And none of you seem comfortable addressing why going after Bin Laden isn''t our NUMBER ONE PRIORITY !

I''m sorry, guys ! I''m REALLY TRYING to understand your defense of Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons, but it just doesn''t come together for me unless I accept the fact that when the neo-cons put together a package of FEAR for all takers, you folks bought it!

[noloyalisti]

Hey Alan R, you''re not still frightened of the terrorists who were let in by the bushies are you?

You sound like you are buying into the US government conspiracy theory about terrorists commandeering air liners without the gov''t knowing. Pleeeeazzzzze. That was so obviously a planned demolition of the towers.

Is killing more innocent civilians in Iran going to keep you safe? Why do you want the government to keep you safe when you don''t believe in this?

It is time for the people to say no and shut it down.

[ioweign]

Ioweign...Merci beaucoup!
How about if you owe and don''t file? Would they know?

Posted by logicanada at 06:44 PM : Nov 27, 2007

################

The IRS has 3 years to audit your tax return or to assess any additional tax liabilities.
This is measured from the day you actually filed your tax return. If you filed your taxes before the deadline, the time is measured from the April 15th deadline. For example, you filed your 2006 tax return on February 15th, 2007. The 3-year time period for an audit begins ticking from April 16th, 2007, (the filing deadline) and will stop ticking on April 16th, 2010. On April 17th, 2010, the IRS cannot audit your 2006 tax return unless there is a suspicion of tax fraud.

The IRS has 10 years to collect outstanding tax liabilities.
This is measured from the day a tax liability has been finalized. A tax liability can be finalized in a number of ways. It could be a balance due on a tax return, an assessment from an audit, or a proposed assessment that has become final. From that day, the IRS has ten years to collect the full amount, plus any penalties and interest. If the IRS doesn''t collect the full amount in the 10-year period, then the remaining balance on the account disappears forever. The statute of limitations on collecting the tax has expired.

[logicanada]

Ioweign...Merci beaucoup!
How about if you owe and don''t file? Would they know?

[ioweign]

Correct me if I''''m wrong but Hasn''''t the I.R.S. lost every case of NOT FILING or FAILURE TO FILE in court?
Seems there is no law you requiring to file, but if you do, then you have to pay.
It has to do with income of an individual for labor being a barter instead of services rendered.
Anyone know for sure?

Posted by logicanada at 05:27 PM : Nov 27, 2007

This might help !!

Expert: Helen P. O`Planick, EA
Date: 1/7/2005
Subject: Willfully not filing of federal income taxes

Question:
What are the penalties/punishments for neglecting to file your taxes? This individual owes me several thousand dollars in back child support, and, knowing that his return is due to be intercepted, hasn''t filed his taxes in 2 years. Is there a way to force someone to file there taxes? What should I do or who should I contact so that this does not keep happening?


Answer:
The sad part is that if he is due a refund, he has no obligation to file and you don''t get your support. And it is not right.

You should contact your Congress Critter and ask them to work to change the laws. That is about all that is available to do.

I''m sorry and I feel for you, there are many in your situation.

Helen, EA in PA

[alanrobisch]

Sign me up to raise my deductions as high as I can to cut off the government from their funds. Who is with me?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by noloyalisti at 08:55 PM : Nov 26, 2007

You mean unlike 9/11 where fanatics killed 3000 people in one fell swoop.

[guysdigdirt]

cynic= someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[logicanada]

If I were a prophet I would envision huge private prisons springing up around massive private farms and the inmates collected from the poor and rebellious would be released from their cells only to plant and harvest, while at night they are drugged into slumber with sedatives from a massive pharmaceutical concern.

[logicanada]

Correct me if I''m wrong but Hasn''t the I.R.S. lost every case of NOT FILING or FAILURE TO FILE in court?
Seems there is no law you requiring to file, but if you do, then you have to pay.
It has to do with income of an individual for labor being a barter instead of services rendered.
Anyone know for sure?

[logicanada]

FREEDOM FRRRRIIIIEEEESSSSS!

[noloyalisti]

Are they going to put 50 million people in the concentrations camps? All this works when huge numbers of people join in and become involved.

