REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Pre-emptive military strike to Iran, goin' out with a bang, baby!

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3352
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, April 13, 2006 5:42 AM

CHRISISALL


One last present from the Bush administration?
If it can be done, I bet he'll do it!
(They got ICBM's for their WMD's....uhhh, right?)

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:37 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
One last present from the Bush administration?
If it can be done, I bet he'll do it!
(They got ICBM's for their WMD's....uhhh, right?)

Chrisisall


Medium Range Ballistic missiles. At best they could hit Isreal, parts of Europe, China...Moscow, maybe.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:55 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


You know, by Bush's logic

with all the bluster and threats the US is making and going by the logic and actions already committed...

Wouldn't Iran be justified in putting a nuke in a freighter and setting it off in a US port city in a litte " Pre-emption " on their own ?

Despite Hero's medium range missile options, Iran is preparing to put their own satilites in orbit within the next few years, will all the threats cause them to build ICBMs... not much of a question

Maybe the US is trying to start a new cold war to keep all the military contrators in the black, after all, Northrop can't be making any money off Iraq, using a B-2 against two guys with a RPG is kinda a waste

start this war, the 10 billion a month the yanks are spending now will be a drop in the bucket... get ready for socialist level taxation with capitalist level services...






" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:25 AM

ZISKER


I'm hoping like hell the Republican Party will somehow stop him seeing how they'd like a chance at getting re-elected.

Fruit's Oaty Bar! Is a person from the mouse! Fruit's Oaty Bar! Makes your bust from yours female shirt! Continuously eats them! Let them cause you to be surprised!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I used to be outraged by the Bush crime spree. Now I just view it all in a kind of paralyzed horror.

I'm betting that he's going to pop the cork a few months before the 2006 election. But do you think the American people will fall for this again? And if not, what will "the people" do? Protest? Stay away from the polls in droves or turn out and vote Democrat? And what will Bush do? Jigger the electronic vote (again)? Allow a terrorist incident? Or will the powers behind the throne assasinate their lame-duck no-longer-popular Presidential puppet? Either leads to martial law.

I don't think people realize, but we really had a coup in the USA. It was masked by the fact that the President and his "war on terror" was very popular post-9-11 and for a few years after. But the velvet glove will come off the iron fist pretty soon.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:52 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I used to be outraged by the Bush crime spree. Now I just view it all in a kind of paralyzed horror.

I'm betting that he's going to pop the cork a few months before the 2006 election. But do you think the American people will fall for this again? And if not, what will "the people" do? Protest? Stay away from the polls in droves or turn out and vote Democrat? And what will Bush do? Jigger the electronic vote (again)? Allow a terrorist incident? Or will the powers behind the throne assasinate their lame-duck no-longer-popular Presidential puppet? Either leads to martial law.

I don't think people realize, but we really had a coup in the USA. It was masked by the fact that the President and his "war on terror" was very popular post-9-11 and for a few years after. But the velvet glove will come off the iron fist pretty soon.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.



Maybe Bush is trying to live in a Tom Clancy novel...

If that is the case about a month before the next US election, a terrorist attack will hit a debate taking out the canidates of both parties, as well as most other contenders... suddenly he will have to stay on, not because he wants to but for the good of the country... and in a bizzare act of revenge he will invade Norway, because he has " intell " they were behind it and he needs troops in there to counter the socialist horrors of the evil Swedes........


Even the French would have taken Bush out back of the barn by now



" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:44 AM

FLETCH2


Let's talk alternate realities for a moment.

Imagine a world where the self serving delusions of Achmed Chalabi, as pushed by Richard Pearl and friends had actually come about. Iraqi's had welcomed the US forces as liberators with flowers, democratic government had proved easy to establish and what Sadamist insurgents there where had proved to be easy to deal with.

Could you imagine that Iran would still have an enrichment program? I don't, I imagine that they would have dropped that idea in an instant.

Iran's current possition comes about because it knows that with Iraq unstable the US hasn't the resources to stop it. I think Iran's president is also deliberately trying to provoke some kind of Israeli attack in order to shore up the Islamic State and pull the wind from the sails of the reformers.

How else would you explain the enrichment claim earlier this week? Most experts had said that Iran needed 5 years before it was in a possition to make a bomb. If that were true neither the US or Israel would need to act immediately, it could be years before a confrontation was nescessary, years where the reformers in Tehran would make steady progress towards reform.

