How Iran Would Retaliate if it Comes to War [Archive] - The Orange Mane

Bronco_Beerslug

06-28-2008, 06:49 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0620/p07s04-wome.html)
Military analysts say the Islamic Republic would strike back in unconventional ways – targeting American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the June 20, 2008 edition

Istanbul, Turkey - Pressure is building on Iran. This week Europe agreed to new sanctions and President Bush again suggested something more serious – possible military strikes – if the Islamic Republic doesn't bend to the will of the international community on its nuclear program.

But increasingly military analysts are warning of severe consequences if the US begins a shooting war with Iran. While Iranian forces are no match for American technology on a conventional battlefield, Iran has shown that it can bite back in unconventional ways.

Iranian networks in Iraq and Afghanistan could imperil US interests there; American forces throughout the Gulf region could be targeted by asymmetric methods and lethal rocket barrages; and Iranian partners across the region – such as Hezbollah in Lebanon – could be mobilized to engage in an anti-US fight.

Iran's response could also be global, analysts say, but the scale would depend on the scale of the US attack. "One very important issue from a US intelligence perspective, [the Iranian reaction] is probably more unpredictable than the Al Qaeda threat," says Magnus Ranstorp at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.

"I doubt very much our ability to manage some of the consequences," says Mr. Ranstorp, noting that Iranian revenge attacks in the past have been marked by "plausible deniability" and have had global reach.

"If you attack Iran you are unleashing a firestorm of reaction internally that will only strengthen revolutionary forces, and externally in the region," says Ranstorp. "It's a nightmare scenario for any contingency planner, and I think you really enter the twilight zone if you strike Iran."

Though the US military has since early 2007 accused Iran's Qods Force – an elite element of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – of providing anti-US militias in Iraq with lethal roadside bombs, and of training and backing "special groups" in actions that the US government alleges have cost "thousands" of lives, US commanders have played down Iran's military capabilities.

Even Admiral William Fallon, who publicly opposed a US strike on Iran before he resigned in April, dismissed Iran as a military threat. "Get serious," Adm. Fallon told Esquire in March. "These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."

But that has not kept Iran from rhetorical chest-beating, with an active military manpower of 540,000 – the largest in the Middle East – dependent on some of the lowest per capita defense spending in the region. Iran "can deal fatal blows to aggressor America by unpredictable and creative tactical moves," the senior commander Brig. Gen. Gholam Ali Rashid said in late May. "It is meaningless to back down before an enemy who has targeted the roots of our existence."

Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei also warned of far-reaching revenge in 2006. "The Americans should know that if they assault Iran, their interests will be harmed anywhere in the world that is possible," he said. "The Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity."

Analysts say Iran has a number of tools to make good on those threats and take pride in taking on a more powerful enemy. "This is not something they are shying away from," says Alex Vatanka, a Middle East security analyst at Jane's Information Group in Washington.

"They say: 'Conventional warfare is not something we can win against the US, but we have other assets in the toolbox,' " says Mr. Vatanka, noting that the IRGC commander appointed last fall has been "marketed as this genius behind asymmetric warfare doctrine."

"What they are really worried about is the idea of massive aerial attacks on literally thousands of targets inside Iran," says Vatanka, also an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute. "Their reading of America's intentions in that scenario would be twofold: One is to obviously dismantle as much as possible the nuclear program; and [the other], indirectly try to weaken the [Islamic] regime."

Page 1 | 2 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0620/p07s04-wome.html?page=2) | Next Page (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0620/p07s04-wome.html?page=2)

.

Spider

06-28-2008, 06:53 PM

baja

06-28-2008, 09:53 PM

I'll be taking applications for a work study program on my off the grid organic gardens ranch in the mountains of south Baja.

cutthemdown

06-29-2008, 03:00 AM

cutthemdown

06-29-2008, 03:01 AM

I'll be taking applications for a work study program on my off the grid organic gardens ranch in the mountains of south Baja.

how do you manage being off the gird. Solar power? generators? or is it just old school with no electricity? Actually sounds like a fun way to live.

Tombstone RJ

06-29-2008, 08:20 AM

It'd be a real schit storm if the US launches any kind of attack on Iran, regardless of what Iran is doing with it's uranium enrichment program. The US has already taken too large of a risk in Iraq, and any kind of unprovoked hostility toward Iran is assinine.

Bush should have considered Iran's ability to cause chaos in Iraq before he launched his war. If Saddam provided one thing, it was a shield against Iran's Islamic extremism.

But, nah, Bush was too stupid to see the big picture.

baja

06-30-2008, 03:38 PM

how do you manage being off the gird. Solar power? generators? or is it just old school with no electricity? Actually sounds like a fun way to live.

Simple living really. Just enough solar power to run a few lights a water pump along with my music, TV and Computer with Direct Way and since I am a raw foodest my Vita Mix blender and green Star juicer.

Taco John

06-30-2008, 04:53 PM

I'm not worried about the actions that Iran would take. I'm worried about the economic actions that China and Russia would take. And once that Pandora gets out of the box, all bets are off.

elsid13

06-30-2008, 05:19 PM

If the conflict occurs it going to be very important for all federal departments and agency to be on the ready for a response and western intelligence be in postion to respond in quick cold-blooded operations.

I wounder how the US public would react if Iranian agents planted a number of IED in the states or provided random assassination like the DC Sniper?

Taco John

06-30-2008, 05:31 PM

Cant let how Iran will fight back effect anything ......
some questions we need to ask ourselfs though ....
1. Whats irans motovation for the nuke ? ....
2. are they really that close or we getting fed a line of bull**** ?
3. if Iran does plan on striking another country ( something I find hard to believe seeing how Iran has never invaded another country ) Whhat does Iran Neighbors think ? how will they respond ?

Iran doesn't need a nuclear weapon at this point. In fact, it makes no economic sense for them to pursue a nuclear weapon, given the posturing of the US on this issue. That doesn't mean they don't have nuclear ambitions. They most certainly do. But right now they are all based in economics. Iran wants to become the formost exporter of nuclear energy throughout the entire eastern hemisphere. No matter what the news tells you - no matter what the government tells you - it's not a nuclear weapon that they want *right now*. They want to become an economic superpower through the sales of Nuclear energy. They see this as their path to dominating, and eventually absorbing and unifying the middle east. The US, obviously does not want this. Iran is not in the US pocket. This is why the neo-cons in control went for Iraq. They want to see Iraq rise up to be the major economic player in the Middle East -- in reality they would like it to be Isreal, but since that will never happen, the best they could hope for is Iraq to be Isreal's puppet.

This isn't going well, however. The people of Iraq have elected an Iranian puppet, strengthening Iran in the region. This is becoming alarming for the Bush Administration, as they've been trying to hammer a "status of forces" agreement with Iraq that would permit the US to have a presence in Iraq indefinitely. They had hoped Iraq and al-Maliki would roll over and sign it. Instead, it has driven al-Maliki to Iran for diplomatic discussions that have the Ayatollah's boasting that "America's dreams will not come true (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html).

So now Iraq is at an interesting cross roads. The question at hand is "whose puppet is al-Maliki?" If he and Iraq turn their backs on the US's "status of forces" agreement, then the answer may be Iran. Clearly the US can't have that. If the "status of forces" agreement falls through, and the UN mandate expires at the end of the year, the political ramifications for the Bush Admin (not to mention Congress) are pretty monumental. The US's best option in this scenario (at least from the war-mongering point of view) is to do everything they can to weaken Iran.

Eventually, Iran will want a nuclear weapon, because every major superpower needs one. But right now, and according to the best intelligence we have, it's not their chief aim.

Taco John

06-30-2008, 05:42 PM

elsid13

06-30-2008, 05:46 PM

Marshall law would be declared. The US as we know it will have died.

I doubt that, having lived through DC Sniper, what happens is the public first becomes scared, then angery at the government for not stopping it, then like the British facing the IRA they adopt to it and the government beginning loosen the civilised restraints on police that are important to us.

Cito Pelon

06-30-2008, 06:06 PM

Obviously Iran is a real problem and not just some country we can bomb and then expect that to be the final solution.

Somehow negotiations have to work because the flip side is not going to be pretty.

Spider was asking how far away would they be if we assume they are going for a nuclear bomb. I think experts say they would still be 2-3 yrs away from having a bomb and maybe even longer before they could make it into a warhead that fits on a missile.

Thats why I don't think Bush will attack them. He knows it's too big of a situation and with only 6 months left he just doesn't have the time.

Yup. The Persians [Iranians] are a proud people. They've only been conquered twice in 2500 years and that was by Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan's grandson, Kublai. You gotta come to an accomodation with them. They're not a people to sneer at. The Persians are not somebody to cavalierly **** around with. They're not afraid of battle at all.

Taco John

06-30-2008, 06:40 PM

I doubt that, having lived through DC Sniper, what happens is the public first becomes scared, then angery at the government for not stopping it, then like the British facing the IRA they adopt to it and the government beginning loosen the civilised restraints on police that are important to us.

If we are at war, and sniper fire breaks out across America, you're telling me that you don't believe they'd declare martial law?

ak1971

06-30-2008, 06:48 PM

Yeah..Havent you seen Red Dawn.

elsid13

06-30-2008, 06:48 PM

If we are at war, and sniper fire breaks out across America, you're telling me that you don't believe they'd declare martial law?

I don't, because it would do more harm to America through the economic impact then the lose of few individuals. I know that sound harsh, but by going into lock down hurts the nation more then few bullets. Terror wins if it causes a major impact to your country.

I would expect more xenophobia and racial incidents as regular citizens become more angery, but psychological impact is greater problem then the actually deaths that this would cause.

Tombstone RJ

06-30-2008, 06:52 PM

Iran doesn't need a nuclear weapon at this point. In fact, it makes no economic sense for them to pursue a nuclear weapon, given the posturing of the US on this issue. That doesn't mean they don't have nuclear ambitions. They most certainly do. But right now they are all based in economics. Iran wants to become the formost exporter of nuclear energy throughout the entire eastern hemisphere. No matter what the news tells you - no matter what the government tells you - it's not a nuclear weapon that they want *right now*. They want to become an economic superpower through the sales of Nuclear energy. They see this as their path to dominating, and eventually absorbing and unifying the middle east. The US, obviously does not want this. Iran is not in the US pocket. This is why the neo-cons in control went for Iraq. They want to see Iraq rise up to be the major economic player in the Middle East -- in reality they would like it to be Isreal, but since that will never happen, the best they could hope for is Iraq to be Isreal's puppet.

This isn't going well, however. The people of Iraq have elected an Iranian puppet, strengthening Iran in the region. This is becoming alarming for the Bush Administration, as they've been trying to hammer a "status of forces" agreement with Iraq that would permit the US to have a presence in Iraq indefinitely. They had hoped Iraq and al-Maliki would roll over and sign it. Instead, it has driven al-Maliki to Iran for diplomatic discussions that have the Ayatollah's boasting that "America's dreams will not come true (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html).

So now Iraq is at an interesting cross roads. The question at hand is "whose puppet is al-Maliki?" If he and Iraq turn their backs on the US's "status of forces" agreement, then the answer may be Iran. Clearly the US can't have that. If the "status of forces" agreement falls through, and the UN mandate expires at the end of the year, the political ramifications for the Bush Admin (not to mention Congress) are pretty monumental. The US's best option in this scenario (at least from the war-mongering point of view) is to do everything they can to weaken Iran.

Eventually, Iran will want a nuclear weapon, because every major superpower needs one. But right now, and according to the best intelligence we have, it's not their chief aim.

TJ, where are you getting your information about Iran wanting to export nuclear energy?

Tombstone RJ

06-30-2008, 06:56 PM

I don't, because it would do more harm to America through the economic impact then the lose of few individuals. I know that sound harsh, but by going into lock down hurts the nation more then few bullets. Terror wins if it causes a major impact to your country.

I would expect more xenophobia and racial incidents as regular citizens become more anger, but psychological impact is greater problem then the actually deaths that this would cause.

I agree. You'd have rampant vigilanteism if some terrorists were sniping people. If you want to see private gun owners go hunting, that'd pretty much provoke it.

Taco John

06-30-2008, 09:39 PM

TJ, where are you getting your information about Iran wanting to export nuclear energy?

I don't have a single source of information. I read everything I can get my hands on, especially foreign news sources (American news is inferior in depth, and always dripping with bias).

But more to the point, I start by following the money. News doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Things lead up to it. When you connect these things - a bigger picture emerges. "They" have done a great job in capsulizing the attention spans of Americans. Nobody looks at these issues as larger threads in the fabric of history anymore.

So here are some facts that anybody can research on their own and come to their own conclusions:

In 1971, Nixon "closed the gold window," which effectively stopped the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold.

In 1971, the US negotiated with OPEC countries to accept only dollars in payment for their oil.

I don't believe that people understand the significance of these two moves. They, in effect, took the tangible gold backing of the dollar away, and replaced it with nothing - not oil - nothing. You cannot take your dollar into a bank and get any amount of gold for it. Prior to that you could.

So what, you might say. The dollar is still trading. Yes, it is. And only because of the second bullet point there - the dollar is backed by oil. Or more specifically, it is backed by the worldwide demand for oil. The more demand for oil in the world, the more there is a demand for the US dollar. The more expensive a barrel of oil is, the more worldwide demand there is for the US dollar. The implications of this are astounding if people would just wake up to it and connect the dots.

These are verifiable facts. Anyone can find this stuff in less than 30 seconds and verify their truth. So now that we've established that they are, in fact, true, I have a question: In whose best interest is it to have instability in the Middle East?

A few more verifiable facts:

In 2000, Saddaam Hussein began taking moves to stop accepting the US Dollar for Iraqi oil, and instead accept the Euro. By the end of 2002, the dollar's value fell 18% against the Euro.

At the end of 2002, a war frenzy was whipped up in the American public to go after non-existant weapons of mass destruction. In this case, the weapons actually existed (so the stories went), we just needed to go in and uncover them.

Five years later, no weapons of mass destruction have been uncovered, however...

Iraq has now opened up 8 of it's largest oil and natural gas fields, and is expecting to increase production 1.5 B barrels daily.

Once again, all verifiable facts... But with the last one, there is a sticking point - follow the money - Iraq wants the oil companies that come in to merely extract the oil, and to accept - get this - US Dollars as payment for their services. The companies right now don't want US dollars in payment. They want a share of the oil that is being pumped. Iraq is saying "No. We are looking for companies to provide service contracts, not production sharing contracts."

On August 8th, Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki thanked Iran for its "positive and constructive" work in "providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq."

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/8/9/1_226015_1_3.jpglink (http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:p-Swby-LsGUJ:english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8573C138-9A2B-4F30-A9D9-D8C117F9A6B0.htm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)

Like Iran, Iraq has a Shiite majority.

Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, is the leader of the Islamic Dawa Party. Imagine if Jerry Fallwell or one of the Christian fundamentalists took control of the Republican party. This is loosely what the Dawa party is. They believe in Islamic government. Their natural enemy are the Baathists who believe in secular government. This is a big reason why under Saddaam Hussein, Iran and Iraq were natural enemies. It was the godless liberals vs. the militant conservatives.

The Dawa Pary and Iran go back a long ways. The Dawa party supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and in turn, the Iranian government backed the Dawa Party in it's militant fight against Saddaam Hussein in an effort to overthrow Hussein and extend the Islamic Revolution to Iraq. During this time, the US (backing Saddaam Hussein) recognized al-Dawa as a terrorist organization.

Ok... I'm painting a picture here, and I'm taking great pains to do it. These are all verifiable facts. I'm trying to get to the money part with Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but that's beside the point right now because until you understand why Iran has a major stake in the establishment of peace in Iraq. You can't make this stuff up. We went to war and delivered Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. People have to understand that. The majority of Iraqis are Shiite who want a religious government, much like they have in Iran. Iran and Iraq are now natural allies. Except for one problem - three is a crowd. And who is the third wheel here?

The issue of nuclear Iran is a red herring. That's not the issue at all. It's the "WMD" game that we've already seen, only this time, the WMD's don't exist - but the thought crime of wanting one is enough to whip Americans into an irrational frenzy. Our own CIA has said Iran has abandoned their nuclear weapons program. Of course they did! They won when Maliki won. Now all they have to do is lie low and wait for the US to get out of the way so that they can begin talks of unionization and further spreading the islamic revolution across the middle east -- a revolution, which by the way, has kept itself contained within its own borders, except when attacked.

The implications of all of this are staggering, no matter what point of view you want to look at this with. Iran is poised to be the dominant economic player in the Middle East, and if they succeed in spreading their revolution to other nations in the region, they could be poised to be the heads of a EU-style Arabic Union.

This is what our soldiers are dying for right now: a power struggle between us and Iran over who gets to be the puppet master. The ONLY option the Bush Administration has right now is to weaken Iran, get control of al-Maliki (or replace him with someone who can be controlled), and then attempt to spread westernized "democracy" according to the earlier vision (the one outlined in the Project for a New American Century that the neo-cons were so proud of). It's a fool's errand.

More later... I've got a softball game to go to...

Taco John

06-30-2008, 09:51 PM

Oh, one more thing before I take off...

This past weekend, US Special Forces Raided al-Maliki's home town in a "counter-terrorism" raid, killing Maliki's nephew, and turning relations with Iraq right on its head.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080628/wl_mcclatchy/2978626

"You'd better shape up Maliki, or there will be consequences."

We'll see if he gets the message.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-30-2008, 10:03 PM

So here are some facts that anybody can research on their own and come to their own conclusions:

In 1971, Nixon "closed the gold window," which effectively stopped the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold.

In 1971, the US negotiated with OPEC countries to accept only dollars in payment for their oil.

I don't believe that people understand the significance of these two moves. They, in effect, took the tangible gold backing of the dollar away, and replaced it with nothing - not oil - nothing. You cannot take your dollar into a bank and get any amount of gold for it. Prior to that you could.
I don't think you do. Modern economies outgrew gold standards (gold inventories can't support a gold standard).

And what's the problem with OPEC oil trading in dollars? Is there a history of problems? The GCC will earn over 1.3 trillion (devauled) dollars from oil in 08 and 09, they don't seem to be complaining very loud.

Of course a big reason for our dollar decline is we are a service economy and not a production or manufacturing economy. The whole world economic landscape is rapidly changing and I'm not sure there is such thing as an "economic expert" in this day.

baja

06-30-2008, 10:19 PM

I don't have a single source of information. I read everything I can get my hands on, especially foreign news sources (American news is inferior in depth, and always dripping with bias).

But more to the point, I start by following the money. News doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Things lead up to it. When you connect these things - a bigger picture emerges. "They" have done a great job in capsulizing the attention spans of Americans. Nobody looks at these issues as larger threads in the fabric of history anymore.

So here are some facts that anybody can research on their own and come to their own conclusions:

In 1971, Nixon "closed the gold window," which effectively stopped the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold.

In 1971, the US negotiated with OPEC countries to accept only dollars in payment for their oil.

I don't believe that people understand the significance of these two moves. They, in effect, took the tangible gold backing of the dollar away, and replaced it with nothing - not oil - nothing. You cannot take your dollar into a bank and get any amount of gold for it. Prior to that you could.

So what, you might say. The dollar is still trading. Yes, it is. And only because of the second bullet point there - the dollar is backed by oil. Or more specifically, it is backed by the worldwide demand for oil. The more demand for oil in the world, the more there is a demand for the US dollar. The more expensive a barrel of oil is, the more worldwide demand there is for the US dollar. The implications of this are astounding if people would just wake up to it and connect the dots.

These are verifiable facts. Anyone can find this stuff in less than 30 seconds and verify their truth. So now that we've established that they are, in fact, true, I have a question: In whose best interest is it to have instability in the Middle East?

A few more verifiable facts:

In 2000, Saddaam Hussein began taking moves to stop accepting the US Dollar for Iraqi oil, and instead accept the Euro. By the end of 2002, the dollar's value fell 18% against the Euro.

At the end of 2002, a war frenzy was whipped up in the American public to go after non-existant weapons of mass destruction. In this case, the weapons actually existed (so the stories went), we just needed to go in and uncover them.

Five years later, no weapons of mass destruction have been uncovered, however...

Iraq has now opened up 8 of it's largest oil and natural gas fields, and is expecting to increase production 1.5 B barrels daily.

Once again, all verifiable facts... But wait, there's more. The fact that the George Bush Administration has delivered Iraq to Iran on a silver platter and now needs to do everything he can to get this one back or face a legacy of defeat.

On August 8th, Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki thanked Iran for its "positive and constructive" work in "providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq."

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/8/9/1_226015_1_3.jpglink (http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:p-Swby-LsGUJ:english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8573C138-9A2B-4F30-A9D9-D8C117F9A6B0.htm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)

Like Iran, Iraq has a Shiite majority.

Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, is the leader of the Islamic Dawa Party. Imagine if Jerry Fallwell or one of the Christian fundamentalists took control of the Republican party. This is loosely what the Dawa party is. They believe in Islamic government. Their natural enemy are the Baathists who believe in secular government. This is a big reason why under Saddaam Hussein, Iran and Iraq were natural enemies. It was the godless liberals vs. the militant conservatives.

The Dawa Pary and Iran go back a long ways. The Dawa party supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and in turn, the Iranian government backed the Dawa Party in it's militant fight against Saddaam Hussein in an effort to overthrow Hussein and extend the Islamic Revolution to Iraq. During this time, the US (backing Saddaam Hussein) recognized al-Dawa as a terrorist organization.

Ok... I'm painting a picture here, and I'm taking great pains to do it. These are all verifiable facts. I'm trying to get to the money part with Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but that's beside the point right now because until you understand why Iran has a major stake in the establishment of peace in Iraq. You can't make this stuff up. We went to war and delivered Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. People have to understand that. The majority of Iraqis are Shiite who want a religious government, much like they have in Iran. Iran and Iraq are now natural allies. Except for one problem - three is a crowd. And who is the third wheel here?

The issue of nuclear Iran is a red herring. That's not the issue at all. It's the "WMD" game that we've already seen, only this time, the WMD's don't exist - but the thought crime of wanting one is enough to whip Americans into an irrational frenzy. Our own CIA has said Iran has abandoned their nuclear weapons program. Of course they did! They won when Maliki won. Now all they have to do is lie low and wait for the US to get out of the way so that they can begin talks of unionization and further spreading the islamic revolution across the middle east -- a revolution, which by the way, has kept itself contained within its own borders, except when attacked.

The implications of all of this are staggering, no matter what point of view you want to look at this with. Iran is poised to be the dominant economic player in the Middle East, and if they succeed in spreading their revolution to other nations in the region, they could be poised to be the heads of a EU-style Arabic Union.

This is what our soldiers are dying for right now: a power struggle between us and Iran over who gets to be the puppet master. The ONLY option the Bush Administration has right now is to weaken Iran, get control of al-Maliki (or replace him with someone who can be controlled), and then attempt to spread westernized "democracy" according to the earlier vision (the one outlined in the Project for a New American Century that the neo-cons were so proud of). It's a fool's errand.

More later... I've got a softball game to go to...

This is how I see it too TJ

We are an empire in decline our money is worthless and we are deep in debt as a nation and as a people. You are right this is the real and desperate reason for the Iraq war and the same reason applies as to why we must attack Iran - to protect the dollar and control the middle East (oil). As you say it's a fool's errand and a deadly desperate game. I think the world's population will be significantly reduced in the next few years.

Taco John

07-01-2008, 01:44 AM

I don't think you do. Modern economies outgrew gold standards (gold inventories can't support a gold standard).

This is a very bad straw man argument that doesn't amount to even being an argument. There is more than enough gold, silver, and other precious metals to sustain a system of currency that is backed by something with intrinsic value. But that's not the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion was that the dollar was backed by the demand for oil - which is not only ethically bankrupt, but also volitile as we've seen over the last 30 years.

And what's the problem with OPEC oil trading in dollars? Is there a history of problems? The GCC will earn over 1.3 trillion (devauled) dollars from oil in 08 and 09, they don't seem to be complaining very loud.

Uh. It's a 30 year standard. There sure as hell HAS been a history of problems. Hijackings. Marines blown up by the hundreds in the 80's. Dictators who we prop up using our weapons to slaughter thousands of innocent people. Military bases set up in their holy lands to protect our interests. Airplanes flying into our buildings. Wars that look like they'll do nothing but escalate. And that's without addressing what the entire rigamarole has done to the dollar. And you ask what's the problem?

But let's just pretend that you're right and we can shrug off all of this fall-out and chalk it up to collateral damage. We're now in a situation where any new technologies that we build to lessen our (and the worldwide) dependance on OPEC oil means a hit to the dollar. Anything we do to lessen the demand for OPEC oil will mean more dollars stagnating in the system - and where there's dollar stagnation, stagflation is sure to follow. We've gotten tastes of it, but not the real thing - yet.

