Iran - to attack or not to attack??

[Lou]

Anyone read those crazy comments this morning from Iran? What a crazy situation....I wonder if we bomb them or we get played by their govt?

[Svenwulf]

I think Brzez has been spot on since at least 2003. An older overview (1997), i found these comments worth the read.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html
A geostrategy for Eurasia by Zbigniew Brzezinskiing.

[reef]

I say bomb the mfer's. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan, not gone to Iraq and bombed Iran. THEN we should have gone into Iraq, but by then Sadaam would have been shitting a brick and likely would have pulled a "Libya" and given up all his plans for nukes. IMHO.

[Hanger]

I say we do nothing right now,

Iraq will look like nothing compared to Iran. I think the only people that hate us worse more than Iraq are the Iranians. But the Ayatollah of Iran has a point, we attack them, we can forget oil as it goes to $100 a barrel. Definately hurt this country.

The Bush Administration and the rest of the Republicans will not let us attack Iran yet. We might but it will be after elections.

[InvestingMoron]

Congratulations, Israel. You've succeeded in talking the American lemming sheeple into wanting to fight the war you started.

If you think we should make a pre-emptive and unsubstantiated attack on Iran, perhaps you should move to Israel and join your fellow terrorists in working on their plans for world domination. Remember to bring your AK-47 and M-16's so that you can shoot innocent Palestinians as you steal their land, burn their houses and fields, and rape their women.

When are you lemmings going to think for yourselves, open your eyes, and notice that Israeli influence in the US is going to lead to its demise? We need to let Israel reap what it sows. Picking for a war then running behind the back of the US isn't going to save Israel forever. One day, I can imagine that the citizens of the US will wake up and have enough of their soldiers dying in foreign lands.

We (US citizens) no longer dictate our foreign policy, nor do we decide which battles we fight. Israeli influence has reached BS proportions beyond their wildest dreams. Let Iran deal with the world problem and get rid of them once and for all.

[Leb]

I say bomb the mfer's. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan, not gone to Iraq and bombed Iran. THEN we should have gone into Iraq, but by then Sadaam would have been shitting a brick and likely would have pulled a "Libya" and given up all his plans for nukes. IMHO.


wow ur so damn smart.. ESPECIALLY since you think that saddam had the resources to get nukes ... btw go help ur buddies look for wmds in iraq.. im sure u still think that they existed

[Leb]

btw i dont think the US should be worried about iran at all... as a matter of fact even if iran gets nukes .. they wont pose any threat to US soil... (well not until tehy get long ranged ballistics)

[Leb]

hmm actually i take back what i just said.. iran does pose a threat if tehy pass nuclear material to terrorists .. but what i was trying to say is.. i dont see why the US has to always put itself on the line to make things safer for all the other countries in the world

and btw im not even from the US

[reef]

I agree with your third reply, lol. I have always thought that Iraq didnt have nukes or their "mobile nuke vans" lol but Saddam definitely wanted to get his hands on them. I never wanted our guys going over to Iraq again but it happened and now we have to finish the job. I'd rather see diplomatic solutions to it, but it just isnt going to happen the way I see it. I wish the US could just stick their nose out of everything but Bush's little buddy Osama felt he needed to start a war.

[optimus25]

Damn, oil's gonna go up if we bomb them. BTW, so will inflation due to higher energy costs. Oil $100/barrell here we come.

[soundlanguage]

Study material for newbies, because it's better to know than guess:

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465027261/ref=pd_kar_gw_1/103-2857282-0298230?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

"THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997.

The very first words in the book:

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- Eurasia is all of the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching all the way through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean. It includes the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent. The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics. And the key to controlling the Central Asian republics is Uzbekistan. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Uzbekistan was forcefully mentioned by President George W. Bush in his address to a joint session of Congress, just days after the attacks of September 11, as the very first place that the U.S. military would be deployed.

Major deployments of U.S. and British forces had taken place before the attacks. And the U.S. Army and the CIA had been active in Uzbekistan for several years. There is now evidence that what the world is witnessing is a cold and calculated war plan - at least four years in the making - and that, from reading Brzezinski's own words about Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center attacks were just the trigger needed to set the final conquest in motion.


Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries - almost but not quite superpowers - whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat. Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential "lesser" nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).

He also notes, quite clearly (p. 53) that any nation that might become predominant in Central Asia would directly threaten the current U.S. control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf. In reading the book it becomes clear why the U.S. had a direct motive for the looting of some $300 billion in Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia's currency in 1998 and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look westward to Europe for economic and political survival, rather than southward to Central Asia. A dependent Russia would lack the military, economic and political clout to exert influence in the region and this weakening of Russia would explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been such a willing ally of U.S. efforts to date.

An examination of selected quotes from "The Grand Chessboard," in the context of current events reveals the quiet agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.

"...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power... (p. xiii)

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent.

About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)


Further reading:

F. William Engdahl:

[QUOTE]Curiously and quietly the United States is being out-flanked in its now-obvious strategy of controlling major oil and energy sources of the Persian Gulf, Central Asia Caspian Basin, Africa and beyond.

