Experts Warn of an Accidental Atomic War
Nuclear missile modified for conventional attack on Iran could set off alarm in Russia
by Eric Rosenberg
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1006-01.htm
"Podvig said launching conventional versions of a missile from a submarine that normally carries nuclear ICBMs "expands the possibility for a misunderstanding so widely that it is hard to contemplate."
The millitarization of our country continues....
Another reason to add to the list of reasons why we should make ourselves busy building the hearts, minds, and spirits of people rather than our stubborn focus on building houses, machines, weapons, buildings, etc.
Another TulsaWorld choice not to print the opposing opinion against the "values" creeps who run our country...and I thought they would allow Molly's writings. Evidently, the opinion is not consistent with the editorial staffs' high school grauates.
Further evidence why optimism and hope have given way to the doom and gloom that reigns today.
Return of the War Criminal
by Molly Ivins 10/06/06
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1006-25.htm
"I must admit I have never lost one ounce of rancor toward Henry Kissinger, that cynical, slithery, self-absorbed pathological liar. He has all the loyalty and principle of Charles Talleyrand, whom Napoleon described as "a piece of dung in a silk stocking."
^ No, no, no, don't hold back. Be honest and tell us what you really think.[;)]
"As North Korea flaunts nuclear intent, actions easier to spy "
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/08/news/nuke.php
"Today, a new factor is opening the secretive art to the public: a generation of commercial satellites that can peer down from the heavens to see objects on the ground as small as two or three feet, or up to a meter, wide, enough to distinguish between a car and a truck."
North Korea: A Nuclear Threat
Is Kim Jong Il ready to provoke a regional crisis? An exclusive account of what Pyongyang really wants. Oct. 16, 2006 issue
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15175633/site/newsweek/
"The Bush administration says that this sequence of events was a coincidence. Whatever the truth, I found on a recent trip to Pyongyang that North Korean leaders view the financial sanctions as the cutting edge of a calculated effort by dominant elements in the administration to undercut the Sept. 19 accord, squeeze the Kim Jong Il regime and eventually force its collapse."
Anybody else aware of press reports on our middle east naval fleet amasing near Iran?
Could this be the October sooopreyes?
Where do you get your information?
http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=5230
Even if Bush wanted to invade Iran (which would be so disastrous it'd make Iraq look like a Sunday potluck), most military experts say we're 9-12 months away from doing so.
The military simply isn't ready for a full-scale attack.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Where do you get your information?
http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=5230
Look, when you got war criminals running the show, anything is possible. Remember, 660,000 Iraqi's have died at the hands of our leaders. What's a little scare on Iran?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Where do you get your information?
http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=5230
The Eisenhower carrier Group is in route....will arrive around Oct.21st.
The Enterprise strike force is already very near.
Madness....wait and see....
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Where do you get your information?
http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=5230
Here....let's all rally round the flag boys....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361
Is there an echo in the room, or is Aox talking to himself?[:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Is there an echo in the room, or is Aox talking to himself?[:o)]
Conman....evidently, more people are tuned into Foleygate....for now.
Ah...that's your problem. You should try reading AMERICAN newspapers when analyzing what AMERICAN service people are doing, I think our intel might be a little better. If you bothered to read the article I linked to it explains how their "theory" is garbage.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Ah...that's your problem. You should try reading AMERICAN newspapers when analyzing what AMERICAN service people are doing, I think our intel might be a little better. If you bothered to read the article I linked to it explains how their "theory" is garbage.
They lie on behalf of the administrators for the opposition...surely, you are smarter than this.
Okay altruismsuffers...I'm glad you made it back from NYC in one piece.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Okay altruismsuffers...I'm glad you made it back from NYC in one piece.
LMAO you took the words right out of my mouth.....
Iplaw shoots, he scores!
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Iplaw shoots, he scores!
You drawfs think this thread is humorous?
I highly doubt either one of them are vertically challenged.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I highly doubt either one of them are vertically challenged.
Are you feeling safer now funny man?
You see class clowns make light of this stuff because they do not see the linkage between North Korea and how we will manipulate the situation in Iran differently. Wait and see....
Here, humor on this likelyhood!
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=21493
"Consider the alternative: a North Korea further isolated, increasingly paranoid, with poor intelligence, placing its nuclear forces on hair-trigger alert, while attempting to get hard currency by selling nuclear weapons to terrorists. "
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1011/p09s02-coop.html
and this...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/washington/11diplo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
I'm 6-foot-1, ax. I'm not a dwarf, unless you're as tall as Shaq.
Not your physical size.....
Aren't they considered "little people" now? Aren't you interested in being PC and protecting the emotional well being of said little people, or for those in the clique LPs...
You my good friend are a hatemonger, a vicious anti short-ite. You pretend to be a compassionate liberal so that you can infiltrate the masses of LPs and destroy them from the inside, and I say SHAME on YOU.
One day I believe that we can all live together in harmony. Short, tall, dwarf, midget, LP living side by side in a measurement blind society where people like you can't hurt others anymore.
Mental midgets... there is that better?
Incompetent tough talk by your boy....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear;_ylt=AoZRpVWfF6GYtDAv.9XcAbis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
and, you won't see this in TulsaWorld
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=21496
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Iplaw shoots, he scores!
You drawfs think this thread is humorous?
What exactly is a drawf anyhow?
I think that must be an elite-ist term for "the unwashed." [}:)]
Keep on joking....but this is serious stuff...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15281.htm
And this....
"For the next four weeks, the Bush administration will do its best to exploit the North Korean nuclear test to stave off a loss of the Republican majority in Congress. We should not allow those efforts to obscure how Bush's reckless record has heightened the nuclear dangers for everyone."
http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/2636/Welcome_to_the_Nuclear_Club
How in the hell is Bush going to turn a sow's ear into a purse with North Korea?
The nuclear test was bad news, no matter which way you slice it.
Agreed.
Bush can try to push off the N. Korea issue onto Clinton and Albright (BTW- the Zucker video is one of the funnier political lampoons I've seen in a long time) all he wants, but this has festered under Bush's watch for almost six years.
Okay, our leader can't be responsible for what every rogue dictator does in some sh!t hole country half-way around the world. But, what I fail to understand is why we haven't at least sat down with this nut-job and try to humor and pacify him. Leaving it up to the Chinese and Russians to try to talk this guy down from his tree doesn't make the most sense.
One of Molly Ivins' pieces showed up in the Tulsa World last Wed, Oct. 11... it seems the World has been running here weekly column every Wednesday for awhile now.
Since I just go to the World online, I haven't kept track of who they've been printing in their opinions section...
How long has Ivins' stuff been running there?
Inquiring minds want to know.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
One of Molly Ivins' pieces showed up in the Tulsa World last Wed, Oct. 11... it seems the World has been running here weekly column every Wednesday for awhile now.
Since I just go to the World online, I haven't kept track of who they've been printing in their opinions section...
How long has Ivins' stuff been running there?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The World just runs the ones they find acceptable. Too bad they leave out her best stuff but some of us try to repost them here....
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1010-33.htm
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/10/16/surprise-bush-will-have-warships-in-position-to-bomb-iran-this-saturday/
"First word of the Eisenhower's deployment to the Persian Gulf came from angry Navy officers, who contacted military critics of the Iraq war and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress."
"Asked why he reversed his opinion, Kissinger responded with some surprise during a brief telephone interview. After a lengthy pause, he said: "They were an allied country, and this was a commercial transaction. We didn't address the question of them one day moving toward nuclear weapons."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
"Naas said Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld all were in positions to play significant roles in Iran policy then, "but in those days, you have to view Kissinger as the main figure." Requests for comment from the offices of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld went unanswered. "
I know, old article....but...
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
How in the hell is Bush going to turn a sow's ear into a purse with North Korea?
The nuclear test was bad news, no matter which way you slice it.
I think the phrase you are looking for is "grasping at straws."
Iranian leader threatens Israel's allies
"His comments came a day after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that Iran would have "a price to pay" if it does not give up its nuclear ambitions — and hinted Israel might be forced to take action.
He did not specifically threaten to cripple Iran's nuclear program with a military strike, as Israel did 25 years ago in Iraq when it sent combat planes to destroy an unfinished nuclear reactor. But Olmert, en route home from a three-day trip to Moscow, said Thursday the Iranians should "be afraid" of the consequences of their defiance."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061020/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_iran_nuclear;_ylt=AncMHBwyMMF1VTFf.tDlyyas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-
Looks to me with armada's in place, one tiny provacation by Iran will cause a major event to take place...
Man, this is rich:
"Senior Bush administration officials wanted North Korea to test a nuclear weapon because it would prove their point that the regime must be overthrown. "
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/23/north-korea-nuclear-rooting/
"Rice has been trying to counter the prevailing view that the test was a failure of the Bush administration's policy. "
Where do you find these libtard web sites? Is there a list in the back of the National Enquirer?
I get the links from the same places that first said Bush was a liar. You know, the links you attributed to libtard sites.
The links I provide you are far more educational than your personal attacks.
Personal attacks? I think you qualify as the king of those. I have never seen another person on this board who's posts are more offensive and personal than yours.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Where do you find these libtard web sites? Is there a list in the back of the National Enquirer?
They're on back of the Democrat voter registration card.
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Where do you find these libtard web sites? Is there a list in the back of the National Enquirer?
They're on back of the Democrat voter registration card.
They are on the backs of the poor, the ignored, the oppressed.....look to the one's who have bailed out of the so called "Compassionate" conservative Christian cause.....their sites can now be called libtard by you because they have disappeared from your minions.
What?
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
What?
That's right. These sites are developed by those that are truly concerned about the disadvantaged of our country, the oppressed of our world, the powerless. And not to be confused with the sites that put a face on these issues while doing nothing that their religion really wants them to do.
The conservative sites are concerned with tax cuts and creating insecurity and fear.
I'm concerned about the disadvantaged of our country and the oppressed of our world as well. I just don't think the Democrats have a monopoloy on this concern and caring.
For your information Aox, I'm constantly bickering with my brother who is a coolaid-drinking Republican and quotes Rush Limbaugh daily.
My point is that I don't much care for coolaid drinkers from either side, and from what I've seen of your posts, you're merely the Democrat version of my older brother.
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
I'm concerned about the disadvantaged of our country and the oppressed of our world as well. I just don't think the Democrats have a monopoloy on this concern and caring.
For your information Aox, I'm constantly bickering with my brother who is a coolaid-drinking Republican and quotes Rush Limbaugh daily.
My point is that I don't much care for coolaid drinkers from either side, and from what I've seen of your posts, you're merely the Democrat version of my older brother.
Oh, it's election time and I love druming up anger from republijerks.
You are ot. The point of this thread is Nuclear war is becoming very likely.
I am a fiscal conservative and a bit rad when it comes to koolaid...... Not to worry yourself about my rants.
Daniel Ellsberg, a former official in the State and Defense departments who released the Pentagon Papers, is the author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.
This originally appeared in Harpers.
Daniel Ellsberg: The Next War
by Daniel Ellsberg
A hidden crisis is under way. Many government insiders are aware of serious plans for war with Iran, but Congress and the public remain largely in the dark. The current situation is very like that of 1964, the year preceding our overt, open-ended escalation of the Vietnam War, and 2002, the year leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
In both cases, if one or more conscientious insiders had closed the information gap with unauthorized disclosures to the public, a disastrous war might have been averted entirely.
My own failure to act, in time, to that effect in 1964 was pointed out to me by Wayne Morse thirty-five years ago. Morse had been one of only two U.S. senators to vote against the Tonkin Gulf resolution on August 7, 1964. He had believed, correctly, that President Lyndon Johnson would treat the resolution as a congressional declaration of war. His colleagues, however, accepted White House assurances that the president sought "no wider war" and had no intention of expanding hostilities without further consulting them. They believed that they were simply expressing bipartisan support for U.S. air attacks on North Vietnam three days earlier, which the president and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had told them were in "retaliation" for the "unequivocal," "unprovoked" attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on U.S. destroyers "on routine patrol" in "international waters."
Each of the assurances above had been false, a conscious lie. That they were lies, though, had only been revealed to the public seven years later with the publication of the Pentagon Papers, several thousand pages of top-secret documents on U.S. decision-making in Vietnam that I had released to the press. The very first installment, published by The New York Times on June 13, 1971, had proven the official account of the Tonkin Gulf episode to be a deliberate deception.
When we met in September, Morse had just heard me mention to an audience that all of that evidence of fraud had been in my own Pentagon safe at the time of the Tonkin Gulf vote. (By coincidence, I had started work as a special assistant to an assistant secretary of defense the day of the alleged attack -- which had not, in fact, occurred at all.) After my talk, Morse, who had been a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1964, said to me, "If you had given those documents to me at the time, the Tonkin Gulf resolution would never have gotten out of committee. And if it had somehow been brought up on the floor of the Senate for a vote, it would never have passed."
He was telling me, it seemed, that it had been in my power, seven years earlier, to avert the deaths so far of 50,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, with many more to come. It was not something I was eager to hear. After all, I had just been indicted on what eventually were twelve federal felony counts, with a possible sentence of 115 years in prison, for releasing the Pentagon Papers to the public. I had consciously accepted that prospect in some small hope of shortening the war. Morse was saying that I had missed a real opportunity to prevent the war altogether.
My first reaction was that Morse had overestimated the significance of the Tonkin Gulf resolution and, therefore, the alleged consequences of my not blocking it in August. After all, I felt, Johnson would have found another occasion to get such a resolution passed, or gone ahead without one, even if someone had exposed the fraud in early August.
Years later, though, the thought hit me: What if I had told Congress and the public, later in the fall of 1964, the whole truth about what was coming, with all the documents I had acquired in my job by September, October, or November? Not just, as Morse had suggested, the contents of a few files on the events surrounding the Tonkin Gulf incident -- all that I had in early August -- but the drawerfuls of critical working papers, memos, estimates, and detailed escalation options revealing the evolving plans of the Johnson Administration for a wider war, expected to commence soon after the election. In short, what if I had put out before the end of the year, whether before or after the November election, all of the classified papers from that period that I did eventually disclose in 1971?
Had I done so, the public and Congress would have learned that Johnson's campaign theme, "we seek no wider war," was a hoax. They would have learned, in fact, that the Johnson Administration had been heading in secret toward essentially the same policy of expanded war that his presidential rival, Senator Barry Goldwater, openly advocated -- a policy that the voters overwhelmingly repudiated at the polls.
I would have been indicted then, as I was seven years later, and probably imprisoned. But America would have been at peace during those years. It was only with that reflection, perhaps a decade after the carnage finally ended, that I recognized Morse had been right about my personal share of responsibility for the whole war.
Not just mine alone. Any one of a hundred officials -- some of whom foresaw the whole catastrophe -- could have told the hidden truth to Congress, with documents. Instead, our silence made us all accomplices in the ensuing slaughter.
* * *
The run-up to the 1964 Tonkin Gulf resolution was almost exactly parallel to the run-up to the 2002 Iraq war resolution.
In both cases, the president and his top Cabinet officers consciously deceived Congress and the public about a supposed short-run threat in order to justify and win support for carrying out preexisting offensive plans against a country that was not a near-term danger to the United States. In both cases, the deception was essential to the political feasibility of the program precisely because expert opinion inside the government foresaw costs, dangers, and low prospects of success that would have doomed the project politically if there had been truly informed public discussion beforehand. And in both cases, that necessary deception could not have succeeded without the obedient silence of hundreds of insiders who knew full well both the deception and the folly of acting upon it.