So yeah... In the short history that we've attempted this game, it's been very volitile.

Of course a big reason for our dollar decline is we are a service economy and not a production or manufacturing economy. The whole world economic landscape is rapidly changing and I'm not sure there is such thing as an "economic expert" in this day.

Sure there is. I'm not that person - but I know enough to know that the fundamentals never change. Economics isn't about dollars and sense. It's about human action. The fact that humans have needs and will take moves to satisfy those needs will never change. It's not actually as complicated as people want to make it. The powers that be have done everything to make it complicated using intervention after intervention - and then more intervention to correct the problems that arose from the last intervention - and on it goes.

But at the end of the day, it's all about human action. That never changes.

errand

07-01-2008, 02:51 AM

Bronco_Beerslug

07-01-2008, 06:25 AM

This is a very bad straw man argument that doesn't amount to even being an argument. There is more than enough gold, silver, and other precious metals to sustain a system of currency that is backed by something with intrinsic value.No there isn't, not even close to being enough (gold standard), post the numbers if you believe different.

But that's not the point of the discussion. The point of the discussion was that the dollar was backed by the demand for oil - which is not only ethically bankrupt, but also volitile as we've seen over the last 30 years.It's the point you brought up.

Uh. It's a 30 year standard. There sure as hell HAS been a history of problems. Hijackings. Marines blown up by the hundreds in the 80's. Dictators who we prop up using our weapons to slaughter thousands of innocent people. Military bases set up in their holy lands to protect our interests. Airplanes flying into our buildings. Wars that look like they'll do nothing but escalate. And that's without addressing what the entire rigamarole has done to the dollar. And you ask what's the problem? These are problems that would happen regardless of dollar oil. Oil itself and the quest for it because of world need.

But let's just pretend that you're right and we can shrug off all of this fall-out and chalk it up to collateral damage. We're now in a situation where any new technologies that we build to lessen our (and the worldwide) dependance on OPEC oil means a hit to the dollar. Anything we do to lessen the demand for OPEC oil will mean more dollars stagnating in the system - and where there's dollar stagnation, stagflation is sure to follow. We've gotten tastes of it, but not the real thing - yet.This is economic progress. The world is now a player where it wasn't before and the rules are changing every day. the U.S. isn't the only player any more and sole top dog.

Sure there is. I'm not that person - but I know enough to know that the fundamentals never change. Economics isn't about dollars and sense. It's about human action. The fact that humans have needs and will take moves to satisfy those needs will never change. It's not actually as complicated as people want to make it. The powers that be have done everything to make it complicated using intervention after intervention - and then more intervention to correct the problems that arose from the last intervention - and on it goes.

But at the end of the day, it's all about human action. That never changes.Of course it is, it's the only way it can be.

alkemical

07-01-2008, 07:45 AM

Tombstone RJ

07-01-2008, 11:02 AM

I don't have a single source of information. I read everything I can get my hands on, especially foreign news sources (American news is inferior in depth, and always dripping with bias).

But more to the point, I start by following the money. News doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Things lead up to it. When you connect these things - a bigger picture emerges. "They" have done a great job in capsulizing the attention spans of Americans. Nobody looks at these issues as larger threads in the fabric of history anymore.

So here are some facts that anybody can research on their own and come to their own conclusions:

In 1971, Nixon "closed the gold window," which effectively stopped the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold.

In 1971, the US negotiated with OPEC countries to accept only dollars in payment for their oil.

I don't believe that people understand the significance of these two moves. They, in effect, took the tangible gold backing of the dollar away, and replaced it with nothing - not oil - nothing. You cannot take your dollar into a bank and get any amount of gold for it. Prior to that you could.

So what, you might say. The dollar is still trading. Yes, it is. And only because of the second bullet point there - the dollar is backed by oil. Or more specifically, it is backed by the worldwide demand for oil. The more demand for oil in the world, the more there is a demand for the US dollar. The more expensive a barrel of oil is, the more worldwide demand there is for the US dollar. The implications of this are astounding if people would just wake up to it and connect the dots.

These are verifiable facts. Anyone can find this stuff in less than 30 seconds and verify their truth. So now that we've established that they are, in fact, true, I have a question: In whose best interest is it to have instability in the Middle East?

A few more verifiable facts:

In 2000, Saddaam Hussein began taking moves to stop accepting the US Dollar for Iraqi oil, and instead accept the Euro. By the end of 2002, the dollar's value fell 18% against the Euro.

At the end of 2002, a war frenzy was whipped up in the American public to go after non-existant weapons of mass destruction. In this case, the weapons actually existed (so the stories went), we just needed to go in and uncover them.

Five years later, no weapons of mass destruction have been uncovered, however...

Iraq has now opened up 8 of it's largest oil and natural gas fields, and is expecting to increase production 1.5 B barrels daily.

Once again, all verifiable facts... But with the last one, there is a sticking point - follow the money - Iraq wants the oil companies that come in to merely extract the oil, and to accept - get this - US Dollars as payment for their services. The companies right now don't want US dollars in payment. They want a share of the oil that is being pumped. Iraq is saying "No. We are looking for companies to provide service contracts, not production sharing contracts."

On August 8th, Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki thanked Iran for its "positive and constructive" work in "providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq."

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/8/9/1_226015_1_3.jpglink (http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:p-Swby-LsGUJ:english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8573C138-9A2B-4F30-A9D9-D8C117F9A6B0.htm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)

Like Iran, Iraq has a Shiite majority.

Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, is the leader of the Islamic Dawa Party. Imagine if Jerry Fallwell or one of the Christian fundamentalists took control of the Republican party. This is loosely what the Dawa party is. They believe in Islamic government. Their natural enemy are the Baathists who believe in secular government. This is a big reason why under Saddaam Hussein, Iran and Iraq were natural enemies. It was the godless liberals vs. the militant conservatives.

The Dawa Pary and Iran go back a long ways. The Dawa party supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and in turn, the Iranian government backed the Dawa Party in it's militant fight against Saddaam Hussein in an effort to overthrow Hussein and extend the Islamic Revolution to Iraq. During this time, the US (backing Saddaam Hussein) recognized al-Dawa as a terrorist organization.

Ok... I'm painting a picture here, and I'm taking great pains to do it. These are all verifiable facts. I'm trying to get to the money part with Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but that's beside the point right now because until you understand why Iran has a major stake in the establishment of peace in Iraq. You can't make this stuff up. We went to war and delivered Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. People have to understand that. The majority of Iraqis are Shiite who want a religious government, much like they have in Iran. Iran and Iraq are now natural allies. Except for one problem - three is a crowd. And who is the third wheel here?

The issue of nuclear Iran is a red herring. That's not the issue at all. It's the "WMD" game that we've already seen, only this time, the WMD's don't exist - but the thought crime of wanting one is enough to whip Americans into an irrational frenzy. Our own CIA has said Iran has abandoned their nuclear weapons program. Of course they did! They won when Maliki won. Now all they have to do is lie low and wait for the US to get out of the way so that they can begin talks of unionization and further spreading the islamic revolution across the middle east -- a revolution, which by the way, has kept itself contained within its own borders, except when attacked.

The implications of all of this are staggering, no matter what point of view you want to look at this with. Iran is poised to be the dominant economic player in the Middle East, and if they succeed in spreading their revolution to other nations in the region, they could be poised to be the heads of a EU-style Arabic Union.

This is what our soldiers are dying for right now: a power struggle between us and Iran over who gets to be the puppet master. The ONLY option the Bush Administration has right now is to weaken Iran, get control of al-Maliki (or replace him with someone who can be controlled), and then attempt to spread westernized "democracy" according to the earlier vision (the one outlined in the Project for a New American Century that the neo-cons were so proud of). It's a fool's errand.

More later... I've got a softball game to go to...

Wow TJ, extremely thought out and very rational. But, there are a couple of problems.

I want to say first, you are absolutely correct that the US has an extreme need to protect the US dollar, and I believe that is ultimately, why we invaded Iraq.

If you look at the Cold War, what was it really about? Was it about two political idealogies--Democracy vs. Communism? Or, IMHO, was it really about two economies--Free trade vs. socialistic trade.

How did we win the Cold War?

Simple, we out spent the USSR. The USSR's economy collapsed, we won!

Now, the US has to protect the dollar. Your saying that the dollar is based on the value of oil, which is a commodity. You may be right.

But, you have to remember the US has Ft. Knox, the most highly guarded facility in the US. In essence, the US has enough gold to back the US dollar, and there was no real reason to keep the value of the dollar connected to the value of Gold.

So, Nixon switched it to an energy commodity in 1971. Then what happened, oh yah, OPEC put a knife into the American economy by cutting production and raising the cost of gas. OPEC got rich, but what happened to the value of the dollar? Presumably it should have gotten stronger, yes?

Anyhoo, all of this confrontation with the ME can be avoided and the dollar can be strengthened by doing one simple, yet complicated, thing: develop an alternative energy source.

mhgaffney

07-01-2008, 12:35 PM

I agree with Taco that Iran is NOT after nuclear weapons. At least, not at this time.

The reason: Iran does not need nukes to deter Israel.

In the last few days - I have come around -- grudgingly -- to the view that Israel's threats and recent military exercise in the Mediterranean are purely bluster. Israel is not going to attack Iran.

Why not?

Because the price would be too high. Iran now has the capabiity to target Israel's Dimona nuclear complex with its Sahab 3B missiles. If Israel attacks Iran the Iranians will respond by hitting Dimona -- very likely causing a Chernobyl type situation. This would make large parts of Israel uninhabitable. Israel would retaliate, of course, and probably nuke Iran -- but the damage to Israel would be done and would be so great Israel could never recover. The cradle of three religions would become a nuclear wasteland -- like the region around Chernobyl -- poisoned by plutonium and a family of other highly radioactive nuclear by products.

Old reactors like Dimona are very dirty time bombs waitikng to go off. Israel was very foolish to go the nuclear path back in the 1960s. The decision has now come home to haunt them. They made themselves vulnerable -- and have no one else to blame.

I came reluctantly to this conclusion after doing some research on Iran's missile proghram. I was surprised by what I learned.

Iran perfected the Sahab 3B missile by 2004. It has a 2,000 km range -- whch means Israel is well within range.

In recent years, Iran installed a much improved guidance system including global positioning, which greatly improved the missiles's accuracy. The Sahab went from being accurate to within 1-3 kilometers -- to being accurate to within 30-50 meters. This is a vast improvement. This is most definitely NOT a Scud. Those days are over.

The Sahab is plenty accurate enough to take out an on line nuclear plant with a conventional warhead, causing a melt down and huge consequences.

These missiles can change their trajectory in flight -- making them very difficult to take out with ABM systems. The Sahab also is fired from mobile launchers, which are impossible to effectively target.

In 2007 Iran introduced a new solid fuel version of the Sahab. I do not know if they have perfected it -- but with the help of Russian engineers I would not be surprised, If so, this means the missile can be fired at a moment's notice -- no waiting around to load liquid fuel. This will make the Sahab impossible to target preventitively.

The fact is that Iran now appears to have an effective nuclear military deterrent to Israel -- without the need to actually develop the Bomb.

The development of the Sahab missile is credited to a team of Russian missile experts who were hired by N Korea in 1993. The men were thrown out of work when the Cold War ended -- and were hired by N Korea. Iran provided funding and also received the final product. The Russian engineers modified a Soviet intermediate range weapon -- a submarine launched missile -- and developed it for N Korea and Iran.

Meck77

07-01-2008, 12:56 PM

Here is my take. Let Israel and Iran go at it. We've fought enough wars for our "friends" over there.

alkemical

07-01-2008, 01:00 PM

Stop hating the jews Meck!!!! lol (kidding)

GWB

07-01-2008, 02:29 PM

Yup. The Persians [Iranians] are a proud people. They've only been conquered twice in 2500 years and that was by Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan's grandson, Kublai. You gotta come to an accomodation with them. They're not a people to sneer at. The Persians are not somebody to cavalierly **** around with. They're not afraid of battle at all.

We would [will] dominate Iran.

Dudeskey

07-01-2008, 02:39 PM

Here is my take. Let Israel and Iran go at it. We've fought enough wars for our "friends" over there.

agreed... but at some point I fear we'll get dragged into it... We will potentially have a pissed off Shi'a (beyond Al Sadr) to deal with in Iraq, whats stopping them from concentrating their anger on us being perceived as 'enablers' should such an event occur?

BTW, who is this GWB? a sockpuppet by a current user???