The US’s global energy control strategy, it’s now clear to most, was the actual reason for the highly costly regime change in Iraq, euphemistically dubbed ‘democracy’ by Washington. George W. Bush restated his democracy mantra as recently as May 28 at the West Point military graduating ceremony where he declared that America's safety depends on an aggressive push for democracy, especially in the Middle East. ‘This is only the beginning,’ Bush said. ‘The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom, and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people in every nation.’

If the trend of recent events continues, it won’t be Bush-style democracy that is spreading, but rather, Russian and Chinese influence over major oil and gas energy supplies.

The quest for energy control has informed Washington’s support for high-risk ‘color revolutions’ in Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Kyrgystan in recent months. It lies behind US activity in the Western Africa Gulf of Guinea states, as well as in Sudan, source of 7% of China oil import. It lies behind US policy vis-Ã*-vis Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela and Evo Morales’ Bolivia.

In recent months, however, this strategy of global energy dominance, a strategic US priority, has shown signs of producing just the opposite: a kind of ‘coalition of the unwilling,’ states who increasingly see no other prospect, despite traditional animosities, but to cooperate to oppose what they see as a US push to control it all, their energy future security.

Some in Washington are beginning to realize they might have been too clever by about half, as is evident in recent public statements to both China and Russia, two nations whose cooperation in some form is essential to the success of the global US energy project.

Offending both China and Russia

Contrary to advice from older China hands, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, architect of the Nixon 1972 opening to China, the White House denied visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao the honor of a full state dinner when he visited in April, serving instead a short lunch. Hu was publicly humiliated by a well-known Falun Gong heckler at the White House press conference and by other obvious humiliations. In other words, the White House welcomed Hu with a diplomatic slap in the face.

At the same time, Vice President Dick Cheney slapped Russia’s Putin, with the most open attack on its internal human rights policy as well as its energy policy in a speech in the Baltic state of Lithuania in early May. There, Cheney declared of Russia, ‘the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people.’ He accused Russia of energy ‘intimidation and blackmail.’ Some days later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated that Russia should be ‘pressed’ on democratic reforms. Rice also slapped China in the face in March during a trip to Southeast Asia, calling China a ‘negative force’ in Asia.

Curiously, Washington has repeatedly accused China of ‘not playing by the rules,’ in terms of its oil politics, declaring that China is guilty of ‘seeking to control energy at the source,’ as though that had not been US energy policy for the past century or so.

The significance of taking aim simultaneously at both Russia and China, the two Eurasian giants, the one the largest investor in US Treasury securities, the other the world’s second most developed military nuclear power, reflects the realization in Washington that all may not be as seamless in the quest for global domination as originally promised by various strategists in and around the Bush Administration.

SCO takes on new weight

On June 15, member nations of the Shanghai Co-operation Organization, led by China and Russia, will reportedly invite observer, Iran, to full membership. That meeting will be held in Shanghai. Even if full membership is postponed as has been mooted, the fact remains that Russia and China both want to seal closer cooperation with Iran in Eurasian energy cooperation.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, SCO, was founded in June 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Its stated goal was to facilitate ‘cooperation in political affairs, economy and trade, scientific-technical, cultural, and educational spheres as well as in energy, transportation, tourism, and environment protection fields.’ Recently, however, the SCO is beginning to look like an energy-financial bloc in central Asia consciously being developed to serve as a counter-pole to US hegemony.

In recent months their members have taken several potentially strategic steps to distance themselves from US dependence, both in energy as well as monetary dependence. A look at the map indicates the potential of an expanded SCO.

Russia’s energy geopolitics

In his recent State of the Union speech, President Putin announced that Russia is planning to make the Ruble convertible into other major currencies, such as the Euro, and to use the Ruble in its oil and gas transactions. The convertible Ruble is due to be introduced according to latest Russian statements, on July 1, 2006, six months before originally planned. Russia also has stated it plans to shift a share of its now considerable dollar reserves away from the dollar and that it will use $40 billion in US dollars to purchase gold reserves.

Russia’s state-owned natural gas transport company, Transneft, has consolidated its pipeline control to become the sole exporter of Russian natural gas. Russia has by far the world’s largest natural gas reserves and Iran the second largest. With Iran, the SCO would control the vast majority of the world's natural gas reserves, as well as a significant portion of its oil reserves, not to mention potential control of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow corridor for a majority of Gulf oil tanker shipment to Japan and the West.

In late May it was reported that Russia and Algeria, the two largest gas suppliers to Europe, have agreed to increase energy co-operation. Algeria has given Russian companies exclusive access to Algerian oil and gas fields, and Gazprom and Sonatrach will co-operate in delivery of gas to France. Putin has cancelled Algeria’s $4.7 billion debt to Russia, and for its part, Algeria will buy $7.5 billion worth of Russian advanced jet fighters, air defense systems and weapons. Oh oh.

On May 26 Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov also announced Russia will definitely supply Iran with sophisticated Tor-M1 anti-aircraft missiles, reportedly as a prelude to supply far more sophisticated weapons. Ouch.

Then, in one of the more fascinating examples of geopolitical chutzpah by Putin’s Russia in the area of energy, the Kremlin-controlled Gazprom gas monopoly has entered into quiet negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert through Olmert’s billionaire friend, Benny Steinmetz, to secure Russian natural gas supplies to Israel via an undersea pipeline from Turkey to Israel.

According to the Israeli paper, Yediot Ahronot, Olmert’s office has said it will support the Gazprom proposal. In several years Israel faces gas shortage from Tethys Sea drilling and soon gas from Egypt. Tethys Sea gas is projected to run dry in a few years. British Gas is in talks to supply gas from Gaza but Israel disputes BG right to drill. But even with Egypt and Gaza gas shortages are expected by 2010 unless Israel is able to find new sources. Enter Gazprom and Putin. The gas would be diverted from the underutilized Russia-Turkey Bluestream pipeline which Russia built for increasing influence over Turkey two years ago. Putin clearly seeks to gain a lever inside Israel over the one-sided US influence on Israel policy. Oyvey!

... continued below ....

[soundlanguage]

... cont ...


China energy geopolitics also in high gear

Beijing for its part is also moving to ‘secure energy at the sources.’ China's booming economy, with 9% growth, requires massive natural resources to sustain its growth. China became a net importer of oil in 1993. By 2045, China will depend on imported oil for 45% of its energy needs.

On May 26, Kazakhstan crude oil began to flow into China from a newly-completed oil pipeline from Atasu in Kazakhstan to the Alataw Pass in far western China Xinjiang province, a 1,000 kilometer route announced only last year. It marked the first time oil is being pumped directly into China. Kazkhstan is also a member of the SCO, but had been regarded by Washington since the collapse of the Soviet Union, as its sphere of influence, with ChevronTexaco, Condi Rice’s old oil company, the major oil developer.

By 2011 the pipeline with extend some 3,000 kilometers to Dushanzi where the Chinese are building its largest oil refinery due to complete by 2008. China financed the entire $700 million pipeline and will buy the oil. In 2005 China’s CNPC state oil company bought PetroKazkhstan for $4.2 billion ands will use it to develop oilfields in Kazakhstan.

China is also in negotiations with Russia for a pipeline to deliver Siberian oil to Northeast China a project that could be completed by 2008, and a natural gas pipeline from Russia to Heilongjiang in China’s Northeast. China just passed Japan to rank as world’s second largest oil importer behind the United States.

Beijing and Moscow are also integrating their electricity economies. In late May the China State Grid Corp announced it plans to increase imports of Russian electricity fivefold by 2010.

China everywhere in African oil states

In its relentless quest to secure future oil supplies ‘at the source,’ China has also moved into traditional US, British and French oil domains in Africa. In addition to being the major developer of Sudan’s oil pipeline which ships some 7% of total China oil imports, Beijing has been more than active in West Africa in the states bordering the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea, source of vast fields of highly-prized low-sulphur oil.

Since the creation of the China-Africa Forum in 2000, China has scrapped tariffs on 190 imported goods from 28 of the least developed African countries, and cancelled $1.2 billion in debt.

Indicative of the way China is doing an end-run around the customary IMF-led Western control of African states, China’s export-import bank recently gave a $2 billion soft loan to Angola. In return, the Luanda government gave China a stake in oil exploration in shallow waters off the coast. The loan is to be used for infrastructure projects. In contrast, US interest in war-torn Angola has rarely gone beyond the well-fortified oil enclave of Cabinda, where ExxonMobil along with Shell Oil have dominated until recently. That is apparently about to change with the growing Chinese interest.

Chinese infrastructure projects underway in Angola include railways, roads, a fibre-optic network, schools, hospitals, offices and 5,000 units of housing developments. A new airport with direct flights from Luanda to Beijing is also planned.

Indirectly, through its support of the Sudan government, China is also a contender in a high-stakes game of potential regime change in neighboring, oil-rich Chad. Earlier this year, World Bank ‘tough guy,’ Paul Wofowitz, was forced to back down from plans to cut off World Bank aid, after threat of an oil export cut-off by tiny Chad. ExxonMobil is currently the major oil company active in Chad. But Sudan backs Chad rebels, who were only prevented from toppling the notoriously corrupt and unpopular regime of President Idriss Deby by 1,500 French soldiers propping up the Deby regime. Washington has joined with Paris in backing Deby.

Sudan has involved China, rather than Western corporations, in exploiting its oil fields, largely as a result of misconceived US sanctions imposed in 1997, which blocked American oil companies from doing business in Sudan. A new Sudan-backed regime in Chad would jeopardise the Chad-Cameroon pipeline and Western oil firms. One can imagine China just might be willing to step into such a vacuum and help Chad develop its oil, especially if the lion’s share went to China.

