You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#4421 Re: The Garden » Can Israel provide a proxy war with Iran? » 901 weeks ago
An attack has been in the works for years now. Luckily they've had some bumps in the road with the NS Estimate and the 'missing' nukes, but this just goes to show they're not giving up that easily.
So let's assume there will be war, at some point. Why?
The uranium and protection of Israel is a reason bordering on stupidity. Israel have between 150 and 350 second and third generation warheads. No rookie power is going to attempt anything there.
I can slightly buy the argumentation of 'one thing leads to another', but in light of cold war it should be clear that the whole world won't go 'commie', 'nukie' or whatever is the flavor of the day, just because a nation refuses to bend over for the West.
No, as usual I think the reason lies in the market. Iran is one of the last bastions not yet open to the Western money power. They had a good run between 1950-1980, but since then, with a war and one to spare, relations have been...difficult.
These are all old machinations, but this time we're facing an extremely volatile situation. A major uproar in the region would push oil Moon high with the long awaited depression to follow. That in turn would face the US with another dilemma; how do we pay for all of this? No doubt such a scenario would create some problems domestically as well as internationally. And with the US looking weak in a chaotic middle east the road is short to Russian and Chinese involvement in their spheres of influence.
I'm not necessarily saying WWIII, but at least a variation of the above scenario is almost bound to happen in the event of an attack.
The scary part is I think many men in power know this, and seemingly want this. It would be a very powerful 9/11 indeed. Imagine the future pretexts.
#4422 The Garden » Can Israel provide a proxy war with Iran? » 901 weeks ago
- polluxlm
- Replies: 3
Will Israel Attack Iran's Nuclear Facilities Before the End of the Bush Administration? Joschka Fischer Argues Yes
I had the pleasure to meet and speak at length over the weekend with Joschka Fischer, former Foreign Minister of Germany and one of the deepest geo-strategic thinkers in the world. He argued with me that - as he fleshed out in a a recent article he wrote for the Project Syndicate - Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of the Bush administration and that Israel effectively received the green light to this action from Bush during his recent visit to Israel. Fischer was recently in Israel to attend the celebrations for the 60th anniversary of Israel creation. A variety of factors and conversations - fleshed out in his article - have led him to the conclusion that Israel will attack Iran before the end of the Bush administration. This is just an opinion of one - however influential and well-connected - observer; but the arguments that Fischer makes on why Israel may go ahead sound compelling. We certainly don't know if Israel will act that early - and certainly Israel has signaled that it will not accept an Iran that is nuclear - but let us consider the economic and financial consequences of such action.
First, even before Iran may try to retaliate to this action by trying to block the flow of oil from the Gulf, oil prices would spike above $200 dollar a barrel.
Second, Iran could react militarily to such Israeli action (that would be taken with the tacit support and the military logistic support of the US) by unleashing its supporters in Iraq against the US military forces there. That would trigger a military reaction by the US that would start a sustained air-led bombing campaign against Iran's military capabilities (air force, anti-aircraft defenses, radar and other military installations, etc.)
Third, Iran would unleash its supporters in Lebanon and Gaza (Hezbollah and Hamas) in a military confrontation with Israel. A broader war will follow in the Middle East.
Fourth, Iran would use both the threat of blocking the flow of oil out of the Gulf and an actual sharp reduction of its exports of oil (an embargo) to spike the price of oil. Oil prices would rapidly rise above $200 per barrel and the US and global economy would spin into a severe stagflationary recession (like those triggered by the sharp spikes in the prices of oil following the staflationary shocks of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990).
Fifth, while Sunni regimes may - in private - sigh relief following the destruction of the nuclear capabilities of the Shiite Iranian regime - the Sunni Arab street (the masses of poor Sunnis) from Algeria to Egypt and all the way to Pakistan, India and Indonesia may become even more anti-Western and anti-American leading to the risk over time of rise of anti-Western fundamentalist regimes in many Arab countries.