One insider aware of the Iraq plans, and knowledgeable about the inevitably disastrous result of executing those plans, was Richard Clarke, chief of counterterrorism for George W. Bush and adviser to three presidents before him. He had spent September 11, 2001, in the White House, coordinating the nation's response to the attacks. He reports in his memoir, Against All Enemies, discovering the next morning, to his amazement, that most discussions there were about attacking Iraq.
Clarke told Bush and Rumsfeld that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, or with its perpetrator, Al Qaeda. As Clarke said to Secretary of State Colin Powell that afternoon, "Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response -- which Rumsfeld was already urging -- would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."
Actually, Clarke foresaw that it would be much worse than that. Attacking Iraq not only would be a crippling distraction from the task of pursuing the real enemy but would in fact aid that enemy: "Nothing America could have done would have provided al Qaeda and its new generation of cloned groups a better recruitment device than our unprovoked invasion of an oil-rich Arab country."
I single out Clarke -- by all accounts among the best of the best of public servants -- only because of his unique role in counterterrorism and because, thanks to his illuminating 2004 memoir, we know his thoughts at that time, and, in particular, the intensity of his anguish and frustration. Such a memoir allows us, as we read each new revelation, to ask a simple question: What difference might it have made to events if he had told us this at the time?
Clarke was not, of course, the only one who could have told us, or told Congress. We know from other accounts that both of his key judgments -- the absence of linkage between Al Qaeda and Saddam and his correct prediction that "attacking Iraq would actually make America less secure and strengthen the broader radical Islamic terrorist movement" -- were shared by many professionals in the CIA, the State Department, and the military.
Yet neither of these crucial, expert conclusions was made available to Congress or the public, by Clarke or anyone else, in the eighteen-month run-up to the war. Even as they heard the president lead the country to the opposite, false impressions, toward what these officials saw as a disastrous, unjustified war, they felt obliged to keep their silence.
Costly as their silence was to their country and its victims, I feel I know their mind-set. I had long prized my own identity as a keeper of the president's secrets. In 1964 it never even occurred to me to break the many secrecy agreements I had signed, in the Marines, at the Rand Corporation, in the Pentagon. Although I already knew the Vietnam War was a mistake and based on lies, my loyalties then were to the secretary of defense and the president (and to my promises of secrecy, on which my own career as a president's man depended). I'm not proud that it took me years of war to awaken to the higher loyalties owed by every government official to the rule of law, to our soldiers in harm's way, to our fellow citizens, and, explicitly, to the Constitution, which every one of us had sworn an oath "to support and uphold."
It took me that long to recognize that the secrecy agreements we had signed frequently conflicted with our oath to uphold the Constitution. That conflict arose almost daily, unnoticed by me or other officials, whenever we were secretly aware that the president or other executive officers were lying to or misleading Congress. In giving priority, in effect, to my promise of secrecy -- ignoring my constitutional obligation -- I was no worse or better than any of my Vietnam-era colleagues, or those who later saw the Iraq war approaching and failed to warn anyone outside the executive branch.
Ironically, Clarke told Vanity Fair in 2004 that in his own youth he had ardently protested "the complete folly" of the Vietnam War and that he "wanted to get involved in national security in 1973 as a career so that Vietnam didn't happen again." He is left today with a sense of failure:
It's an arrogant thing to think, Could I have ever stopped another Vietnam? But it really filled me with frustration that when I saw Iraq coming I wasn't able to do anything. After having spent thirty years in national security and having been in some senior-level positions you would think that I might be able to have some influence, some tiny influence. But I couldn't have any.
But it was not too arrogant, I believe, for Clarke to aspire to stop this second Vietnam personally. He actually had a good chance to do so, throughout 2002, the same one Senator Morse had pointed out to me.
Instead of writing a memoir to be cleared for publication in 2004, a year after Iraq had been invaded, Clarke could have made his knowledge of the war to come, and its danger to our security, public before the war. He could have supported his testimony with hundreds of files of documents from his office safe and computer, to which he then still had access. He could have given these to both the media and the then Democratic-controlled Senate.
"If I had criticized the president to the press as a special assistant" in the summer of 2002, Clarke told Larry King in March 2004, "I would have been fired within an hour." That is undoubtedly true. But should that be the last word on that course? To be sure, virtually all bureaucrats would agree with him, as he told King, that his only responsible options at that point were either to resign quietly or to "spin" for the White House to the press, as he did. But that is just the working norm I mean to question here.
His unperceived alternative, I wish to suggest, was precisely to court being fired for telling the truth to the public, with documentary evidence, in the summer of 2002. For doing that, Clarke would not only have lost his job, his clearance, and his career as an executive official; he would almost surely have been prosecuted, and he might have gone to prison. But the controversy that ensued would not have been about hindsight and blame. It would have been about whether war on Iraq would make the United States safer, and whether it was otherwise justified.
That debate did not occur in 2002 -- just as a real debate about war in Vietnam did not occur in 1964 -- thanks to the disciplined reticence of Clarke and many others. Whatever his personal fate, which might have been severe, his disclosures would have come before the war. Perhaps, instead of it.
* * *
We face today a crisis similar to those of 1964 and 2002, a crisis hidden once again from the public and most of Congress. Articles by Seymour Hersh and others have revealed that, as in both those earlier cases, the president has secretly directed the completion, though not yet execution, of military operational plans -- not merely hypothetical "contingency plans" but constantly updated plans, with movement of forces and high states of readiness, for prompt implementation on command -- for attacking a country that, unless attacked itself, poses no threat to the United States: in this case, Iran.
According to these reports, many high-level officers and government officials are convinced that our president will attempt to bring about regime change in Iran by air attack; that he and his vice president have long been no less committed, secretly, to doing so than they were to attacking Iraq; and that his secretary of defense is as madly optimistic about the prospects for fast, cheap military success there as he was in Iraq.
Even more ominously, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA official, reported in The American Conservative a year ago that Vice President Cheney's office had directed contingency planning for "a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons" and that "several senior Air Force officers" involved in the planning were "appalled at the implications of what they are doing -- that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack -- but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objection."
Several of Hersh's sources have confirmed both the detailed operational planning for use of nuclear weapons against deep underground Iranian installations and military resistance to this prospect, which led several senior officials to consider resigning. Hersh notes that opposition by the Joint Chiefs in April led to White House withdrawal of the "nuclear option" -- for now, I would say. The operational plans remain in existence, to be drawn upon for a "decisive" blow if the president deems it necessary.
Many of these sources regard the planned massive air attack -- with or without nuclear weapons -- as almost sure to be catastrophic for the Middle East, the position of the United States in the world, our troops in Iraq, the world economy, and U.S. domestic security. Thus they are as deeply concerned about these prospects as many other insiders were in the year before the Iraq invasion. That is why, unlike in the lead-up to Vietnam or Iraq, some insiders are leaking to reporters. But since these disclosures -- so far without documents and without attribution -- have not evidently had enough credibility to raise public alarm, the question is whether such officials have yet reached the limit of their responsibilities to our country.
Assuming Hersh's so-far anonymous sources mean what they say -- that this is, as one puts it, "a juggernaut that has to be stopped" -- I believe it is time for one or more of them to go beyond fragmentary leaks unaccompanied by documents. That means doing what no other active official or consultant has ever done in a timely way: what neither Richard Clarke nor I nor anyone else thought of doing until we were no longer officials, no longer had access to current documents, after bombs had fallen and thousands had died, years into a war. It means going outside executive channels, as officials with contemporary access, to expose the president's lies and oppose his war policy publicly before the war, with unequivocal evidence from inside.
Simply resigning in silence does not meet moral or political responsibilities of officials rightly "appalled" by the thrust of secret policy. I hope that one or more such persons will make the sober decision -- accepting sacrifice of clearance and career, and risk of prison -- to disclose comprehensive files that convey, irrefutably, official, secret estimates of costs and prospects and dangers of the military plans being considered. What needs disclosure is the full internal controversy, the secret critiques as well as the arguments and claims of advocates of war and nuclear "options" -- the Pentagon Papers of the Middle East. But unlike in 1971, the ongoing secret debate should be made available before our war in the region expands to include Iran, before the sixty-one-year moratorium on nuclear war is ended violently, to give our democracy a chance to foreclose either of those catastrophes.
The personal risks of doing this are very great. Yet they are not as great as the risks of bodies and lives we are asking daily of over 130,000 young Americans -- with many yet to join them -- in an unjust war. Our country has urgent need for comparable courage, moral and civil courage, from its public servants. They owe us the truth before the next war begins.
More on the Bushevik Colossal Blunder in Revealing Nuclear Secrets to Terrorists. Some Pundits are Saying It is so Egregious, It Must be Part of the Plot to Have an Excuse for Bombing Iran. But, I Can't Figure That One Out. It Just Appears That The Bush Administration Compromised the Nuclear Security of the World Out of Sheer Stupidity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20061103-030156-6711r
"If Democrats had done that there would be mobs carrying torches in the streets tonight.
The Democrats would be accused of treason and there would be calls for resignation."
and this...
"The alleged Iranian threat espoused by Bush is based on fear, and arises from a combination of ignorance and ideological inflexibility."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/ritter/3
"Of course, Rice would need to come with a revamped US policy, one that rejects regime change, provides security guarantees for Iran as it is currently governed and would be willing to recognize Iran's legitimate right to enrich uranium under Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (although under stringent UN inspections, and perhaps limited to the operation of a single 164-centrifuge cascade)."
Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran
Sat Jan 6, 2007 11:20 PM GMT
LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, the Sunday Times newspaper said.
Citing what it said were several Israeli military sources, the paper said two Israeli air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters".
Two other sites, a heavy water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs, the Sunday Times said.
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously last month to slap sanctions on Iran to try to stop uranium enrichment that Western powers fear could lead to making bombs. Tehran insists its plans are peaceful and says it will continue enrichment.
Israel has refused to rule out pre-emptive military action against Iran along the lines of its 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in Iraq, though many analysts believe Iran's nuclear facilities are too much for Israel to take on alone.
The newspaper said the Israeli plan envisaged conventional laser-guided bombs opening "tunnels" into the targets. Nuclear warheads would then be used fired into the plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce radioactive fallout.
Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000 mile (3,200 km) round-trip to the Iranian targets, the Sunday Times said, and three possible routes to Iran have been mapped out including one over Turkey.
However it also quoted sources as saying a nuclear strike would only be used if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene. Disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, the paper added.
Washington has said military force remains an option while insisting that its priority is to reach a diplomatic solution.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, has said it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved. | Learn more about Reuters
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html
Bush's True War Escalation Strategy - Getting from Iraq to Iran
http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1408
A. Alexander, January 12th, 2007
"And there it is ... the President is escalating the war now in an all out effort to make it impossible, no matter who is in power next, for the U.S. military to leave the Middle East. An attack on Iran you see, would accomplish that objective."
"Starting a war with Iran? Can Americans stop it before it is too late?"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/InsaniToughts?id=202
"Bush received his authorization to do anything he wants in 2004. When the American public picked him as their president despite the fact that he had lied to them and had done a terrible job ever since he took office."
"Exposing the U.S. Nuclear War Plan
NRDC's nuclear war simulation provides an open, independent assessment of the U.S. nuclear war plan, and shows it is a Cold War relic in need of major reform." and "After the end of the Cold War, both the United States and Russia maintain vast nuclear arsenals. The United States still has 550 ICBMs long-range missiles that can reach Moscow in a half an hour, stored in silos throughout the West. A U.S. nuclear submarine carries up to 192 warheads and could kill or maim about a some 50 million Russians. The United States has 18 of these submarines with nuclear warheads 100,000 times greater than the single Hiroshima bomb."
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nwarplan.asp
"The NRDC nuclear war plans project uses a computer simulation to reveal what nuclear conflict would look like if it occurred today. The project shows that while the Cold War is long over, American nuclear war plans have hardly changed at all. The war plan still requires some 2,600 warheads to be on alert and trained on Russian targets at all times."
Now is "Most Perilous Period Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm
"TO BE ANNOUNCED: The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists will move the minute hand of the "Doomsday Clock" closer to Midnight, on January 17, 2007. This change reflects growing concerns of a "Second Nuclear Age" marked by multiple grave nuclear threats including unsecured Russian nuclear materials and the "launch-ready" status of 2,000 U.S. and Russian missles. The decision to move the minute hand is made by the Atomic Bulletin's Board of Directors and Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates."
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-01-17-voa63.cfm
Atomic Scientists Warn World Moving Closer to Nuclear Doom
By Stephanie Ho
Washington
"As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on earth," he said. "As citizens of the world, we have a duty to share that knowledge and alert the public to the unnecessary risk that we live with every day." British scientist Stephen Hawking
Try to pay attention to this:
""You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/ts_nm/iran_usa_experts_dc_1
U.S. warns Iran to back down
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_2
"In his speech outlining the (supposedly) new U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush promised to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks that he said were providing "advanced weaponry and training to our enemies," Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller report. But the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot-and-robert-naiman/as-bush-faces-the-nation_b_39421.html
A desperate bunch running this war while ruining the country......
"Putting It on the Table: Kucinich Says Bush Risking Impeachment"
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/17800
"Kucinich: The White House Is Up To Its Old Tricks; Is Preparing the United States for an Attack on Iran : President's Actions Could Lead to Impeachment "
Who'd of thunk 7 years ago Americans would hold Dennis Kucinich in higher esteem than George Bush? Amazing!
"Troops Authorized to Kill Iranian Operatives in Iraq
Administration Strategy Stirs Concern Among Some Officials"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012502199.html
"With aspects of the plan also targeting Iran's influence in Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, the policy goes beyond the threats Bush issued earlier this month to "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria" into Iraq. It also marks a departure from years past when diplomacy appeared to be the sole method of pressuring Iran to reverse course on its nuclear program."
NBC NEWS confirms a secret U.S. military report that says 'Iranian Agents' may be behind a deadly ambush in Karbala, Iraq that left five American soldiers dead. The report also claims the Iranian revolutionary guard is providing intelligence on U.S. and Iraqi military to Shiite extremists, in addition to sophisticated weaponry. Developing....
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html
Iran involvement suspected in Karbala compound attack
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said.
"People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said.
That official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed five soldiers.
The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."
Five U.S. soldiers were killed in the sophisticated attack by men wearing U.S.-style uniforms, according to U.S. military reports. (Watch how attackers got into the compound )
Both officials stressed the Iranian-involvement theory is a preliminary view, and there is no final conclusion. They agreed this possibility is being looked at because of the sophistication of the attack and the level of coordination.
"This was beyond what we have seen militias or foreign fighters do," the second official said.
The investigation has led some officials to conclude the attack was an "inside job" -- that people inside the compound helped the attackers enter unstopped.
Investigators are looking particularly at how the attackers got U.S.-style military uniforms and SUVs similar to those used by U.S. troops.
"'Who was behind it all?' was the fundamental question," the first official said.
Some Iraqis speculate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out the attack in retaliation for the capture by U.S. forces of five of its members in Irbil, Iraq, on January 11, according to a Time.com article published Tuesday. (Read the article)
The five Iranians are still in U.S. custody.
The Bush administration has authorized U.S. forces to kill or capture Iranian agents plotting attacks in Iraq, a U.S. national security official said Friday.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a reputation for taking harsh and unrelenting revenge on its enemies, the Time.com article says.
True?
Todays Info: The Road to Armageddon
"It's an extremely dangerous situation," Bavand said. "I don't think Tehran wants war under any circumstances. But there might be an accidental event that could escalate into a large confrontation."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_war_clouds;_ylt=Aumo6Tddyv9PIKFp5zD_znGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Accidental events? Interesting....
Europeans fear US attack on Iran as nuclear row intensifies
· Transatlantic rift emerges over how to handle crisis
· America builds up its naval forces in the Gulf
Ian Traynor in Brussels and Jonathan Steele
Wednesday January 31, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2002329,00.html
"The Bush administration will shortly publish a dossier of charges of alleged Iranian subversion in Iraq. "Iran has steadily ramped up its activity in Iraq in the last three to four months. This applies to the scope and pace of their operations. You could call these brazen activities," a senior US official said in London yesterday."
will it be truth or will it be fiction again?
We are already at war with Iran,have been since 1979!And guess who is funding a major part of terrorism??Yes Iran!Always have been a major trouble spot in middle east and its ruled by a nutcase that makes "saddam whoswang" look like a saint.
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn
We are already at war with Iran,have been since 1979!And guess who is funding a major part of terrorism??Yes Iran!Always have been a major trouble spot in middle east and its ruled by a nutcase that makes "saddam whoswang" look like a saint.
They are Persians and they are decent people. Kahmeni is near death with cancer, the populace is ready for positive change, and we are on the verge of attacking, with nuclear warheads, a leader in the Arab world. Diplomacy would work best but your gang will make Iraq look minor.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn
We are already at war with Iran,have been since 1979!And guess who is funding a major part of terrorism??Yes Iran!Always have been a major trouble spot in middle east and its ruled by a nutcase that makes "saddam whoswang" look like a saint.
They are Persians and they are decent people. Kahmeni is near death with cancer, the populace is ready for positive change, and we are on the verge of attacking, with nuclear warheads, a leader in the Arab world. Diplomacy would work best but your gang will make Iraq look minor.
We and other countrys as well have tried the diplomatic approach over and over,you cannot deal with a religion that firmly believes they are the rightous ones on earth,yet strap on explosives and kill innocent people!How in the hell can anyone here defend those actions?They are cowards,and cannot fight in conventional ways,or have the temperment to sit down at any bargaining table.And tell me,what is it they want?Does anyone really know?Im betting on world domination!
With Iran Ascendant, U.S. Is Seen at Fault
Arab Allies in Region Feeling Pressure
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012902090.html?nav=hcmodule
I am amazed at the loose thinkers who believe a country from the west can try to direct the Arabs what to do....So, you too have drunk the Bushtard Kool Aid.....haven't learned a thing. Have you?
mdunn:
Who are you arguing with, all I see is [Un-Ignore User]. I won't do it, but I certainly don't feel the need to argue with it. [;)]
Here are some pictures of these Iranian "Cowards" you will not see in the news..
Possibly because they would have to be rated "not for Family Viewing"...
For Mature Audience (//%22http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html%22)
How about showing us some pictures of the Iranian guard operatives who killed 5 of our soldiers in Baghdad by posing as American troops last week. How about pictures of Iran handing off weapons to Hezbolla in Lebanon. That sword cuts both ways brother.
Make no mistake. Iran is enemy #1 one right now.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Here are some pictures of these Iranian "Cowards" you will not see in the news..
Possibly because they would have to be rated "not for Family Viewing"...
For Mature Audience (//%22http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html%22)
the link doesnt work very well,all I seen was a fountain,some cars(carbombs possibly)big deal!anyone can take videos of things like that in other countrys.watch the Nick Berg video if ya want to see islamic extremists at thier profession,bet you will never watch it again!
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
How about showing us some pictures of the Iranian guard operatives who killed 5 of our soldiers in Baghdad by posing as American troops last week. That sword cuts both ways brother.
Make no mistake. Iran is enemy #1 one right now.
Russia for many years was considered enemy number one.. Yet through Diplomacy and many years of having a somewhat strained relationship with them they are no longer seen as enemy number one.
This regime has done less in the way of Diplomacy than any other in my lifetime. Baker-Hamilton recommended talks with Iran.
Until this Country gets back on the track of Coalition Building... and not labeling every single solitary thing they do not like as a part of the Axis of Evil.... We will remain in this quagmire that is called "Dubya"...
I am not a liberal, nor am I a peace junky...
I feel bad for the soldiers that lost their lives recently...I still feel bad for the soldiers that lost their lives during "Desert Storm"..
George Senior would not have placed us in this position...
A politician that I never really cared for I think said it best...
"This President does not play well with others."
Dick Gephardt
quote:
Russia for many years was considered enemy number one..This regime has done less in the way of Diplomacy than any other in my lifetime. Baker-Hamilton recommended talks with Iran.
Anyone who feels this situation mirrors our conflict with Russia during the Cold War doesn't have a very tight grasp on exactly who Iran is or what they are capable of. Baker has also given the thumbs up on the troop surge, is he right about that too?
Diplomacy...Would you have suggested that we sit down and chit chat with the Taliban? As for Saddam, what part of 17 case fire violations makes you think he was interested in diplomacy?
"REASON" is not a word that is in the middle eastern vocabulary.While you attemt to "REASON" with them,they are busy planning how the are going to blow up the "REASONING" table with explosives!The only thing they know about the word"REASON" is they are working damn hard to give us one to finally say we have had it!
Ahmad-etc. has alluded to miracles happening in spring '07. Inasmuch as The Prophet's (PBUH) bday is March 31, I would think the drumbeat is going to be going full bore by the end of the month (Feb).
Is it just me...or is IPLAW and MDUNN having a contest at who can scare the most people, be outraged at the most countries, and appear the most patriotic?
We get it. The enemy is bad and can't be trusted. We should kick their butt before they have a chance to blow up ours. Diplomacy is for losers.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Is it just me...or is IPLAW and MDUNN having a contest at who can scare the most people, be outraged at the most countries, and appear the most patriotic?
We get it. The enemy is bad and can't be trusted. We should kick their butt before they have a chance to blow up ours. Diplomacy is for losers.
no contest going on,I guess we are just exercising our right to free speech,its one of the few things we still have left.
quote:
Diplomacy is for losers.
Diplomacy works for parties who want to discuss issues, not deny the holocaust, drive Israel in the sea...
RM: I wouldn't expect you pay attention and understand the danger in dealing with countries like Iran as doing so has nothing to do with separating paper from plastic or making compost.
Of course, it's hard to take seriously a poster who uses a mostly toothless feral man / bum as his avatar.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Of course, it's hard to take seriously a poster who uses a mostly toothless feral man / bum as his avatar.
Whos to say that bum wasnt a professor at one point in his life,or still is??I believe your judging a book by its cover sir!
And how dare you make fun of my mother in laws wedding picture!!!!
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Diplomacy is for losers.
Diplomacy works for parties who want to discuss issues, not deny the holocaust, drive Israel in the sea...
RM: I wouldn't expect you pay attention and understand the danger in dealing with countries like Iran as doing so has nothing to do with separating paper from plastic or making compost.
Just as much as I wouldn't expect an "intellectual" property attorney to actually understand middle east politics as it has nothing to do with widgets and geegaws.
I'd love to hear your take Mr. Kissinger, or should I say Mr. Chamberlain...
I am actually more concerned about the crime down the street rather than the entrapments taking place with Iran. Read "Concealed Carry Laws Are Arming Criminals"
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1866
A bunch of Monday morning bs here with regards to diplomacy. Diplomacy was the preferred approach with the Russians as their pilots bombed us in Korea and with the Chinese whose pilots bombed us in Nam. In both cases we never went after them. Instead we continued to utilize the channels of a civilized world.
The Taliban is a zit. Had we not gone in Iraq, they'd be eradicated by now. Of course, there will always continue to exist factions of Muslims that don't like us. But for most of you on this thread fear and paranoia governs your war mongering thoughts while you really do not see that Iran is a civilized country.
Dark Clouds Gather on the Distant Horizon: The World Awaits George W. Bush's Attack on Iran
A. Alexander, February 1st, 2007
"Maybe John Negroponte, the onetime Iran-Contra conspirator, had developed something resembling a conscience late in life and wouldn't play ball with the President? Anything is possible, but what is certain is the fact that since both Mister Negroponte's announced departure from intelligence and the President having revealed his new Iran-confronting Iraq War Escalation Plan; the Iran-related intelligence reports have been as bizarre as they have been ominous."
"Dark clouds gather on the distant horizon - their presence trumpets the undeniable reality that something sinister is coming this way. As the light of truth and reality fades from the nation's political consciousness, between the flashes of lies and deceit is seen the foreboding outline of vultures awaiting tragedy and their chance to feast on the death it is certain to deliver. And so it is - all of humanity has paused, marking time until George W. Bush and Dick Cheney order the U.S. military to attack Iran...an act that will ignite the entire Middle East.
If not the world!
Now that's profound!Read it....
http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1430
I'm sure that whatever Dingus Mcgee is writing is awful profound, and contains no links to another Dingus' website, but I can't tell you how wonderful it is not to have to read his posts anymore. It's like a breath of fresh air.
Ipsqueak.....
kinda funny how he posts the same message in every post...all it says is ...Un-Ignore user!
Watch the right-wingers bash Bush on his looming efforts to attack Iran ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEjOk_w3TX4
IP: "RM: I wouldn't expect you pay attention and understand the danger in dealing with countries like Iran as doing so has nothing to do with separating paper from plastic or making compost."
Wow.
Do you folks realize how silly you look calling each other names and deprecating each others careers? Its good for a laugh I guess but honestly it could easily be replaced with straighforward discussion. Its almost like watching whats going on over there, without the car bombs of course.
MDunn has a great perspective. After seeing the truck bomb yesterday that killed 120, and counting, I am about to have a sea change in my viewpoint. Yes, without doubt, it was a mistake to go in and yes, Bushkin & Co. made every mistake imaginable including some we learned back during Nam. No nobel prize for his regime. But intelligence now shows probably 5 different wars going on over there.
We are the foreign substance in a civil war. Other civil wars in history were usually not aided by foreign troops. We stayed out of the Bolshevik revolution, we stayed out of the French Revolution too. Refer especially to ours and you see Europe standing by ready to work with the winners and smart enough to not care which one won.
But we didn't play the smart card which would have been to go after AlQeuda in Afghanistan and stay after his group till they expired or were diluted. No we had to be the cop and go whip a little capitalist democracy on Iraq by personalizing its problems and going for the "simple" solution. Now we are in the middle of a full blown tragic bloodfest.
It may be time to set aside such childish namecalling behaviour and encourage the Iraqi's to stand and deliver. We were losing our war for independence till Washington crossed the Potomac and delivered a strategic blow. We will accomplish nothing until our troops are given what they need in supplies, numbers and resolve. Resolved: 1. Pull all non-combatant Halliburton type reconstruction operations out of the country, pick a side, and fight the damn war or 2. Pull all Americans out and let the country revert to middle ages civilization.
We have a better chance of normalcy with the former than the latter. More likely the latter will be easier and more politically possible. We made a huge mistake. Either eat a lot of crow or fix the mistake. Bush is the decider de-facto because the system is too clumsy and slow to stop a determined CEO. Lets face the facts and deal with that too. Even impeachement would take a year or more. Am I just crazy or does it all come down to the last two paragraphs?
I've never been fearful of truth telling. "honest to the point of wrecklessness" , that's the axman. Only about %1 of yours truly posts are deadicated towards making fun. And that's what it is that makes this forum so tribal.
I will continue to rant and rage against the tyranny of the Busheviks and those that defend their utter incompetence.
quote:
But we didn't play the smart card which would have been to go after AlQeuda in Afghanistan and stay after his group till they expired or were diluted. No we had to be the cop and go whip a little capitalist democracy on Iraq by personalizing its problems and going for the "simple" solution. Now we are in the middle of a full blown tragic bloodfest.
I still believe that Iran was our ultimate end game when we invaded Iraq...set up democracies on either side of them and let the pressure squeeze them instead of our military.
quote:
Resolved: 1. Pull all non-combatant Halliburton type reconstruction operations out of the country, pick a side, and fight the damn war or 2. Pull all Americans out and let the country revert to middle ages civilization.
Ding ding ding...we have a winner folks. Couldn't agree more! Or should I say "It's time to get er done"
The clouds of the third world war are quite evident as the 45's is called up for training. In the past it has been a sign of the intent of the leaders representing this nation. An attack on Iran, regardless of our noble justification, will divide the world again which will bring destruction beyond belief.
Many of our citizens will go to their churches tomorrow. A sermon on who was given the middle-east lands forever should be a subject of the day. These people of the mid-east believe and will fight to their deaths the idea that this land will remain theirs forever. They will make ever effort to defend what they believe was given to them by a creator. ............"don't harm the oil or the wine".........
The promise that from their seeds will sprout many nations, has not been lost in the present political system we have devised. We have not prevailed in the establishment of any nation nor have we changed them to our system of corruption.
Our worst fault is that we cannot see our image in the mirror.
quote:
or have we changed them to our system of corruption.
Eat me. I'll buy you a ticket to whatever rat hole of a 3rd world country you'd rather be in if you promise to leave today. I'll even pay first class.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
I've never been fearful of truth telling. "honest to the point of wrecklessness" , that's the axman. Only about %1 of yours truly posts are deadicated towards making fun. And that's what it is that makes this forum so tribal.
I will continue to rant and rage against the tyranny of the Busheviks and those that defend their utter incompetence.
That 1% is funny and sometimes deserved. I wasn't targetting your posts particularly. What is bothersome to me is the use of namecalling and character assassination instead of facing strong arguments. Its obvious that there are at least two sides to each issue and no one budges much, but do you see the parallels to whats happening nationally in this discussion? When we don't acknowledge the obvious truths because of our longstanding political beliefs we can't act on those truths.
Truth 1. Bush and his people are large and in charge. Failed, incompetent or not is pretty much irrelevant. The public must show their displeasure and pressure their reps, if they disagree, but the reality is that he can push the damn button if he so pleases. Sure the Dems took legislative control but that is a slow, clumsy vehicle for change. He must be dealt with as a leader and influenced to see his mistakes. You don't change someone's mind by calling them a moron. We also must learn from this that electing leaders is more than whether or not a guy is perceived as a "good guy" and someone "I could have a beer with" or "one of us". He was elected because of anything but his competence as a CEO.
Truth 2. His administration has failed us as a leader in the war against terrorism but refuses to change its course. He is stubborn and always has been. Invoking the argument that he has succeeded because there were no more major attacks on the US mainland is just as lame as saying the previous leaders thwarted terrorism because there were no attacks during their terms. Do you see Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter as great bulwarks against terrorism on the mainland? Then drop that specious argument and face the fact that we are in a war that did nothing to protect us and may have imperiled our future.
Truth 3. The war in Iraq is now a civil war between many factions. It is in danger of cascading into a regional war that will force some of our more uncomfortable allies to turn against us. How many countries are still fighting with us? Will Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia suddenly start to see it more to their advantage to ally with Syria and Iran to stop the spread of this cancer? Especially if we leave during its growth? My understanding is painfully inadequate of the politics but isn't the fact that its a free-for-all a basic truth now?
Aren't these basic truths?
I face the arguments through:
1) ignoring
2) link posting
3) baiting and
4) blasting
This thread dates back several months and you can see my temperament all the way through....
Take it or leave it,
The axman (I earned the nickname)
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
or have we changed them to our system of corruption.
Eat me. I'll buy you a ticket to whatever rat hole of a 3rd world country you'd rather be in if you promise to leave today. I'll even pay first class.
Ill pitch in for half of his ticket!
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
I face the arguments through:
1) ignoring
2) link posting
3) baiting and
4) blasting
This thread dates back several months and you can see my temperament all the way through....
Take it or leave it,
The axman (I earned the nickname)
Once again, not targetting you. But how is your plan working? Is it any different than "Bushevik" SOP? What is the goal to be then. If it is to use the forums as a viral process to win the 60% of the population that sits in the middle, moving back and forth to decide elections, has that been successful? I guess I'm a little confused about the goals of each side on this forum. If it is to amuse, well I prefer Molly Ivins, Fox,Colbert and Jon Stewart. If it is to educate and persuade, thats just not happening. Not even sure why I post other than to hear myself think. Is that it for you guys too?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
I face the arguments through:
1) ignoring
2) link posting
3) baiting and
4) blasting
This thread dates back several months and you can see my temperament all the way through....
Take it or leave it,
The axman (I earned the nickname)
Once again, not targetting you. But how is your plan working? Is it any different than "Bushevik" SOP? What is the goal to be then. If it is to use the forums as a viral process to win the 60% of the population that sits in the middle, moving back and forth to decide elections, has that been successful? I guess I'm a little confused about the goals of each side on this forum. If it is to amuse, well I prefer Molly Ivins, Fox,Colbert and Jon Stewart. If it is to educate and persuade, thats just not happening. Not even sure why I post other than to hear myself think. Is that it for you guys too?
Oh, I have no plan other than to help change the rhetoric and to cause the neccesary change in extremist right wing shenanigans....
quote:
Is that it for you guys too?
I sort of like working over the less fortunate (alt, shadows...)[:D]
I do think we have shared some good ideas that both you and I have agreed upon in the last couple of days...
You learn as much from opposition and adversity as you do from your friends and successes.
Bush Is Hiding the Ball on Iran
By Robert Parry
February 2, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/020207.html
"Last April, in the New Yorker, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh described the Bush administration's preliminary planning for bombing Iran. In September, Time magazine said a U.S. bombing campaign could strike as many as 1,500 targets in Iran."
I've been hearing on a few talk shows it's 700 targets in 60 days.
Madness......
The usual accomplices....
Won't Get Fooled Again?
NYT, networks offer scant skepticism on Iran claims
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3037
http://www.internetweekly.org/2007/02/cartoon_dick_cheneys_hogwash_primer.html
Is it just me or does President Tom:
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/07/xin_0102030707103902215011.jpg)
look like:
Ringo Starr in Caveman?
(http://members.fortunecity.com/stilletozanzibar/RingoAnos80_02.jpg)
Norquist: Bush's Advisers Telling Him 'Invade Iran. Then Everyone Will See How Smart We Are'
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/07/unger-article/
'The president's neoconservative advisers are effectively saying, 'Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.'
I do not think there will be an invasion. I would expect a bombing campaign and a naval blockade by the international community.
"Iran to hit U.S. interests if attacked "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us
"Javad Zarif, warned in a column in The New York Times that efforts to isolate Iran would backfire on the United States, increasing sectarian tensions in the volatile Middle East, including Iraq"
"Speaking to a gathering of air force commanders, Khamenei said: "The enemy knows well that any invasion would be followed by a comprehensive reaction to the invaders and their interests all over the world."
"Last week, a publication called Sobh-e Sadegh, the official publication of the Revolutionary Guards, also warned against American attacks, pointing out that because the U.S. has large numbers of troops in Iraq,Afghanistan, central Asia and Europe, it would be easy to kidnap Americans in retaliation."
A blockade and air campaign would not comprise an invasion, so we are in the clear! Bombs away!
"Meanwhile, a series of recent moves by the military have lent credence to widespread reports that the U.S. is secretly preparing for a massive air attack against Iran. (No one is suggesting a ground invasion.)"
"From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq
The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics—alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet?
by Craig Unger March 2007 "
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703?printable=true¤tPage=all
One very small question on this Bomb strike....
If Iran has the makings of nuclear weapons... such as refined Uranium etc....... Wouldn't an explosive strike on this material create the same scenario as a "Dirty Bomb"..? or do we care..?
oops.. guess that was two...
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
One very small question on this Bomb strike....
If Iran has the makings of nuclear weapons... such as refined Uranium etc....... Wouldn't an explosive strike on this material create the same scenario as a "Dirty Bomb"..? or do we care..?
oops.. guess that was two...
Interesting question. I supposed we would say that they shouldn't be in possession of those materials to begin with...I guess given the choice I'd rather have a dirty bomb scenario over Tehran than a thermonuclear one over Tel Aviv.
Well I suppose that bobmbing would hit power plants and bridges and communication centers, and isolate the production facilities rather than blow them up.
"Credible Report: Iran Offered Comprehensive Talks with U.S. and the Recognition of Israel. Condi Rice Pulls a Scooter Libby and Claims That She Can't Quite Remember It All. "
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002512.php
she needs to get laid
"No plans to invade Iran
In response to Khamenei's comments the White House said it has no plans to invade Iran, and downplayed the significance of reinforcing the US military presence in the Gulf region. "
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,9294,2-10-1462_2067017,00.html
if it came from the White House it ain't no lie.....
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Is it just me or does President Tom:
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/07/xin_0102030707103902215011.jpg)
look like:
Ringo Starr in Caveman?
(http://members.fortunecity.com/stilletozanzibar/RingoAnos80_02.jpg)
"Please remember peace and how we made it...." Ringo
Quote: she needs to get laid
Are we talking about the Sally and Jefferson affair in France?
Or the current times where the first lady was reported to have moved into a Hotel for some unknown reason?
No! Condi needs to get laid. Her thinking is all dicked up.
First Lady? Seperate beds by now for sure.
Maybe Condi and Shrub need to hook up to alleviate all the distress.....
It's all about Tommy boy....what a pity if the Bushevik's invade Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070211/ts_nm/iran_nuclear1_dc_4
"Ahmadinejad, under pressure at home to tone down speeches his critics say have helped push Iran toward international isolation, said he would keep within international regulations but still ruled out a UN demand to suspend uranium enrichment."
It would be a sad day if the US refused to keep the degree of such Iranian involvement in perspective. I could see an all out Iranian army attack being a good reason for the US to become aggresive. But don't accept this miniscule finding a absolute truth and a reason to fight. Perspective please.
"U.S.-led forces show evidence of Iran arms in Iraq "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070211/ts_nm/iraq3_dc_2
"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Officials of the U.S.-led coalition on Sunday showed what they said were examples of Iranian weapons used to kill 170 of their soldiers and implicated high-level Iranian involvement in training Iraqi militants. "
I find it interesting that the Conman, Ipsqueak, and Gwee doe doe neo conish et al seem to be so focused on Al Gore and global warming when much bigger issues are at hand!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17050142/
"A Blown Chance?
A document obtained by NEWSWEEK suggests the Bush team had a shot at meaningful diplomacy with Iran in 2003. What happened—and how the hardliners may be courting war."
"The Bush administration intends "to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something they would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the former director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs on the National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice during Bush's first term."
"Mann, as well as former senior administration officials such as former secretary of State Colin Powell and his then-top deputy, Richard Armitage, say the president has ignored or played down a number of opportunities to negotiate—especially in the era before Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005."
"According to the document, a copy of which was obtained by NEWSWEEK, Tehran plainly laid out the two countries' "aims" and proposed "steps" to resolve them "in mutual respect." The document, believed to reflect the views of Iran's president at the time, the moderate Mohammad Khatami, proposes negotiations on most of the main outstanding issues of interest to Washington—including Iran's nuclear program, its support for Hizbullah and Hamas and terrorism in general, and stabilizing Iraq."
"Wilkerson added that it "was a non-starter so long as [Dick] Cheney was VP and the principal influence on Bush." The hardline vice president has long been known as an opponent of diplomatic engagement. Mann and Leverett say it was a historic missed opportunity."
"We may know soon. A senior administration official says that, after four months of silence, the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, is expected to meet within days in Munich with his European counterpart, Javier Solana, who is representing Germany, France and Great Britain in talks backed by the United States. Says Burns: "We have the sense that there's a turbulent environment inside Iran itself. There's a great deal of opposition to Ahmadinejad's failed policies, and a lot of Iranians seem to understand that they're being isolated." We can only hope that if a conversation starts, both sides listen."
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/07/xin_0102030707103902215011.jpg)
(http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/bush-katrinaspeech-788087.jpg)
I've always thought these two guys looked way too much alike.
Wow...not even close to funny, but I'll give you a C+ for effort!
I always thought the Iranian president looked like Ray Stevens.
"Don't look, Ethel! But it's too late ..."
"Will They Nuke Iran?"
By Alexander Cockburn
02/11/07 "Counterpunch"
"First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led_group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran. Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff."
As regards "the outrage stuff", here on cue comes the New York Times' Michael Gordon with a front page story today, February 10, headlined "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, US Says", and beginning "The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17032.htm
"The problem is that brinkmanship suits everyone's book. Ahmadinejad, facing serious political problems, can posture about standing up to the Great Satan. Olmert can say Ahmadinejad wants to finish off Israel and kill all the Jews. Bush sees Iran as a terrific way of changing the subject from the mess in Iraq and putting the Democrats on the spot"
Maybe a little like Yakov...
Apparently their great illumination is going to have to wait a couple of months. I guess the goat he was going to marry and spawn the anti-christ with isn't of age yet...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Apparently their great illumination is going to have to wait a couple of months. I guess the goat he was going to marry and spawn the anti-christ with isn't of age yet...
I can't help but notice... your avatar has you appropriately dressed for this level of political conversation...
Yes, Bluto is appropriate for all levels of discourse.
Yuz guys love killing threads that don't goose step along with your tempo.....if ya know what I mean....
"Why we're supposed to trust them on Iran: Because they were wrong last time!"
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18433
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Even if Bush wanted to invade Iran (which would be so disastrous it'd make Iraq look like a Sunday potluck), most military experts say we're 9-12 months away from doing so.
The military simply isn't ready for a full-scale attack.
If we are destined to invade Iran, then make it count and play to win.
Duck and cover....Is Iran winning the war in Iraq? http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/77595/ Do the Busheviks plan to scorch the earth before they leave power?
Iranians help reach Iraq cease-fire
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-30-iraqnews_N.htm
Headlined on 3/29/08:
Saudi Newspaper: Prepare for radioactive fallout from US nuclear attack on Iran
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__080328_saudi_newspaper_3a__pr.htm
Bush sends nuclear sub and more warships to the Gulf[:(!]
Insanity's game....God bless this mess.
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn
We are already at war with Iran,have been since 1979!And guess who is funding a major part of terrorism??Yes Iran!Always have been a major trouble spot in middle east and its ruled by a nutcase that makes "saddam whoswang" look like a saint.
They are Persians and they are decent people. Kahmeni is near death with cancer, the populace is ready for positive change, and we are on the verge of attacking, with nuclear warheads, a leader in the Arab world. Diplomacy would work best but your gang will make Iraq look minor.
We and other countrys as well have tried the diplomatic approach over and over,you cannot deal with a religion that firmly believes they are the rightous ones on earth,yet strap on explosives and kill innocent people!How in the hell can anyone here defend those actions?They are cowards,and cannot fight in conventional ways,or have the temperment to sit down at any bargaining table.And tell me,what is it they want?Does anyone really know?Im betting on world domination!
Don't mean to sound trite or oversimplistic, but if ya can't reason with them, then ya gotta wipe 'em out. They'd like to do it to us, right?
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn
We are already at war with Iran,have been since 1979!And guess who is funding a major part of terrorism??Yes Iran!Always have been a major trouble spot in middle east and its ruled by a nutcase that makes "saddam whoswang" look like a saint.
They are Persians and they are decent people. Kahmeni is near death with cancer, the populace is ready for positive change, and we are on the verge of attacking, with nuclear warheads, a leader in the Arab world. Diplomacy would work best but your gang will make Iraq look minor.
We and other countrys as well have tried the diplomatic approach over and over,you cannot deal with a religion that firmly believes they are the rightous ones on earth,yet strap on explosives and kill innocent people!How in the hell can anyone here defend those actions?They are cowards,and cannot fight in conventional ways,or have the temperment to sit down at any bargaining table.And tell me,what is it they want?Does anyone really know?Im betting on world domination!
Don't mean to sound trite or oversimplistic, but if ya can't reason with them, then ya gotta wipe 'em out. They'd like to do it to us, right?
WRONG...
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn
We are already at war with Iran,have been since 1979!And guess who is funding a major part of terrorism??Yes Iran!Always have been a major trouble spot in middle east and its ruled by a nutcase that makes "saddam whoswang" look like a saint.
They are Persians and they are decent people. Kahmeni is near death with cancer, the populace is ready for positive change, and we are on the verge of attacking, with nuclear warheads, a leader in the Arab world. Diplomacy would work best but your gang will make Iraq look minor.
We and other countrys as well have tried the diplomatic approach over and over,you cannot deal with a religion that firmly believes they are the rightous ones on earth,yet strap on explosives and kill innocent people!How in the hell can anyone here defend those actions?They are cowards,and cannot fight in conventional ways,or have the temperment to sit down at any bargaining table.And tell me,what is it they want?Does anyone really know?Im betting on world domination!
Don't mean to sound trite or oversimplistic, but if ya can't reason with them, then ya gotta wipe 'em out. They'd like to do it to us, right?
WRONG...
Wrong? How am I wrong? You can't reason with them, nor can they be trusted to keep the peace! Countries with that kind of temperment in their leadership should be contained and subdued any way possible.
You know, I may not be a fan of the Shah, but had he done what was necessary to the Ayatollah Khomeini and the rest of that clique when he had the chance, we would not have the trouble we have today from that part of the world.
You are wrong because the US is not in a postion of strength and once again the backlash would only hurt and endanger Americans.
There are better ways to remedy differences than going to war. Using Nukes is insane.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
You are wrong because the US is not in a postion of strength and once again the backlash would only hurt and endanger Americans.
There are better ways to remedy differences than going to war. Using Nukes is insane.
Blockade them, quarantine them, prevent them from trading with the rest of the world. Whatever it takes to bring about changes to that country-or to eliminate it as a threat.
And I may remind you that using nukes is what ended the war in Japan. Besides, if the Iranians had nuclear power, all it would take would be some mullah in that country to go insane over the USA, Israel or any othe perceived infidel, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
You are wrong because the US is not in a postion of strength and once again the backlash would only hurt and endanger Americans.
There are better ways to remedy differences than going to war. Using Nukes is insane.
Blockade them, quarantine them, prevent them from trading with the rest of the world. Whatever it takes to bring about changes to that country-or to eliminate it as a threat.
And I may remind you that using nukes is what ended the war in Japan. Besides, if the Iranians had nuclear power, all it would take would be some mullah in that country to go insane over the USA, Israel or any othe perceived infidel, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.
The big problem with nukes is that you can't actually use them as weaponry. Setting aside pesky issues of morality, nukes are a lose-lose from a realpolitk standpoint. You would be an instant pariah in the international community, and there would be an immediate danger of being isolated both politically and economically from the rest of the world. . . and personally I don't think it would be out of the question if we were immediately attacked.
Not to mention setting off MAD escalations in every country around the world that perceives the US as an enemy. After all, if you're willing to use nukes -- tactical or strategic won't matter -- on Iran, then it's a good bet you're willing to use them on Venezuela, too. And Cuba, and Syria, and the Sudan, etc etc. Even countries we might not care about would escalate, either in fear of us or in fear of our enemies escalating. In other words, using nukes totally removes any of the controlling frameworks we spent the last half of the 20th century putting in place. Pretty much all bets would be off.
<mr. jaynes wrote:
Besides, if the Iranians had nuclear power, all it would take would be some mullah in that country to go insane over the USA, Israel or any othe perceived infidel, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.