And immediately after his unpleasant diplomatic visit to Washington in April, where the Chinese President was greeted by a White House diplomacy of deliberate insults reminiscent of a University of Texas frat house prank, Hu Jintao went on to Nigeria, long regarded by Washington as its ‘oil sphere of interest.’

In Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, Hu signed a deal with the Nigerian government where Nigeria will give China four oil drilling licenses in exchange for a commitment to invest $ 4 billion in infrastructure. China will buy a controlling stake in Nigeria's 110,000-barrel per day Kaduna oil refinery and build railway and power stations, as well as take a 45% stake in developing Nigeria’s OML-130 offshore oil and gas field, referred to by China CNOOF oil company chairman as, ‘an oil and gas field of huge interest…located in one of the world’s largest oil and gas basins.’

Almost all of Nigeria's current oil production is controlled by Western multinationals. But the situation there will also soon change in China’s favor.

Similar soft infrastructure loans or energy investment offers are being made by China to Gabon, Ivory Coast, Liberia and Equatorial Guinea.

The curious charge against China of ‘not playing by the rules,’ and ‘trying to secure energy at the source,’ begins to assume real dimension when these and Russian recent energy moves are taken as a totality.

Washington’s conclusion? Oops…

It’s little wonder that some Washington hawks are getting alarmed. Suddenly, the world of potential ‘enemies’ is no longer restricted to the Islam-centered War on Terror. Leading neo-conservative ideologue, Robert Kagan wrote a prominent OpEd recently in the Washington Post. Kagan is privy to pretty high-level thinking in Washington, presumably. His wife, Victoria Nuland, worked as Vice President Cheney’s Deputy National Security Advisor until being named US Ambassador to NATO.

Kagan declared, in reference to Russia and China, ‘Until now the liberal (capitalism) West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to tame them and make them safe for liberalism.’ Kagan co-founded the hawkish Project for the New American Century (PNAC in the late 1990’s to among other things advocate a major US military buildup and forced regime change in Iraq, the latter a year prior to the September 11, 2001 attack.)

Kagan continued, ‘If, instead, China and Russia are going to be sturdy pillars of autocracy over the coming decades, enduring and perhaps even prospering, then they cannot be expected to embrace the West's vision of humanity's inexorable evolution toward democracy and the end of autocratic rule.’

Kagan charged that China and Russia have emerged as the protectors of ‘an informal league of dictators’ – that, according to Kagan, currently includes the leaders of Belarus, Uzbekistan, Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Venezuela, Iran and Angola, among others – around the world, who, like the leaders of Russia and China themselves, resist any efforts by the West to interfere in their domestic affairs, either through sanctions or other means.

‘The question is what the United States and Europe decide to do in response,’ wrote Kagan. ‘Unfortunately, al-Qaeda may not be the only challenge liberalism (capitalism)faces today, or even the greatest.’ The question, as Kagan wisely states it, is what the United States or Europe can do in response. The genius of Washington hawk strategy is showing its tattered edges.

The mainstream US foreign policy organization, the New York Council on Foreign Relations has also recently weighed in on the question of especially Chinese energy pursuits. In a recent report, the CFR accuses the Bush Administration of lacking any comprehensive long-term strategy for Africa. They criticize US focus on humanitarian issues such as in Darfur southern Sudan, demanding instead that the US ‘act on its rising national interests on the continent.’ Those interests? The CFR lists oil and gas number one; growing competition with China (closely related to 1) as number two. Oops…[/QUOTE]

F. William Engdahl is a Global Research Contributing Editor and author of the book, ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order,’ Pluto Press Ltd.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/074532309X/103-2857282-0298230?v=glance&n=283155

He has completed a soon-to-be published book on GMO titled, ‘Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Political Agenda Behind GMO’. He may be contacted through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

[BuyOnDips]

Most of the Iranian people like the USA, especially the young. They want to live like people do in the Western world. It's only those extreme religious fanatics that are currently in power that hate the USA and the culture of the Western Modern World. Iran will eventually be bombed if they don't give up their quest for nuclear arms. It will either be by the USA and allies or by Israel. Bombing Iran will not solve the problem, but will only delay them from getting a nuke. If the USA attacks Iran, they not only have to bomb the sites, but they must also have a regime change. We live in interesting times.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2006/05/05/196337.html

[madcowdisease]

Our government, as well as the world governments, don't have the balls to attack Iran. We aren't going in without support and the rest of the world won't back a war. We simply don't have the resources unless they pass a draft, and I wouldn't hold your breath on that going down.

We'll go to war with Iran after they get the nukes and pose a threat be it to the US allies or to the USA itself. But with what occured in Iraq and the extended nature of the US military there won't be another preemptive attack on Iran. What you will see is more pandering.

The US and the EU will give them economic aide and a host of other entitlements so that they acquiesce to the demands to stop enriching. Iran will covertly keep enriching and sell terrorist toys out the back door while you and I, through our taxes, pay for their package of gifts and the national debt keeps ballooning.

Iran was under the impression that the US would not negotiate yet Secretary Rice has put a deal of incentives on the table. At this point Iran is seeing how much free sh!t they can get. They'll continue to play hardball as we and the rest of The West give them more and more aide. But trust me, they have no intention of being at the mercy of the great satan, as they call us, and will keep enriching incognito and dragging this whole fiasco out further and further. That is why I think this comes to a head when they do finally get "caught" with weapons and by that point it will be too late.

I say let Israel take care of their sh!t. If they are the ones being threatened then let them bomb the reactors. They have enough military might to take care of Iran. Why should Americans go to die?

[sportsmadness80]

This country is giving the damn Middle East too much popularity. Lets get off our duffs and put our efforts into alternative energy. Check this out, in Sacramento California there is a solar energy incentive being tested on residential homes. They use solar panels on the rooftops to generate electricity thus giving the electric utilities the option to power other things besides the residential community. What an idea!! Imagine the South or even the Southwest with this implemented. The homeowners average either nothing for the month or a $5.00 bill .... thats right. So lets stop the bitching and get on with weening off the damn crude. Lets pull back the damn troops and protect our borders or we may be in a war with Mexico. Our current administration makes me sick. So sick I'm now an independent voter and not party aligned. After serving this country 22 years, I've had enough of the ********!!!!! :mad:

[madcowdisease]

This country is giving the damn Middle East too much popularity. Lets get off our duffs and put our efforts into alternative energy. Check this out, in Sacramento California there is a solar energy incentive being tested on residential homes. They use solar panels on the rooftops to generate electricity thus giving the electric utilities the option to power other things besides the residential community. What an idea!! Imagine the South or even the Southwest with this implemented. The homeowners average either nothing for the month or a $5.00 bill .... thats right. So lets stop the bitching and get on with weening off the damn crude. Lets pull back the damn troops and protect our borders or we may be in a war with Mexico. Our current administration makes me sick. So sick I'm now an independent voter and not party aligned. After serving this country 22 years, I've had enough of the ********!!!!! :mad:

My sentiments are much maligned by the current state of affairs as well. But, it is too easy to point your finger at Bush. The probem is all of the Federal Government. They just don't give a damn about you and me. They pander to the fringes of society. The elderly, the poor, the religious fanatics, the illegal aliens and immigrants (which are the growing voter block they are fighting for) are who gets the favors. Middle America gets screwed. I too vote independent and am well aware my vote won't make much difference but at least I sleep well at night.

As far as the solar panels and associated credits, I am in full favor of these systems and had been scoping them out years ago before I ever graduated from college and had the capability to purchase a home. My state has similar credits, but even so to buy a system with the capacity to allow you to be energy independent (likely 2 KWh or more), and also sell it back to the utility co., will run you upwards of $20K. i don't know what your utility bill is but at that price I won't see a net benefit for 12 to 15 years. By that time I figure the systems will be more prevalent and more efficient so why buy now?

[nizmo]

I know this is way late, but I just joined. Do people even think of the backlash it would cause if we all stopped with crude oil etc for energy and all went solar? Solar is wayyyy easier to produce(less dependant on multiple stages of production and employes) How many jobs would be lost? How many people would go broke? How much would change due to people with the solar having alot more money because of this. We would need some major changes in the US at one time.. Its like if we all stopped driving (almost) immediatly. What do you think would happen?

[Will]

I know this is way late, but I just joined. Do people even think of the backlash it would cause if we all stopped with crude oil etc for energy and all went solar? Solar is wayyyy easier to produce(less dependant on multiple stages of production and employes) How many jobs would be lost? How many people would go broke? How much would change due to people with the solar having alot more money because of this. We would need some major changes in the US at one time.. Its like if we all stopped driving (almost) immediatly. What do you think would happen?

The free market tends to work these things out. If we were energy independent, jobs would still be created because our economy would be in much better shape.

[aiki14]

I know this is way late, but I just joined. Do people even think of the backlash it would cause if we all stopped with crude oil etc for energy and all went solar? Solar is wayyyy easier to produce(less dependant on multiple stages of production and employes) How many jobs would be lost? How many people would go broke? How much would change due to people with the solar having alot more money because of this. We would need some major changes in the US at one time.. Its like if we all stopped driving (almost) immediatly. What do you think would happen?
We don't have the silicon necessary to make the solar panels for even a small percentage of the electric needs at the level of todays technology (solar cells are not real efficient at the moment). And the chip makers are buying it all as well. If there were an easy way to get energy for unit dollar cheaper than oil we would have it. We need an apollo project mentality for alternate energy before that is gonna happen.

[NATHAN LLOYD]

We don't have the silicon necessary to make the solar panels for even a small percentage of the electric needs at the level of todays technology (solar cells are not real efficient at the moment). And the chip makers are buying it all as well. If there were an easy way to get energy for unit dollar cheaper than oil we would have it. We need an apollo project mentality for alternate energy before that is gonna happen.

Nuclear reactors are much cheaper per k/w of electricity.

[berberick]

I think if we bomb Iran my Cop , Esy , and Uso will rocket and I can make some good cash . Booooooooooyahh

[madcowdisease]

I think if we bomb Iran my Cop , Esy , and Uso will rocket and I can make some good cash . Booooooooooyahh

All the money you will make will do nothing but offset the cost fo filling up your tank.

The economy will get slammed and inflation will sjy rocket. Hence, you will be poorer with wages not continuing their uptrend and the higher price of everthing. You might have more nominal dollars given this circumstance but you will be poorer relatively speaking.

I hope you're not wishing for this because all USO, COP, and ESY will do is hedge you against an even larger loss than you might experience otherwise.

[NATHAN LLOYD]

The government needs to give incentives to alternative energies. Nuclear reactors making electricity that power electric cars would let us forget the Middle East exisited. I hope that part of the Gates Foundation would be spent on grants to promote alternative energies. Fighting over a dwindling natural resource (oil) is directing us into a third world war. China, Russia, Iran, and India are much nearer to the oil than we are.

I admit we were attacked on 9-11. We should have done something like take out a few Taliban with some decisive air attacks, but to invade and occupy another country has been counterproductive and super expensive.

I can point fingers at the White House because we're headed toward another Cold War instead of world peace. The Clinton administration was much more friendly and condusive for world peace. He wasn't completely moral, but at least he had his testosterone in check when he was dealing with countries like China.

Bottom line: We should lead the world into developing alternatives! Vote for the ones promissing to do this, and not for those willing to fight for oil.

[NATHAN LLOYD]

Our government, as well as the world governments, don't have the balls to attack Iran. We aren't going in without support and the rest of the world won't back a war. We simply don't have the resources unless they pass a draft, and I wouldn't hold your breath on that going down.

We'll go to war with Iran after they get the nukes and pose a threat be it to the US allies or to the USA itself. But with what occured in Iraq and the extended nature of the US military there won't be another preemptive attack on Iran. What you will see is more pandering.

The US and the EU will give them economic aide and a host of other entitlements so that they acquiesce to the demands to stop enriching. Iran will covertly keep enriching and sell terrorist toys out the back door while you and I, through our taxes, pay for their package of gifts and the national debt keeps ballooning.

Iran was under the impression that the US would not negotiate yet Secretary Rice has put a deal of incentives on the table. At this point Iran is seeing how much free ***** they can get. They'll continue to play hardball as we and the rest of The West give them more and more aide. But trust me, they have no intention of being at the mercy of the great satan, as they call us, and will keep enriching incognito and dragging this whole fiasco out further and further. That is why I think this comes to a head when they do finally get "caught" with weapons and by that point it will be too late.

I say let Israel take care of their *****. If they are the ones being threatened then let them bomb the reactors. They have enough military might to take care of Iran. Why should Americans go to die?

If we leave the middle east and let Isreal fend for itself, there will be millions less who will want to harm the US. ISREAL IS JUST A BIG MISTAKE! Jews just represent a religion and not a race, yet we gave them a country surrounded by Palestinians and supplied them with weapons. This is like putting a wounded dolphin with artificially large teeth in a shark tank. It seems like it was designed to cause major problems.

How long will this last until it starts a nuclear war? It's not like we can ethically keep nations from enriching Uranium, as it is the alternative fuel of the future. We definitely should not be paying for a nation not to enrich Uranium. When you think about it, were paying to keep the world's most abundant source of energy from being used. How niave is that?

Terrorists are developed from a deep jealousy of the Western World's riches. Letting these countries develop nuclear reactors will be a step towards decreasing their desire to be terrorists because they will have thier own running hot water, pc's and tv's.

[Lou]

at this rate we are heading towards a civil world war, middle east, terrorits, asia, korea, its getting worse by the minute, our wars basically said to the world its ok to go to war for any reason, its a no win situation, start digging your underground command center in your back yard this weekend

[NATHAN LLOYD]

I'm glad to see someone acting lamer than our president. This Korean guy might be a catalyst to push China, Russian, Japan, and the US into peaceful talks. This missile firing could work out in our favor. Japan has put its foot down...and it seems China will cooperate to sanction N. Korea. We've got to treat Kim Jong II like a baby and take things away from him for being a bad boy. LOL ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060708/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_missiles

Maybe we can put the right twist on this rape case against a Sunni and do some damage control.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_rape_investigation
["You want to be aware of these cultural issues while at the same time making sure that the accused receives proper justice," Wright, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, told The Associated Press.

Muslim tradition generally frowns on exhumations, considering them desecration of the remains.

However, Ahmed Taha, the uncle of the dead teen, told AP Thursday that relatives were eager to cooperate with investigators and would allow them to exhume the body of the alleged rape victim, Abeer Qassim Hamza. Her parents and sister were also slain.]

[BuyOnDips]

The USA or Israel will eventually bomb Iran. It would only delay the Iranians from getting a bomb. To stop them you have to have a regime change. Israel did the world a favor when they bombed Iraq's nuclear plant in the 1980s. Most of the Iranian people are pro western. It's the religious mullahs that are hell bent on getting a nuke and destroying Israel.