Sixth, the Bush administration whose hands have been tied by the new National Intelligence Estimate (that argued that Iran had suspended its program of development of nuclear weapons) would thus be able to strike Iran - via Israel - before the end of its term. Such October surprise by Israel would also certainly lead to the election of McCain and defeat of Obama as a national security crisis of such an extent would doom the chances of Democrats to win the White House. So both Israel - that prefers McCain to Obama and is hurried to act as it is wary of the constraints that an Obama presidency may put on its ability to act against Iran - and the Bush administration would guarantee the election of McCain.
Now, it is not certain - as argued by Fischer - that Israel will strike that early; this is just a guess and a prediction by one observer even if many others think likewise. But if such action were to be taken by Israel the consequences outlined above would be the clear outcome: a major global recession, wars throughout the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Israel, etc.) and a major increase in geopolitical instability.
#4423 Re: The Garden » Favorite President? » 901 weeks ago
It's not a landslide, I can say that.
I don't have any decisive factors, for that the information is too broad and diluted.
But if they want you gone you're probably doing something right. I somewhat respect Nixons apparent frustration and anger towards the system that put him in 'power', especially since he was in bed with them from the beginning.
Besides, "I'm not a crook" is classic.
Guess I just like the guy.
#4424 Re: The Garden » Morons of the decade award goes to..... » 901 weeks ago
Why would you want to lay down on railroad tracks? Danger or no, that must be one of the least relaxing things to do.
A couple of years ago one guy fell asleep on the tracks at the festival (I think maybe GN'R was playing that night), so it's not the oddest thing around, but to his defense he was drunk out of his mind.
Then again, who am I. Pure luck has saved me from one of those headlines more than once.
#4425 Re: The Garden » Favorite President? » 901 weeks ago
Lincoln, Jackson and Kennedy are the obvious ones. Always appreciate a guy that takes the fight to the bankers.
I think my favorite however will be Nixon. Dropped the gold standard, got out of Vietnam and improved the standard of living. Though the biggest factor is probably his end. They wouldn't even give him the honorable assassination. He had to walk out with his tail between his legs. That tells me he must have been really getting on their nerves. Kudos.
#4426 Re: The Garden » Bush plans Iran strike by August » 901 weeks ago
I disgaree CC. Afghanistan is a decisive victory for the US. We did what the Soviets couldn't. Unfortunately, our focus has been diverted to Iraq. Again, it's not as if we couldn't totally annihilaite our enemies in either country. We could totally remove all elements in Iraq and Afghanistan if we were willing to use all of our abilities. This means untying the hands of our soldiers and letting them fight the war in the same manner we fought WWII.
Iran is not an impossible victory. In fact, I believe we could easily nullify most of Iran's military in less than 72 hours. However, the inevitable ground war and media circus that would follow would inevitably result in the same stalemate as we now observe in Iraq. Mark my words, the US will ultimatley win in Iraq, but it is going to be a slow and methodical process.
I'll define victory as: "Controlling a region, while making a profit".
Historically it was done by applying continuous force. First to defeat the government, and if necessary, to defeat the population. When the region has been pacified enough for trade and taxation to become profitable, all you need is some type of garrison or police force to maintain the status quo for the necessary amount of time.
But like you say, that doesn't work anymore. Compared to earlier societies the present western world has an extremely low tolerance for what is today deemed excessive use of force.
Meaning; no city sacking, torture, executions, mass punishment or genocide.
I'm no advocate of war, but I know if you're going to engage in one, proper use of force is the only way to go. That includes massacring entire cities, families and children in order to prove a point. The actual amount of force is secondary to the promise of it. This is why ancient generals like Alexander and Caesar experienced minimal rebellions and dissidence in conquered provinces, even though they were months and years away from applying direct force if it had been needed. They set the standard, immediately.
With Iraq you have the situation of an imperialistic superpower, as perceived by the native population, going in under the pretense to liberate a people from a dictator and the world from WMDs. Of course, considering the superpower themselves placed the dictator in power, funded him and gave him the WMDs, it creates some public relations difficulties. Neither does it help that the superpower has already attacked one of your neighbors and is actively threatening another.
So you can't use force, and the image card to sway them ideologically is pretty much out the window. As are religion and culture. The last card is money. How about some prosperity? Well, after the globalists have taken their 'share', what's left? And how big a slice of that is going to the Iraqi government operating expenses and interest to the World Bank?