Now if you wanted a weapon and you happened to be ahead of the "experts" timeline the sane thing to do would be to make your progress the highest national secret. After all you would only need a couple of years to finish off a weapon. Let your enemies think they have 5 years to act in, use their complacency for your benefit.

So why tell them you are ahead of schedule when you still don't have a weapon? It's stupid unless your real goal is to get them to take action against you. Nothing boosts nationalism and the current regime more than an external attack. The bigest threat to the current Iranian regime isn't Israel or the US but their own people and the calls for reform.

Do we play patsy for these folks and give them what they want or do we try and bolster the forces for change inside?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:18 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Let's talk alternate realities for a moment.

Imagine a world where the self serving delusions of Achmed Chalabi, as pushed by Richard Pearl and friends had actually come about. Iraqi's had welcomed the US forces as liberators with flowers, democratic government had proved easy to establish and what Sadamist insurgents there where had proved to be easy to deal with.

Could you imagine that Iran would still have an enrichment program? I don't, I imagine that they would have dropped that idea in an instant.

Iran's current possition comes about because it knows that with Iraq unstable the US hasn't the resources to stop it. I think Iran's president is also deliberately trying to provoke some kind of Israeli attack in order to shore up the Islamic State and pull the wind from the sails of the reformers.

How else would you explain the enrichment claim earlier this week? Most experts had said that Iran needed 5 years before it was in a possition to make a bomb. If that were true neither the US or Israel would need to act immediately, it could be years before a confrontation was nescessary, years where the reformers in Tehran would make steady progress towards reform.

Now if you wanted a weapon and you happened to be ahead of the "experts" timeline the sane thing to do would be to make your progress the highest national secret. After all you would only need a couple of years to finish off a weapon. Let your enemies think they have 5 years to act in, use their complacency for your benefit.

So why tell them you are ahead of schedule when you still don't have a weapon? It's stupid unless your real goal is to get them to take action against you. Nothing boosts nationalism and the current regime more than an external attack. The bigest threat to the current Iranian regime isn't Israel or the US but their own people and the calls for reform.

Do we play patsy for these folks and give them what they want or do we try and bolster the forces for change inside?




Or perhaps they are telling the truth and only want nuclear power independant of foreign control...

" Nothing boosts nationalism and the current regime more than an external attack. "

Isn't that the US position ?



" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:28 PM

FLETCH2


Yes you are right, but other countries did manage to do that without causing an international incident, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Argentina....

Besides the IAEA isn't saying that they should stop enrichment, just that they should do it with international monitoring. Now that might rankle national pride but if you had no plans for a bomb and wanted only a civil program it makes sense. It's far easier to get key technology from abroad if you are on the IAEA's good side. It becomes far harder for Israel to justify a pre-emptive attack as well.

If a civil program is all you want their current actions make no sense. I'm still convinced my arguments make sense, the current situation, the comments made by their President all goad Israel and bolster the conservatives back home. It looks like provocation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:48 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Or course South Africa, Argentina and now Brazil were not threatened by their neighbors as well as the US, Before telling the IAEA to get out. You notice that nobody has offered " well go ahead, but we'll have to have inspectors onsite " as a compromise position. Also wasn't the IAEA only kicked out after they refered the matter to the UN security council ( as pushed to by Condo Rice )

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20060207-0
8242500-bc-iran-nukes.xml


India and Pakistan both managed to build nukes without these problems... as did Israel, with the sham of inspections present.

I would suggest the international incident is more of US origin, and is more motivated by Bush trying to present a bogeyman in order to bolster his partys diminishing polls.



" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:58 PM

FLETCH2


The problem with that I think is that the EU has no interest in going along with it. France and Germany can hardly be accused of being on the administrations friends list and even the UK has said that military action would be unjustified.

Besides Iraq makes any show of force politically difficult for the administration, US forces are too overtaxed for a boots on the ground mission and this close to an election there would be alligations of "wag the dog" even without Iraq. With a significant number of independent Americans believing they were deceived into the Iraq war messing with Iran now could be an electoral disaster for the GOP.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


messing with Iran now could be an electoral disaster for the GOP

I seriously hope you're right and that it is a deciding factor.

Bush is beating war-drums like he did before Afghanistan and Iraq but now he's threatening preemptive tactical nukes. He's trying to back Iran into a corner just like he did with Afghaistan and Iraq, where the only way out is war.



Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 4:04 PM

G1223


Well there is always the nickle and dimed diplospeak that will have us giving Iran a ICBM just to make them happy. After all we need to appease the Arab world and let them nuke Israel and then stand around and wait for Israel to die. Then we can wait for them to go after India or punish Europe for setting up Israel in the first place.

The long and short you either stop Iran because we know they are dangerous. Or you allow all their evil acts to happen and then do like England and France did in 1939 make a heroic stand after giving away Austira and Czechslovakia. Except it was the US that appeased the dictators rather than other nations.



TANSTAAFL

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 4:59 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by G1223:
Well there is always the nickle and dimed diplospeak that will have us giving Iran a ICBM just to make them happy. After all we need to appease the Arab world and let them nuke Israel and then stand around and wait for Israel to die. Then we can wait for them to go after India or punish Europe for setting up Israel in the first place.

The long and short you either stop Iran because we know they are dangerous. Or you allow all their evil acts to happen and then do like England and France did in 1939 make a heroic stand after giving away Austira and Czechslovakia. Except it was the US that appeased the dictators rather than other nations.



TANSTAAFL




If Israel is to survive it has to find a way to play nice with others, if not it will be on life support forever... and that isn't completely the fault of the arabs...

As for appeasement to dangerous countries, many feel exactly that way about the US right now, just because they don't like the US ( they have good reason not to ) the same is true for Europe, although the Europeans have mended many the fences they knocked down 1880-1925. Having reason not to kiss ass and bow down to someone doesn't make them evil. And India ? WTF

As for ICBM's they don't need yours, they do better to build them on their own
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/31904609-9FDD-4FEB-BC78-8F0AD6D
0173A.htm


And as far as WWII is concerned... if the Europeans should have rushed to kick off a war, why did the US wait a year and a half to pick a side ? why did they continue to sell steel and other war supplies to both sides up to the point they had to enter the war ?



" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:17 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

And as far as WWII is concerned... if the Europeans should have rushed to kick off a war, why did the US wait a year and a half to pick a side ? why did they continue to sell steel and other war supplies to both sides up to the point they had to enter the war ?



Simple, the same reason why the British and French didn't try to stop Hitler earlier, World War 1 was the "war to end all wars", none of the European countries wanted to face the prospect of another war (except Germany). No one wanted another war around that time, in fact I have heard some people say, though I haven't investigated it myself, that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and he allowed it to give the Americans a push into WW2. We knew which side we would be on but the people in general did not want to go to war and did not want to p*** off either side. But this is coming from what I remember from when I went through a WW2 phase a few years ago so I could be wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 1:15 AM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I used to be outraged by the Bush crime spree. Now I just view it all in a kind of paralyzed horror.

I'm betting that he's going to pop the cork a few months before the 2006 election. But do you think the American people will fall for this again? And if not, what will "the people" do? Protest? Stay away from the polls in droves or turn out and vote Democrat? And what will Bush do? Jigger the electronic vote (again)? Allow a terrorist incident? Or will the powers behind the throne assasinate their lame-duck no-longer-popular Presidential puppet? Either leads to martial law.

I don't think people realize, but we really had a coup in the USA. It was masked by the fact that the President and his "war on terror" was very popular post-9-11 and for a few years after. But the velvet glove will come off the iron fist pretty soon.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.



My guess is we will probably have some big manufactured incident trumped up by this administration, a bomb dropped in california, but not L.A or Sanfransico, that would be to economically devasting,

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 5:37 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

And as far as WWII is concerned... if the Europeans should have rushed to kick off a war, why did the US wait a year and a half to pick a side ? why did they continue to sell steel and other war supplies to both sides up to the point they had to enter the war ?



Simple, the same reason why the British and French didn't try to stop Hitler earlier, World War 1 was the "war to end all wars", none of the European countries wanted to face the prospect of another war (except Germany). No one wanted another war around that time, in fact I have heard some people say, though I haven't investigated it myself, that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and he allowed it to give the Americans a push into WW2. We knew which side we would be on but the people in general did not want to go to war and did not want to p*** off either side. But this is coming from what I remember from when I went through a WW2 phase a few years ago so I could be wrong.