[oldboldpilot]

I think if we bomb Iran my Cop , Esy , and Uso will rocket and I can make some good cash . Booooooooooyahh

Heysus Cristo....now THERE is an intelligent, informed comment if I ever saw one.
Oh boy, if we start using nukes again, my uranium mining stock will go up...... damn!

[madcowdisease]

The USA or Israel will eventually bomb Iran. It would only delay the Iranians from getting a bomb. To stop them you have to have a regime change. Israel did the world a favor when they bombed Iraq's nuclear plant in the 1980s. Most of the Iranian people are pro western. It's the religious mullahs that are hell bent on getting a nuke and destroying Israel.

It isn't gonna be America. The jerkoff over in Iran wants to make this an Iran-U.S. issue. We'd be stupid to get sucked in and grant him his wish. Why do you think everything we do is through the UN whereas it was unilateral, for the most part, with Iraq.

Now, I cannot speak for Israel. I would not be surprised as Iran gets closer to having nuclear capacity, if they don't already, Israel flies a couple bombers over some strategic sights and knocks Iran's nukes out of commission.

[optimus25]

Food for thought: If we didn't take out Saddam, do you still think IRAN will have a nuclear program? The removal of one dictator created a power vacuum in the middle east. I'm not trying to advocate Saddam (and I know this might be a touchy subject to some), but I think that we created instability in the middle east by trying to implement "our way of life".

[madcowdisease]

Food for thought: If we didn't take out Saddam, do you still think IRAN will have a nuclear program? The removal of one dictator created a power vacuum in the middle east. I'm not trying to advocate Saddam (and I know this might be a touchy subject to some), but I think that we created instability in the middle east by trying to implement "our way of life".

Yes I do. I will agree, removing Saddam created a power vacuum and that is why Iraq is such a mess. You have many different factions competing for power. The reason Saddam led everyone to believe he had WMDs was he feared an attack from Iran. I think Iran wants nukes no matter what. Reagan was quoted as saying you have to approach nuclear capable nations differently than non-capable and this was while he was in office. Iran has been working on this for quite awhile, obviously at least since 1988, so I find it difficult to attribute this to a Middle East sans Saddam Hussein.

[oldboldpilot]

Food for thought: If we didn't take out Saddam, do you still think IRAN will have a nuclear program? The removal of one dictator created a power vacuum in the middle east. I'm not trying to advocate Saddam (and I know this might be a touchy subject to some), but I think that we created instability in the middle east by trying to implement "our way of life".

Now you got it.The United States introduced the chaos that followed the invasion. 1) We disbanded the Iranian army which provided a great source of recruits for the terrorists. 2) We implemented no law structure or enforcment of any kind 3) We removed Hussein who, although he was a despot he DID maintain law an order in a fractious society. It's as though everything we touch turms to feces. The world would be a little more serene without our manipulative machinations..IMO !
The Russians were defeated In Afghanistan (and they had a pretty damned good fighting force) I wouldn't look for Bush's fanciful "victory" any time soon.

[clavocat]

World War 3 here we come, this will be the fall of the USA along with many other countries, IMO WWIII has already started brewing and will break out in the next 4 years by 2010. I also think we have an economic depression coming to help ruin the US economy all due to oil which will lead to inflation. im not a pessimist im just being a realist

[oldboldpilot]

World War 3 here we come, this will be the fall of the USA along with many other countries, IMO WWIII has already started brewing and will break out in the next 4 years by 2010. I also think we have an economic depression coming to help ruin the US economy all due to oil which will lead to inflation. im not a pessimist im just being a realist

Jeez man, there are times when things look pretty bleak to me but in comparison to you I am one big bundle of happiness.

I don't forsee a depression but a cyclical recession is never out of the question.

If I were to believe your forcast, would you suggest I commit sepukku now or later ??

[InvestingMoron]

Now. For the best interest of mankind.

[oldboldpilot]

Now. For the best interest of mankind.

Ah, the chitlins, corn pone, hominy grits and sweet tater crowd is heard fromgain with the usual witless rejoiner.

The South lost but there are still Morons who want to fight the battle again.

Oh I wish I was in the land 'o cotton where de poke salad was good but the society was rotten, look away Dixieland !

[clavocat]

Jeez man, there are times when things look pretty bleak to me but in comparison to you I am one big bundle of happiness.

I don't forsee a depression but a cyclical recession is never out of the question.

If I were to believe your forcast, would you suggest I commit sepukku now or later ??


ive said this for a while, MAYBE i am not right at all, but eventually the US has to fall, im very happy with where i am at right now and hope it stays like this, but with all this stuff going on in the world i just dont see world peace. I will say this in our lifetimes for people 30 and younger, we will see some VERY drastic changes, whether this means WW3 or just some crazy weather wiping out cities after cities, i just think world disaster is going to end us in the next 60 years, JMO but these muslims are too unstable and will do anything for their religion AND with the way our atmosphere is, were already seeing crazier storms and quakes and all that good stuff, i dunno but i guess time will tell. :!:

[aiki14]

Clavocat isn't alone, there have been eschatologists and nihilists for a thousand years. Of course they've all been wrong, but there will be a first (and by definition last at the same time) to get it right.

