For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Joined: Oct 15, 2004 Posts: 2082 Location: Arkansas
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Mr. Bill,
Recognizing facts does not mean self hate:
You say:
Quote:
I specifically mean the consequences of a nuclear armed Iran, an escallation of civil war and sectarian violence between the regions sunnis and shias, and the implications this will have on not just energy supplies, but world security.
There is no evidence that Iran will be a nuclear armed threat anytime soon. Most estimates say 10 years away (if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it here). Are you suggesting the US strike now? If so, what will be the consequences if the US attacks now, politically, on energy supplies and on world security? Will those consequences be better than not attacking? In fact, the consequences you fear would seem to come true if there were an attack.
Quote:
I get a very distinct feeling that many posters on peak oil dot com HATE America and therefore they are willing to believe any propaganda coming out of Venezuela, Cuba, Iran or even China that proves it is the USA that is the greatest threat to the world.
Dissent doesn't equal hate. You/we are living in a democracy. In fact, to suggest that dissent, that the democratic process equals hate is exactly what Herman Goering said a fascist state should do to perpetuate war, which is accuse those opposed to war of being guilty of treason. You are suggesting the same, and so does Bush.
However, as to your accusation "we" are swallowing propaganda coming out of Iran, Venezuela or Cuba is completely off-based. I'm citing the US Department of Defense which concluded that the US military manipulated intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. There is no need to cite Castro, Chavez or anyone else. Or, are you suggesting that Cuba, Venezuela and Iran infiltrated the Inspector General's Office?
Come to think of it, how do you relate Cuba to what's going on in the Middle East at all? You have swallowed neocon propaganda hook line and sinker to throw Cuba into the Iran thread.
Quote:
The west's inability to face-up to external threats as a united front only allows rogue states to divide and conquer public opinion, so we end up with Irans, Iraqs and N. Koreas. And unfortunately, al Qaeda and the Taliban love failed states where they can organize and then export terror.
You need to learn your history on Iran. Who created the rogue Iran threat? The US did, and I'm not saying this out of self-hate, but as an American history major that can read and understand history and accept it as fact, just like I can accept the fact that the US once legalized slavery.
Without knowing the history of Iran and how the "rogue" state of Iran developed over time, one cannot possibly begin to resolve the problem in the ME now. In the 50's, US and Britain overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran to protect western oil interests there from nationalization.
Quote:
In 1951, an eccentric pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) that had controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain immediately embargoed Iran. Soon after, members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them in covertly overthrowing the democratically-elected Mossadegh. Initially, United States President Harry S. Truman refused, but after Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected the British proposed the plan again. After convincing Eisenhower that Mossadegh was sympathetic to communism (even though he was an avowed anti-communist), the United States agreed to assist Britain in Operation Ajax. President Eisenhower authorized the CIA to take the lead in the operation of overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a US-friendly monarch.
So, in the 50s the US/Britain deposed a democratic government, and installed the oppressive Shah, which so oppressed the people there was a revolution in the 70s which created the "rogue" government we now hate. We caused the failed state of Iran and probably every other country that produces oil, yet you want to blame terrorism as the cause? Terrorism is the the reaction to a failed foriegn policy which is not based ono democratic principles at all - there is no evidence that the US has exported democracy to the ME, not in the past and not now in Iraq. Its no wonder we have no credibilty in the ME or the rest of the world.
You also overlook the fact that it was the US that first initiated the civilian nuclear program in Iran, which is the very problem you are now complaining about, yet you somehow say it is self-hate or delusional not to accept responsibility for this. Further, as someone that is PO aware, you also understand that Iran and the rest of the world do need nuclear energy - this is not some b.s. claim made by Iran.
Quote:
The consequences I do not want to see is a nuclear armed Iran exporting sectarian violence to its neighbors with the ultimate aim of challenging S. Arabia for premacy in the ME.
You assume Iran is a bigger threat than Saudi Arabia? How do you arrive at this? What are the facts supporting that opinion? As far as I can tell, Al Qaeda is a Sunni group, originated and still funded via Saudi Arabia. There is no proof that Al Qaeda is in any way linked to Iran (remember, this same claim was said going into Iraq also, which was utter nonsense as the 9-11 Commission found and as the most recent IG report found). All the 9-11 hijackers were from SA, yet you would argue Iran is the bigger threat to your interests than SA? I distinctly remember the US supporting Hussein's war on Iran and Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Hussein - the same guy we later deposed, bc he got out of control. So, to argue Iran is the biggest threat in the ME, and not SA or US policy in the ME, is not a democratic position based on facts, it is a self-interested position based on capitalist interests not shared by me as an American attacked by SA on 9-11, and not shared by me who is an American expending tax dollars to fund wars and policies that are not in my interest as one who believes in the principles of democracy.
Further, to this day there is more democracy in Iran than your beloved SA pulling the strings in the ME.
Quote:
I also feel bad for my good friends in the special forces and other branches of America's military elite that have to actually go fight in these places. Some of the traitorous bile spewed on peak oil dot com by Americans about America is simply self-hate.
I was a paratrooper in the US military, Ranger qualified, and do not share your sentiment. I feel confident I know as many people fighting over there as you. So, your attempt to personalize this tragedy as others do the fighting and dying as you sit at your computer desk does not move me. Dick Cheney says the same thing, and I'm unmoved by him also. I feel sorry for the soldiers not because they die, but because they fight and die believing they are fighting for democracy against terrorism, but are really fighting a war for oil and capitalist self-interest, a war that was started back in the 50s and not on 9-11.
Again, if there is any factual information presented in this forum that is biased, then please post information to the contrary. If the US really didn't depose a democratically elected Iranian president in the 50s and install the Shah, please let us know. If the US did not start the Iranian nuclear program in Iran in the 70s, please let us know. If the 9-11 hijackers were really from Iran and not from SA, please let us know. If Cuba is really causing the problems in the ME, please let us know. If Al Qaeda is really shia and based in Iran, not SA, please let us know. If Al Qaeda has infiltrated Iran, please let us know, but please also assure me this will not be another manipulated intelligence report like the US Inspector General just admitted to yesterday. If SA is really holding elections and more democratic than Iran, please let us know. Otherwise, don't accuse others here of bias, when the bias is all yours. Turn off the conservative talk radio and learn something here based on the articles posted.
Last edited by seahorse on Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Well said Seahorse, thank-you. _________________ Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
seahorse wrote:
Quote:
I was a paratrooper in the US military, Ranger qualified, and do not share your sentiment. I feel confident I know as many people fighting over there as you. So, your attempt to personalize this tragedy as others do the fighting and dying as you sit at your computer desk does not move me. Dick Cheney says the same thing, and I'm unmoved by it also. I feel sorry for the soldiers because they are not fighting a war to export democracy as they are being told, nor are they fighting terrorism as they are being told, they are fighting a war for oil and capitalist self-interest, a war that was started back in the 50s and not on 9-11.
Again, if there is any factual information presented in this forum that is biased, then please post information to the contrary. If the US really didn't depose a democratically elected Iranian president in the 50s and install the Shah, please let us know. If the US did not start the Iranian nuclear program in Iran in the 70s, please let us know. If the 9-11 hijackers were really from Iran and not from SA, please let us know. If Cuba is really causing the problems in the ME, please let us know. If Al Qaeda is really shia and based in Iran, not SA, please let us know. If Al Qaeda has infiltrated Iran, please let us know, but please also assure me this will not be another manipulated intelligence report like the US Inspector General just admitted to yesterday. If SA is really holding elections and more democratic than Iran, please let me know. Otherwise, don't accues others here of bias, when the bias is all yours. Turn off the conservative talk radio and learn something here based on the articles posted.
I used to respect your opinions and posts. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Jun 03, 2006 Posts: 35 Location: The Great White North eh?
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Interesting that the response to a well argued point of view is " I don't respect you anymore" Hardly a convincing rebuttal. Reminds me of the time an individual cut a long long at at a rest area that me and my family were waiting in. His response when I called him on his rude and disrespectful behavior? "You're a....You're a big jerk!" Good one.
Joined: Jun 30, 2005 Posts: 662 Location: northern California
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Seahorse, excellent posts! My only question right now is why P.O.com does not permit moderators to be ignored. I resent having Mr. Bill's drivel forced in my face while perusing otherwise useful threads. _________________ "I believe that a wise Vermonter lives more by lack of expense rather than from income."--some Dartmouth professor from across the river
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
seahorse wrote:
Mr. Bill,
I still respect your posts on the economic issues.
Well, I need to tone down my rhetoric and perhaps stick to talking about things I understand. I apologize for my comments and my attitude. Thank you. MrBill. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Jan 23, 2007 Posts: 30 Location: Soldotna, Alaska
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:47 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Seahorse, very powerful comments;
As and eighteen year old marine in Viet Nam in 1969, I was scared crazy. Even then,I realized I was beyond politics - I only wanted to survive , and I would do anything to accomplish that missison. Whether the war was right or wrong was of no consequence, I told myself that I would sort that out later...Thirty-eight years later I am still trying to sort that out. The people that have never heared the whaling of mothers that have just lost their children, or looked in the eyes of grandparents that are as void of hope as an empty hangmans noose, are the ones that keep cheering for destruction... Let them put their first born on the line.
Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern.
At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.
...
Quote:
...
A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow.
...
Anybody got more information about a third carrier group? Is that the one allegedly heading for the Pacific? _________________ "Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave."
Karl Kraus
Joined: Oct 15, 2004 Posts: 2082 Location: Arkansas
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:45 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Mr. Bill,
No apologies necessary. I enjoy your presence on these forums and have learned a lot from you, would also like to hear more about your climbing experiences some day.
I do think the odds are that the present US administration will attack Iran before leaving office in 2008. Could be wrong, but again, I think its more likely than not. I think that's what will happen based on the present US administration and what we know of them as per their PNAC webpage, the different State of the Union addresses by Bush, and events on the ground, which certainly show a military strike on Iran is a high probability event.
I don't know if attacking Iran is the right course of action without trying diplomacy first (as suggested by the Baker report). I'm not the political, economic etc fallout from an attack could be contained; however, I don't think the Israelis or the current US administration will leave the issue for a future administration to deal with for various reasons we've talked about before. In fact, I previously wrote why, if the US is going to do a military strike, they would act now, not later.
Keep in mind that individuals in Cheney's position will not be affected by the fallout of a strike on Iran like a strike would potentially affect everyone else here on these boards. Their finances and political positions will virtually insure their economic and political status no matter what they do. In fact, it would virtually insure that status for many years to come.
Here's an earlier post summarizing why I think the US would strike now (by 20008), not later:
Quote:
Most people don't believe there will be a military attack on Iran by either the U.S. or Israel. The pundits cite the economic fallout and the limited military options available as obstacles to a military option. However, those obstacles will never be any better than they are today. Those obstacles will only increase in difficulty with the passage of time and in the long run become unpassable. Though they are obstacles, they are still passable, and my belief is, that if the goal is to eliminate the military and economic threat posed by Iran, there will be an attack on Iran prior to the 2008 presidential elections. Here's why:
Military Supremacy
From the United States' military point of view, the situation will never be any better than it is now, it will only get worse over time. As we speak, the Russians are shipping various weapons to the Iranians. US military leaders know this, and know that every day they lose a little more of their edge. Even if the Iranians have a nuke or two now, the Iranians would only have more later. Therefore, if the US wants to strike while it has military supremacy, the time is now.
STRATCOM is not "bogged down"
People argue the US is too committed to start another war, pointing out that the US has troops committed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that the US military is committed in both Iraq and Afghanistan is not a deterent, in fact, it is an enabler. First, an attack against Iran would not be the mission of US Ground forces. It would be fought by the new command STRATCOM, which is the revamped SAC.
STRATCOM has been given the mission of destroying WMD in hardened targets around the world. Writers opining on the new STRATCOM (which announced operational readiness in 2005) say its designed to fight multiple enemies destroying an enemy's economic and military ability to launch a counter-strike, all in a matter of days. Again, and importantly, the STRATCOM mission is not to occupy a country, but to eliminate is military ability to respond and destroy its economic base.
Since 2000, the NEOCONs have been revamping the US military. The NEOCONs view large ground forces as being obsolete. This was first expressed in a PNAC paper published in 1999, and is an interesting read to understand fully how the US military is being reshaped. Since 2000, the NEOCONs have been cancelling military programs seens as obsolete, like new artillery etc., and focusing on developing new programs like pilotless aircraft and concentrating on smaller deployable ground forces, with much emphasis on SPECOPS.
This evolution of the US military is reflected in both the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns, where the US has been continually criticized for having too few troops on the ground. This criticism always assumes the US military desired to have peace and stability, and not simply a base of operations. Despite the criticism, the evolution of the US military continues. Those critics have not read the PNAC doctrine which intends to completely revamp US military warfighting to a system of fighting without troops, for many reasons that won't be detailed here. STRATCOM is a part of a continuing evolution is this new form of warfare of fighting wars without troops. Eliminating the threat that an enemy poses is different than eliminating the enemy himself.
Unlike US ground forces, STRATCOM is not bogged down in anything right now. They are operationally ready and waiting for a mission.
The fact that US forces now operate in Iraq and Afghanistan would only enhance the ability to STRATCOM to conduct an attack. The closer proximity to Iran allows closer flights and means the US can effectively employ STRATCOM assets with little or no warning to the Iranians. It eliminates the problems the US had in the 70s trying to rescue hostages half a world away.
The Economic Fallout of a Strike Against Iran will never be better than Today
The global economy could handle a strike against Iran better today than it could in 2010. For those who believe peak oil is right around the corner, say in the year 2010-2012 time frame as predicted by ASPO, then the world would be better able to handle the economic fallout now than five years from now, since we have more nonOpec oil now than we will have in 2010 to offset a loss of Iranian or Gulf production.
The Time is Now Politically
If the PNAC goal, if the goal of the NEOCONs in office, is to prevent Iran from becoming a military and economic threat to US "security interest" in the middle east, now is the time for an attack. The NEOCONs must realize realize that if they don't strike now, they may never get another chance with the 2008 elections.
Conclusion
In war, you do the unexpected. No one thinks the US will strike - but don't be surprised if it happens.
Since the above post was written, nothing has happened on the ground to lesses the likelihood of a military strike by the US/Israel. In fact, things on the ground show us moving more and more towards that possibility. For example, the President has openly stated the US is moving additional military assets into the region to counter the Iran, threat, specifically, a new carrier group and patriot missiles. The US has struck the Iranian embassy in Iraq, the US is preparing to release classified info on Iranian meddling in Iraq, and the Iranians are continuing their nuclear program, kicking out IAEA inspectors, possibly preparing to launch a spy satellite, testing other missiles, and Putin just yesterday made a speech specifically saying the US was a threat.
Politically, I think with a democratic congress in the US and with the serious possibility of a democratic president during the 2008 elections, both the neocons and the Israelis fear the US would withdraw militarily from Iraq. If the US military withdrew from Iraq, it would make an attack on Iran virtually impossible for the military. So, domestic political events will pressure the US/Israel to strike now while assets are in place. Further, as the article cited above from the Russian perspective shows, the immediate shock effect (political blowback) of an attack would be outweighed in the present administrations' minds by the outcome that they desire - taking out Iran as an immediate threat.
Just a thought, right or wrong? who knows, but certainly seems likely. I think the odds are at least 50/50, and, if you are a gambling type, buying oil stocks would certainly benefit from such an attack.
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:10 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Seahorse,
I had red your analysis above. All that is likely.
I think, we are looking for far bigger war, than many of us wish to contemplate.
I can see a warning note given by Putin to Neocons. He was avoiding direct confrontation speech until now.
It is only interesting, what will hapen on the global battlefield, once Iran is attacked.
Joined: Oct 23, 2004 Posts: 5487 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
seahorse wrote:
Just a thought, right or wrong? who knows, but certainly seems likely. I think the odds are at least 50/50, and, if you are a gambling type, buying oil stocks would certainly benefit from such an attack.
I generally agree with most of what you say here, and even more specifically, the price of oil looks ready to shoot up should there be a US vs. Iran military confrontation.
However I am sure if the US government would not let its citizens entirely benefit from any financial gains from the rising price of oil - which will probably be called "windfall gains" like they were in the 1980s. As I already mentioned in the US Weekly Inventory thread, there was a new 'inventory' tax on major oil companies put into effect last year on 75% of the unrealized gain on oil inventories.
Eventually a war with Iran may make the price of oil so high that all regular market systems would break down. Internally, within the US, in addition to windfall profits taxes on oil companies, there may be price controls and allocation systems for consumers/truckers. Externally, worldwide sales might revert to a contract system – and even then – tanker cargoes purchased may have to be escorted by the navy of the purchasing nation to its destination, least they be diverted – or even attacked.
Investing in the (near?) future may become very difficult, to say the least.
Edit for grammatical errors. _________________ It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
Last edited by DantesPeak on Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
The US military has accused the "highest levels" of Iran's government of supplying increasingly sophisticated roadside bombs to Iraqi insurgents.
Senior defence officials told reporters in Baghdad that the bombs were being used to deadly effect, killing more than 170 US troops since June 2004.
The weapons known as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are capable of destroying an Abrams tank.
US claims the bombs were smuggled from Iran cannot be independently verified.
This is the runup to Iraq all over again. Let's see if the U.S. media has even an ounce of self-respect left, and starts to run a decent amount of material about how BushCo is trying to fabricate reasons to attack Iran. _________________ "Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