Despite Roosevelt, there were many high ranking Americans who supported the Nazi cause, and either wanted to back Germany finacially or even enter the war on the side of Germany. Joe Kennedy, Senator Prescott Bush, and bunch of Bankers and Industrialist I can't remember of the top of my head. The point I was trying to make was that the guy I was responing to was critical of the Europeans for not attacking Germany much sooner, perhaps when Germany annexed the Czechs and alluded that the US would have acted differently... I think history shows he is wrong there. I also think without Japan attacking Hawaii
and Germanys declaration of war ( which has been called into doubt by some historians ) at best the US would have remained neutral.



" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 5:44 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

No one wanted another war around that time, in fact I have heard some people say, though I haven't investigated it myself, that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and he allowed it to give the Americans a push into WW2. We knew which side we would be on but the people in general did not want to go to war and did not want to p*** off either side. But this is coming from what I remember from when I went through a WW2 phase a few years ago so I could be wrong.




Authors, historians, theorists, and "experts" have said that the Brits had uncovered intel about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor & that Churchill was told. Popular theory is that Churchill told FDR who sat back & let it happen.

It is no secret that FDR wanted in the war early on & wanted to help the Brits. He sent "relief" supplies to England & who knows what else. FDR of course could not get the american people behind him though because we were in a isolationist phase & wanted to be left alone & not drug into foreign affairs. The memories (& nightmares) of WWI were still fresh in our minds & the US did not want to be involved in another world war. FDR knew that an unprovoked attack on US troops was the only way to galvanize the people behind the war. Guess he got his way.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 9:05 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So back on the topic:

I guess no one remembers Afghanistan or Iraq.

First bush said bring ObL to justice, upped it to dead or alive, escalated to ObL and al-Qaida leaders, then the entire al-Qaida, then included Taliban and Afghanistan, then said anyone anywhere who harbors 'terrorists'. The coda which took all of 2 weeks was you are either with us, or you're with the terrorists

In Iraq, the pretext was WMD, a presentation to the UN, demanding documentation, demanding inspections, and finally demanding that Hussein et al leave Iraq as a condition to avoid war.

In both cases bush repeatedly upped the ante creating a pretext to invade.

He's doing the same with Iran. He's creating the pretext for war.

All technical experts say Iran is years away from nuclear weapons if indeed they can develop the technology at all. (Just like the experts said Iraq had no nuclear program and was not a threat to the US, and the inspectors said they were no WMDs.) But you won't hear this - all you'll hear is bush and his consorts rabidly foaming about Iran.



Anyone up for a nuclear war?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 9:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran... same drumbeat, different dance floor.

Let's see, the reason for invading Grenada was because of the presence of Cuban troops. Not that the US medical students studying there ever noticed....

Panama. Ah, yes. Unbeknownst to us, Noriega was a major drug runner. MAJOR. In fact, all by his lonesome he was destabilizng the USA! So we invaded Panama (not Colombia) and the drug traffic didn't slow a whit.

Afghanistan. I think Rue covered that very well. Meanwheil the orginal pretext for invasion- OBL- is alive and living in Pakistan.

Iraq. Pictures of mushroom-clouds danced in our heads- thanks to Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bush.

Iran. Well, they MIGHT have nuclear weapons some day! Meanwhile, North Korea has the nukes and the ICBMs to go with them, and we 're doing.... what???

Sometimes I depsair of the notion that we as a people will EVER learn from experience! PT Barnum was right.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 9:37 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


BTW - almost a year ago I was posting that the question would be Syria or Iran. I'll dig up the posts for those who've forgotten. I thought Syria made a better (softer) target b/c Iran would require tactical nukes. And nobody would be THAT crazy.

Well, bush is, along with about 1/3 of the US. They're the same people who think Afghanistan and Iraq are successes.




Fine radioactive dust everywhere - now I'll have to clean all over again.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 9:45 AM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Iran. Well, they MIGHT have nuclear weapons some day! Meanwhile, North Korea has the nukes and the ICBMs to go with them, and we 're doing.... what???



Ahh, but North Korea is just a bunch of mountains and Asians. Why would Bush want to conquer that? If they had massive stores of some valuable material (maybe, ya know, good ol' black gold), Bush would be there in a heartbeat (well, maybe not Bush himself, but a lot of people would be there in Bush's name in a heartbeat ).

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 10:20 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverman:
If they had massive stores of some valuable material (maybe, ya know, good ol' black gold), Bush would be there in a heartbeat


Technically, the war in Iraq is not for oil, it's for FREEDOM!



Our freedom to control the oil Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 11:53 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Hell, I don't even think its about the US getting the oil...

I think they just want to deny it to India and China, slow down the two fastest growing economys before they leave the US far behind.