On top of that you have to take into consideration that there is no centralized enemy, home support is dwindling and the simple fact that 'war' is more profitable than 'victory'.
So no, I don't think you can win in any satisfying way. Mostly because wars and victories are not what they used to be. In the old days they fought for money, territory and power. Today they fight so they can hold office and distract their citizens from all their heinous money and power making schemes.
Edit: I think you can win, but I don't believe you will.
If Bush wanted instant approval ratings, he could take control of the Iraqi oil fields and divert all oil to the US. The Iraqis would profit from their oil, but the US and maybe even Britain would be the sole consumers. Gasoline would immeditatley drop below 2$ again and you'd see Saudi, Iran, and Venezuela quickly follow suit as they'd lose their leverage with the US and fear India and China's reprisal for such blatant price gouging.
He could never do that. First off that would be totally unacceptable to big business, and secondly it would utterly shatter what is left of the illusion created by the administration. Bush' may be shitting on the constitution and passing fascist laws, but he still needs to act somewhat in accordance to this illusion.
The world is a better and safer place becuase of the US. If some people want to live in Fantasia and dream about a middle east that isn't hellbent on destroying the west, then go for it. I'm not defending all the polices of the Bush administration, but military and political action needs to take place there. I'm tired of American men dying while the rest of the world protests and receives the benefits. No nation that did not send Soldiers to Iraq should ever receive one drop of its oil.
I know I've gotten off topic here, but this is all the underlying theme. The US goes to bat and saves the day, while the rest of the world looks down at us and plays monday morning quarterback. Americans want to blame bush for the War, while Congress has fought him tooth and nail on every measure. Part of me wishes Obama would get elected so when WW3 starts while he sips tea with the leader of Iran I can say I told you so while I go play Rambo in the rockies. But the surviors would simply blame Bush and build a monument to Obama. The US will eventually win in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it won't be thanks to the likes of Obama or Clinton, but true patriots like McCain and General Petraeus.
Fantasia? That's extremely bold.
Action needs to be taken in a lot of places, but we need to start focusing on why some people are 'hellbent on destroying the west'. If we're so wonderful, how can that be? It doesn't make any sense.
Read up on the covert history of the west this last century and you'll see plenty of reasons. Grave and horrific reasons.
#4427 Re: The Garden » Gaza Rocket Rocks Bush's Israel Trip » 904 weeks ago
The middle eastern jew/arab is probably one of the biggest illusions in history.
The official story is that the 'allied' powers in WW2 'gave' the jews 'their land' back as a means to get rid of guilt because the jews had suffered so much. Total bullshit of course, considering the 'allied' powers knew about he holocaust for years, yet did nothing about it until public opinion demanded it, several years after the war.
For the last 60 years the arabs in Israel have been treated like the jews themselves in Hitler Germany, yet the world still goes "I don't get it, why are they fighting?". It's pretty simple; your land is taken with force, they give you a tenth of that back and treat you like an animal, you get pissed and fight back.
Israel should've been given the same treatment as Iraq, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. No wonder Canada put them on a terrorist list.
Edit: My country is one of the biggest Israel critics around, yet we supply the weapons they use to kill 'our' freedom fighters. That's the core of the situation right there; hypocrisy, religion and greed.
#4428 Re: The Garden » Monopoly Board Game Goes Cashless - Brainwashing? » 905 weeks ago
The major shareholders of Hasbro are:
Citigroup (banking)
Rowe Price Associates Inc. (investment management)
Barclays plc (banking)
State Street Corporation (investment management)
TCW Group (investment management)
Vanguard Group (investment management)
In other words, major advocates for the cashless society.
Effective from May, Alfred J. Verrechio will assume his appointment as Chairman of the Board of Directors, effectively ending 85 years of control of the Hassenfeld family, who founded the company.
#4429 Re: Guns N' Roses » The GNR/Chinese Democracy Frustration Thread » 906 weeks ago
Do we really? 
#4430 Re: Guns N' Roses » The GNR/Chinese Democracy Frustration Thread » 906 weeks ago
If we only knew what 'current GN'R' were.
