How Iran Would Retaliate if it Comes to War

[Bronco_Beerslug]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war
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 | Next Page



.

[Spider]

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 ?

[baja]

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]

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.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by baja

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]

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Spider

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.

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]

Originally Posted by elsid13

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?

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

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by elsid13

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]

Yeah..Havent you seen Red Dawn.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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.

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]

Originally Posted by elsid13

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]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

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."
  
  link
  
  
• 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]

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/20...latchy/2978626

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

We'll see if he gets the message.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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."
  
  link
  
  
• 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]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

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]

Originally Posted by Spider

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 ?

How big of an area would a nuke wipe out these days? A few square miles or more? A huge city like maybe NYC? Perhaps a small country like, say...Israel?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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.

Originally Posted by Taco John

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.

Originally Posted by Taco John

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.

Originally Posted by Taco John

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.

Originally Posted by Taco John

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.