As I review the new John Lennon album Acoustic for my website FM Sound (www.fmsound.net), I realized how much John's song "Working Class Hero" applies to our plight still today. Here are the lyrics as written by John himself:

First, Powell drops this nugget before leaving office:
Iran Pursuing Nuclear Bomb
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6516658/

Now, I read an exclusive in US News and World Report about Iranians secretly aiding the Iraq insurgency...and here Powell is making his statements about secret weapons facilities (sound familiar)

Anyway, most reports I've read say that one of three things will happen:

1- The EU is currently bargaining with Iran to halt the weapons programs in exchange for aid in building nuclear energy programs and easing/preventing UN sanctions. The US is out of the negotiations and neither condemning or endorsing them. There are various opinions as to why, but I won't get in to that here.

2- Surgical airstrikes by the US on Iran's known nuclear sites with/or without ground troop support.

3- Surgical airstrikes by Israel on those same sites.

So, it's looking like a showdown in Iran is inevitable because most folks think that option 1 will be unsuccessful without US support, and the US seems to keep pushing a harder and harder line every day.

Now here is my question. If we or Israel hit Iran's nuke sites, and if Iran is aiding the insurgency behind-the scenes, will that cause Iran to step-up that aid and possibly officially join the insurgency full-force? It seems that if that happened it would most definitely require a large influx of coalition troops and perhaps that dreaded draft we've been talking about.

Also, what about Syria and other Muslim countries that would be infuriated by bombing the sites? Most likely they would be enraged more by Israel doing the bombing than by us doing it, but either way, will it create a domino effect of these other countries actively and openly supporting the "insurgency." Will we end up will a full-out Middle East war on our hands?

I guess I have a lot of questions and no answers. I am not very knowledgeable on Middle East politics, military strategy, or a lot of other things for that matter. It just seems that these are common sense questions that aren't been answered, or even asked, in the MSM, and they need to be asked soon, as that same US N & WR report said there is already a plan for the strikes that has been shelved since the 90s. Let's get some answers before we blow the dust off the thing.

 Of maybe I'm reading this all wrong and I'm way off track...

Comments?

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the 4th Amendment case before the Supreme Court right now, but it has significant implications and is worth discussion.

In the case of Illinois v. Caballes, the defendant was stopped by a state trooper for speeding. Without any request,reason, or suspicion the local K9 officer, after hearing of the traffic stop over the radio, decided to bring his drug-sniffing dog to the scene.

Although the stopping officer did not summon the K9 unit, and had decided to let the defendant off with a warning, the K9 officer arrived and after the dog alerted to the trunk of the vehicle, the officers searched and found a large amount of marijuana.

The defendant was subsequently arrested, convicted, and sentenced to twelve years in prison for drug trafficking.

Upon appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the conviction because there was no suspicion of drug activity to justify the K9 sniff of the vehicle.

The case is now before the US Supreme Court.

The current law allows a K9 sniff of any vehicle, without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. This means that if you are stopped by the police for a broken tail light you are subject to a drug dog sniff without cause or suspicion. Any K9 officer may conduct a sniff of your vehicle without any reason whatsoever.

Now, the courts have ruled that a canine sniff does not constitute a search; that because the dog is an extension of the officer's senses.

While this person was guilty of the crime, this is a slippery slope. If you are stopped for say a seat belt violation, you are subject to a canine sniff, even if there is no suspicion of drug activity. This means that technically the police could bring dogs up and down the streets to sniff your person or vehicle for no reason whatsoever.

I personally do not believe a sniff constitutes a search requiring a warrant, surely there must be at least a modicum of suspicion before the sniff takes place.

The reprecussions of this are far reaching. Consentual searches would be moot if a dog can be brought in regardless. And where does it stop? Can the police run dogs around your home? Will every traffic stop turn into a drug investigation?