Maybe screw Europe a bit too...





" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 12:13 PM

FLETCH2


I think people are looking at this the wrong way. They think this is tactical, that the day after the war all the big oil field suddenly get signs that say "owned by Exxon" outside them.

This is strategic, it's about there being oil for America 20 or 30 years down the road. Thanks in part to sanctions Iraq has stacks of unexploited oil reserves, so much so that when the Saudi oil industry is just a fond memory they will still be pumping oil in Iraq.

Going forward the US would like a friendly regime in charge of that oil, one that if it's not US controlled is not US hostile. The theory -- let's call it the Pearl theory -- is that democracy will help spread around the oil money in a way that an oligarcy won't. That this in turn will create an economy that supports a middle class, that this middle class will want to buy US goods and services and like most middle classes the world over be more interested in stability than war.

In addition such a Arab middle class would come to see that they have more in common with Israel than they think, they will through nescessity forge economic ties that will make war less likely and strip Islamists and anti Jewish Palestinians of support and funding.

And then we all go to Disneyland!!!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 12:18 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think people are looking at this the wrong way. They think this is tactical, that the day after the war all the big oil field suddenly get signs that say "owned by Exxon" outside them.

This is strategic, it's about there being oil for America 20 or 30 years down the road. Thanks in part to sanctions Iraq has stacks of unexploited oil reserves, so much so that when the Saudi oil industry is just a fond memory they will still be pumping oil in Iraq.

Going forward the US would like a friendly regime in charge of that oil, one that if it's not US controlled is not US hostile. The theory -- let's call it the Pearl theory -- is that democracy will help spread around the oil money in a way that an oligarcy won't. That this in turn will create an economy that supports a middle class, that this middle class will want to buy US goods and services and like most middle classes the world over be more interested in stability than war.

In addition such a Arab middle class would come to see that they have more in common with Israel than they think, they will through nescessity forge economic ties that will make war less likely and strip Islamists and anti Jewish Palestinians of support and funding.

And then we all go to Disneyland!!!




Hahahahahahahahaha

You had me going for a minute

You really think somehow people will start to like the US after all this






" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 12:56 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Rue:
BTW - almost a year ago I was posting that the question would be Syria or Iran. I'll dig up the posts for those who've forgotten. I thought Syria made a better (softer) target b/c Iran would require tactical nukes. And nobody would be THAT crazy.


Believe it or not I was saying something similar in 2003, while I was watching our glorious troops destroy telecom towers from cameras mounted above their tanks main gun...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 7:52 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hell, I don't even think its about the US getting the oil...

I think they just want to deny it to India and China, slow down the two fastest growing economys before they leave the US far behind.

Maybe screw Europe a bit too...





" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html




Hell, China's already left us in the dust. The U.S. has little serious manufacturing capability left, while China is now the biggest industrialist nation in the world. Combine that with a military that is rapidly approaching our level of advancement(and that numbers 40 million compared to the U.S.'s 3.5 million; those figures are total military personell, including desk pilots, field surgeons, and other non combat personell). And combine that with a puppet ,*ahem*, ally(N. Korea) that has the most numerous, and arguably, the best trained, most effective special forces in the world(a few nukes on top of that). There aint no way to slow China's economy down. They could just buy it from someone else or just take what they want.

I just hope the U.S. government and people pull their heads out of their collective ass and do somethin', 'cause, if it came down to a stand-up fight between the U.S. and China right now, the U.S. would be monumentally screwed on every level.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 8:12 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Panama. Ah, yes. Unbeknownst to us, Noriega was a major drug runner. MAJOR. In fact, all by his lonesome he was destabilizng the USA! So we invaded Panama (not Colombia) and the drug traffic didn't slow a whit.


and you might want to add to that, that Bush Sr and his top officals were were working hand in hand running Drugs and making deals to help fund the contras. Matter of fact didn't Bush Sr arrange a marriage with one of his sons to marry one of the daughters of some Big Drug lord?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:30 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
Quote:

Panama. Ah, yes. Unbeknownst to us, Noriega was a major drug runner. MAJOR. In fact, all by his lonesome he was destabilizng the USA! So we invaded Panama (not Colombia) and the drug traffic didn't slow a whit.


and you might want to add to that, that Bush Sr and his top officals were were working hand in hand running Drugs and making deals to help fund the contras. Matter of fact didn't Bush Sr arrange a marriage with one of his sons to marry one of the daughters of some Big Drug lord?