Hotrod

07-01-2008, 03:17 PM

They would probebly great us with flowers and candy.

alkemical

07-01-2008, 03:18 PM

Now, why should i waste my beautiful mind on something like that?

cutthemdown

07-01-2008, 04:14 PM

We would [will] dominate Iran.

These people pumpng up Irans military is a joke. They would be completely wiped out in less then 6 weeks. The Persians are a proud people blah blah blah it wouldn't matter. The fact Iran has some missiles would only make Israel and USA first strike so overwhelming they wouldn't have much less.

I still don't think it will happen because Bush hasn't the pull for another war and Israel doesn't want to dodge missiles for the next yr. For sure though the American military could put Iran in the same boat as Iraq in less then 3 months.

cutthemdown

07-01-2008, 04:16 PM

Here is my take. Let Israel and Iran go at it. We've fought enough wars for our "friends" over there.

Let's face it though if Israel attacked Iran, Iran would probably attack American interests whether we participated or not. If it happens we will be involved in some way anyways, either with intell, or allowing a fly over.

Taco John

07-01-2008, 04:27 PM

Let's face it though if Israel attacked Iran, Iran would probably attack American interests whether we participated or not.

They wouldn't have to. If we attacked Iran, the majority Shiite population in Iraq would most likely take up arms in solidarity with their Shiite neighbors.

Attacking Iran is a no-win situation for us.

elsid13

07-01-2008, 04:45 PM

Look Iran is looking for nuclear weapon because they want to be the king maker in the ME (seen by thier funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, ect) and they want to balance out the nuclear capability that Israel has. They understand if they have working weapon it gives them leverage against the threat of Western response to thier actions. Also, it give them means to get an aid agreement like North Korea did to help themselves.

Hotrod

07-01-2008, 05:07 PM

elsid13

07-01-2008, 05:13 PM

Thats exacty why I've been saying we should send in the A team

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/12/14/ateam460.jpg

Your National Security Strategic Policy direction is almost as good as your stock picking decisions.:nutkick

Tombstone RJ

07-01-2008, 05:21 PM

Iran's link with terrorism, and the networks of Islamic terrorists through out the ME and Asia is what scares the hell out of the West.

One nuclear bomb going off anywhere, forget just within US shores, anywhere, is gonna cause mass chaos and panic.

Iran knows this. They can decimate the world economy by blowing up a nuke in a market in France, or India, or The Phillipines, or Indonesia, or Thailand, etc.

Does Iran have the guts to transport a nuclear weapon into Asia and detonate it? I dunno... it's a regime that preaches hate, it hates the West, it hates the US and it hates Israel. It basically hates anyone who is not Islamic.

So, what does the free world do if a Nuke goes off in the middle of a market somewhere in the world? That is terrorism, at it's worst. These people have time and time again proven that life means little to them. They have no problem strapping bombs to themselves, walking into a market with kids running around, and killing as many people as possible, to prove a point.

Do you really think they'll draw the line at nukes? Do you want to bet on that? Because if your wrong, thousands of people could die in a flash. Then, there's gonna be chaos all around the world. And, if Iran has a stock pile of Nuclear weapons, what's to stop them from using them again, in order to protect themselves from the inevitable retaliation?

Hotrod

07-01-2008, 05:23 PM

Your National Security Strategic Policy direction is almost as good as your stock picking decisions.:nutkick

Are you playing that stupid stock simi game? Who are you on there.

I'm going broke faster then Spider in a sheep porno store.

elsid13

07-01-2008, 05:25 PM

Are you playing that stupid stock simi game? Who are you on there.

I'm going broke faster then Spider in a sheep porno store.

No I watching from the sideline, I like to lose my own money in the real world, it is so so much funnier that way. :~ohyah!:

In truth - I am actually looking for long term buying opportunities.

elsid13

07-01-2008, 05:34 PM

Taco John

07-01-2008, 07:07 PM

That why I posted what I did on response #9 on the thread. If we act, which we might have to no matter who is the president, we need to act without mercy and destory everything that might hurt us. That might mean we need to include strikes against Hezbollah and Hamas. With very polite message to Syria to stay out of it.

Better have Nukes targetted at China and Russia then. Because if we attack Iran, that's where most of our termoil is going to come from. They'll drop the economic boom on us - they won't have a choice actually. Iran is key to their economies.

mhgaffney

07-01-2008, 07:13 PM

El sid,

These people?

You wrote: "These people who time again again have proven that life means little to them."

Who are "these people?" The phrase certainly does NOT apply to Iran. Ask yourself: How many times has Iran attacked other states in wars of aggression during the last century?

The answer is Zero times!

Now ask: How many nations have the US and Israel attacked in the last century?

Answer: Dozens and dozens!

So who is the aggressor? El sid, Hotrod and others of their ilk are simply nuts. They believe the US is the beacon of all that is good on this planet. Period. But the facts are otherwise. Today, we are rightly perceived by most of the people of the planet as the greatest threat to world peace.

Iran does NOT need nukes to bring the world economy to its knees. They can do it with conventional weapons -- simply by closing the Strait of Hormuz.

I suggest you look at a map. Closing Hormuz would also cut off the line of supply to US forces in Iraq -- which would turn the tables on the US occupiers -- and make us the hunted and the besieged.

At least at Dunkirk the British could escape the Nazis. But in Iraq US forces would be trapped. This could well prompt Bush to use nukes to "save" the US military expeditionary force in Iraq.

Which would be insane.

Think before you make stupid posts. Better yet -- read some history.

MHG

mhgaffney

07-01-2008, 07:16 PM

Now I see it was Tombstone.

But heck -- who can tell you clowns apart? You spout the same twaddle.

elsid13

07-01-2008, 07:41 PM

Better have Nukes targetted at China and Russia then. Because if we attack Iran, that's where most of our termoil is going to come from. They'll drop the economic boom on us - they won't have a choice actually. Iran is key to their economies.

That not true, both economy are more dependent on the west then Iran. Iran isn't a blimp on their trade partners list. When push come to shove it more important for both countries to remain on good terms with West then Iran. Do you really think that make better political and economical sense for them to side with the western nations were they get thier money or a country that has no money? Russia might secertly hope a military actions happens because it means that Germany and Western Europe is more dependent on them for Natural Gas and Oil

The reason that both Russia and China are important is because Iran is overly dependent on them and Germany in trade relations.

Source CIA world book.

Russia

Import partners
Germany 13.9%, China 9.7%, Ukraine 7%, Japan 5.9%, South Korea 5.1%, US 4.8%, France 4.4%, Italy 4.3% (2006)

Exports - partners:
Netherlands 12.3%, Italy 8.6%, Germany 8.4%, China 5.4%, Ukraine 5.1%, Turkey 4.9%, Switzerland 4.1% (2006)

Plus they receive $982.7 million in FY06 from US,

China

Import partenera
Japan 14.6%, South Korea 11.3%, Taiwan 10.9%, US 7.5%, Germany 4.8% (2006)

Exports partners:

US 21%, Hong Kong 16%, Japan 9.5%, South Korea 4.6%, Germany 4.2% (2006)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-01-2008, 07:56 PM

Now I see it was Tombstone.

But heck -- who can tell you clowns apart? You spout the same twaddle.

True that.

I think the one way to tell them apart is that El Sid is some sort of shill for the DOD, it sounds like.

Taco John

07-01-2008, 08:08 PM

That not true, both economy are more dependent on the west then Iran. Iran isn't a blimp on their trade partners list.

A blimp?

Is that blimp filled with oil? Iran exports 340,000 barrels a day (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/JF28Ad01.html) to China. And I'm sure that I don't need to tell anyone the extent by which China has us by the scrote financially.

It doesn't work both ways. They have a manufacturing capability, and a population of billions. We have almost no manufacturing in this country right now.

Tombstone RJ

07-01-2008, 10:29 PM

Taco John

07-01-2008, 11:02 PM

Iran funds terrorists. Iran trains terrorists. Iran preaches intolerance.

What does it say that the terrorists that Iran funded back in the day when we were funding Saddaam, are now the democratically elected government of Iraq? What does it say that we funded Saddaam? What does it say that our CIA funded and trained Osama Bin Ladin?

Does this even register with you when you repeat all this propaganda?

Obushma

07-01-2008, 11:15 PM

That not true, both economy are more dependent on the west then Iran. Iran isn't a blimp on their trade partners list. When push come to shove it more important for both countries to remain on good terms with West then Iran. Do you really think that make better political and economical sense for them to side with the western nations were they get thier money or a country that has no money? Russia might secertly hope a military actions happens because it means that Germany and Western Europe is more dependent on them for Natural Gas and Oil

The reason that both Russia and China are important is because Iran is overly dependent on them and Germany in trade relations.

You are a ignorant fool.

Dont jump on some CIA website and give me facts on exports and imports(non-energy related). Where does Russia and China get more than 50% of their energy imports from? Once you figure that out, come back here without talking out your ass.

When I said "these people" I was talking about the terrorists who have committed suicide while killing innocent people. Islamic Extremists.
Iran funds terrorists. Iran trains terrorists. Iran preaches intolerance.

Tombstone, do you realize that most terrorists are in fact located in Southeast Asia? Jemaah Islamiyah and the Abu Sayyaf Group are two of the largest terrorist organizations in the world, they are not located in Iran, seek no training in Iran, and yet we hear little to nothing about them.

Al-Qaeda has no known training camps in Iran so I'd like to know where you get this information. Who are these terrorists groups in Iran you speak of?

Hotrod

07-02-2008, 09:11 AM

True that.
.

LOL whatz up homey

-1

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-02-2008, 09:16 AM

LOL whatz up homey

-1

How's the view from BushWorld/Fantasy Island? Ha!

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 12:13 PM

What does it say that the terrorists that Iran funded back in the day when we were funding Saddaam, are now the democratically elected government of Iraq? What does it say that we funded Saddaam? What does it say that our CIA funded and trained Osama Bin Ladin?

Does this even register with you when you repeat all this propaganda?

TJ, if you'd do me the curtesy of responding to my posts, and my points, as I have to yours, I might take you more seriously. Instead, you throw out an argument, I refute it, basically destroy it, and you ignore my points.

Then you come along, see one of my posts and blurt out more opinionated tripe.

alkemical

07-02-2008, 12:15 PM

Well it is true what TJ says.

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 12:28 PM

You are a ignorant fool.

Dont jump on some CIA website and give me facts on exports and imports(non-energy related). Where does Russia and China get more than 50% of their energy imports from? Once you figure that out, come back here without talking out your ass.

Tombstone, do you realize that most terrorists are in fact located in Southeast Asia? Jemaah Islamiyah and the Abu Sayyaf Group are two of the largest terrorist organizations in the world, they are not located in Iran, seek no training in Iran, and yet we hear little to nothing about them.

Al-Qaeda has no known training camps in Iran so I'd like to know where you get this information. Who are these terrorists groups in Iran you speak of?

Hezballah is funded by Iran. They are a major terrorist group. Many of the explosive weapons and shiite soldiers are coming out of Iran, and going into Iraq to cause chaos.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html

Iran by proxy, can be linked to Al Queda:

http://www.meforum.org/article/670

Iran is the financial backing behind terrorism:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/#2

alkemical

07-02-2008, 12:30 PM

http://planetquo.net/Orwell/1%20(500%20x%20271).jpg

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 12:31 PM

Well it is true what TJ says.

I'd like to quote one of my favorite movies, and a great Jacky Gleason moment:

"One azzhole at a time."

j/k

alkemical

07-02-2008, 12:34 PM

I'd like to quote one of my favorite movies, and a great Jacky Gleason moment:

"One azzhole at a time."

j/k

You and I both know it's true that many of the foundations that setup the "terrorists" in the M.E. - came out of the end of the cold war. We did fund, and setup terrorists to fight by proxy for our own vested interests. I mean, as bill hicks said "we have the receipts".

But, i guess we have always been at war with East Asia, i mean Eur-Asia... err.... 5!

Rigs11

07-02-2008, 12:56 PM

You and I both know it's true that many of the foundations that setup the "terrorists" in the M.E. - came out of the end of the cold war. We did fund, and setup terrorists to fight by proxy for our own vested interests. I mean, as bill hicks said "we have the receipts".

But, i guess we have always been at war with East Asia, i mean Eur-Asia... err.... 5!

Yep we basically created the Taliban.But hey it's ok when we do it.Much the same how iran is givin ieds to the the iraqis, we gave the iraqis chemical weapons to figh the iranians in the 80's. but hey it's ok when we do it.

alkemical

07-02-2008, 01:06 PM

Yep we basically created the Taliban.But hey it's ok when we do it.Much the same how iran is givin ieds to the the iraqis, we gave the iraqis chemical weapons to figh the iranians in the 80's. but hey it's ok when we do it.

It seems people are oft offended by what they refuse to see in the mirror.

Remember it’s all just a mirror we made to see ourselves in.”
Grant Morrison’s Invisibles: Series III

“In fact, let us not mince words… the management is terrible! We’ve had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This is plain fact. But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these people! You who gave them the power to make decisions for you! While I’ll admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me to be nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged these malicious incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workplace with dangerous and unproven machines. All you had to say was “No.” You have no spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company.” Alan Moore’s V For Vendetta #5

cutthemdown

07-02-2008, 01:28 PM

Rigs11

07-02-2008, 01:32 PM

It seems people are oft offended by what they refuse to see in the mirror.

Remember it’s all just a mirror we made to see ourselves in.”
Grant Morrison’s Invisibles: Series III

“In fact, let us not mince words… the management is terrible! We’ve had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This is plain fact. But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these people! You who gave them the power to make decisions for you! While I’ll admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me to be nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged these malicious incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workplace with dangerous and unproven machines. All you had to say was “No.” You have no spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company.” Alan Moore’s V For Vendetta #5

"You know recently a lot of the past administration said it’s unpatriotic to question the government. You know if it was unpatriotic to question the government we’d still be English."

-Tom Dobbs from 'Man of the Year"

Rigs11

07-02-2008, 01:35 PM

Well what does it say?

It says that they don't "hate us for our freedoms".

alkemical

07-02-2008, 01:47 PM

"You know recently a lot of the past administration said it’s unpatriotic to question the government. You know if it was unpatriotic to question the government we’d still be English."

-Tom Dobbs from 'Man of the Year"

Big Brother isn’t watching. He’s singing and dancing. He’s pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother’s busy holding your attention every moment you’re awake. He’s making sure you’re always distracted. He’s making sure you’re fully absorbed.”
Chuck Palahniuk’s Lullaby

alkemical

07-02-2008, 01:53 PM

“To fight the Empire is to be infected by its derangement. This is a paradox; whoever defeats a segment of the Empire becomes the Empire; it proliferates like a virus, imposing its form on its enemies. Thereby it becomes its enemies.”
Philip K. Dick’s VALIS

Bronco Jamus

07-02-2008, 01:55 PM

We would put them out of business, then China, Russia, and India would be looking elsewhere for oil for starters. I don't think they would thank us for it to put it mildly.

alkemical

07-02-2008, 02:00 PM

We would put them out of business, then China, Russia, and India would be looking elsewhere for oil for starters. I don't think they would thank us for it to put it mildly.

So lets put them out of business. But differently. Let's use something that isn't guns, and death. Lets focus on creating a new way of energy, a new way of life. Then do what we do, market the hell out of it - cash in on it - get everyone else to buy into it - and then give them the bird.

I mean, some other people think bombs and war are the only answers - I only offer alternatives. But the fact is, people want war and death.

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 02:05 PM

You and I both know it's true that many of the foundations that setup the "terrorists" in the M.E. - came out of the end of the cold war. We did fund, and setup terrorists to fight by proxy for our own vested interests. I mean, as bill hicks said "we have the receipts".

But, i guess we have always been at war with East Asia, i mean Eur-Asia... err.... 5!

You'll never see me argue against a person who claims US foreign policy is not perfect and has made some huge mistakes. In fact, I can probably point out at least one more huge foreign policy mistake the US has made in the past. However, I don't want to compound problems by placating a country like Iran that funds terrorism.

alkemical

07-02-2008, 02:11 PM

You'll never see me argue against a person who claims US foreign policy is not perfect and has made some huge mistakes. In fact, I can probably point out at least one more huge foreign policy mistake the US has made in the past. However, I don't want to compound problems by placating a country like Iran that funds terrorism.

You know that quote i put up by PKD on fighting the empire:

“To fight the Empire is to be infected by its derangement. This is a paradox; whoever defeats a segment of the Empire becomes the Empire; it proliferates like a virus, imposing its form on its enemies. Thereby it becomes its enemies.”
Philip K. Dick’s VALIS

The true terrorists aren't the ones that we are told to fear. There is a danger and threat due to them, but we are doing everything to reinforce their ideology. We become more like them, the longer we fight them. They in turn do the same.

So don't condone state-sponsored terrorism - but don't support by using the mantra of "supporting our country" or "it's what's best for us". It is after all, saying "the bombings will continue", "murder will continue".

“Stop being frightened. You only see a monster because they want you to see
monsters everywhere. They’ve conditioned you to look for monsters in every shadow,
every coat hung on every door. As long as we keep seeing monsters, we’ll continue to
need protection and that’s how other people get to control our lives.”
Grant Morrison’s Doom Patrol

Bronco Jamus

07-02-2008, 02:17 PM

So lets put them out of business. But differently. Let's use something that isn't guns, and death. Lets focus on creating a new way of energy, a new way of life. Then do what we do, market the hell out of it - cash in on it - get everyone else to buy into it - and then give them the bird.

I mean, some other people think bombs and war are the only answers - I only offer alternatives. But the fact is, people want war and death.

I am all for an alternative first, but force should be quietly on the table when dealing with a country that would want to destroy our allies.

alkemical

07-02-2008, 02:18 PM

I am all for an alternative first, but force should be quietly on the table when dealing with a country that would want to destroy our allies.

So then...you don't expect the same hostilities when a country feels their allies are threatened?

Bronco Jamus

07-02-2008, 02:20 PM

So then...you don't expect the same hostilities when a country feels their allies are threatened?

Certainly. I also expect them to lose.

alkemical

07-02-2008, 02:25 PM

Certainly. I also expect them to lose.

A SERMON ON ETHICS AND LOVE

One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the
Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards
the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?

"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord!
Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden
from my heart!"

WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain.
Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with
injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers
imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

"But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it."

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left
The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.

Taco John

07-02-2008, 02:29 PM

TJ, if you'd do me the curtesy of responding to my posts, and my points, as I have to yours, I might take you more seriously. Instead, you throw out an argument, I refute it, basically destroy it, and you ignore my points.

Then you come along, see one of my posts and blurt out more opinionated tripe.

I try, but there's actually not a lot of substance in your posts to respond to. You have not only NOT refuted any of my points (let alone destroyed them) but you mischaracterized what I've said as "opinionated tripe." I actually haven't offered any opinions in this thread. Mostly I gave a factual timeline - or asked questions based on factual events.

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 02:39 PM

You know that quote i put up by PKD on fighting the empire:

“To fight the Empire is to be infected by its derangement. This is a paradox; whoever defeats a segment of the Empire becomes the Empire; it proliferates like a virus, imposing its form on its enemies. Thereby it becomes its enemies.”
Philip K. Dick’s VALIS

The true terrorists aren't the ones that we are told to fear. There is a danger and threat due to them, but we are doing everything to reinforce their ideology. We become more like them, the longer we fight them. They in turn do the same.

So don't condone state-sponsored terrorism - but don't support by using the mantra of "supporting our country" or "it's what's best for us". It is after all, saying "the bombings will continue", "murder will continue".

“Stop being frightened. You only see a monster because they want you to see
monsters everywhere. They’ve conditioned you to look for monsters in every shadow,
every coat hung on every door. As long as we keep seeing monsters, we’ll continue to
need protection and that’s how other people get to control our lives.”
Grant Morrison’s Doom Patrol

The difference between the two of us is I don't consider the US an empire. The US has made some short sided decisions on US foreign policy, but that is a far cry from true empire building.

Is the US government gonna protect US interests, yep. Is some of that strategy bone-headed, yep. Does the US want WORLD DOMINATION AND SUBJUGATION OF ALL PEOPLES WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH US. No.

This is where you and I don't see eye-to-eye. If you go back and look at the majority of US foreign policy decisions over the years, you'll see more good than bad.

Certainly, you can pick examples of bad foreign policy: Vietnam (very interesting story if you have read "The History of Vietnam" a great book), Iran, Iraq under Saddam Hussien, the US's backstabbing of the Kurds, desertion of Afghanistan after the defeat of the USSR, etc..

Dude, the mistakes are there. But there are many, many good stories as well. You will be hard pressed to find an argument for "empire building" because of all the peoples and nations the US has helped, yet never asked for anything back.

alkemical

07-02-2008, 02:41 PM

The difference between the two of us is I don't consider the US an empire. The US has made some short sided decisions on US foreign policy, but that is a far cry from true empire building.

Is the US government gonna protect US interests, yep. Is some of that strategy bone-headed, yep. Does the US want WORLD DOMINATION AND SUBJUGATION OF ALL PEOPLES WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH US. No.

This is where you and I don't see eye-to-eye. If you go back and look at the majority of US foreign policy decisions over the years, you'll see more good than bad.

Certainly, you can pick examples of bad foreign policy: Vietnam (very interesting story if you have read "The History of Vietnam" a great book), Iran, Iraq under Saddam Hussien, the US's backstabbing of the Kurds, desertion of Afghanistan after the defeat of the USSR, etc..

Dude, the mistakes are there. But there are many, many good stories as well. You will be hard pressed to find an argument for "empire building" because of all the peoples and nations the US has helped, yet never asked for anything back.

Empire in the "classical" sense, i'd agree with you. But it's changed since greece and horseback fought wars. The empire building is dependant on the US dollar being the defacto currency. If we weren't empire building we wouldn't have been meddling in the ME forever, or establishing "democracy" in South America for, what, how long again?

They don't have to ask for anything back, it's included in the bill.

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 02:46 PM

I try, but there's actually not a lot of substance in your posts to respond to. You have not only NOT refuted any of my points (let alone destroyed them) but you mischaracterized what I've said as "opinionated tripe." I actually haven't offered any opinions in this thread. Mostly I gave a factual timeline - or asked questions based on factual events.

Really. You claim that Iran is wanting to export nuclear power and has no weapons plans.

I come back and show you where they have been offered help by the West to make nuclear power, yet the refuse that help. I then show you how they have dubious enrichment plants that can produce nuclear weapons.

What is your response to that, basically "so what!"

I then show you that it's strange that Iran is spending millions and millions of dollars on uranium enrichment, yet wont build refineries for all the oil it is sitting on. THIS IS AFTER YOU CLAIM IRAN IS RUNNING OUT OF OIL.

Taco John

07-02-2008, 02:47 PM

Your post that supposedly "destroyed" the factual timeline that I presented was disjointed and didn't make much sense at all. Here it is.

Wow TJ, extremely thought out and very rational. But, there are a couple of problems.

I want to say first, you are absolutely correct that the US has an extreme need to protect the US dollar, and I believe that is ultimately, why we invaded Iraq.

So your first point is that you believe that we invaded Iraq to protect the dollar - already you are admitting an ethical deficiency in our actions. You clearly admit that we are killing innocent people for the almighty dollar. At this point, you've proven my point, but I'll continue...

If you look at the Cold War, what was it really about? Was it about two political idealogies--Democracy vs. Communism? Or, IMHO, was it really about two economies--Free trade vs. socialistic trade.

It was about neither of those. It was about pride and power. The rest was just dressing.

How did we win the Cold War?

By counterfeitting the ruble, flooding their markets with counterfeit currency, and causing hyper-inflation in their markets, essentially destroying their economy.

Simple, we out spent the USSR. The USSR's economy collapsed, we won!

Uh, no. We didn't win because we out-spent them.

*sigh*

It pains me that your opinion of this discussion is that you "destroyed" the post that I took so much time and effort to put together. I provided concrete facts. All I'm getting here as a counter is some non-sequitur on the Cold War with little grounding in reality.

Now, the US has to protect the dollar. Your saying that the dollar is based on the value of oil, which is a commodity. You may be right.

No, I didn't say that. In fact, I took great pains to spell out that the dollar is tied to the worldwide demand for oil. Not the oil itself. It's tied to the subjective demand - meaning that if the demand for oil decreases, the dollar will stagnate worldwide. Meaning that any new technologies that are developed that decrease the worldwide demand for oil are actually BAD for Americans in the current state of the economy.

But, you have to remember the US has Ft. Knox, the most highly guarded facility in the US. In essence, the US has enough gold to back the US dollar, and there was no real reason to keep the value of the dollar connected to the value of Gold.

*sigh*

What do you know about Ft. Knox? This paragraph has absolutely no substance to it. It's a desperate stab in the dark. How much gold is in Ft. Knox? Nobody knows. In fact, many theorize that there's not any, and THAT'S why it's so heavily guarded because if the rest of the world knew it, all hell would break loose. Ft. Knox isn't even on the map in this discussion. It means nothing.

So, Nixon switched it to an energy commodity in 1971.

No he didn't. He switched it to a subjective demand for an energy commidity. There is a meaningful difference - one being we don't own the commodity that the dollar is being linked to (which poses ethical problems in itself).

Then what happened, oh yah, OPEC put a knife into the American economy by cutting production and raising the cost of gas. OPEC got rich, but what happened to the value of the dollar? Presumably it should have gotten stronger, yes?

Why would it presumably get stronger? That makes no sense.

Anyhoo, all of this confrontation with the ME can be avoided and the dollar can be strengthened by doing one simple, yet complicated, thing: develop an alternative energy source.

Yeah. You destroyed my post alright.

The reason why I ignored your post was because I didn't want to be rude. It became clear to me in your response that you aren't interested in actually basing the discussion on facts. This is clear for the fact that you didn't include a single one in your post.

I wasn't interested in getting into an argument based on opinions and conjecture around the cold war, and your misunderstandings of our monetary system. I was just laying out the facts as they are to let people draw their own conclusions.

Taco John

07-02-2008, 02:52 PM

THIS IS AFTER YOU CLAIM IRAN IS RUNNING OUT OF OIL.

Just to be clear: this isn't my theory. I don't subscribe to the peak oil theory - and apparently neither do you. That's great. We agree that peak oil is bunk.

But we're in the minority. The rest of the world believes in peak oil.

Taco John

07-02-2008, 02:53 PM

The difference between the two of us is I don't consider the US an empire. The US has made some short sided decisions on US foreign policy, but that is a far cry from true empire building.

We have the greatest military empire the world has ever seen. We have over 700 military bases worldwide. Whatever your new definition of empire is, it's wrong.

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 02:57 PM

Empire in the "classical" sense, i'd agree with you. But it's changed since greece and horseback fought wars. The empire building is dependant on the US dollar being the defacto currency. If we weren't empire building we wouldn't have been meddling in the ME forever, or establishing "democracy" in South America for, what, how long again?

They don't have to ask for anything back, it's included in the bill.

The US dollar IS the defacto currancy because the strength of the US economy.

For example, when a terrorist in the ME wants to purchase arms in a foreign nation, he's gonna use the US dollar because it is the defacto international currency.

Not because of US foreign policy, but because of the free market, and international trading. The dollar has strength because that person who has the dollar knows it's value. He or she knows that when they buy something with it, that money will be honored.

That has everything to do with trade, commodities, stocks, bonds, assets, etc.,

Does the US want to protect the dollar, damn right! It's in your's and mine best interest if the dollar stays strong.

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 03:00 PM

We have the greatest military empire the world has ever seen. We have over 700 military bases worldwide. Whatever your new definition of empire is, it's wrong.

Oh yah, this is where I kicked your azz last time too: those bases are wanted by the government of those countries. In essence, those US bases are being asked to be there.

The US has closed down alot of bases around the world since the end of the cold war, but you have conviniently ignored that fact.

Yep, keep ignore stuff. Keep dodging my counter points.

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 03:01 PM

Just to be clear: this isn't my theory. I don't subscribe to the peak oil theory - and apparently neither do you. That's great. We agree that peak oil is bunk.

But we're in the minority. The rest of the world believes in peak oil.

Nice dodge. Just admit your wrong.

Taco John

07-02-2008, 03:03 PM

Taco John

07-02-2008, 03:04 PM

Nice dodge. Just admit your wrong.

Wrong about what?

I can't get into your spin games. I've got more important things to do, and I've already made my point.

alkemical

07-02-2008, 03:08 PM

The US dollar IS the defacto currancy because the strength of the US economy.

For example, when a terrorist in the ME wants to purchase arms in a foreign nation, he's gonna use the US dollar because it is the defacto international currency.

Not because of US foreign policy, but because of the free market, and international trading. The dollar has strength because that person who has the dollar knows it's value. He or she knows that when they buy something with it, that money will be honored.

That has everything to do with trade, commodities, stocks, bonds, assets, etc.,

Does the US want to protect the dollar, damn right! It's in your's and mine best interest if the dollar stays strong.

No, it's because we got guns. Don't kid yourself. What happens when someone doesn't go along with the US wants?

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 03:50 PM

Your post that supposedly "destroyed" the factual timeline that I presented was disjointed and didn't make much sense at all. Here it is.

So your first point is that you believe that we invaded Iraq to protect the dollar - already you are admitting an ethical deficiency in our actions. You clearly admit that we are killing innocent people for the almighty dollar. At this point, you've proven my point, but I'll continue....

I've admitted US foreign policy has made mistakes, but what you are saying is that the US is empire building, I don't agree.

It was about neither of those. It was about pride and power. The rest was just dressing..

Wrong, absolutely wrong. All wars come down to economics. The US and the free market economy is what brought down the USSR and the Eastern Block.

By counterfeitting the ruble, flooding their markets with counterfeit currency, and causing hyper-inflation in their markets, essentially destroying their economy..

Where are you getting this from? Reagan simply out spent the USSR on the miltary, putting the US in a huge deficit. The straw that broke the camel's back was Reagan's Star Wars initiative. Once the USSR saw that coming, they basically shut down.

Uh, no. We didn't win because we out-spent them.

*sigh*.

Sorry, that is exactly what happened.

It pains me that your opinion of this discussion is that you "destroyed" the post that I took so much time and effort to put together. I provided concrete facts. All I'm getting here as a counter is some non-sequitur on the Cold War with little grounding in reality.

No, I didn't say that. In fact, I took great pains to spell out that the dollar is tied to the worldwide demand for oil. Not the oil itself. It's tied to the subjective demand - meaning that if the demand for oil decreases, the dollar will stagnate worldwide. Meaning that any new technologies that are developed that decrease the worldwide demand for oil are actually BAD for Americans in the current state of the economy.

So what, you might say. The dollar is still trading. Yes, it is. And only because of the second bullet point there - the dollar is backed by oil. Or more specifically, it is backed by the worldwide demand for oil. The more demand for oil in the world, the more there is a demand for the US dollar. The more expensive a barrel of oil is, the more worldwide demand there is for the US dollar. The implications of this are astounding if people would just wake up to it and connect the dots.

I cannot find anything on the US dollar being backed by oil. Nixon did untie the dollar from gold, and now it's value basically floats, in essence, it's tied to alot of different factors.

What do you know about Ft. Knox? This paragraph has absolutely no substance to it. It's a desperate stab in the dark. How much gold is in Ft. Knox? Nobody knows. In fact, many theorize that there's not any, and THAT'S why it's so heavily guarded because if the rest of the world knew it, all hell would break loose. Ft. Knox isn't even on the map in this discussion. It means nothing.So what, you might say. The dollar is still trading. Yes, it is. And only because of the second bullet point there - the dollar is backed by oil. Or more specifically, it is backed by the worldwide demand for oil. The more demand for oil in the world, the more there is a demand for the US dollar. The more expensive a barrel of oil is, the more worldwide demand there is for the US dollar. The implications of this are a.

I used Ft. Knox as an example to back the strength of the US dollar. Gold is one of the commodities that the US dollar floats its value on.

No he didn't. He switched it to a subjective demand for an energy commidity. There is a meaningful difference - one being we don't own the commodity that the dollar is being linked to (which poses ethical problems in itself). .

No Nixon didn't. He untied the dollar from Gold and let its value float.

Why would it presumably get stronger? That makes no sense..

If it's tied to one commodity, when the value of that commodity increases, shouldn't the value of the dollar as well?

Yeah. You destroyed my post alright.

The reason why I ignored your post was because I didn't want to be rude.

Thanks

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 04:15 PM

At the end of the day, Tombstone, you support the idea that we invaded a country, and have killed innocent (and yes, guilty) people in the name of the US Dollar. And then you go on to justify why it was the proper thing to do to link our dollar to the demand for their oil.

You proved my entire point. The rest is just window dressing to this central thing.

Wrong TJ, wrong.

This is my position at the end of the day: All wars are based on money, in the end, all wars come down to economic factors. I used the Cold War as the perfect example.

Now, if that is the case, then the US will protect the dollar.

Let's just agree on that point, because I think that is what you are trying to say.

Now, the argument that you are trying to make is that the US is "empire building" by protecting the US dollar. This is your theory, in essence.

Fine. If that is what you believe, great.

My contention is that there is a huge difference between true "empire building" and protecting one's economy and protecting one's interests.

When you build an empire, truly build one, you systematically subjugate all peoples and conquered countries. That is, you aggressively attack other peoples, en masse, to extend your power. You then control those people and their economies, and tax them, and take their raw materials, etc. You also do not give them the right to elect their own leadership, and you don't let these conquered peoples vote.

Examples of empire building: The USSR in Eastern Europe, Japan before WWII, Germany during the Third Reich, England between the 1600 and 1900s, France through much of the 19th and into the 20th century, Spain in the 1500s, the Ottoman Empire, Rome, etc...

The US, while protecting it's interests, has abused it's power when it comes to foreign policy, but that is a far, far cry from empire building.

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 04:22 PM

No, it's because we got guns. Don't kid yourself. What happens when someone doesn't go along with the US wants?

You mean like in Zimbabwe? The US does not like what is going on there. Why not just "take it over?" Yah know, they are weak! Let's build an empire!

You mean like that?

Oh, no, you don't do you... let's think, oh yah, the US is the leading food supplier to that country as we speak.

That's food we are "giving" them.

But the US is an empire!! The US wants to TAKE THE WORLD OVER!!

Oops, forgot about them...:peace:

Rigs11

07-02-2008, 05:00 PM

kappys

07-02-2008, 05:05 PM

Tombstone RJ

07-02-2008, 05:39 PM

One more point, TJ:

I believe, and I might be wrong about this, that what you are saying is this: OPEC can only sell or trade oil under the US dollar. That is, OPEC struck a deal with the US and Nixon (bless his pee pick'n soul) that when they sell oil, they can only take payment for it in US currency. So, in essence, their economies are based on the US dollar.

Smart move by Nixon.

I think that is what you are trying to say...

Bronco_Beerslug

07-02-2008, 07:07 PM

One more point, TJ:

I believe, and I might be wrong about this, that what you are saying is this: OPEC can only sell or trade oil under the US dollar. That is, OPEC struck a deal with the US and Nixon (bless his pee pick'n soul) that when they sell oil, they can only take payment for it in US currency. So, in essence, their economies are based on the US dollar.
Smart move by Nixon.
I think that is what you are trying to say...Incorrect. OPEC will trade oil in the currency that best serves them. They'll sit back for awhile and watch things unfold before they do.

Taco John

07-02-2008, 10:22 PM

Incorrect. OPEC will trade oil in the currency that best serves them. They'll sit back for awhile and watch things unfold before they do.

Exactly. It's looking more and more like they're going to switch wholesale to the Euro. We'll see if he's still worshipping Tricky Dick then.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-02-2008, 10:49 PM

Exactly. It's looking more and more like they're going to switch wholesale to the Euro. We'll see if he's still worshipping Tricky Dick then.

Where is the evidence that OPEC nations (other than Iran) have any definite or concrete plans to do this?

If they all "switch wholesale to the Euro" then America is toast.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-02-2008, 11:00 PM

I believe, and I might be wrong about this, that what you are saying is this: OPEC can only sell or trade oil under the US dollar. That is, OPEC struck a deal with the US and Nixon (bless his pee pick'n soul) that when they sell oil, they can only take payment for it in US currency. So, in essence, their economies are based on the US dollar.

Another part of the agreement was that these same countries purchase our debt with a percentage of the profits from those oil sales.

Smart move by Nixon.

Smart move?

Are you kidding me?

It was a move that ensured that the Saudis, et al, would have the entire U.S. economy by the short hairs.

baja

07-02-2008, 11:09 PM

Where is the evidence that OPEC nations (other than Iran) have any definite or concrete plans to do this?

If they all "switch wholesale to the Euro" then America is toast.

What do you think they will do as soon as there is enough demand from China and other emerging countries that they don't need us to buy their oil anymore? They will drop up and our worthless dollar like a hot potato.

Taco John

07-02-2008, 11:34 PM

Where is the evidence that OPEC nations (other than Iran) have any definite or concrete plans to do this?

If they all "switch wholesale to the Euro" then America is toast.