<end clip>
One nuclear bomb blast wouldn't end civilization. It wouldn't create enough damage to do so. It would take dozens or even hundreds of them -- something that only a handful of superpowers have.
If Iran did that, it would be wiped off the face of the Earth by Israel, NATO or who know who else. It's assured destruction.
And that's assuming Iran had a delivery device to put a bomb where it wanted it to go. Making accurate missiles that would squeak through air defenses is a lot harder.
What Iran is trying to do -- with the big caveat that whether nuclear enrichment is actually occurring and whether it's for sinister purposes -- is what Pakistan and India are trying to do. Create some deterrence against foreign invaders. Nothing like the threat of big nuke to give one pause.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
And I may remind you that using nukes is what ended the war in Japan. Besides, if the Iranians had nuclear power, all it would take would be some mullah in that country to go insane over the USA, Israel or any othe perceived infidel, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.
It worked with Japan because nobody else had nuclear weapons at the time. Now that others can retaliate? Not so much.
Also, there's a huge difference between the uranium one needs for nuclear power and the uranium one needs for bombs. It's not as if one can just go "oh, I think I'll make a bomb today" and take the uranium out of the reactor and toss it in a bomb.
Of course, the enviro-nuts have confused half the world on that very issue. The Bushian wingnuts have taken up the mantle to scare the populace about Iran.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<mr. jaynes wrote:
Besides, if the Iranians had nuclear power, all it would take would be some mullah in that country to go insane over the USA, Israel or any othe perceived infidel, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.
<end clip>
One nuclear bomb blast wouldn't end civilization. It wouldn't create enough damage to do so. It would take dozens or even hundreds of them -- something that only a handful of superpowers have.
If Iran did that, it would be wiped off the face of the Earth by Israel, NATO or who know who else. It's assured destruction.
And that's assuming Iran had a delivery device to put a bomb where it wanted it to go. Making accurate missiles that would squeak through air defenses is a lot harder.
What Iran is trying to do -- with the big caveat that whether nuclear enrichment is actually occurring and whether it's for sinister purposes -- is what Pakistan and India are trying to do. Create some deterrence against foreign invaders. Nothing like the threat of big nuke to give one pause.
Not arguing one way or the other about how many bombs it would take. Did you ever read "On The Beach" by Neville Shute? Very poingnant, yet disturbing book about the very last survivors of the nuclear holocaust.
It's always been about oil. What a tragedy. Nothing to show for our investment nor our sacrifices....
Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil
By M K Bhadrakumar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html
THIS IS WORTH THE READ!
"Conceivably, Tehran would have decided with its accumulated centuries-old Persian wisdom that certain things in life are always best left unspoken, especially stunning successes. Besides, it is far more productive to leave Washington to contemplate over happenings and draw the unavoidable conclusion that if it musters the courage to make that existential choice, Iran can be an immensely valuable factor of stability for Iraq."
Wisdom vs. Reactionary????
"Out of the dramatic developments of the past week, several questions arise, the principal being that the Bush administration's triumphalism over the so-called Iraq "surge" strategy has become irredeemably farcical, and, two, US doublespeak has become badly exposed. What stands out is that Washington promoted the latest round of violence in Basra, whereas Iran cried halt to it. The awesome influence of Tehran has become all too apparent. How does Bush come to terms with it? "
What was Sen. Malarkey spewing disinfo doublespeak for this week? He's worse than the Chimp.
"Last week, five former US secretaries of state who served in Democratic and Republican administrations - Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright and Colin Powell - sat at a round-table discussion in Athens and reached a consensus to urge the next US administration to open a line of dialogue with Iran. "
Let's see. Obama wants this approach and was criticized here and elsewhere.
Dick Cheney must be having a hell of a time sleeping at night. What a complete failure.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
I do not think there will be an invasion. I would expect a bombing campaign and a naval blockade by the international community.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
A blockade and air campaign would not comprise an invasion, so we are in the clear! Bombs away!
Fine, a blockade on Iran it is; impose one on North Korea too, and if it all works to our advantage and that of the rest of the world, great. But I'm not above using miltary power to rectify the situation, either. The rulers of these nations pose a belligerent threat to the West and in the interest of peace, should be deposed.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
And I may remind you that using nukes is what ended the war in Japan. Besides, if the Iranians had nuclear power, all it would take would be some mullah in that country to go insane over the USA, Israel or any othe perceived infidel, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.
It worked with Japan because nobody else had nuclear weapons at the time. Now that others can retaliate? Not so much.
Also, there's a huge difference between the uranium one needs for nuclear power and the uranium one needs for bombs. It's not as if one can just go "oh, I think I'll make a bomb today" and take the uranium out of the reactor and toss it in a bomb.
Strike first and keep hitting them. You can't reason with them.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
No! Condi needs to get laid. Her thinking is all dicked up.
First Lady? Seperate beds by now for sure.
Maybe Condi and Shrub need to hook up to alleviate all the distress.....
With a video posted on youtube, right?
^Rather inane Jane.
"Their walls are made of cannonballs. Their moto is don't tread on me..." Garcia/Hunter
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
^Rather inane Jane.
"Their walls are made of cannonballs. Their moto is don't tread on me..." Garcia/Hunter
Inane? No, someone was merely pointing out that the world of politics does indeed make for interesting bedfellows, and as a nod to all of the celebrity sex scandals, I took the matter further. Someone else took the lid off that pot, I simply carried it to another extreme.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
It's always been about oil. What a tragedy. Nothing to show for our investment nor our sacrifices....
Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil
By M K Bhadrakumar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html
THIS IS WORTH THE READ!
"Conceivably, Tehran would have decided with its accumulated centuries-old Persian wisdom that certain things in life are always best left unspoken, especially stunning successes. Besides, it is far more productive to leave Washington to contemplate over happenings and draw the unavoidable conclusion that if it musters the courage to make that existential choice, Iran can be an immensely valuable factor of stability for Iraq."
Wisdom vs. Reactionary????
"Out of the dramatic developments of the past week, several questions arise, the principal being that the Bush administration's triumphalism over the so-called Iraq "surge" strategy has become irredeemably farcical, and, two, US doublespeak has become badly exposed. What stands out is that Washington promoted the latest round of violence in Basra, whereas Iran cried halt to it. The awesome influence of Tehran has become all too apparent. How does Bush come to terms with it? "
What was Sen. Malarkey spewing disinfo doublespeak for this week? He's worse than the Chimp.
"Last week, five former US secretaries of state who served in Democratic and Republican administrations - Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright and Colin Powell - sat at a round-table discussion in Athens and reached a consensus to urge the next US administration to open a line of dialogue with Iran. "
Let's see. Obama wants this approach and was criticized here and elsewhere.
Dick Cheney must be having a hell of a time sleeping at night. What a complete failure.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/05/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Iraq.php
Officials confirm Iran's role in brokering truce between Iraqi government and Shiite cleric
Sunday, April 06, 2008
IRAQ AND IRAN SET TO EXPLODE. AL-SADR MAKES HIS POINT – HE CAN TAKE ON THE U.S. IN A GUERRILLA WAR AT ANY TIME.
http://lataan.blogspot.com/2008/04/iraq-and-iran-set-to-explode-al-sadr.html
"But the big issue is not so much al-Sadr's ability to take on the US and the Iraqi puppet government but the support al-Sadr is clearly receiving from Iran whose influence on Iraqi affairs is so obviously beginning to acutely annoy the Americans. As well as being able to demonstrate that they have the ability to actually stop and start major fighting in Iraq, they are also supplying increasingly both arms and training to Iraqi Shiite militias of both factions within the Iraqi Shiite grouping, al-Sadr and the Mahdi militia and al-Hakim leader of the al-Badr militia who, while still having their differences, have called a truce with each other in order to confront their common enemy, the US."
Betray us again....These idiots really don't know what kind of mess they are creating.
British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml
April 7, 2008
Petraeus Testimony May Signal Iran Attack
by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12644
"The neocon lackey Petraeus has had his script written for him by Cheney, and Petraeus together with neocon warmonger Ryan Crocker, the U.S. governor of the Green Zone in Baghdad, will present Congress next Tuesday and Wednesday with the lies, for which the road has been well paved by neocon propagandists such as Kimberly Kagan, that "the U.S. must recognize that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq."
[:(!][B)][:(]
I say 75% chance we attack Iran before the summer.
Buchanan On McLaughlin: Fifty-Fifty Chance We Bomb Iran By Fall
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/buchanan-on-mclaughlin-fi_n_96444.html
"BUCHANAN: But I'll tell you what's coming, John. Petraeus pointed right at the special groups supported by Iran, as the main problem now. They are firing rockets into the Green Zone, they're responsible for Basra. The president said that Iran better not make the wrong choice. We're looking at 140,000 troops there by the end of the year, and very possibly airstrikes in Iran before this fall."
Strangelove indeedy....
The Apocalypse is coming just like some christian fundamentalists are hoping for. More scare tactics and excuses to launch a major strike against Iran like the neo-fascist imperialists are pushing for. The Politics of Fear once again. One way or the other, either Israel or the US will attack Iran; it is just a matter of time...On the song of a sparrow, the military gears are a turning.
Israel test-fires 'Iran' missile
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9F7B36C7-6928-478D-A190-787A50D85BD0.htm
Can you imagine if Iran had tested an "Israel" missile? Do you think the headline would be the same? We would not need to find this on an Al Jazeera link (go crazy IPLaw). Instead, it would appear everywhere.
Report: U.S. Will Attack Iran
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Report_US_to_Attack_iran/2008/05/20/97545.html
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:40 PM
Israel's Army Radio is reporting that President Bush intends to launch a military strike against Iran before the end of his term.
The Army Radio, a network operated by the Israeli Defense Forces, quoted a government source in Jerusalem. The source disclosed that a senior official close to Bush said in a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney believed military action against Iran was now called for.
Bush concluded a trip to Israel last week, where he said, "The objective of the United States must be to . . . support our strongest ally and friend in the Middle East."
The Radio report, which was quoted by the Jerusalem Post, disclosed that the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had seized virtual control of the country, was encouraging an American attack.
Hezbollah's aggression in Lebanon is seen as evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's growing influence, and the U.S. official said that in Bush's view, "the disease must be treated, not its symptoms," according to the Post.
The White House on Tuesday denied the Army Radio report, saying in a statement: "As the president has said, no president of the United States should ever take options off the table, but our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard."
However, numerous signs point to a U.S. strike on Iran in the near future:
A leading member of America's Jewish community told Newsmax in April that a military strike on Iran was likely and that Vice President Cheney's March trip through the Middle East came in preparation for the U.S. attack.
The Air Force recently declared the B-2 bomber fleet — a critical weapons system in any U.S. attack on Iran — as airworthy again. The Air Force had halted B-2 flights after a February crash in Guam. As Newsmax reported, the Air Force has refitted its stealth bombers to carry 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs, needed to destroy Iran's hardened nuclear facilities.
A second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, joined the carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Persian Gulf in May, carrying far more weaponry and ammunition than on previous deployments.
Israel is gearing up for war. In April, it conducted its largest homeland military exercises ever. The Jewish-American source said Israel is "preparing for heavy casualties," expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution following the U.S. attack.
Saudi Arabia is taking steps to prepare for possible radioactive contamination from U.S. destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities. The Saudi government reportedly approved nuclear fallout preparations a day after Cheney met with the kingdom's highest-ranking officials.
The USS Ross, an Aegis-class destroyer, has taken up station off the coast of Lebanon. Military observers speculate it is there to help defend Israel from missile attacks.
Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a recent Pentagon briefing that the Iranians are systematically importing and training Shiite militia fighters, who slip back across the Iraqi border to kill American troops.
And Israeli intelligence has predicted that Iran will acquire its first nuclear device in 2009, much earlier than previous U.S. estimates."
Looks like AIPAC knows this is their last chance to turn the screws on middle east politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
"A rival to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected by an overwhelming majority as speaker of the Parliament on Wednesday, a strong signal of growing impatience with his economic policies and a possible sign of a political shift in the country."
As US Threatens Iran Over Enriching Uranium, Bush Promises to Give Enriched Uranium to Saudi Arabia
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/20/as_us_threatens_iran_over_enriching
http://www.alternet.org/audits/87079/?page=entire
Rumors of War: Is Bush Gearing Up to Attack Iran?
"According to the Israeli website DEBKAfile, Cheney's trip to the Middle East in March was seen in the region as a possible harbinger of war. "The vice president's choice of capitals for his tour is a pointer to the fact that the military option, off since December, may be on again," DEBKA concluded. "America will need the cooperation of all four [countries he visited] -- Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey."
"While the White House portrays the militias in Iraq and Hezbollah as Tehran's cat's-paw, that is nonsense. The militias in both countries will act on the basis of what is in their own interests, not Iran's."
"A U.S. war would deeply divide Europe as well, and might lead to a German withdrawal from Afghanistan. What Russia's, China's and India's responses would be is not clear. China and India are major clients for Iranian natural gas."
"Once unleashed, however, no one controls the dogs of war. As hard as it is to imagine, war with Iran might top the Iraq War as a foreign policy disaster."
Yes, a military/naval/economic blockade on Iran and North Korea may be just what the situations call for. No trade nor supplies going in to either of these 2 countries, and nothing going out of them either. Unilaterally quarantine them to the point that they will capitulate on their own. The result should be regime change, and this is a good way of acheiving this. It worked for the Union during the War of Northern Agression, it should work here.
Is Dick Cheney Listening? "Iraq will not allow its territory to be used to attack Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said during a visit to Tehran. Mr Maliki met the foreign minister and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who pledged to help with Iraq's security." So our puppet government in Iraq is talking with Iran but the Neo-Cons won't. Huh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7441329.stm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/24/israel-pushing-us-to-stri_n_109043.html
Israel Pushing US To Strike Iran
"Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone."
People-we have GOT to stop this insanity!!!!
WOW!
Seymour Hersh: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
EXCERPTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon share the White House's concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions, but there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary. "
"A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, "We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America." Gates's comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates's answer, the senator told me, was "Let's just say that I'm here speaking for myself."
"Too many people believe you have to be either for or against the Iranians," he told me. "Let's get serious. Eighty million people live there, and everyone's an individual. The idea that they're only one way or another is nonsense."
"Obey declined to comment on the specifics of the operations in Iran, but he did tell me that the White House reneged on its promise to consult more fully with Congress. He said, "I suspect there's something going on, but I don't know what to believe. Cheney has always wanted to go after Iran, and if he had more time he'd find a way to do it. We still don't get enough information from the agencies, and I have very little confidence that they give us information on the edge."
"Fallon's early retirement, however, appears to have been provoked not only by his negative comments about bombing Iran but also by his strong belief in the chain of command and his insistence on being informed about Special Operations in his area of responsibility. "
"In recent months, according to the Iranian media, there has been a surge in violence in Iran; it is impossible at this early stage, however, to credit JSOC or C.I.A. activities, or to assess their impact on the Iranian leadership. "
"Earlier this year, a militant Ahwazi group claimed to have assassinated a Revolutionary Guard colonel, and the Iranian government acknowledged that an explosion in a cultural center in Shiraz, in the southern part of the country, which killed at least twelve people and injured more than two hundred, had been a terrorist act and not, as it earlier insisted, an accident. It could not be learned whether there has been American involvement in any specific incident in Iran, but, according to Gardiner, the Iranians have begun publicly blaming the U.S., Great Britain, and, more recently, the C.I.A. for some incidents. The agency was involved in a coup in Iran in 1953, and its support for the unpopular regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi—who was overthrown in 1979—was condemned for years by the ruling mullahs in Tehran, to great effect. "This is the ultimate for the Iranians—to blame the C.I.A.," Gardiner said. "This is new, and it's an escalation—a ratcheting up of tensions. It rallies support for the regime and shows the people that there is a continuing threat from the 'Great Satan.' " In Gardiner's view, the violence, rather than weakening Iran's religious government, may generate support for it."
"The irony is that we're once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties."
"The C.I.A. and Special Operations communities also have long-standing ties to two other dissident groups in Iran: the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known in the West as the M.E.K., and a Kurdish separatist group, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK. "
"America's covert operations, he said, "seem to be harming relations with the governments of both Iraq and Pakistan and could well be strengthening the connection between Tehran and Baghdad."
"The White House's reliance on questionable operatives, and on plans involving possible lethal action inside Iran, has created anger as well as anxiety within the Special Operations and intelligence communities."
""The Special Ops guys are pissed off because Cheney's office set up priorities for categories of targets, and now he's getting impatient and applying pressure for results. But it takes a long time to get the right guys in place."
"A Gallup poll taken last November, before the N.I.E. was made public, found that seventy-three per cent of those surveyed thought that the United States should use economic action and diplomacy to stop Iran's nuclear program, while only eighteen per cent favored direct military action. Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to endorse a military strike."
"The continuing impasse alarms many observers. Joschka Fischer, the former German Foreign Minister, recently wrote in a syndicated column that it may not "be possible to freeze the Iranian nuclear program for the duration of the negotiations to avoid a military confrontation before they are completed. Should this newest attempt fail, things will soon get serious. Deadly serious."
"Scheunemann, who is known as a neoconservative, is also the McCain campaign's most important channel of communication with the White House. He is a friend of David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief of staff. I have heard differing accounts of Scheunemann's influence with McCain; though some close to the McCain campaign talk about him as a possible national-security adviser, others say he is someone who isn't taken seriously while "telling Cheney and others what they want to hear," as a senior McCain adviser put it. "
Iran ready to strike at Israel's nuclear heart
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4232021.ece
"Although the visit had been planned well in advance, we got the feeling he was coming to make sure we'll obey the strict timetable agreed with the US," said an Israeli defence source. He refused to elaborate. "
Tag says "sabre rattling" -- it's also "Sabra rattling" to native Israelis -- who really don't want this warlike stance of the Likudite Luddites. Get rid of Olmert and his Bushevik neocon warmongers and the prospect of a real peace becomes more possible.
Iran discovers billion-barrel oil field
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,24015554-31037,00.html
Here's a good read from Nat. Geo.
Something FOTD said way back when war drums were loud and their leader feared.
Persia: Ancient Soul of Iran
A glorious past inspires a conflicted nation.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/del-giudice-text
Obama to House Dems: If Sanctions Fail, Israel Will Likely Strike Iran
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/obama-to-house.html
"The notion that Israel is preparing for such an action against Iran's myriad nuclear facilities is not new, with conjecture heating up in May after an Israeli military exercise featuring 150 aircraft flying almost a thousand miles over the Mediterranean Sea in what was seen as a dress rehearsal for an air strike. "
Obama has promised to support Israel if attacked. But if Israel does the attacking then where does that leave Obama? Will Israel continue to be the tail that wags the dog in his administration? And if Obama does take the bait and supports Israel militarily then we should all make plans to convert our cars to run off of electricity becasue you won't be able to afford to fill it up anymore.
The further Obama gets ahead in the polls the more likely the attack. Which will be followed by an national security emergency decree, followed by the cancellation of the '08 elections. Hail to the permanent Chief. I give it a %20 chance of becoming reality.
Strike on Iran still possible, U.S. tells Israel
Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense chief, is visiting as Washington is perceived to be softening its stance toward Tehran.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usisrael30-2008jul30,0,625643.story
Iran Threatens to Block Oil Shipments, as U.S. Prepares Sanctions
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/iran-threatens-to-block-oil-route-if-embargo-is-imposed.html?_r=1&hp
Quote"Iran's economic problems seem to be mounting and the whole economy is in a state of suspended expectation," said Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford University. "The regime keeps repeating that they're not going to be impacted by the sanctions. That they have more money than they know what to do with. The lady doth protest too much."
could be trouble brewing.....Iran threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz. That would be war.
Quote from: aoxamaxoa on October 09, 2006, 03:18:52 PM
North Korea: A Nuclear Threat
Is Kim Jong Il ready to provoke a regional crisis? An exclusive account of what Pyongyang really wants. Oct. 16, 2006 issue
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15175633/site/newsweek/
"The Bush administration says that this sequence of events was a coincidence. Whatever the truth, I found on a recent trip to Pyongyang that North Korean leaders view the financial sanctions as the cutting edge of a calculated effort by dominant elements in the administration to undercut the Sept. 19 accord, squeeze the Kim Jong Il regime and eventually force its collapse."
I love thread dredge.
Five years later, Kim Jong Il is finally deposed by a heart attack. Now his moron, alcoholic, skirt-chasing son will take over. I'm sure relations would improve if we just went over there for a few weeks with an American Express card. And a plane-load of hookers.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 27, 2011, 11:09:08 PM
Iran Threatens to Block Oil Shipments, as U.S. Prepares Sanctions
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/iran-threatens-to-block-oil-route-if-embargo-is-imposed.html?_r=1&hp
could be trouble brewing.....Iran threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz. That would be war.
I hope not. What ever happened to the days when the CIA would depose a dictator in 9 days or less rather than 360 days then 9 years to clean up the mess?
Conan, union regulations, they're all members of SEIU now.
All we really need to do is leak a media campaign saying that CIA officials have been secretly meeting with Un, discussing opening the borders. A few days after that circulates through the international media, he will be dead.
Won't happen. The damage to the world economy would be immeasurable, and Iran doesn't want to be seen as responsible for that. It would be an undeniable cause for war on the part of the US, Europe, parts of Asia, etc etc. A move like that would provoke a very quick and very strong response, IMO, from pretty much everyone and Iran doesn't want to provoke a possibly terminal threat to its current regime.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 09:18:59 AM
Won't happen. ...and Iran doesn't want to provoke a possibly terminal threat to its current regime.
Let's hope so. I'm not so sure the Iranian clergy and what's his name (can't spell it) recognize the potential reality of turning Middle East into a glass wasteland. Or maybe they just don't really care compared to their supposed ultimate goals.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 28, 2011, 09:48:57 AM
Or maybe they just don't really care compared to their supposed ultimate goals.
I don't know of any state in history that had as its central tenet a desire to initiate the apocalypse. Even if they supposedly want to reinstate Mohammed's caliphate (or whatever we're talking about with ultimate goals) doesn't mean they're stupid. Suicide tends to be the least easy path to achieving your goals.
Also:
"Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces," Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV. "Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway," the navy chief said.
The threats underline Iranian concern that the West is about to impose new sanctions that could target Tehran's vital oil industry and exports.
Western nations are growing increasingly impatient with Iran over its nuclear program. The U.S. and its allies have accused Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its program is geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/irans-navy-chief-says-it-would-be-easy-to-close-strait-of-hormuz-strategic-passage-for-oil/2011/12/28/gIQA3fg6LP_story.html
So, there're actually underlying geopolitical reasons for a little saber-rattling.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 10:00:11 AM
I don't know of any state in history that had as its central tenet a desire to initiate the apocalypse. Even if they supposedly want to reinstate Mohammed's caliphate (or whatever we're talking about with ultimate goals) doesn't mean they're stupid. Suicide tends to be the least easy path to achieving your goals.
I believe they assess risk differently than we do. The last thing "you" want to do is to assume your adversary is stupid.
AP tweet:
BREAKING: US Navy's 5th fleet says disrupting traffic through Strait of Hormuz "will not be tolerated." -EC
Looks like we are in discussions with Isreal on bombing nuclear sites too.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/28/u-s-israel-discuss-triggers-for-bombing-iran-s-nuclear-infrastructure.html
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 28, 2011, 10:13:11 AM
I believe they assess risk differently than we do. The last thing "you" want to do is to assume your adversary is stupid.
Indeed. But they are still human and are governing humans. Logic still applies.
They also have to play the geopolitical game the same way we do: they bluff, they negotiate, they use international organizations to maneuver good outcomes for their stakeholders; they absolutely must have access to global financial and resource markets.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2011, 12:29:35 AM
I hope not. What ever happened to the days when the CIA would depose a dictator in 9 days or less rather than 360 days then 9 years to clean up the mess?
Iran is a CIA-state ... let's not forget how Iran was used to usher Jimminy Carter out of office in 1979 ... and it created Nightline !! This is an attempt to control the economy and the media .. next spring the supremes will debate Obamacare during the election ... who really is in charge here ??
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 28, 2011, 10:44:23 AM
Iran is a CIA-state ... let's not forget how Iran was used to usher Jimminy Carter out of office in 1979 ... and it created Nightline !! This is an attempt to control the economy and the media .. next spring the supremes will debate Obamacare during the election ... who really is in charge here ??
Must be the Trilateral Commission or the aliens. Jury is still out.
NO. . .WAIT! IT'S THE BUSHES!
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 28, 2011, 09:48:57 AM
Let's hope so. I'm not so sure the Iranian clergy and what's his name (can't spell it) recognize the potential reality of turning Middle East into a glass wasteland. Or maybe they just don't really care compared to their supposed ultimate goals.
I've heard several opinions that the mullahs are growing tired of Ajmadenejad (or however you spell that asshat's name).
The Saudi's are going to develop Nukes unless the US stops Iran....so obvious what's going on here. Just takes years of thread drudge manipulation for change.
Take Persia back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2011, 10:47:19 AM
I've heard several opinions that the mullahs are growing tired of Ajmadenejad (or however you spell that asshat's name).
He's a puppet though. "Elected" to give the impression of democratic process.
The mullahs have always been in control. If they want to flex their muscles, then they will.
I think that they, and Israel may be enticed/'afraid that President Obama will be unwilling to strike because of political fall-out in an election cycle.
Poor Hillary has been tasked with the maintenance of a precarious relationship between Isreal and the president. Iran may see this as an excellent time to stir the pot.
They are not stupid.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 10:55:17 AM
He's a puppet though. "Elected" to give the impression of democratic process.
The mullahs have always been in control. If they want to flex their muscles, then they will.
I think that they, and Israel may be enticed/'afraid that President Obama will be unwilling to strike because of political fall-out in an election cycle.
Poor Hillary has been tasked with the maintenance of a precarious relationship between Isreal and the president. Iran may see this as an excellent time to stir the pot.
They are not stupid.
Feh. Obama is perfectly willing to pursue whatever course he sees fit to pursue on the international stage (see: Libya, drawdown in Iraq; surge in Afghanistan, etc.) Foreign policy and the judicious use of our military is actually one of his strengths. I'm pretty confident he wouldn't hesitate to attack Iran if events warranted it.
Key modifier: "if events warranted it."
And pancakes, re: Israel . . . where are you getting this tripe? Israel and the US remain the closest of military allies. Full stop.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 11:06:41 AM
Feh. Obama is perfectly willing to pursue whatever course he sees fit to pursue on the international stage (see: Libya, drawdown in Iraq; surge in Afghanistan, etc.) Foreign policy and the judicious use of our military is actually one of his strengths. I'm pretty confident he wouldn't hesitate to attack Iran if events warranted it.
Key modifier: "if events warranted it."
And pancakes, re: Israel . . . where are you getting this tripe? Israel and the US remain the closest of military allies. Full stop.
I guess you've missed the repeated gaffes and comments which have fallen flat on Israeli ears?
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 28, 2011, 10:44:23 AM
let's not forget how Iran was used to usher Jimminy Carter out of office in 1979 ...
Iran was certainly a factor in his not being re-elected but he had other problems as well. Inflation was a big contributor too.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 11:06:41 AM
Feh. Obama is perfectly willing to pursue whatever course he sees fit to pursue on the international stage (see: Libya, drawdown in Iraq; surge in Afghanistan, etc.) Foreign policy and the judicious use of our military is actually one of his strengths. I'm pretty confident he wouldn't hesitate to attack Iran if events warranted it.
Key modifier: "if events warranted it."
And pancakes, re: Israel . . . where are you getting this tripe? Israel and the US remain the closest of military allies. Full stop.
Oh, I have no doubt that he would be willing to pull the trigger, but I also understand that he is more politically driven than judiciously driven. He has learned the value of a strong clandestine system of assassination. He has been very successful in killing over a hundred terrorists by delivering "death from above," and avoided the mess of capture, rendition and trial.
I think this instance is very different. Like Egypt, it will be necessary to take unilateral action, but unlike Egypt, NATO may not be an option (because they are not capable of swift action). This means that the US and Isreal will have to act alone. 1/3 of the worlds oil tankers flow through that corridor, and the slightest instability or halt in that flow will have devastating economic repercussions. The Mullahs know this, they also know that President Obama may be more willing to offer concessions to keep the strait open rather than engage in war when the sale of his re-election is largely based on the success of ending the war in Iraq.
If you think about it from Iran's perspective, it's perfect timing.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 10:42:40 AM
Indeed. But they are still human and are governing humans. Logic still applies.
They also have to play the geopolitical game the same way we do: they bluff, they negotiate, they use international organizations to maneuver good outcomes for their stakeholders; they absolutely must have access to global financial and resource markets.
Being human, errors in logic may occur. See Egypt, Lybia..... and even Saddam H. My guess is that he never
really thought he would get invaded and then caught. Once caught, he probably realized his days were numbered (with small numbers).
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 12:10:19 PM
Oh, I have no doubt that he would be willing to pull the trigger, but I also understand that he is more politically driven than judiciously driven. He has learned the value of a strong clandestine system of assassination. He has been very successful in killing over a hundred terrorists by delivering "death from above," and avoided the mess of capture, rendition and trial.
I think this instance is very different. Like Egypt, it will be necessary to take unilateral action, but unlike Egypt, NATO may not be an option (because they are not capable of swift action). This means that the US and Isreal will have to act alone. 1/3 of the worlds oil tankers flow through that corridor, and the slightest instability or halt in that flow will have devastating economic repercussions. The Mullahs know this, they also know that President Obama may be more willing to offer concessions to keep the strait open rather than engage in war when the sale of his re-election is largely based on the success of ending the war in Iraq.
If you think about it from Iran's perspective, it's perfect timing.
I think you are right, but wrong on the Mullah's and Obama (why do you still not see him as a mobster?)....I think they will use the sanctions big time and push the Mullahs up against the wall....(up against the wall, Mullah's....)
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 28, 2011, 12:39:10 PM
I think you are right, but wrong on the Mullah's and Obama (why do you still not see him as a mobster?)....I think they will use the sanctions big time and push the Mullahs up against the wall....(up against the wall, Mullah's....)
David Alan Coe would approve.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 28, 2011, 12:39:10 PM
I think you are right, but wrong on the Mullah's and Obama (why do you still not see him as a mobster?)....I think they will use the sanctions big time and push the Mullahs up against the wall....(up against the wall, Mullah's....)
I'd like that to be true, but Isreal is tired of ineffective words with Iran, and the US as well as several other countries would face economic hardship if the strait were to be closed for even one day. There is a very delicate balance right now, and energy prices have the ability to push that one way or another. Iran may not be able to strike the US or much of Europe, but they do have their hand firmly around our scrotums.
I can't tell you what he will do, but it will have to be effective this time. There is nowhere to go for blame, and very little opportunity outside of action. I prey that Iran backs down, that we have some important bargaining chip that is more important than geopolitical wrangling.
From the Street today:
. . .according to Peter Beutel, president of energy trading firm Cameron Hanover. The reason is simple: if Iran ever shuts down the Strait of Hormuz, a third of the world's oil supply is cut. "That causes complete havoc," Beutel said. In fact, just the threat of that havoc will make Iran the biggest swing factor in the direction of crude in the first half of 2012.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11358486/1/oil-prices-back-under-100-but-iran-will-wreak-havoc-in-2012.html
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 12:10:19 PM
Oh, I have no doubt that he would be willing to pull the trigger, but I also understand that he is more politically driven than judiciously driven. He has learned the value of a strong clandestine system of assassination. He has been very successful in killing over a hundred terrorists by delivering "death from above," and avoided the mess of capture, rendition and trial.
I think this instance is very different. Like Egypt, it will be necessary to take unilateral action, but unlike Egypt, NATO may not be an option (because they are not capable of swift action). This means that the US and Isreal will have to act alone. 1/3 of the worlds oil tankers flow through that corridor, and the slightest instability or halt in that flow will have devastating economic repercussions. The Mullahs know this, they also know that President Obama may be more willing to offer concessions to keep the strait open rather than engage in war when the sale of his re-election is largely based on the success of ending the war in Iraq.
If you think about it from Iran's perspective, it's perfect timing.
I don't see it. The "Pacifism at any cost" caucus makes up an infinitesimal part of Obama's possible 2012 coalition (they make up an infinitesimal part of the Democratic party, in any event), and he's shown himself more than willing to chuck much more vocal and influential parts of his constituency overboard when it serves his purposes, so I'm fairly certain he'll do whatever he has to. And I mean up to and including war, should the Mullahs do something as facepalmingly stupid as block the Strait of Hormuz for any appreciable amount of time. Obama will have whatever backing he needs from pretty much everyone to do whatever is necessary. This is why I simply can't believe that the Mullahs are serious at all. The Strait is of such vital importance globally that to seize it would almost ensure the seize-ee's destruction.
And, it should be noted, the this is what they fear the most -- the destruction of their regime. This is why they're hell-bent on joining the nuclear club. Not to have fissionable material to pass off to terrorists. They can pretty much do that now if they want. But instead to have a regional deterrent and to make waging war on them impossible.
Did someone say
(http://www.allgoodseats.com/images/george2.jpg)
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 01:27:35 PM
And, it should be noted, the this is what they fear the most -- the destruction of their regime. This is why they're hell-bent on joining the nuclear club. Not to have fissionable material to pass off to terrorists. They can pretty much do that now if they want. But instead to have a regional deterrent and to make waging war on them impossible.
I am not convinced they have the same understanding of Mutually Assured Destruction that we do. I hope you are correct on this issue but I have some doubts.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 01:27:35 PM
And, it should be noted, the this is what they fear the most -- the destruction of their regime. This is why they're hell-bent on joining the nuclear club. Not to have fissionable material to pass off to terrorists. They can pretty much do that now if they want. But instead to have a regional deterrent and to make waging war on them impossible.
I think you must have missed a speech or two by Ajmadinejad (President Asshat) where he says Israel should be blown off the globe. Iran doesn't seem too concerned about deterrents. The easiest deterrent would be to play nice with the rest of the world, but I digress.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2011, 01:43:30 PM
I think you must have missed a speech or two by Ajmadinejad (President Asshat) where he says Israel should be blown off the globe. Iran doesn't seem too concerned about deterrents. The easiest deterrent would be to play nice with the rest of the world, but I digress.
They're perfectly responsive to deterrents. Regardless of Ahmedinejad's speechifying, they've approached military action in the middle east solely through surrogates and funding of opposition groups (ie. Hamas, Iraqi opposition, etc). There's been no overt war of any sort, no land grabs, no attacking the weaker neighbor, no airstrikes against Israel. They haven't closed Hormuz in recent memory, even though it's right there. This doesn't mean they are negligible opponents but it means that they are very limited in the kind of engagement they can undertake. It also means that speeches are just speeches and are meaningless unless backed up by concrete action. So, for all the bluster, Iran remains constrained by the political and military realities of the region.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 01:27:35 PM
I don't see it. The "Pacifism at any cost" caucus makes up an infinitesimal part of Obama's possible 2012 coalition (they make up an infinitesimal part of the Democratic party, in any event), and he's shown himself more than willing to chuck much more vocal and influential parts of his constituency overboard when it serves his purposes, so I'm fairly certain he'll do whatever he has to. And I mean up to and including war, should the Mullahs do something as facepalmingly stupid as block the Strait of Hormuz for any appreciable amount of time. Obama will have whatever backing he needs from pretty much everyone to do whatever is necessary. This is why I simply can't believe that the Mullahs are serious at all. The Strait is of such vital importance globally that to seize it would almost ensure the seize-ee's destruction.
And, it should be noted, the this is what they fear the most -- the destruction of their regime. This is why they're hell-bent on joining the nuclear club. Not to have fissionable material to pass off to terrorists. They can pretty much do that now if they want. But instead to have a regional deterrent and to make waging war on them impossible.
That's a very optimistic view of them. I think it offers them too much credit. Their words, and worse, their continued support of instability in the region, with dollars and weapons, does not indicate that they seek deterrence, peace, or anything short of the destruction of Isreal. They are a theocracy and the primary edict of that theology, or at least of their twisting of it, is the destruction of the Jewish state. Faith like that is a hell of a thing to negotiate with.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 28, 2011, 01:37:26 PM
I am not convinced they have the same understanding of Mutually Assured Destruction that we do. I hope you are correct on this issue but I have some doubts.
It's the Muslim thing, isn't it? You think they're willing to make a bomb vest out of their whole country and detonate themselves in the middle of the global marketplace.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 02:06:39 PM
That's a very optimistic view of them. I think it offers them too much credit. Their words, and worse, their continued support of instability in the region, with dollars and weapons, does not indicate that they seek deterrence, peace, or anything short of the destruction of Isreal. They are a theocracy and the primary edict of that theology, or at least of their twisting of it, is the destruction of the Jewish state. Faith like that is a hell of a thing to negotiate with.
I'm not suggesting that they're peaceful or harmless, but I am suggesting that we see them in as practical a light as possible. We have to understand their abilities and their limitations and what their words would actually mean if carried out. Or if they actually have the power to carry out their edicts and still survive as a nation. It's one thing to say that Israel should be wiped from the earth and entirely another thing to be able to get that done.
Quote from: we vs us on December 28, 2011, 02:14:09 PM
It's the Muslim thing, isn't it? You think they're willing to make a bomb vest out of their whole country and detonate themselves in the middle of the global marketplace.
Saying it's the Muslim thing is the easy way out but there is something different about the way they (at least the leaders) think compared to Western culture. I think the general populace would not be willing to make the country into a bomb vest. I cannot say the same thing for the leadership. Extreme views in any religion can be very dangerous. I suppose a case could be made that the west's distrust of Iran's leadership is similar to our Left's distrust and hate for Heiron's RWRE.
Last month when Isreal flexed it's muscles with war games, students in Iran surrounded it's nuclear weapons enrichment facilities to form human shields fearing that Isreal was poising for attack. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iranian-students-form-human-shield-near-nuclear-site-amid-fears-of-israeli-attack-1.395726
This will likely happen again if they shut down the strait. Will president Obama have the will to take action if they use children as human shields.
I must admit, they have him cornered at this point, even if this is just a test to see what his reaction is.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 02:47:29 PM
Last month when Isreal flexed it's muscles with war games, students in Iran surrounded it's nuclear weapons enrichment facilities to form human shields fearing that Isreal was poising for attack. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iranian-students-form-human-shield-near-nuclear-site-amid-fears-of-israeli-attack-1.395726
This will likely happen again if they shut down the strait. Will president Obama have the will to take action if they use children as human shields.
I must admit, they have him cornered at this point, even if this is just a test to see what his reaction is.
Thrilled you finally admitted that...
Why do you think Obama would need to take action?
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 02:55:11 PM
Thrilled you finally admitted that...
Why do you think Obama would need to take action?
Not sure what I'm finally admitting, but I'll bite.
Do you think inaction will be an option for him if they close the strait?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 02:57:10 PM
Not sure what I'm finally admitting, but I'll bite.
Do you think inaction will be an option for him if they close the strait?
You said, "I must admit, they have him cornered at this point, even if this is just a test to see what his reaction is."
Do you believe the USA is the only country who would need to stop the situation?
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 02:58:58 PM
You said, "I must admit, they have him cornered at this point, even if this is just a test to see what his reaction is."
Do you believe the USA is the only country who would need to stop the situation?
No one is going to act without the unilateral support of the US and Isreal. That's just how it it. We've made it our fight to win or lose.
Who do think would have the reach or will to step in?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 03:13:15 PM
No one is going to act without the unilateral support of the US and Isreal. That's just how it it. We've made it our fight to win or lose.
Who do think would have the reach or will to step in?
How have we made it our fight? Planting the Shah in the 50's?
So you think the only way the blockade won't happen is if the USA goes in again?
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 03:41:57 PM
How have we made it our fight? Planting the Shah in the 50's?
So you think the only way the blockade won't happen is if the USA goes in again?
Ok, first of all, I'm not sure why you are consistently following my posts with the intension of starting a fight, but that aside. . .
That little blue hook of water is the power cord to our life support device. We have chosen to make it that. We don't have the option to throw our hands up if there is a blockade.
Now secondly, I did not say anything about "the only way. . ." I very clearly said, that I don't know what the President will choose to do, but I do know that he must make a choice if there is a blockade. We will not be capable of taking a back-seat on this one.
Thirdly, we have already stated "Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations: any disruption will not be tolerated," US Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Lt Rebecca Rebarich today. We will not follow that up with a "Oh, we were just joking."
I know that you and I do not see eye to eye politically, but this is not a right vs. left discussion. Before you arrived we were having a very civil debate on the options and opinions.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 03:58:02 PM
Ok, first of all, I'm not sure why you are consistently following my posts with the intension of starting a fight, but that aside. . .
I know that you and I do not see eye to eye politically, but this is not a right vs. left discussion. Before you arrived we were having a very civil debate on the options and opinions.
It's not that. I want to try to keep you honest.
Your "civil debate" is generally you making up something and working Obama into it.
I want to see if you can back anything up.
Admitting he's backed into a corner is not a debate. It's you being passive aggressive as are most of your political posts. You're not noticing the others calling you out on it.
Quote from: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 04:05:51 PM
It's not that. I want to try to keep you honest.
Your "civil debate" is generally you making up something and working Obama into it.
I want to see if you can back anything up.
Admitting he's backed into a corner is not a debate. It's you being passive aggressive as are most of your political posts. You're not noticing the others calling you out on it.
So you are fabricating a position for me, to see if I defend it? Gotcha!
My exact words here were:
QuoteI can't tell you what he will do, but it will have to be effective this time. There is nowhere to go for blame, and very little opportunity outside of action. I prey that Iran backs down, that we have some important bargaining chip that is more important than geopolitical wrangling.
Somehow you are saying that I am offering a position that the "USA goes in again" pancakes that means. If you are talking about the military presence in the Strait, we are already there dude.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 28, 2011, 04:13:35 PM
So you are fabricating a position for me, to see if I defend it? Gotcha!
Nah, I think your posts are misleading. I post to point that out.
May be a moot point anyhow. Saudi Arabia is saying they would step up production to offset any loss in supplies if Iran were to shut off the Strait. So that pretty much removes any immediate impact such a move would have and really leaves little reason for Iran to block it.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2011, 04:26:25 PM
May be a moot point anyhow. Saudi Arabia is saying they would step up production to offset any loss in supplies if Iran were to shut off the Strait. So that pretty much removes any immediate impact such a move would have and really leaves little reason for Iran to block it.
I've been told by the magic picture box that the world is running on pretty close to 100% production usage.
Good to hear Saudi Arabia may step up. I have a feeling we'll still get hit with much higher gas prices if Iran has a come-apart.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 28, 2011, 04:26:25 PM
May be a moot point anyhow. Saudi Arabia is saying they would step up production to offset any loss in supplies if Iran were to shut off the Strait. So that pretty much removes any immediate impact such a move would have and really leaves little reason for Iran to block it.
Wow! They can flip a switch and cover 1/3 of the worlds oil production?
It's good to be the King, literally!
My guess would be if they closed the Straits, the US would be there in no time to take command and occupy. This would be massive with Saudi support.)
Anybody want to see how much gear and troops we have in close proximity floating around?
Testing.....
(some old posts in this thread are interesting....but the common thread is war sucks and is often inevitable, unless you're Busheviks ::))
From Deutsche Welle:
In 2010, Iran was the fifth-largest exporter to the EU after Russia, Norway, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Iran relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15633714,00.html (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15633714,00.html)
I've seen estimates that 20 to 40 percent of the world oil production passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Most of it is destined for Europe, India, or China, not the US. A disruption would be painful for us because oil prices are set world wide, so while most of ours comes from Venezuela, we could still see pump prices at $5/gal. That would put a big damper on any economic recovery.
Those European and Asian countries who depend on oil from the Gulf are more likely to see actual shortages. They may have more to lose from a disruption, and I'd wonder if they'd be more inclined to intervene militarily. Still, the idea of Indian or Chinese troops in control of the Strait would be cause for some major worries in Western capitals.
On another front, we'd have to wonder if our military could mount another war so soon after the last two. Our people are worn down. Equipment has to be replaced, and all of it brings enormous costs. We're already deeply in debt from the combination of wars and tax cuts, so the question to ask is whether we can afford to get involved in yet another war in Asia.
Ron Paul 2012, the only way out of this false Left/Right debate. Not registered Republican? Switch parties to CHANGE the Republican party back to its historical roots of non-interventionism.
You support the wars, and also preach a dislike of deficits? Show me your budget proposal that balances the budget AND continues nation building around the globe.
Are you more afraid of Iranian terrorists killing you, or are you more afraid of the dollar collapsing? One has a better chance of happening than the other, and it isn't being propagandized by a large portion of the media. Wake up.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 28, 2011, 05:28:00 PM
My guess would be if they closed the Straits, the US would be there in no time to take command and occupy. This would be massive with Saudi support.)
Anybody want to see how much gear and troops we have in close proximity floating around?
Testing.....
(some old posts in this thread are interesting....but the common thread is war sucks and is often inevitable, unless you're Busheviks ::))
You are correct. We have a massive inventory of assets at bases in Saudi and Qatar specifically to protect this strategic artery. This scenario is very familiar to our military as that the strait is a major weakness of ours (the worlds). I am confident that our military has run this scenario hundreds of times.
Quote from: Ed W on December 28, 2011, 11:58:40 PM
From Deutsche Welle:
In 2010, Iran was the fifth-largest exporter to the EU after Russia, Norway, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Iran relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15633714,00.html (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15633714,00.html)
One other good reason why closing the Straits of Hormuz would be suicidal for Iran. It would completely destroy its economy.
Quote from: Ed W on December 28, 2011, 11:58:40 PM
From Deutsche Welle:
In 2010, Iran was the fifth-largest exporter to the EU after Russia, Norway, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Iran relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15633714,00.html (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15633714,00.html)
I've seen estimates that 20 to 40 percent of the world oil production passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Most of it is destined for Europe, India, or China, not the US. A disruption would be painful for us because oil prices are set world wide, so while most of ours comes from Venezuela, we could still see pump prices at $5/gal. That would put a big damper on any economic recovery.
Those European and Asian countries who depend on oil from the Gulf are more likely to see actual shortages. They may have more to lose from a disruption, and I'd wonder if they'd be more inclined to intervene militarily. Still, the idea of Indian or Chinese troops in control of the Strait would be cause for some major worries in Western capitals.
On another front, we'd have to wonder if our military could mount another war so soon after the last two. Our people are worn down. Equipment has to be replaced, and all of it brings enormous costs. We're already deeply in debt from the combination of wars and tax cuts, so the question to ask is whether we can afford to get involved in yet another war in Asia.
It would be something worse than a damper, I'm afraid. $5.00 a gallon is either going to push more people into human-powered transit and public mass transit or simply kill off a good portion of the consumer economy if the choice goes from being able to buy durable goods or needing fuel to get back and forth to work. At a jump of $2.00 a gallon, that means every single good coming to market will necessarily cost more due to increased shipping costs. Perhaps that might get us moving more goods via rail rather than OTR.
Quote from: we vs us on December 29, 2011, 09:21:34 AM
One other good reason why closing the Straits of Hormuz would be suicidal for Iran. It would completely destroy its economy.
What do we know about radical clerics? They aren't completely rational people. I suspect a move like that might fire up a new revolution in Iran which might not be a bad thing for world relations.
Dangerous mix: Iranian oil and U.S. sanctions By Vali Nasr
QuoteEditor's note: Vali Nasr is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University and senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/opinion/nasr-iran-oil-hormuz/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/opinion/nasr-iran-oil-hormuz/index.html)
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2011/12/2011122992541760163.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_term=tweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount (http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2011/12/2011122992541760163.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_term=tweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount)
US pushes ahead with arms deal to Iraq
Deal including $11bn worth of advanced fighter jets and tanks comes with Iraqi mired in worsening political crisis.
Quote from: Townsend on December 29, 2011, 11:15:56 AM
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2011/12/2011122992541760163.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_term=tweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount (http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2011/12/2011122992541760163.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_term=tweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount)
US pushes ahead with arms deal to Iraq
Deal including $11bn worth of advanced fighter jets and tanks comes with Iraqi mired in worsening political crisis.
Awesome! Our men will be fighting against their own equipment when we go back to clean up another mess there in 2021.
My twitter feed is blowing up with this stuff now.
QuoteUS-Iran Tensions Flare After Carrier Transited Strait of Hormuz
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/us-iran-tensions-flare-after-carrier-transited-strait-of-hormuz/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/us-iran-tensions-flare-after-carrier-transited-strait-of-hormuz/)
and
White House announces $30 billion sale of Boeing F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia in a deal 'supporting 50,000 US jobs' - @BBCBreaking
Quote from: Townsend on December 29, 2011, 11:20:13 AM
My twitter feed is blowing up with this stuff now.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/us-iran-tensions-flare-after-carrier-transited-strait-of-hormuz/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/us-iran-tensions-flare-after-carrier-transited-strait-of-hormuz/)
and
White House announces $30 billion sale of Boeing F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia in a deal 'supporting 50,000 US jobs' - @BBCBreaking
Sad reality is that war toys will create jobs faster than anything else the government can do to get people to work. Naturally, those aren't all jobs even directly working on the aircraft, but I suspect all the multiplicative jobs that come with people needing to spend their income from the aircraft factory.
Jet fighters are one thing, but we seem to keep forgetting this advice:
The USS John Stennis and the USS Mobile Bay missile ship are now on site after passing through the strait yesterday.
(http://miliblog.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/ships-modern-us-navy-aircraft-carriers/cvn-74-uss-john-c-stennis.jpg)
Hopefully that is enough to detour the Iranian bass-boat fleet.
(http://www.seanews.com.tr/images/articles/2011_02/51704/u1_IranianNavy3.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on December 29, 2011, 10:58:17 AM
What do we know about radical clerics? They aren't completely rational people. I suspect a move like that might fire up a new revolution in Iran which might not be a bad thing for world relations.
I guess I'm a pragmatist. I don't believe that "radical" means "without common sense." Really: the first rule of politics is self-preservation. Anyone who find themselves in power will work to keep him or herself there for as long as possible. That, then, precludes using your nation as a suicide bomber.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 29, 2011, 12:46:59 PM
The USS John Stennis and the USS Mobile Bay missile ship are now on site after passing through the strait yesterday.
From above posted article:
"The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) and guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay (CG 53), conducted a planned, routine transit through the Strait of Hormuz, Dec. 27. "The ships completed a port visit in Jebel Ali, UAE, and transited the Strait, in order to provide air support to Operation Enduring Freedom from the North Arabian Sea," Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Lt. Rebecca Rebarich said in an emailed response to questions about the Iranian report.
Lt Rebarich said Fifth Fleet's regular contacts with Iran's Navy "continues to be within the standards of maritime practice, well known, routine and professional," but she added that "It is not standard practice to share our transits due to operational security."
I am 58 years old and the United States as been at war my entire life.
Quote from: Ronnie Lowe on December 29, 2011, 01:44:42 PM
I am 58 years old and the United States as been at war my entire life.
It's profitable.
Quote from: Ronnie Lowe on December 29, 2011, 01:44:42 PM
I am 58 years old and the United States as been at war my entire life.
Fortunately, some of the intensity levels have been lower than presently.
Help me out here guy's. I have alway's wondered why we have all these Military bases all over the World but yet I havent driven by one Foreign Military base here in the U.S.
Where is that Russian Military base in Montana ? That German base in Colorado ?
Hmm, Just makes me wonder why the World views us as a bully.
Quote from: DolfanBob on December 29, 2011, 02:03:10 PM
Help me out here guy's. I have alway's wondered why we have all these Military bases all over the World but yet I havent driven by one Foreign Military base here in the U.S.
Where is that Russian Military base in Montana ? That German base in Colorado ?
Hmm, Just makes me wonder why the World views us as a bully.
NORAD is half Canadian.
Germany has air training in the South West US.
All I've got.
Quote from: Townsend on December 29, 2011, 02:07:20 PM
NORAD is half Canadian.
Germany has air training in the South West US.
All I've got.
You gotta watch them dangerous Canucks.
The U.S. has 57 Military installations in Germany alone...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 29, 2011, 02:09:03 PM
The U.S. has 57 Military installations in Germany alone...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
Still not trusted after all these years.
Quote from: DolfanBob on December 29, 2011, 02:03:10 PM
Help me out here guy's. I have alway's wondered why we have all these Military bases all over the World but yet I havent driven by one Foreign Military base here in the U.S.
Where is that Russian Military base in Montana ? That German base in Colorado ?
Hmm, Just makes me wonder why the World views us as a bully.
We're probably going to live long enough to see a world dominated by the Chinese. Hope they aren't heavy handed.
Quote from: Townsend on December 29, 2011, 02:07:20 PM
NORAD is half Canadian.
Germany has air training in the South West US.
All I've got.
We still have the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly School of the Americas) where we teach various third world
dictators freedom loving regimes in law enforcement and military techniques that they can use to
torture and suppress dissidents engage in counter-terrorism.
Quote from: Ronnie Lowe on December 29, 2011, 02:18:12 PM
We're probably going to live long enough to see a world dominated by the Chinese. Hope they aren't heavy handed.
Nah.....Bernake bought us 50 years...the Chinese will have their own growth issues with the ruling class of Singapore. We just will have %50 below the poverty line....that's how it will be measured, which country has the smallest ruling
class oligarchy by percentage (Nate ;) )
U.S. rescues Iranian hostages, with good timing
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/us-picks-up-iranian-hostages-with-good-timing/2012/01/06/gIQAI56YfP_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/us-picks-up-iranian-hostages-with-good-timing/2012/01/06/gIQAI56YfP_blog.html)
QuoteFor the U.S. Navy, it was like hitting the public-relations jackpot: An aircraft carrier strike group that just left the Persian Gulf stumbles across an Iranian fishing vessel in distress, hijacked by pirates.
Forces from the U.S.S. John C. Stennis carrier strike group, whose presence in the region had provoked a rhetorical outburst from Tehran that spooked global oil markets, swiftly made the most of the moment. They seized 15 Somali pirates without firing a shot and rescued 13 hungry Iranian fishermen who had been held hostage for several weeks.
After giving the Iranians fresh provisions and fuel, the Americans bade the crew a happy farewell Friday, along with a parting gift: U.S. Navy ballcaps for the grateful Iranians to wear as they posed for pictures.
"It was a great outcome for some innocent Iranian fisherman and it's an indication of who we are as Americans," Rear Adm. Craig Faller, commander of the Stennis strike group, told reporters in a conference call from his position in the North Arabian Sea. "We'd do that for any country in the world."
Of course, only one country in recent days has threatened to close access to the Strait of Hormuz — the Persian Gulf bottleneck through which almost one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows. And only one country issued a hostile warning to the United States not to send an aircraft carrier back to the Gulf after the Stennis sailed away last week.
There was no official response, much less a thank you, from the Iranian government after the Navy released details of the rescue mission Friday.
U.S. officials, in contrast, bent over backward to publicize the Navy's good deed.
The Navy released plenty of photographs and video of the rescue. The Pentagon distributed a picture of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta phoning Faller — who broke away from his chat with journalists to take the call — to say congratulations and thank you.
The State Department gushed.
"This is an incredible story. This is a great story," spokesman Victoria Nuland told reporters. "The very same ships and set of vessels that the Iranians protested on its last voyage through Hormuz, the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, just rescued this Iranian dhow from pirates."
Despite the tensions between Tehran and Washington, their navies maintain open channels of communication on a tactical level, said Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He said that the U.S. Navy has repeatedly rescued Iranian nationals in the region and handed them over to the Iranian Navy, with little fanfare. Fishermen and other seafarers, after all, routinely find themselves in need of rescue – whether because of bad weather, or because they've simply become stranded at sea.
What was unusual about Friday's incident, Zenko said, was how quickly U.S. officials in Washington were to publicly describe the operation.
"To have it queued up and released midafternoon is a strategic communications coup," he said.
U.S. officials, Zenko said, seemed eager to convey that a U.S. naval presence in the region can benefit even Iran, and that Tehran should cannot and should not move to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
We built 2 drone bases on the Seychelles Islands..and have been bombing pirates with drones, killing most of them for several months now..thats why up until today, nobody heard much of anything from the Somali pirates in about 18 months...OBAMA pretty much shut the piracy down...
yet another Obama success story. He's a killah! ;)
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 06, 2012, 05:01:54 PM
We built 2 drone bases on the Seychelles Islands..and have been bombing pirates with drones, killing most of them for several months now..thats why up until today, nobody heard much of anything from the Somali pirates in about 18 months...OBAMA pretty much shut the piracy down...
yet another Obama success story. He's a killah! ;)
My my. Such a violent man. Don't let the peaceniks know!
Quote from: Conan71 on January 06, 2012, 06:25:21 PM
My my. Such a violent man. Don't let the peaceniks know!
Which Republican
nitwit frontrunner was it that said he'd be tougher on defense than Obama? Say what you will about the rest of Obama's politics, but he's pretty much foreclosed that avenue of attack, at least for the reality based community.
M
Quote from: Ronnie Lowe on December 29, 2011, 01:44:42 PM
I am 58 years old and the United States as been at war my entire life.
Militarization - absolutely!! When you only have a hammer for a tool, every problem looks like a nail. And our economic policy of choice is military! Easiest, biggest-bang-for-the-buck choice (double entendre moment), and so simple to sell to the American public it is laughable. Just bring up the idea of Muslim/Chinese/Russian hordes landing just east of Denver.
Seriously, every single job I have been at since 1984 has had a group of otherwise serious minded individuals who have serious discussions about the invasion of the center of the country. Always a variation of coming up through Mexico. Not sure why they wouldn't try to come down from Canada - that would be a much easier path, I would think...
Why 1984? Well, in addition to being Orwell's chosen year, it was the year "Red Dawn" came out. I think that resonated with a lot of people. Just made us even crazier war mongers than ever.... and we do it with glittering white teeth, the little sparkley gleam in our eye and the admonitions/exhortations about God being on our side!! (To the detriment of every other side, of course!)
Interesting. I might have to slightly revise my prediction. Tensions are continuing to ratchet up, not down. An Iranian-American was sentenced to death in Iran for supposed ties to the CIA, and the NYTimes comes out with an interesting article detailing a new Iranian enrichment site just set to open that will be far enough underground as to be nearly untouchable with standard ordinance.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/world/meast/iran-accused-spy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/world/middleeast/iran-will-soon-move-uranium-work-underground-official-says.html
I'm still convinced we're not on a path to unlimited war with Iran -- or even to an Iraq-style invasion, but the chances of air engagements, special ops raids, drone strikes -- in general, circumscribed conflict -- is definitely increasing.
Also: you guys have heard of Stuxnet, right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?pagewanted=all
Quote from: nathanm on January 07, 2012, 12:12:42 AM
Which Republican nitwit frontrunner was it that said he'd be tougher on defense than Obama? Say what you will about the rest of Obama's politics, but he's pretty much foreclosed that avenue of attack, at least for the reality based community.
Perry: "I would send troops back into Iraq"
Quote from: nathanm on January 07, 2012, 12:12:42 AM
Which Republican nitwit frontrunner was it that said he'd be tougher on defense than Obama? Say what you will about the rest of Obama's politics, but he's pretty much foreclosed that avenue of attack, at least for the reality based community.
You're right. You have no sense of humor.
Glad I'm not an oilie watching the price get dictated by politics....well, kinda.
http://www.truth-out.org/iran-war-drums-beating/1328560738
QuoteThe idea of an Islamic bomb exerts a peculiar fascination on American political culture and shines a searchlight on how the gross dysfunctionality of American politics emerges synergistically from the individual dysfunctions of its component parts: the military-industrial complex; oil addiction; the power of foreign-based lobbies; the apocalyptic fixation on the holy land by millions of fundamentalist Americans; US elected officials' neurotic need to show toughness, especially in an election year. The rational calculus of nuclear deterrence, which had guided US policy during the cold war, and which the US government still applies to plainly despotic and bellicose nuclear states like North Korea, has gone out the window with respect to Iran.
Looks like Potus Obama is winning on this front!
Police, protesters clash in Iran as currency collapses
http://www.usatoday.com/story/ondeadline/2012/10/03/iran-tehran-rial-currency-demonstrators-protest/1609929/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19816249
Squeezing the mullah's nuts from across the way....
Won't be long now....
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 03, 2012, 03:52:04 PM
Looks like Potus Obama is winning on this front!
Police, protesters clash in Iran as currency collapses
http://www.usatoday.com/story/ondeadline/2012/10/03/iran-tehran-rial-currency-demonstrators-protest/1609929/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19816249
Squeezing the mullah's nuts from across the way....
Won't be long now....
I dunno. Might be all Asshatmadenajad needs to create an outside "threat" of some sort to galvanize the citizens.
Wonder how much a pair of Levi's is going for these day's?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 03, 2012, 04:31:48 PM
I dunno. Might be all Asshatmadenajad needs to create an outside "threat" of some sort to galvanize the citizens.
Ahhemeniblahblah is pretty much done if we don't do something stupid like bomb them.
Quote from: nathanm on October 03, 2012, 04:45:56 PM
Ahhemeniblahblah is pretty much done if we don't do something stupid like bomb them.
That's what I hear. I've heard there's not Al Qaeda left either. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on October 03, 2012, 04:48:11 PM
That's what I hear. I've heard there's not Al Qaeda left either. ;)
Those who would actually know about Iran's internal politics are pretty clear that the mullahs are done with him. What, you thought he wasn't more akin to a figurehead like our VP's office?
Do you guy's think it's bad enough that he might end up in a storm drain in the near future?