Funny that when you think Opium exports from Afganistan have increased something like %800 since the Americans took over there......


If you think of the American government in terms of a Sopranos episode... it all falls into place

Part One
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0305,sutton,41464,9.html

Part Two
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0306,sutton,41615,9.html

Part Three
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0307,sutton,41800,9.html

Part Four
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0308,sutton,41960,9.html

Part Five
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0309,sutton,42121,9.html

Part Six
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0310,sutton,42278,9.html



" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 8:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What about the concept that the USA is playing "last man standing"? i.e. If Iraq and Iran are taken out of the picture as sources of oil, then Russia will have to step in to fill in the gap? Then when the Russian oil runs out, we will be the last man standing? Except... no, because if we were REALLY looking at being the last source of oil (or the economy that would best tolerate an oil disruption) then we wouldn't be conserving our own oil?

If this was to raise oil prices, then Russia and Venezuela- as well as the oil companies- would profit.


---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 10:19 AM

DREAMTROVE


Zisker,

I hope you're right.

Hero,

You're very wrong. Iran has no nukes and won't for ten years.

Sygnym,

He's going to give this present to us direct before leaving office so that his beloved Hillary can inherit the war so that the democrats will blame Bush for it rather than her, just as they did with her husband's genocidal campaign in Iraq. Then she'll kill a million people, it's really not that funny.

Everyone,

The largest Mini-Nuke is twelve times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Just saying.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 17, 2006 7:40 PM

CALBECK


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
You know, by Bush's logic with all the bluster and threats the US is making and going by the logic and actions already committed...Wouldn't Iran be justified in putting a nuke in a freighter and setting it off in a US port city in a litte " Pre-emption " on their own ?



Nope. Iran is violating international law by refusing to allow inspections of its nuclear program and that's what all the "bluster and threats" are all about. Every member of the United Nations --- including the US --- is subject to such inspections, expressly to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. By refusing to allow inspections, Iran appears to be hiding an illegal nuclear weapons program.

Also: the UN inspections of Iraq in the post-war period have determined that the Hussein regime was in fact in violation of WMD-related prohibitions of the UN Resolutions. Not the same violations Bush THOUGHT they were committing, but violations nonetheless, each one of which was cause for re-invasion under the "last chance" terminology of Resolution 1441.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 17, 2006 8:05 PM

CALBECK


Quote:

Let's see, the reason for invading Grenada was because of the presence of Cuban troops. Not that the US medical students studying there ever noticed....


Nonetheless, the Cubans were indeed building an airstrip on Grenada, had indeed overthrown the island's government, and had indeed emplaced over 1,000 troops and military engineers on the island to complete the airfield and subsequent annexation. Whether the students noticed or not is irrelevant.

Quote:

Panama. Ah, yes. Unbeknownst to us, Noriega was a major drug runner. MAJOR. In fact, all by his lonesome he was destabilizng the USA! So we invaded Panama (not Colombia) and the drug traffic didn't slow a whit.


Besides overstating your case (yes, he was a drug runner, no the US never claimed he was singlehandedly destabilizing the US), three other reasons were given for toppling Noriega. First, the idiot declared war on the US, saying a de facto state of war existed because of US sanctions which had been put in place as part of the "war on drugs". Secondly, Noriega was already on notice because he'd personally nullified elections earlier that year which replaced him and his cronies with opposition party leaders. Finally, Noriega threatened to seize the Panama Canal, which under the Carter treaties was supposed to be a neutral waterway open to all nations.

Quote:

Afghanistan. I think Rue covered that very well. Meanwheil the orginal pretext for invasion- OBL- is alive and living in Pakistan.


Incorrect. There is a lot of support for ObL in Pakistan, but all sources indicate he continues to move from hideout to hideout along the Afghan-Paki border, staying on the Afghan side. Hell, it took the US five years to find a man wanted in connection with the Oklahoma City Bombing, and he was ultimately caught within 20 miles of his known address. Quick and easy manhunts are rare things bordering on mythology.

Quote:

Iraq. Pictures of mushroom-clouds danced in our heads- thanks to Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bush.


And thanks to the invasion, we now know that Iraq was indeed hiding nuclear weapons parts, plans and material to resurrect a nuclear program once the UN sanctions were off. Meanwhile, Iraq DID have an active bioweapons program producing agents tailored for assassination right up to the start of the war. And Iraq is already on record as having attempted to assassinate at least one prominent US political figure.