Headline: OPEC may switch to euro (http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL0882239220080208)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-03-2008, 12:15 AM

Headline: OPEC may switch to euro (http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL0882239220080208)

The key words are "may" and "maybe."

This isn't the first time they've floated the idea.

Taco John

07-03-2008, 01:03 AM

The key words are "may" and "maybe."

This isn't the first time they've floated the idea.

Those words somehow give you comfort?

They've got a gun pointed at our temple. They "may" and "maybe" and "might" pull the trigger. What does it matter? The point is still the same: they've got a gun pointed at our temple.

I can't, for the life of me, understand how people rationalize this situation. Your post is a perfect example. You ask where is the proof. I show it to you. Your response: "may" and "maybe."

Why did you even ask for proof if all you were going to do was dismiss it once it was delivered?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-03-2008, 01:45 AM

Those words somehow give you comfort?

They've got a gun pointed at our temple. They "may" and "maybe" and "might" pull the trigger. What does it matter? The point is still the same: they've got a gun pointed at our temple.

I can't, for the life of me, understand how people rationalize this situation. Your post is a perfect example. You ask where is the proof. I show it to you. Your response: "may" and "maybe."

Why did you even ask for proof if all you were going to do was dismiss it once it was delivered?

???

Where did I say that it "gave me comfort" or that it wasn't a concern?

Your original post made it sound like a switch by OPEC from the dollar to the Euro was imminent, so I asked where you were getting your information.

Taco John

07-03-2008, 02:30 AM

I'm not saying it's imminent. I'm just painting the picture of the situation that we're in right now. I'm not about to guess what OPEC will do, or when they'll do it. But given the plunge of the dollar and the rise of the Euro, people can draw their own conclusions as to where OPEC's head is on the matter.

alkemical

07-03-2008, 07:34 AM

You mean like in Zimbabwe? The US does not like what is going on there. Why not just "take it over?" Yah know, they are weak! Let's build an empire!

You mean like that?

Oh, no, you don't do you... let's think, oh yah, the US is the leading food supplier to that country as we speak.

That's food we are "giving" them.

But the US is an empire!! The US wants to TAKE THE WORLD OVER!!

Oops, forgot about them...:peace:

Wait, you mean the US is supporting another dictator?

Robert Mugabe once was hailed as a symbol of the new Africa, but under his rule the health and well-being of his people have dropped dramatically, which is as much an abuse of human rights as arbitrary arrest and torture. According to the World Health Organization, Zimbabwe has the world’s shortest life expectancy—37 years for men and 34 for women. It also has the greatest percentage of orphans (about 25%, says UNICEF) and the worst annual inflation rate (1,281% as of last month). He last allowed an election in 2002 but “won” only after having his leading opponent arrested for treason.

___

Maybe that food is so that way we can have interrogation rooms in Zimbabwe - ya know - as long as he goes along with it - we don't really see what goes on. Just like the support of a dictator in Uzb. (who boils people alive).

So sorry man - drinking a diet coke with a triple whopper w/cheese and onion rings don't cancel each other out.

alkemical

07-03-2008, 07:37 AM

The key words are "may" and "maybe."

This isn't the first time they've floated the idea.

Uhm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse

During 2007, Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non-dollar currencies. By December 8, 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies. [8] The Kish Bourse was officially opened in a videoconference ceremony on February the 17th 2008, despite last minute disruptions to the internet services to the gulf regions. Currently the Kish Bourse is only trading in oil derived products, generally those used as feedstock for the plastics and pharmaceutical industries. However officially published statements by Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari indicate that the second phase, to establish trading in crude oil directly, which has been suggested might one day perhaps create a "Caspian Crude" benchmark price analogous to Brent Crude or WTI will only be started after the Bourse has demonstrated a reasonable period of trouble-free running. [9]

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-03-2008, 07:42 AM

Uhm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse

During 2007, Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non-dollar currencies. By December 8, 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies. [8] The Kish Bourse was officially opened in a videoconference ceremony on February the 17th 2008, despite last minute disruptions to the internet services to the gulf regions. Currently the Kish Bourse is only trading in oil derived products, generally those used as feedstock for the plastics and pharmaceutical industries. However officially published statements by Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari indicate that the second phase, to establish trading in crude oil directly, which has been suggested might one day perhaps create a "Caspian Crude" benchmark price analogous to Brent Crude or WTI will only be started after the Bourse has demonstrated a reasonable period of trouble-free running. [9]

I know about Iran - TJ's statement was about OPEC as a whole.

elsid13

07-03-2008, 08:13 AM

[QUOTE=ThyNatural;1996571]You are a ignorant fool.

Dont jump on some CIA website and give me facts on exports and imports(non-energy related). Where does Russia and China get more than 50% of their energy imports from? Once you figure that out, come back here without talking out your ass.

[QUOTE]

OK

China produce 60% of oil requirement internal (mostly in the interior) but in recent year they are focus in develop of off shore drilling in the South China Sea. Which might cause problem since India is looking at the same resource BTW in 2005 China was right behind Iran as one the top oil producer in the world (source Internal Petroleum Monthly)

In order of importers China get oil (source is 2006 since China doesn't release annual data -it from China Oil and Gas Monthly)

40% remain

Angola 16.69%
Saudi Arabia 16.47%
Iran 11.83%
Russia 11.45%
Oman 8.37%
Congo 3.90%
Equat. Guinea 3.57%
Yemen 3.44%
Venezuela. 3.08%
other 21.19%

What is not shown because it is 2005 data but need to the Chinese is now starting rapidly get oil from the Sudan. So answer to your question China get a third of imports from Angola, Saudi Arabia and Others*.

I can Russia too if you want. But we both know what the number will say....

Ninjafied

07-03-2008, 08:41 AM

If they all "switch wholesale to the Euro" then America is toast.

Funny thing about America’s empire, as impressive as the mighty military machine is; it’s the trade network that gives it the real power. And though the US trade balance is all F’ed up and can’t go on forever, it still swings a lot of power.
So its just crazy talk to think that China or Russia or anyone else would impose sanctions. China needs to sell their crap more than the US needs to buy it. Imagine what one-point-whatever billion unemployed Chinese looks like. Then look at state giant Gazprom. Check the facts, but I’m pretty sure a lot of its production subsidizes the Russian people and only a percentage goes towards actual profit. So like Venezuela and a lot of the other oil producers, Russia needs cash a whole lot more than you might think.

Pricing oil in Euro is just plain stupid talk. There’s America, the world’s biggest trader and importer of oil. Next biggest trader and importer of oil is China, which is pegged to the US$. Then there’s the world’s biggest producer of oil, which has its currency pegged to the US$.
So OPEC can price oil in Thai Baht for all I care, but most of the world is paying dollars. Supply and demand = economics 101.

Tombstone RJ

07-03-2008, 11:49 AM

Wait, you mean the US is supporting another dictator?

Robert Mugabe once was hailed as a symbol of the new Africa, but under his rule the health and well-being of his people have dropped dramatically, which is as much an abuse of human rights as arbitrary arrest and torture. According to the World Health Organization, Zimbabwe has the world’s shortest life expectancy—37 years for men and 34 for women. It also has the greatest percentage of orphans (about 25%, says UNICEF) and the worst annual inflation rate (1,281% as of last month). He last allowed an election in 2002 but “won” only after having his leading opponent arrested for treason.

___

Maybe that food is so that way we can have interrogation rooms in Zimbabwe - ya know - as long as he goes along with it - we don't really see what goes on. Just like the support of a dictator in Uzb. (who boils people alive).

So sorry man - drinking a diet coke with a triple whopper w/cheese and onion rings don't cancel each other out.

No, I didn't say that. I said the US does not support Mugabe because the election was rigged. He's an obvious dictator.

However, I did get two African nations screwed up. The US is the largest food supplier to Darfur, which is part of Sudan, which is in civil war right now. My bad.

Point being, the US is giving the people of Darfur food, without any strings attached. And US aid to foreign countries throughout the world has happened time and time again, without strings attached.

alkemical

07-03-2008, 12:23 PM

No, I didn't say that. I said the US does not support Mugabe because the election was rigged. He's an obvious dictator.

However, I did get two African nations screwed up. The US is the largest food supplier to Darfur, which is part of Sudan, which is in civil war right now. My bad.

Point being, the US is giving the people of Darfur food, without any strings attached. And US aid to foreign countries throughout the world has happened time and time again, without strings attached.

There are ALWAYS strings attached man. That's what you fail to see.

Tombstone RJ

07-03-2008, 12:51 PM

There are ALWAYS strings attached man. That's what you fail to see.

What do you suggest then, isolationism?

alkemical

07-03-2008, 12:58 PM

What do you suggest then, isolationism?

Expedited Evolution.

elsid13

07-03-2008, 01:08 PM

Expedited Evolution.

OK I not drunk enough, but explain away.

Beside there isn't something wrong with "strings attached" if you think it helps your country and the world.

alkemical

07-03-2008, 01:16 PM

OK I not drunk enough, but explain away.

Beside there isn't something wrong with "strings attached" if you think it helps your country and the world.

Yes, keeping countries poor for cheap labour is good for the top of the industrialized nations class. I mean, it makes us feel good when we send over food. It's kinda like giving a homeless man $1 after you kick him in the nuts.

Nothing will change until people really want change. I think it's an evolutionary process. Just as the hemispheric dominance of the brain has evolved from plato's time to now.

We are using binary and antiquated solutions that are still hard-wired into our brains. Funny how we think "god" should be an "alpha male" - that's so mammalian.

So in a round about way - i think that something (unfortunately) bad has to happen to reduce the gene pool and to force a change in operation to how things are done 'around here'.

elsid13

07-03-2008, 01:22 PM

Yes, keeping countries poor for cheap labour is good for the top of the industrialized nations class. I mean, it makes us feel good when we send over food. It's kinda like giving a homeless man $1 after you kick him in the nuts.

Nothing will change until people really want change. I think it's an evolutionary process. Just as the hemispheric dominance of the brain has evolved from plato's time to now.

We are using binary and antiquated solutions that are still hard-wired into our brains. Funny how we think "god" should be an "alpha male" - that's so mammalian.

So in a round about way - i think that something (unfortunately) bad has to happen to reduce the gene pool and to force a change in operation to how things are done 'around here'.

Kicking someone else in the nuts can be extremely funny. Yes some would say it better if we lived in communal society that everyone helped each other for the betterment of all but that impossible with lack of connection that imposed by the number of individual involved. It easy to help other when you connect and they are close, but hard when you don't have personnel connection

alkemical

07-03-2008, 01:27 PM

Kicking someone else in the nuts can be extremely funny. Yes some would say it better if we lived in communal society that everyone helped each other for the betterment of all but that impossible with lack of connection that imposed by the number of individual involved. It easy to help other when you connect and they are close, but hard when you don't have personnel connection

but there ARE personnel connections...tribalism isn't dead. Infact, it's part of what's gotten us in this mess.

elsid13

07-03-2008, 01:39 PM

but there ARE personnel connections...tribalism isn't dead. Infact, it's part of what's gotten us in this mess.

But when things like Dafur/Sudan or Rwanda happen it to big for most to fully understand. We fell bad but that lack of connection does force us to act. In fact we need to be more careful because technology can make communication easier, but it also open the ability to lose that interaction

alkemical

07-03-2008, 01:48 PM

But when things like Dafur/Sudan or Rwanda happen it to big for most to fully understand. We fell bad but that lack of connection does force us to act. In fact we need to be more careful because technology can make communication easier, but it also open the ability to lose that interaction

I don't think we need to act. People argue against isolationism, and i do see the point and merit in not adhering to a strict policy of such ~ but getting involved - it seems we have a bad track record for picking 'good guys'.

Taco John

07-03-2008, 05:56 PM

I think isolationism is a bad idea. And for what it's worth, we have pretty well isolated ourselves from the rest of the world with our actions since the Iraq War. It's no good. We shouldn't strive to isolate ourselves.

Instead, we should take a policy of Armed Neutrality. If other countries stop looking at America as a crutch or worse, as a lever of power to fight their enemies, then they'll be forced to sit down and work out their problems with their neighbors.

Besides, can't we be friends with our natural allies without having to provide ALL of their defense needs for them? Why can't countries like Germany, France, and Japan provide their own national defense?

mhgaffney

07-03-2008, 08:05 PM

It seems we have a bad track record for picking 'good guys'....

Yes, because like attracts like.

That's how we got paired up with Noriega, Marcos, Somoza, the Shah, etc

The hardest thing for Americans to face is that our nation has descended into a swamp of corruption and evil.

The truth is that it's been this way for a long time. The media bombardment keeps Americans from knowing it.

This achievement of modern propaganda has been made easier by the fact that many Americans don't want to know to truth. They are afraid of knowing.

And besides, living in denial feels good. Why change?

MHG

Cito Pelon

07-03-2008, 09:27 PM

If we are at war, and sniper fire breaks out across America, you're telling me that you don't believe they'd declare martial law?

Of course panicking crybabies would allow Fascists to seize control. Fascists are just waiting for turmoil to impose martial law.

Cito Pelon

07-03-2008, 09:30 PM

I don't, because it would do more harm to America through the economic impact then the lose of few individuals. I know that sound harsh, but by going into lock down hurts the nation more then few bullets. Terror wins if it causes a major impact to your country.

I would expect more xenophobia and racial incidents as regular citizens become more angery, but psychological impact is greater problem then the actually deaths that this would cause.

WTF, where you been? That already happened, elsid.

Cito Pelon

07-03-2008, 09:48 PM

I don't have a single source of information. I read everything I can get my hands on, especially foreign news sources (American news is inferior in depth, and always dripping with bias).

But more to the point, I start by following the money. News doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Things lead up to it. When you connect these things - a bigger picture emerges. "They" have done a great job in capsulizing the attention spans of Americans. Nobody looks at these issues as larger threads in the fabric of history anymore.

So here are some facts that anybody can research on their own and come to their own conclusions:

In 1971, Nixon "closed the gold window," which effectively stopped the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold.

In 1971, the US negotiated with OPEC countries to accept only dollars in payment for their oil.

I don't believe that people understand the significance of these two moves. They, in effect, took the tangible gold backing of the dollar away, and replaced it with nothing - not oil - nothing. You cannot take your dollar into a bank and get any amount of gold for it. Prior to that you could.

So what, you might say. The dollar is still trading. Yes, it is. And only because of the second bullet point there - the dollar is backed by oil. Or more specifically, it is backed by the worldwide demand for oil. The more demand for oil in the world, the more there is a demand for the US dollar. The more expensive a barrel of oil is, the more worldwide demand there is for the US dollar. The implications of this are astounding if people would just wake up to it and connect the dots.

These are verifiable facts. Anyone can find this stuff in less than 30 seconds and verify their truth. So now that we've established that they are, in fact, true, I have a question: In whose best interest is it to have instability in the Middle East?

A few more verifiable facts:

In 2000, Saddaam Hussein began taking moves to stop accepting the US Dollar for Iraqi oil, and instead accept the Euro. By the end of 2002, the dollar's value fell 18% against the Euro.

At the end of 2002, a war frenzy was whipped up in the American public to go after non-existant weapons of mass destruction. In this case, the weapons actually existed (so the stories went), we just needed to go in and uncover them.

Five years later, no weapons of mass destruction have been uncovered, however...

Iraq has now opened up 8 of it's largest oil and natural gas fields, and is expecting to increase production 1.5 B barrels daily.

Once again, all verifiable facts... But with the last one, there is a sticking point - follow the money - Iraq wants the oil companies that come in to merely extract the oil, and to accept - get this - US Dollars as payment for their services. The companies right now don't want US dollars in payment. They want a share of the oil that is being pumped. Iraq is saying "No. We are looking for companies to provide service contracts, not production sharing contracts."

On August 8th, Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki thanked Iran for its "positive and constructive" work in "providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq."

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/8/9/1_226015_1_3.jpglink (http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:p-Swby-LsGUJ:english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8573C138-9A2B-4F30-A9D9-D8C117F9A6B0.htm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)

Like Iran, Iraq has a Shiite majority.

Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, is the leader of the Islamic Dawa Party. Imagine if Jerry Fallwell or one of the Christian fundamentalists took control of the Republican party. This is loosely what the Dawa party is. They believe in Islamic government. Their natural enemy are the Baathists who believe in secular government. This is a big reason why under Saddaam Hussein, Iran and Iraq were natural enemies. It was the godless liberals vs. the militant conservatives.

The Dawa Pary and Iran go back a long ways. The Dawa party supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and in turn, the Iranian government backed the Dawa Party in it's militant fight against Saddaam Hussein in an effort to overthrow Hussein and extend the Islamic Revolution to Iraq. During this time, the US (backing Saddaam Hussein) recognized al-Dawa as a terrorist organization.

Ok... I'm painting a picture here, and I'm taking great pains to do it. These are all verifiable facts. I'm trying to get to the money part with Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but that's beside the point right now because until you understand why Iran has a major stake in the establishment of peace in Iraq. You can't make this stuff up. We went to war and delivered Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. People have to understand that. The majority of Iraqis are Shiite who want a religious government, much like they have in Iran. Iran and Iraq are now natural allies. Except for one problem - three is a crowd. And who is the third wheel here?

The issue of nuclear Iran is a red herring. That's not the issue at all. It's the "WMD" game that we've already seen, only this time, the WMD's don't exist - but the thought crime of wanting one is enough to whip Americans into an irrational frenzy. Our own CIA has said Iran has abandoned their nuclear weapons program. Of course they did! They won when Maliki won. Now all they have to do is lie low and wait for the US to get out of the way so that they can begin talks of unionization and further spreading the islamic revolution across the middle east -- a revolution, which by the way, has kept itself contained within its own borders, except when attacked.

The implications of all of this are staggering, no matter what point of view you want to look at this with. Iran is poised to be the dominant economic player in the Middle East, and if they succeed in spreading their revolution to other nations in the region, they could be poised to be the heads of a EU-style Arabic Union.

This is what our soldiers are dying for right now: a power struggle between us and Iran over who gets to be the puppet master. The ONLY option the Bush Administration has right now is to weaken Iran, get control of al-Maliki (or replace him with someone who can be controlled), and then attempt to spread westernized "democracy" according to the earlier vision (the one outlined in the Project for a New American Century that the neo-cons were so proud of). It's a fool's errand.

More later... I've got a softball game to go to...

When the US, China, Russia, France, UK - the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council - stop fighting each other, this planet will have positive potential.

REB

07-04-2008, 08:26 PM

Here's an article I read this morning that I thought was pretty good...

What Would an Israel-Iran Nuclear War Mean?
A commentary by Scott Ashley
Good News managing editor

Iran and Israel have exchanged threats and counter threats regularly in recent years. The difference is that Iranian leaders threaten Israel with total annihilation and Israel usually responds by saying that it will take the necessary steps to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons—the existence of which would give Tehran the means to destroy the Jewish nation.

This latest news emerged from Shaul Mofaz, a former defense minister in the Israeli cabinet and one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s deputies. He is privy to private defense plans in the Israeli government and is a participant in the security cabinet. He clearly stated, "If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it" (The Irish Times, June 7, 2008, emphasis added). He said these words to the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot.

In December 2001, then-Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani expressed the logic, as he saw it, of a nuclear attack on Israel—that such an attack would eliminate the Jewish state, but Israel in return could only temporarily set back the Islamic world. He believed it would be worth starting a war in which 15 million Muslims would die—since well over a billion would remain—if Israel would no longer exist.

But is such a calculation reasonable or close to accurate?

Anthony Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment for the U.S. secretary of defense and currently a top analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, offers a different and profoundly disturbing view—that an Israel-Iran nuclear war would devastate the region and the entire world economy.

He believes that Israel, being a more advanced and organized society, could conceivably survive a nuclear exchange while losing 200,000 to 800,000 citizens within 21 days, but Iran would face 16 to 28 million dead in the same time frame and no longer survive as an organized society (United Press International, Nov. 22, 2007).

The difference, he points out, is that Israel is presumed to have better antimissile defenses and more warheads with vastly greater explosive yields (up to 10 times as powerful) with far more accurate delivery systems. He notes that the Iranian capital of Tehran, with its 15 million inhabitants packed into a basin surrounded by mountains, is a "nearly ideal nuclear killing ground."

Israel, Cordesman says, would need a "reserve strike capability to ensure no other power can capitalize on an Iranian strike"—meaning Israel would have to target such "key Arab neighbors" as Syria and Egypt. While a Syrian attack on Israel with chemical and biological weapons could kill another 800,000 Israelis, an Israeli nuclear attack on Syria would kill up to 18 million and finish Syria as a nation. A similar attack on Egypt would kill tens of millions of Egyptians.

Other damage from such a war would include major population centers in the region, the Suez Canal, ports, refineries and oil-producing centers. While it would not be Armageddon for the human race, he says, it would be for the global economy, marking the end of the Oil Age, globalization and world economic growth and prosperity. "The only way to win is not to play," he concludes.

elsid13

07-05-2008, 07:31 AM

Nice article Reb. It why no one should ever use nuclear weapons. What is missing in that article, is that IDF should remain mainly intact, it the civilian population that will suffer the most

elsid13

07-05-2008, 07:35 AM

I don't think we need to act. People argue against isolationism, and i do see the point and merit in not adhering to a strict policy of such ~ but getting involved - it seems we have a bad track record for picking 'good guys'.

Failure to act is sometime a worse crime. And many time when we decide to back someone it picking lesser of the two evils in the short term. What we don't do is stick around after the immediate danger to our self interest is solved to establish a strong free ally

Bronco_Beerslug

07-05-2008, 09:46 PM

Anthony Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment for the U.S. secretary of defense and currently a top analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, offers a different and profoundly disturbing view—that an Israel-Iran nuclear war would devastate the region and the entire world economy.

He believes that Israel, being a more advanced and organized society, could conceivably survive a nuclear exchange while losing 200,000 to 800,000 citizens within 21 days, but Iran would face 16 to 28 million dead in the same time frame and no longer survive as an organized society (United Press International, Nov. 22, 2007).
Where do these people come up with this sh*t?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-05-2008, 10:34 PM

Where do these people come up with this sh*t?

Same place Bush came up with the "intel" he used to invade Iraq.

BroncoBuff

07-05-2008, 10:54 PM

Where do these people come up with this sh*t?
Do you by chance remember the Walter Matthau character in the film Failsafe?

TailgateNut

07-05-2008, 11:23 PM

Where do these people come up with this sh*t?

Some tin foil and wires is all that needed to convey and recieve this type of "intel".:spit:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-05-2008, 11:32 PM

Some tin foil and wires is all that needed to convey and recieve this type of "intel".:spit:

:yep:

The architects of Operation Iraqi Handjob probably figure that if people like TexassBob will swallow the BS Bush used to justify his invasion of Iraq then they will swallow anything.

baja

07-05-2008, 11:45 PM

Did you not read the footnotes? They have the disclaimer of + or - one billion people.

Odysseus

07-06-2008, 02:14 AM

They wouldn't have to. If we attacked Iran, the majority Shiite population in Iraq would most likely take up arms in solidarity with their Shiite neighbors.

Attacking Iran is a no-win situation for us.

Exactly. Where do you think a lot of the refugees from Iraq went to?

Iraqi people don't think the future is so bright and we've done nothing to bring stability to our cause or theirs.

Military solutions are supposed to be quick, brutal and have a specific purpose. Our gains would be minimal compared to our long term losses.

TACO SAID: The implications of all of this are staggering, no matter what point of view you want to look at this with. Iran is poised to be the dominant economic player in the Middle East, and if they succeed in spreading their revolution to other nations in the region, they could be poised to be the heads of a EU-style Arabic Union.

This is what our soldiers are dying for right now: a power struggle between us and Iran over who gets to be the puppet master. The ONLY option the Bush Administration has right now is to weaken Iran, get control of al-Maliki (or replace him with someone who can be controlled), and then attempt to spread westernized "democracy" according to the earlier vision (the one outlined in the Project for a New American Century that the neo-cons were so proud of). It's a fool's errand.

ALWAYS follow the money.

Right now there is no Arab centric currency like a Euro but because we are forcing long term enemies to talk but yet we are not going to talk to them?

If you read Allen Greenspan's book the first thing he mentioned is 911. A terrorist attack is an economic event. War is an economic event. Look at the question the war on Iran is not talking about. What if we turn off the war machine? What will we have in it's place?

There is no such thing as isolationism. You should always retain the right to take action or give that up. How do you act like an isolation with money? You
put it in a mattress? You stop buying stuff?

Our country was started not from a hatred of British but hatred of them imposing their problems on us. Iraq is tired. The average Iraqi does not plan to do anything. They just respond because survival is all that matters. What direction are we going in Iraq? Admiral Mullen says it would be "very challenging" to open war on three fronts. Um. Yeah. Challenging. Good word.

Taco raises a lot of good talking points. I would love to see what people think about some of these key points.