We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell
us that society has reached a turning point, that we have
seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with
just as much apparent reason ... On what principle is it
that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are
to expect nothing but deterioration before us.
- Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1830 in Edinburgh Review.

[Svenwulf]

Anyone catch Friedman with Russert this weekend? Good stuff, if not a few years late.

[madcowdisease]

Clavo, I used to think like you and to a certain extent still do. I'm not by any means complacent with world affairs and personally, I find the unchecked growth of human population as the primary threat to our existence.

But, one must keep in mind every generation has had their problems whether it be WWI, WWII, or the Cold War it hasn't been peaches and cream for a long time. The struggle between The West and Islam and the continued struggle over the depletion of a finite resource (crude oil) will have global tensions running high for the foreseeable future. But this is just our cross to bear. I'm sure when the modern world as they knew it was fighting with eachother between 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 and we had the threat of nuclear holocaust during the Cold War ppl thought they'd see the end as well.

I guess the reason we think now is so bad is after the fall of Communist Russia in 1989 we followed that up with the Golidlocks' Economy of the '90s. One must keep in mind that it hasn't always been rosey.

[Svenwulf]

Heard a great one from Dan Gillerman (sp?), israels amb to the UN. Dont know if its his, but sums it up well for me.

[Peace] comes when they (hezbolah/others) love their children more than they hate us.

Personally, i abhor all who benefit from hate and fear. as unclean a hand as israel may bare, i feel their leaders do desire peace. Can radical islam ever know peace while israel exsists?

[Svenwulf]

its been awhile, thought id dust off this thread when i came across this info. i dont know much about this newsgroup. very hard to find any first hand middle east reports unless you speak/ read arabic. please do your own DD.

DEBKAfile reports: The American Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group joins US build-up opposite Iran
October 20, 2006, 12:37 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tuesday, Oct. 17, the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group steamed into the Persian Gulf to join the US naval, air and marine concentration piling up opposite Iran’s shores. The group is now cruising 60 km from Kuwait off Iran’s coast. As DEBKAfile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly reported exclusively two weeks ago, three US naval task forces will be in place opposite Iran in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea by October 21.
More... (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3401)



An official in Tehran describes US military maneuvers as “dangerous and suspicious�
October 24, 2006, 3:29 PM (GMT+02:00)

The unnamed official was quoted by Iran’s official news agency as referring to the naval exercises the US is to hold at the end of the month with Bahrain, Kuwait, France and Britain.
More... (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3411)



Bush: It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon
October 27, 2006, 5:44 PM (GMT+02:00)
The US president said Friday he was aware of “speculation� that Iran had started enriching uranium in a second centrifuge network. “Whether they doubled it or not,� he stressed, “the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.�

[aiki14]

A point of agreement between the CIC and myself, Iran should not be permitted to obtain deliverable nukes. Any group of people who advocate the absolute removal of another (Ahmadinejad saying Israel should "be wiped off the face of the earth") poses an unacceptable risk to everybody. It's the same reason I supported removing Saddam, the unfortunate subsequent mismanagement not withstanding. I wish I had more confidence the Iran situation would be handled with a bit more alacrity by the current administration than the current debacle.

[Svenwulf]

i think my above post was smoke- we (the US) have some wargames in the area scheduled starting this weekend anyhow. just frustrating to dive in this sea of information called the internet and have a hard time finding anything fresh.

[spanky]

The scarry thing about the Iran situation is that if you change the leadership names to Reagan and Qaddafi and the country name to Libya, the headlines are all very similar - the majot difference is the possibility of nukes.

If you recall, Libya wanted Isreal gone, the West out of their affairs, and spent millions training, weaponizing and funding terrorist organizations to bring about indescriminant deaths to get us out. The Gulf of Sidra incident when the US crossed Qaddafi's "line of death" is too similar.

President Reagan signed policy in Jan 86 stating that the US will fight all forms of terrorism prepetrated on US citizens at home or abroad. Ultimately, when the US was able to get irrefutable proof of Libyan culpability in sponsoring a terrorist attack, the US response was the 15 Apr 86 Libya raids -- Operation EL DORADO CANYON.

Long term effects? Not one documented case of Libyan-sponsored terrorist activity since 1994, and the US retored full diplomatic relations with Libya and removed them from the state sponsors of terrorism list this past summer.

The present CinC can certainly take a page out of history and learn from 'the Gipper'... it's the same story, though. The US gets tired of other nations activity first, Europe chooses to tolerate and maybe goes as far as having the UN say "hey, stop that", the US gets tired of bureacracy and takes action, Europe condemns the US... then continues to live peacefully in the curtain of safety that we provided.

Same story, different names and dates.

Spanky