Quote:

Iran. Well, they MIGHT have nuclear weapons some day!


And they've signed a treaty saying they won't develop 'em, either. International law says that if they WANT to, they have to be inspected and approved by the United Nations. But God forbid we have some applicable legal standards on this planet...-:D

Quote:

Meanwhile, North Korea has the nukes and the ICBMs to go with them, and we 're doing.... what???


Er, no, they DON'T have either the nukes OR the ICBMs. CHINA does. And China's been a major nuclear developer since the '50s; they haven't got any treaties on the subject to break. So they're legit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 17, 2006 8:26 PM

CALBECK


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
You really think somehow people will start to like the US after all this



Oh, of course not...when people are seriously, horribly, awfully wrong about something, they're usually so embarassed that they can never bring themselves to admit it, especially not in public. Even fifty years from now, with the US receiving not a drop of oil from Iraq or Afghanistan. Seen any tankers moving between Iraq and the US or any US oil terminal lately? No one else has, either.

At current, the US has received no oil from Iraq, which nonetheless is producing at roughly 50% of its pre-war capacity. The oil thus produced is going to Iraq's original clientele: Europe and Japan. Spain got the first tankerful when it set sail a couple years ago.

At current, no US oil companies hold any assets in Iraq. No docking facilities, no pumping terminals, no pipelines, and no oilfields, even though these have mostly been secured against attacks from the insurrection at this point. Nor do there appear to be any arrangements for doing anything other than leaving Iraq's oil in the hands of the Iraqi government.

And if we DID seize the Iraqi oil, we'd be completely unable to do anything but store it. The US was already lacking in refinery capacity and few people are willing to allow new ones to be built in their backyard. Hurricane Katrina wiped out 30% of US refining capacity. Gas prices are now skyrocketing because of that, while at the same time we actually have a glut of oil (even our national reserves are almost entirely topped off...we have to start building new storage tanks if we want to keep any more).

No, we did not invade Iraq for the oil. We didn't need it, not even before Katrina, and grabbing more of it would only make the price go DOWN, not up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:48 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Remember when the War on Terror was only about chasing down bin Laden and people insisted he was in Afghanistan...
they didn't know he ran to Pakistan?

Then as Bush got bored trying to find him anotehr distraction
Long ago Iraq and WMDs were the enemy
Then for a while as the Turks went more islamic with the idiot Erdogan, it was Turkey as the new Iran

On 17 August 2008, Iran proceeded with the second test launch of a two-stage Safir SLV from a site south of Semnan city in Iran said the first time, we successfully launched a dummy satellite into orbit". On February 1, 2021, Iran said it successfully tested its latest satellite launch vehicle named "Zuljanah" which is capable of carrying satellites weighing up to 220 kg into a 500 km orbit.

Now its once again Iran as the new Iran?

Biden’s Iran envoy says US must prepare for Tehran to have unconstrained nuclear programme
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/robert-m
alley-iran-nuclear-programme-b1938581.html


The U.S. has no plan B on Iranian nukes. Israel does.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/10/20/commentary/world-comme
ntary/israel-iranian-nukes-plan
/

Anti-missile defences tested to protect 'sensitive' sites: Iran
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/anti-missile-defences-tested-protect-1415562
91.html

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, July 17, 2024 13:27 - 4103 posts
Secessionist Sarah a VP the GOP forgot to check
Wed, July 17, 2024 12:51 - 6 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, July 17, 2024 12:47 - 2977 posts
Dutch right film maker banned from LONDONISTAN
Wed, July 17, 2024 12:45 - 79 posts
All things Space
Wed, July 17, 2024 12:37 - 209 posts
Christian American Patriots Militia Openly Calls For Obama’s Assassination On Facebook
Wed, July 17, 2024 12:35 - 45 posts
Well... Trump just won the election.
Wed, July 17, 2024 12:21 - 32 posts
Cheney's assasination ring
Wed, July 17, 2024 12:12 - 64 posts
JFK On Conspiracies
Wed, July 17, 2024 11:09 - 8 posts
Threats to Assassinate Romney Explode After Debate
Wed, July 17, 2024 11:08 - 23 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, July 17, 2024 10:52 - 6853 posts
As Palestinians pushes for statehood, Israel finds itself more isolated
Wed, July 17, 2024 09:43 - 303 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL