War With Iran

[fastpat]

Originally posted by dd74
I base that assertion on 1) The country doing the pulling out is the U.S.; 2) which has very little support worldwide; 3) Is getting its ideological ass handed to it daily in the M.E.; 4) economically relies heavily on out-of-country oil reserves.

93% of US oil consumption is from other than mideast petroleum, mostly from the western hemisphere. It's only price that prevents that from being 100%, that is to say, mideast oil is cheap enough to attract buying of about 7% of American oil needs from mideast suppliers. That's likely to change in any case as India and China combined oil needs increase enough to make mideast oil purchases too expensive for American companies to purchase. The oil consumption in America is expected to increase at a small, but steady rate for the next three decades, then stabilize for a period, then decline. Both India and China will require very large increases annually for quite some time as their countries continue to develop.

I won't disagree that other nations have pulled out of countries from whom they've received commodities, and not suffered consequences.

That's correct, and there are concrete reasons for that. The most important is that there is a requirement for products made in one country that are in excess of their requirements to be sold. In the best situation, that selling is done worldwide, which works best if there's no one able to hold anyone else at gunpoint to steal the commodity.

But I will also argue that the U.S. is in a much more unique situation by virtue of its economic and political power than France, Britian, etc.

The US government's most successful propaganda campaign has produced your opinion. That is the notion that every individual American's lifestyle, their day to day living comfort, is totally dependent on the US government threatening people globally. The truth is precisely the opposite.

[tabs]

OH Please Pat..power abhors a vacume. If the USA becomes noninterventionist, basically nolonger provides Global Security. American interests overseas suffer as other nations step in to the power vacume left behind by our withdrawl.

The American Global Security apparatus along with American corporate interests is what provides the economy of scale that keeps you in your life style. Remove that and your life style goes right to he11. Sorry but its econ of scale that provide the $$$ for R&D that keeps the technological revolution going. The excercise of power to maintain Global Security sometimes costs lives which must be added to the cost of your SUV and Wide Screen TV. So every man woman and child has blood on their hands if they partake in the Good Life that the US provides. In U go off and live like Teddy Kozinsky did in Montana then I would say your absolved.

Lets stay real for once Pat, stop the jibberish BS...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tabs
OH Please Pat..power abhors a vacume. If the USA becomes noninterventionist, basically nolonger provides Global Security. American interests overseas suffer as other nations step in to the power vacume left behind by our withdrawl.

The American Global Security apparatus along with American corporate interests is what provides the economy of scale that keeps you in your life style.

No, it does not. If the military was reduced by 90% tomorrow, there'd scarely be a ripple in the national economy, or in the lives of Americans.

Remove that and your life style goes right to he11. Sorry but its econ of scale that provide the $$$ for R&D that keeps the technological revolution going. The excercise of power to maintain Global Security sometimes costs lives which must be added to the cost of your SUV and Wide Screen TV. So every man woman and child has blood on their hands if they partake in the Good Life that the US provides. In U go off and live like Teddy Kozinsky did in Montana then I would say your absolved.

Lets stay real for once Pat, stop the jibberish BS...

Again, your post is proof of the number one success story by the US governments propaganda machine.

[tabs]

Originally posted by fastpat
[

Again, your post is proof of the number one success story by the US governments propaganda machine.

OHHH U mean the U of CA....

[drauz]

hmmm, 3 pages of posts on war with Iran and not one mention of Israel. responding to Tabs points...

1. "Is this new stratedgy just another version of stay the course?"
In a way, yes - the Bu****buro intends to deliver their national security policy as a fait accompli to the next admin (regardless of party). As reality imposes upon their delusions, they are taking more extreme and exagerated actions. These are dangerous times.

2. "... after seeing how they planned the war so far, I just don't know anymore."
Maliki will not last, he will depart Iraq and enjoy the fortune the US taxpayer has provided. Also, bad planning doesn't change one's ability to implement bad policies - all you need is authority and coercive power.

3. "If Saudi, Jordan, Egypt and several of the other Gulf States goes to war with Iran..."
Only the US will go to war w/ Iran - as proxy for Israel (ahh for the good ole days, when it was the other way around). All ME states view war as destabilizing, which is evidently our intent (or maybe we're just incompetent - what does it matter when you've got power?).

4. "Unless GW has a trick up his sleeve..."
He IS a sleeved trick.
"he is going to go down as one of the worst US Presidents, probably right next to LBJ."
Well, he hasn't had as many US soldiers and Marines killed on his watch (yet), but historians will rate LBJ much higher for; a) his clever political skills, b) his domestic vision (maybe wasn't Great, but it was Big & some was Good), c) the Iraq War will do more long term international strategic and damage to our DOD than VN (tbd, but it's clear to me, anyway).
"GWs reliance on the Iraqis to stand up is ludicrious on face value."
From the beginning, what part of his GWOT and Iraq War policy has NOT been ludicrous on face value?

Let's keep our warriors in our prayers.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by drauz
hmmm, 3 pages of posts on war with Iran and not one mention of Israel.

I thought it was a given that the US government is now a client state of Israel's, no?

http://antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=10219

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by nostatic
And did we do anything about it?

Kinda hard, considering the world screamed bloody murder when we invaded even the periphery of Cambodia in 1972.

But if i may, is your point that if we cannot help everyone, that we should not help anyone?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by m21sniper
Kinda hard, considering the world screamed bloody murder when we invaded even the periphery of Cambodia in 1972.

But if i may, is your point that if we cannot help everyone, that we should not help anyone?

We can help people by trading with them, more than by any other method.

Now, on the other hand, if you want to take up a private collection of money, and give it to those seeking to overturn a tyranical power in another country, I'd have no objection to that.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by fastpat
I thought it was a given that the US government is now a client state of Israel's, no?

Sieg heil. Save us Pat, before the Catholics and blacks take over too.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rearden
Sieg heil. Save us Pat, before the Catholics and blacks take over too.

I always post this when someone attempts to give an idiot lesson of this sort to us.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

[Rearden]

Originally posted by fastpat
I always post this when someone attempts to give an idiot lesson of this sort to us.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

And I always post this:

David Duke: "It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American university essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started."

Dennis Ross, President Clinton's Middle East envoy: "It is basically a series of assertions. They quote only those people who basically have this point of view and don't take a serious look at anything in a more profound way. It is masquerading as scholarship."

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rearden
And I always post this:

David Duke: "It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American university essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started."

Dennis Ross, President Clinton's Middle East envoy: "It is basically a series of assertions. They quote only those people who basically have this point of view and don't take a serious look at anything in a more profound way. It is masquerading as scholarship."

People who post David Duke responses to anything are, in reality, pretty slovenly in their research.

[11]

[edit] Praise from David Duke and response

Former Louisiana State Representative and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke "devoted his entire half-hour Internet radio broadcast on March 18 [2006] to the paper."[12][13][14][15] On March 21, 2006, Duke praised the paper on MSNBC's Scarborough Country program.[16] Duke has stated he is "surprised how excellent [the paper] is" and claimed his views had been "vindicated" by its publication. According to Duke, "the task before us is to wrest control of America's foreign policy and critical junctures of media from the Jewish extremist Neocons".[17] In response, Walt stated "I have always found Mr. Duke's views reprehensible, and I am sorry he sees this article as consistent with his view of the world".[17]

Mary-Kay Wilmers, the editor of the London Review of Books which published a version of the paper, said: "I don't want David Duke to endorse the article. It makes me feel uncomfortable. But when I re-read the piece, I did not see anything that I felt should not have been said. Maybe it is because I am Jewish, but I think I am very alert to anti-Semitism. And I do not think that criticising US foreign policy, or Israel's way of going about influencing it, is anti-Semitic. I just don't see it."[18]

Juan Cole, a historian at the University of Michigan writing in Salon.com in support of the paper, characterises the association of the paper with Duke made in the New York Sun and elsewhere as "guilt by association". [19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

Of course your reaction has been dealt with very well by The Politics of Anti-Semitism, personally I find your whimpering cry of Anti-Semitism by implication rather pathetic.

[dd74]

Pat - touching back on what Tabs said about power hating vacuums - I think he's onto something. Look at China and their growing pains. For example, 10,000,000 cars will be needed by the Chinese in the next twenty years. If I were the Chinese, it would behoove my well being if the U.S. were to lose Iraq and the rest of the M.E., so I could move on in there and take what I need. I realize what you're saying with the 93% that you cite - I imagine you include Venezuela in that percentage, which is at this moment Socialist. But while we pull away from foreign interests, is it really safe to have the Chinese in bed with the Iranians and possibly Iraqis? Who is to say that sort of union won't one day threaten the soverignty of the U.S.?

[Rearden]

Originally posted by fastpat
personally I find your whimpering cry of Anti-Semitism by implication rather pathetic.

No, silly, it's not your clanship with David Duke that implies your bigotry. It's your frequent posts about pre-Civil War Confederate plantation fantasies and your frequent posts rambling about how the Jews are behind all the evils in the world (actually, how the US government is behind all the evils in the world, and the US government is controlled by the Jews).

[fintstone]

Originally posted by tabs
1. I have said before GW is gona "Stay the Course" and hand it off to the next prez to solve. Is this new stratedgy just another version of stay the course?

2. I would think that Cheney etall would be a devious lot, but after seeing how they planned the war so far, I just don't know anymore. Assuming that they have a trick or two up their sleeves, my guess is that if Maliki doesn't perform GW will get someone who can, namely Hakim. Then bye bye Democracy hello Dictatorship. My bet would be that Maliki is not able to live up nor really wants to live up to the new plan.

3. If Saudi, Jordan, Egypt and several of the other Gulf States goes to war with Iran, the US will back our allys and go to war with Iran as well. A new Carrier Battle group has just been deployed to the Gulf if U all recall.

4. Unless GW has a trick up his sleeve he is going to go down as one of the worst US Presidents, probably right next to LBJ. If the Iraqi war sinks the US he will be at the very bottom. GWs reliance on the Iraqis to stand up is ludicrious on face value.

Back to the original question, Tabs is right. It is a trick. Over the past 6 months, We have pulled 28, 000 troops out of Iraq. Our surge will add 20,000. All along, the liberals have pushed to increase troops....now they have to advocate the status quo (which was all the President ever asked) or cut and run. He has Mccain on board now and the Iraqi government and the liberals in the US are stuck with new, tougher tactics both against the terrorists in Iraq as well as Iran and Syria. This buys us time to do what we have planbned all along...and to "stay the course."

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rearden
No, silly, it's not your clanship with David Duke that implies your bigotry. It's your frequent posts about pre-Civil War Confederate plantation fantasies

You've got a pretty vivid imagination, are you on prescription drugs of some kind?

and your frequent posts rambling about how the Jews are behind all the evils in the world (actually, how the US government is behind all the evils in the world, and the US government is controlled by the Jews).

Since I've never posted any such thing, ever, I'd get with your prescribing physician if I were you and go over your medication regimen again.

[fastpat]

Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran

Michael Roston
Published: Monday January 15, 2007
Print This Email This


Bank sees February or March timeline if Israel strikes

Warning that investors might be "in for a shock," a major investment bank has told the financial community that a preemptive strike by Israel with American backing could hit Iran's nuclear program, RAW STORY has learned.

The banking division of ING Group released a memo on Jan. 9 entitled "Attacking Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities."

ING is a global financial services company of Dutch origin that includes banking, insurance, and other divisions. The report was authored by Charles Robertson, the Chief Economist for Emerging Europe, Middle East, and Africa. He also authored an update in ING's daily update, Prophet, that further underscored the bank's perception of the risks of an attack.

ING's Robertson admitted that an attack on Iran was "high impact, if low probability," but explained some of the reasons why a strike might go forward. The Jan. 9 dispatch, describes Israel as "not prepared to accept the same doctrine of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that kept the peace during the Cold War. Israel is adamant that this is not an option for such a geographically small country....So if Israel is convinced Iran is aiming to develop a nuclear weapon, it must presumably act at some point."

Sketching out the time line for an attack, Robertson says that "we can be fairly sure that if Israel is going to act, it will be keen to do so while Bush and Cheney are in the White House."

Robertson suggests a February-March 2007 timeframe for several reasons. First, there is a comparable situation to Israel's strike on Iraq's nuclear program in 1981, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's political troubles within Israel. Second, late February will see Iran's deadline to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1737, and Israel could use a failure of Iran and the UN to follow through as justification for a strike. Finally, greater US military presence in the region at that time could be seen by Israel as the protection from retaliation that it needs. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Major_investment_bank_issues_warning_on_0115.html

[tabs]

The people of the US would not stand for a unilateral war with Iran. However if we are supporting our allys (Saudis) in the face of Iranian aggression..then who is to say anything.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tabs
The people of the US would not stand for a unilateral war with Iran. However if we are supporting our allys (Saudis) in the face of Iranian aggression..then who is to say anything.

The US government has no mutual defense treaty with the Arabian dictatorship.

[drauz]

Iranian aggression against Saudi Arabia? Be realistic (unlike our own policymakers) - they share much more interest in keeping the oil market stable than they differ over race & religion. Cheney & Ms America have tried ( & failed, so far) to get SA on board for a strike on Iran. Look out for a false flag op (via Israel? they're pretty good at those, so might AQ) or misleading / blown out-of-proportion ME event in order to light the match.

Far more appealing to the Bu****buro than watching the Iranian political system implode. Among the many virtues they lack is sophistication and patience. Little minds don't play the Big Game very well.