Look at what happens in France and other countries when the wealthy corporate government folk try to hold the people liable. Of course the French and other Europeans have so much more security than us for health care, retirement and their jobs. We might be too far gone here.

However, at this point we really have not choice but to hold out our taxes or start general strikes. Otherwise it is possible we will end up in the camps anyway.

[mandylou4u]

I guess I''ll have to be like some of my ancestors, you will have to kill me and my family before you enslave or imprison us. But I will fight for what I believe in because it''s not money or who''s got the biggest suv. It''s about being free, something we haven''t been for a while if ya look at it a certain way.

[gkc99]

" If everyone stoped paying parts of their taxes, are they gonna build more jails to put us all in? "


Yup. KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, is already building them. Promoting non-payment of federal income taxes can easily be classified as an "extremist ideology" by the feds, so under the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act of 2007, any person so advocating could be rounded up by federal troops acting on the say-so of Darth Bushit and put into one of those shiny new concentration camps.

This is what "freedom" means to Neoconscum and the Bushits.

[mandylou4u]

I believe in what alot of this guy is saying. But, if we want to be a united people here, we have to trust that if we stick together, we can accomplish anything. If everyone stoped paying parts of their taxes, are they gonna build more jails to put us all in? They wouldn''t get our "tax paying dollars" to build them. If you haven''t noticed, they impose taxes on us all the time. Some taxes are just now being taken off that were there for some old thing and nobody even noticed they were still paying for something that was over. We have to start really paying attention to what we are putting out of our checks. That is our money and like I said before, we shouldn''t be scared of our government, they should be scared of us. They should at the least, respect us.

[tejasdemo]

I agree. I wont pay my taxes either or allow poor kids to get sent off to get killed in war. Maybe then all these blowhard cowards who call themselves patriotic conservatives will have to put their kids and money on the line for these flat out insane ideas.

[kesac4650]

Another silly little Liberal fear monger. He wouldn''t have to pay our taxes if he had gone to Canada in 2000 and 2004 like he promised then.

[zoopster1]

Ah finally, "avoice" of reason in the midst of all the wishful thinking. You are correct on nearly all counts, although I can''t really say whether or not we could have *predicted* what would happen after Saddam. Nobody can predict the future. What we should have done was hoped for the best (which they did), and planned for the worst (which they clearly did not). I also take issue with the assumption that our invasion somehow "created" another al Qaeda "franchise". Most of the al Qaeda fighters we are facing there are NOT native Iraqis and never were. They are Saudis, Syrians, Yemenis, Qataris, Jordanians, etc. That supports what I said earlier, about al Qaeda sending its soldiers wherever ours are, to fight us. The native Iraqis are Kurd, Sunni and Shiite and affiliate themselves with their tribe, not with an organization based thousands of miles away. Where the code of the Marine Corps is "unit, Corps, God, country", the code of the average Iraqi is "family, tribe, imam, Allah". There is no "country" to them; their country was created for them by the British back in the 20''s. They don''t own it, and they don''t care. We can''t instill a sense of national pride in a people who don''t consider themselves a nation.

So what do we do? I don''t know. It''s very grim and I expect that a lot more people will have to die before things get better. No matter who sits in the White House.

[zoopster1]

You know, I thought I was dealing with moderately intellectual people here. But if the only response you have to my very valid points are personal insults, I must say you disappoint me. Go back over what I said and point out ONE area of factual error. Just one. That''s all I ask. I''ll concede that point immediately.

I supported the initial Iraq invasion. I knew Saddam was a bad guy who had gotten away with a lot of bad things. Do I think we have made all the right choices since then? Of course not. I''m not stupid. I believe the neo-con hawks sold us a bill of goods based on assumptions that took no lessons from history, and that was a colossal mistake. When you invade and conquer a country, you do it with an army of millions, not a paltry 180,000. Any smart general knows that. I blame Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others for those failings. They also failed to take the local tribal politics into consideration. Who do you think is doing most of the killing over there now? Not us. We give those people their country back, and the first thing they do is turn their guns on each other, to settle scores that Saddam''s regime wouldn''t allow them to?? Sorry, but when I see that, THAT is when I lose hope. Anything Bush does is insignificant compared to that.